"One of Donald Trump’s attorneys in 2020 was a key informant in the case against him for retention of classified documents at his home in Mar-A-Lago, as my editor reported at the time."
Where was it noted in the Newsweek article you linked to that one of his lawyers was a CI?
Patel has his hands full with all the messes the FBI has made. The FBI is a corrupt and criminal organization. It's no wonder that he hasn't mentioned reforming the role of journalists, clergy or physicians as CHIs. Hopefully he does take it on, along with other much needed reforms.
When journalists as CHIs collude (in an unlawful way) and conspire with the national security state, whether it be with the FBI or possibly the NSA, in order to come to a certain result and outcome, then that is against the law. No amount of covering it under 1st Amendment protections are allowed, especially when the result is devastating to the victim of their conspiracy.
That brings into question that there seems to be little to no oversight of the whole process, and due to the secretive nature it's hard to get accountability, especially when other secretive and unconstitutional tools are used such as FISA. This winds up being a huge mess, especially when the FISA warrants are themselves abused, such as no relation to foreign intel whatsoever, no chance for due process false probable cause and wrong dates. In addition agents are incentivized to get as many Title III as they can for promotions and huge bonuses.
The FBI is currently a sh*tshow and needs a clean-up.
There is a difference between being a CI and a lawyer who participated in the crimes of their client, this is legal system (and common sense) 101.
I know Trump and his sycophants have disputed the very idea that a lawyer paid for by him is immune to prosecution or even scrutiny for breaking the law for the benefit of of the man who paid him by asserting they are indemnified by "attorney client privledge" but it is ridiculous on it's face. There is a difference between being a criminal attorney and being a Criminal attorney, a distinction the law recogonizes, and for good reason.
If the FBI gained knowledge of the classified documents Trump held illegally after he left office as a result of the threat of prosecution of people who had knowledge of the matter and concealed it (thus opening themselves up to prosecution for being accessories to the crime after the fact) no one should have any heartburn about this, at all.
Are you trying to tell us something Klip? 👀
I'm not on the dole...yet
We need the warrant kenary
lol
You say dole, but in your article you didn't mention that CH informants get paid. Do they?
Some do, it varies
The sad part is Ken missed out on all the Russian cash for right wing influencers.
https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd
Guess we readers will have to make up the difference.
Klippenstein ye wield a wicked shovel 😁 Don't stop diggin!!
Don’t stop reading!
Are you suggesting there's hypocrisy in the current administration on this issue? Shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Deep state sure seeming like a distraction to gain power & money
If the government is the plaintiff in a case and the attorney for the defendant is an FBI informant, how is that even legal?
There seems to be a difference between informants in a foreign country’s bombing of the US and when they’re being used against political opponents, who are US citizens. The courts have also seen these instances differently: https://www.businessinsider.com/kidnapping-conspiracy-whitmer-fbi-informants-report-2021-7?op=1
Still super interesting article! Thanks, Ken!
Interesting aside:
"member of the news media licensed in the United States in his or her professional capacity"
Last I checked, you didn't need a license to be a reporter.
"One of Donald Trump’s attorneys in 2020 was a key informant in the case against him for retention of classified documents at his home in Mar-A-Lago, as my editor reported at the time."
Where was it noted in the Newsweek article you linked to that one of his lawyers was a CI?
Maybe I missed it.
Patel has his hands full with all the messes the FBI has made. The FBI is a corrupt and criminal organization. It's no wonder that he hasn't mentioned reforming the role of journalists, clergy or physicians as CHIs. Hopefully he does take it on, along with other much needed reforms.
When journalists as CHIs collude (in an unlawful way) and conspire with the national security state, whether it be with the FBI or possibly the NSA, in order to come to a certain result and outcome, then that is against the law. No amount of covering it under 1st Amendment protections are allowed, especially when the result is devastating to the victim of their conspiracy.
That brings into question that there seems to be little to no oversight of the whole process, and due to the secretive nature it's hard to get accountability, especially when other secretive and unconstitutional tools are used such as FISA. This winds up being a huge mess, especially when the FISA warrants are themselves abused, such as no relation to foreign intel whatsoever, no chance for due process false probable cause and wrong dates. In addition agents are incentivized to get as many Title III as they can for promotions and huge bonuses.
The FBI is currently a sh*tshow and needs a clean-up.
Look, let's be clear about this.
There is a difference between being a CI and a lawyer who participated in the crimes of their client, this is legal system (and common sense) 101.
I know Trump and his sycophants have disputed the very idea that a lawyer paid for by him is immune to prosecution or even scrutiny for breaking the law for the benefit of of the man who paid him by asserting they are indemnified by "attorney client privledge" but it is ridiculous on it's face. There is a difference between being a criminal attorney and being a Criminal attorney, a distinction the law recogonizes, and for good reason.
If the FBI gained knowledge of the classified documents Trump held illegally after he left office as a result of the threat of prosecution of people who had knowledge of the matter and concealed it (thus opening themselves up to prosecution for being accessories to the crime after the fact) no one should have any heartburn about this, at all.
I mean, Jesus Christ, it's basic logic.