Connect with us

Opinion

Politico Purports That POTUS Has Been Subpoenaed!

Has Mueller’s metaphorical “stealth mode” helped him secure his most daring maneuver so far?

Published

on

Robert Mueller

Thanks to the timing of the midterm elections, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been even more shadow-y than usual in recent weeks, but that all could be turned on its head at a moment’s notice.

This spacious silence was no accident either, as the Justice Department tends to have a longstanding agreement to maintain the appearance of political neutrality when it comes to our electoral maneuvers.   This alleged impartiality may only exist in the realm of etiquette, however, as Mueller himself has been seemingly swamped with work during his time away from the spotlight.

Now, a series of events has led at least one Politico reporter to believe that Mueller has even gone so far as to subpoena the Commander in Chief himself.

The evidence lies in obscure docket entries at the clerk’s office for the D.C. Circuit. Thanks to Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn, we know that on August 16th (the day after Giuliani said he was almost finished with his memorandum, remember), a sealed grand jury case was initiated in the D.C. federal district court before Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. We know that on September 19, Chief Judge Howell issued a ruling and 5 days later one of the parties appealed to the D.C. Circuit. And thanks to Politico’s reporting, we know that the special counsel’s office is involved (because the reporter overheard a conversation in the clerk’s office). We can further deduce that the special counsel prevailed in the district court below, and that the presumptive grand jury witness has frantically appealed that order and sought special treatment from the judges of the D.C. Circuit—often referred to as the “second-most important court in the land.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Nothing about the docket sheets, however, discloses the identity of the witness. Politico asked many of the known attorneys for Mueller witnesses—including Jay Sekulow, another Trump lawyer—and every one denied knowledge of the identity of the witness. (What, of course, would we expect a lawyer to say when asked about a proceeding the court has ordered sealed?)

Now for the juicy stuff:

The docket sheets give one final—but compelling—clue. When the witness lost the first time in the circuit court (before the quick round-trip to the district court), he unusually petitioned for rehearing en banc—meaning he thought his case was so important that it merited the very unusual action of convening all 10 of the D.C. Circuit judges to review the order. That is itself telling (this witness believes his case demands very special handling), but the order disposing of the petition is even more telling: President Trump’s sole appointee to that court, Gregory Katsas, recused himself.

Is Mueller springing a trap for the President for an upcoming moment, not far removed from the sacred midterms themselves?  Only time will tell.

 

News

‘RUST’ SHOOTING: Alec Baldwin Not Out of The Woods Yet, Says Santa Fe District Attorney

Baldwin has suggested that he won’t be charged, but the local DA has other ideas.

Published

on

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin.

Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible.

To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability.

Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields.

“Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline.

Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.”

The possibilities are numerous.

The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols.

“Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said.

During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was some sort of understanding between he and them regarding the lack of charges to be brought.

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin. Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible. To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability. Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst. On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields. “Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline. Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.” The possibilities are numerous. The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols. “Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said. During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was…

Continue Reading

Opinion

US State Pushes to Make Mask Mandates Permanent

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged. 

Published

on

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness.

This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic.

The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate.

Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed.

“Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.”

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness. This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic. The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU. Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate. Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed. “Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.” The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week