Let's say my remarks contain some element of truth.
Say the Rooskies approached Clinton. They thought she was likely to win.
They wanted something. She refused.
They release the emails.
She can't admit, before the fact, that she is being blackmailed.
That's the beauty of blackmail.
If she talks, she breaks the news of the existence of the inculpating emails.
She also, incidentally, acknowledges, by talking, that the Rooskies are easily able to do this kind of espionage thing even to someone like her!
Let's add another layer or two.
Let's suppose that the CIA knows what the Rooskies have been doing re Clinton's emails (and many many others'), but doesn't want the Rooskies to know they know it, now. Assume also that Clinton also has known it for some time.
Assume that Trump and his team don't know it and have not known it before....
They (CIA) tell Clinton that this is yet another reason not to talk, even if her first impulse is to save her political skin, throw in with the Rooskies, accede to their demands say for lifting of sanctions, etc.
They also explain to her that they not only don't want Americans to realize that they are spying on everyone just like the Russians, but also don't want Americans to realize that the CIA can do nothing much really to prevent the Russians from doing what they both have been doing!
Let's add another layer or two. Why does Cohen's office get broken into under a search warrant type pretext?
Let me suggest that what I have mentioned above, about domestic espionage sources, already have had much classified material on Manafort and Gates, long before the search of Cohen's office.
So then, why the exigent circumstantial charade of an extraordinary writ?
That is exactly the term, charade, mostly for the benefit of the public, which does not want to know that the CIA already probably has a large amount of material on these folks; but it is, and remains, classified; and in order to prosecute someone like Manafort or Gates for crimes here, you have to have sources of non classified material, and non spook witnesses whom you can call, either on direct or cross.
I still think my query, whether covert information, from, say, the CIA, implicating Manafort or Gates in crimes involving Russians, can legitimately be used, say, in an in camera federal judicial proceeding, to support a non covert search of Cohen's office or home.
My own view, and I am open to alter it by argument (though I doubt that even Bobbitt on a good day could so persuade me), is that information ostensibly obtained by covert means instrumentalities and institutions inherently lacks the indicia of reliability normally associated with constitutional safeguards vouchsafed citizens here from unreasonable searches and seizures, because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable by conventional means.
The real, and most interesting, stories here are the back stories. But we are not likely to hear much about them for a long time. You will just have to be satisfied with DK's articles and interviews, and my drivel here.
They also explain to her that they not only don't want Americans to realize that they are spying on everyone just like the Russians, but also don't want Americans to realize that the CIA can do nothing much really to prevent the Russians from doing what they both have been doing!
Let's add another layer or two. Why does Cohen's office get broken into under a search warrant type pretext?
Let me suggest that what I have mentioned above, about domestic espionage sources, already have had much classified material on Manafort and Gates, long before the search of Cohen's office.
So then, why the exigent circumstantial charade of an extraordinary writ?
That is exactly the term, charade, mostly for the benefit of the public, which does not want to know that the CIA already probably has a large amount of material on these folks; but it is, and remains, classified; and in order to prosecute someone like Manafort or Gates for crimes here, you have to have sources of non classified material, and non spook witnesses whom you can call, either on direct or cross.
I still think my query, whether covert information, from, say, the CIA, implicating Manafort or Gates in crimes involving Russians, can legitimately be used, say, in an in camera federal judicial proceeding, to support a non covert search of Cohen's office or home.
My own view, and I am open to alter it by argument (though I doubt that even Bobbitt on a good day could so persuade me), is that information ostensibly obtained by covert means instrumentalities and institutions inherently lacks the indicia of reliability normally associated with constitutional safeguards vouchsafed citizens here from unreasonable searches and seizures, because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable by conventional means.
The real, and most interesting, stories here are the back stories. But we are not likely to hear much about them for a long time. You will just have to be satisfied with DK's articles and interviews, and my drivel here.
No comments:
Post a Comment