The Government Refuses to Name FBI Agent Accused of Deceit in MalwareTech Case

Here’s the basic argument that Marcus Hutchins’ (AKA MalwareTech) lawyers are making in an effort to get his post-arrest interview suppressed.

[D]espite Mr. Hutchins’ multiple direct questions to the FBI agents who arrested him about the nature of his circumstance (e.g., “Can you please tell me what this is about?,” asked at the outset of the interrogation) and notwithstanding his frequent expressions of uncertainty about the agents’ focus of inquiry, the agents intentionally concealed from him the true and pertinent nature of his then-existing reality (e.g., “We’re going to get to it,” then somewhat revealing things 75 minutes later). Under these circumstances, bolstered by his known-to-the-agents exhaustion and status as a foreigner (among other things), Mr. Hutchins “full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it” was fatally compromised.

For its part, the government largely dodges the question of whether the agents misled (or refused to inform) Hutchins why he was being questioned, arguing (incorrectly — deception is mentioned twice in the first motion) that Hutchins didn’t raise deceit until after learning more details about the process, and focusing on the law in isolation from the facts. Ultimately, though, they argue that the substance of the crimes of which Hutchins was accused doesn’t matter because he knew he was arrested. To substantiate that, they present claims that go to the heart of the deceit question — the circumstances surrounding Special Agent Lee Chartier informing Hutchins that he had been indicted in Wisconsin.

Like the defendant in Serlin, Hutchins was aware of the nature of the FBI inquiry. Hutchins knew that the FBI’s interview on August 2, 2017, related to a criminal inquiry because Hutchins was handcuffed with his hands placed behind his back and told that he was under arrest based on federal arrest warrant. Doc. #82 at 20. And as if that was not enough, the questions posed to Hutchins, like the questions in Serlin, “would have alerted even the most unsuspecting [individual] that he was the . . . focus of the [criminal inquiry].”

[snip]

Unlike the defendant in Giddins, Hutchins was never misled about the criminal nature of the FBI investigation. There is no dispute that Hutchins was placed in handcuffs and told he was under arrest based on an arrest warrant issued from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and that before any questioning, Hutchin was advised of his rights and waived those rights.

On that bolded bit, there very much is a dispute. Tellingly, the government never once mentions the name of the agent, Lee Chartier, who claims to have done this, the same agent that Hutchins accuses of deceit. That’s interesting, not least, because even after the agents “colluded” (curse you for using that term, Hutchins’ legal team!!!) about their story, whether and how Chartier informed Hutchins of his indictment while he had Hutchins in a stairwell is one of the matters on which their sworn testimony differed.

At the outset, it is very important for the Court to remember the agents’ pre-hearing collusion. As Agent Butcher revealed, she and Agent Chartier got together to “mak[e] sure that we were on – you know, that our facts were the same.” (Id. 112:4-5.) Their synchronization of their testimony calls into question their entire characterization of events, and any benefit of any doubt the Court has regarding what happened should accrue to Mr. Hutchins’ favor.

[snip]

Agent Chartier testified that he revealed he was with the FBI and told Mr. Hutchins that he was under arrest pursuant to a federal arrest warrant just after Mr. Hutchins had been detained, when he and the customs officers took Mr. Hutchins from the lounge to a stairwell. (Hearing Tr. 19:8-23.) By his own admission, however, Agent Chartier did not explain the charges or what was going on, despite Mr. Hutchins’ numerous questions in the hallway. (Id. at 19:25- 20:4; 58:25-59:1.)4

In addition, Agent Chartier claimed that after he escorted Mr. Hutchins to the (pre-arranged) interrogation room, he and Agent Butcher again advised Mr. Hutchins that he was under arrest pursuant to a federal arrest warrant. (Id. 20:25-21:1.) Notably, they did not explain anything else. Agent Chartier acknowledged that Mr. Hutchins was not told that the arrest warrant flowed from an indictment, much less that the indictment charged six felony offenses stemming from the development and sale of Kronos. (Id. 56:22-24.)

Further, although the agents tried to coordinate their testimony, Agent Butcher’s testimony about these meaningful events was quite different from Agent Chartier’s. She did not testify that he (Agent Chartier) advised Mr. Hutchins that he was under arrest pursuant to a federal arrest warrant. Only Agent Chartier makes this claim, one that is undermined by Agent Butcher and otherwise lacks any support in the record. [my emphasis]

There’s actually a very good reason why Butcher didn’t describe Chartier doing this. He did so, if he did, in the stairwell; Butcher wouldn’t have been a witness.

Ordinarily, an FBI agent would get the benefit of the doubt on this point, but for two reasons, the public records suggests they shouldn’t in this case.

First, the time that Jamie Butcher estimated Hutchins was given his Miranda warning, 1:18PM, would only allow for a minute to transpire between the time Hutchins exited the airport lounge and his interview started post-waiver.

Despite the fact that Mr. Hutchins was escorted out of the lounge at 1:17 p.m. and the audio recording started at approximately 1:18 p.m. (see Exhibits 14 and 9), Agent Chartier claimed that he read Mr. Hutchins the Advice of Rights form (Exhibit 9) and Mr. Hutchins read and signed it. (Hearing Tr. 24:25-25:6.)

Further, as an excerpt from the transcript reveals, Butcher told Chartier he (the more experienced agent on questioning witnesses of the two) was all over the place just minutes after he would have given such a warning.

5:05-5:22

Chartier: Okay. And I don’t know if we did this in the beginning. Sorry, my brain is like—

Butcher: You’re like a mile a minute. Go ahead.

Chartier: Did you—did we have a passport for you? I didn’t have—we didn’t take one off of you. Did you have a passport.

Hutchins: It’s in the bag.

Chartier: It’s in your bag? Okay. All right. Well just for the record, could you go ahead and state your full name and then give your date of birth?

Again, this would have happened just minutes after Chartier would have given Hutchins his Miranda warning. Whatever the verdict on Hutchins’ competence to waive his rights, it does raise questions about the carefulness of the warning that Chartier gave.

Ultimately, both these motions have the feeling of rushed filings, with some errors and imprecisions. Ultimately, the judge is likely to rule against Hutchins here (though it will form important background as she considers much more substantial challenges to the charges against him). As I’ve said, though, the entire process has undermined both agents’ credibility if this ever goes to trial.

Hutchins’ motion is also interesting for the evidence it gives that this was still ultimately about getting Hutchins to cooperate against people the government was certain he was still communicating with, something I’ve been maintaining from the start.

Chartier: And what was the name of that?

Hutchins: Oh, fuck. I really can’t remember. No, I’m drawing a blank. I mean, like, I actually sell the code. I sell it to people and then they do what the fuck they want with it.

Chartier: I understand, I understand, I understand. But you see why we’re here?

Hutchins: Yep. I can definitely see.

Chartier: I mean, you know, Marcus, I’ll be honest with you. You’re in a fair bit of trouble.

Hutchins: Mmm-hmm.

Chartier: So I think it’s important that you try to give us the best picture, and if you tell me you haven’t talked to these guys for months, you know, you can’t really help yourself out of this hole. Does that make sense?

Hutchins: Yeah.

Chartier: Now, I’m not trying to tell you to do something you’re not doing, but I know you’re more active than you’re letting on, too. Okay?

Hutchins: I’m really not. I have ceased all criminal activity involving–

Chartier: Yeah, but you still have access and information about these guys.

Hutchins: What do you mean? Like, give me a name and I’ll tell you what I know about that.

This is what the entire case is about: the government used a trumped up claim of really attenuated criminal liability to try to get Hutchins to provide information on “these guys.” And they didn’t decide to do so until after Hutchins came back to their attention after he saved the world from WannaCry.

If this ever goes to trial, that should be the central issue. And going forward, too, that should be the central issue: that the government got itself into a very deep hole on a legally deficient claim because they did a back door search on the guy who saved the world and decided arresting him was the best way to coerce his cooperation moving forward.

But I’m still betting this doesn’t go to trial.

image_print
44 replies
  1. orionATL says:

    – “… This is what the entire case is about: the government used a trumped up claim of really attenuated criminal liability to try to get Hutchins to provide information on “these guys.” And they didn’t decide to do so until after Hutchins came back to their attention after he saved the world from WannaCry… ”

    isn’t this what the doj routinely does? they blackmail a detainee with putative other crimes to get cooperation, e. g., child porn.

    – so you grab a guy in the longe, hustle him out to the stairwell and handcuff him and he’s supposed to remain in a normal, rational, reflective state of mind in terms of any warnings or info you give him?

    there’s a reason the (trained) fbi guy behaved this way (keeping h. in the dark about specifics of why he was arrested) and that reason was to maximize interrogation possibilities.

    this all fits with the earlier report of the recording device “just not happening to be working” until turned on by hand later in the interrogation session.

    • Interstitial Matter says:

      “Blackmail”?
      Interesting choice of words, I guess if you are accused you might take on this state of mind – that they are out to get (blackmail) me!

      So, looking at what you wrote, you to seem to be saying that a person should be investigated over ONLY a known potential crime, and in no way anything else that is a violation of law. And, that if some other crimes are uncovered they should NOT be brought up.

      Using that logic then:
      A person arrested or detained for THEFT should be investigated, indicted, and tried ONLY for that crime, and say, FORGET about the dead bodies found in a deep freezer in their house, AND the child porn (your choice) blazing away on computer screen. Three crime, but we started knowing only about the ONE so we should NOT pursue the other TWO.
      Interesting concept – I guess.

      • orionATL says:

        your problem, pal, is grey matter, specifically, a substantial lack of it.

        your comment from, “so looking on down…” is completely irrelevant to the point i made.

        you’ve given yourself away as a right wing troll, and maybe a child troll at that; ttolls are so often invested in demonstrating their command of “logic”. not only does your dumbassed “logic” not correspond to my point at all, but it would be foolish law inforcement.

        • Interstitial Matter says:

          Let’s talk about dumbasses – dumbass.

          “Pal”? Are you inferring that I am a man? How did you come to that conclusion? Just because – right?

          So within all your mental prowess you dubbed me a right wing troll. You know this HOW? Come on dumbass look into your crystal ball, and tell me how you know that.

          You cannot handle people challenging your post so you resort to ad hominem retorts like the child you accuse me of being. So by example you have shown yourself to be the childish one.

          Since your moniker continuously shows up in post, I too could conclude that you are a troll. It doesn’t mean that you are, but I could deduce as such.

          Yes, yes, you are pissed for being challenged, aren’t you? It shows in your misspellings, or did you do that for effect?

          Stifle those who MIGHT disagree with you, it’s the fascist thing to do, right comrade?

          You used the word blackmail, thereby you are making accusations that DOJ and LEOs broke the law ad hoc, not just one or a few, rather ALL must be guilty. Talk about twisted logic .

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The FBI and DoJ have histories of abusing prosecutions by overcharging, in attempts to convince targets to cooperate and become informants.  In exchange, they promise they might reduce a sentence, or recommend a plea bargain to a judge, or drop a case.  They might.  Colloquially referring to that as blackmail seems correct.

          Overcharging is also a common technique among local prosecutors to shield local LEOs from having to face the music for their own abuse.  When pleaded down to a single low-level conviction, it becomes a shield that protects both LEOs and the prosecutor. Ask the young woman who was recently punched in the head on the beach during her arrest for telling the police to go away after she passed a sobriety test.  Not being suitably respectful is now a criminal offense, justifying the excessive use of force.

          The FBI and DoJ are complex institutions with a checkered history.  It would be a good thing if they reduced their excesses.  Ask the Inauguration Day protesters that the DoJ is still trying to convict for “rioting,” while illegally withholding exculpatory evidence and telling the judge falsehoods about it.

        • orionATL says:

          earl of h –

          this is an exceptionally fine response. by that i don’t just mean content, i particularly mean in the even-handed, informative style that is the hallmark of ew’s responses.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          And that’s how it works for white folks.  It’s a lot harsher if you’re not one of them.

        • orionATL says:

          i never noticed the doj was color sensitive when it came to overcharging looking for informers. i had the impression they took whatever they could get their paws on.

        • Interstitial Matter says:

          I absolutely understand your points as well as those of EW. I understand what you mean by overcharging, but then again if we refrain from criminal activity none of us should have to worry about overcharging. To the point I was attempting to make with orionATL, Trump’s camp is using some of the same twisted logic that he is, ‘you were supposed to be investigating X and now that you turned up Y and Z – Y and Z are out of bounds’.

          Now, the NJ BS, that LEO should be indicted. No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs. The term my generation frequently used was Police Brutality. Here’s where I personally believe that Constitution is too soft sometimes. IMO that LEO should be flogged, and then 20 years of big rocks to small with no parole.

          With regards to the protesters, that’s the political side of the DOJ. And, we should all realize what is behind that – Trump’s ego via Sessions.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          You need not worry about overcharging if you do not commit a crime?  That’s like saying if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide?

          It reflects an optimism that does not reflect American society or the lives of people of color, women, or civil protesters in America.

          Everyone has something to hide, and most of it is not the government’s business.  The point about overcharging is that it frequently results in plea deals, to avoid the draconian penalties built into the overcharging.

          It is sometimes used to cover the collective asses of police and prosecutor, who have screwed up and, in some cases, arrested someone who hasn’t committed a crime.  The head punching arrest on the beach looks like one example of this.

          Apologies for screwing up lead to liability.  They are less conducive to career advancement than better arrest and conviction stats.  They alienate local politicians and local LEOs, who can make or break a prosecutor’s work.  They entail accountability, whereas the object of power is to be unaccountable.

        • lefty665 says:

          Hi Earl, The crime of contempt of cop has a long history doesn’t it?

          What was up with the lead FBI guy, sounds like he was speeding or something. That was a profoundly disjointed snippet of the recording Marcy posted. After pinching him in the international terminal he asks Hutchins if he has a passport since he had not seen it when they arrested him? This was the “experienced” agent, WTF? No wonder the FBI has been recording averse when it includes their side of the conversation.

        • orionATL says:

          @4:00pm

          i don’t neeed to employ mental prowess. you give yourself away. this is exactly how trolls speak. they especially love to hide behind the skirts of “ad hominem”. keep on talking little man. :))

          p. s. not only is your “logic” childish, but your writing is very clumsy.

        • Interstitial Matter says:

          obsequious too

          I’m so wounded. I wouldn’t go bragging about your writing, it’s close to ninth grade level. In the U.S., it’s gray, not grey. It’s enforcement, NOT inforcement.

          When you were a stain in your mama’s drawers, I was voting for Democrats. Shows you how well you speculate as to others philosophical and political leanings. I’d speculate that you are a foreign moo, but I quite honestly don’t give a flying fuck what you think. Regardless of your age, you are just as childish Trump.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Anglicisms are fine here, we have a colourful neighbourhood.

          There must be something you want to talk about except another commentator.  If not, please make like a leaf and tree.

        • Interstitial Matter says:

          So orionATL can disparage me, and that’s alright.  Check the origination of comments.

          Do I get special treatment if I donate to the cause? Just curious.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Applies to anybody who keeps harping about the commentator instead of the comment, but you know that.  I’m just an usher with a torch.  You can wait for the security guard if you like.

          And that would be make like a tree and leave.

        • bmaz says:

          You are about to get some “special treatment”, and you will not like it. You should knock it off before you get further behind.

        • bmaz says:

          Buh bye Interstitial Matter. Thanks for playing. And for everybody else pissing sideways against each other in our comment threads, STOP IT. We have enough issues as far as security and continuity here. Be part of the solution, not the problem. And the people I am talking to, know that I am talking to you. Thank you.

    • Avattoir says:

      isn’t this what the doj routinely does?

      Uh, no. But there are a LOT of AUSas employed in DoJ, and many of them arrive with agendas while others develop them over time, which poses problems for maintaining prosecutorial standards, depending a lot, and critically, on leadership.

      This reality can be particularly gruesome with actually and even more so with nominally “permanent” DoJos and AUSas who get passed over early for advancement up the desk ranks or for high-profile case assignments.

      IMO it’s in the nature of, and part of the price we have to struggle with more or less constantly in a (more or less) Rule of Law context, that a variable percentage of permanent DoJos and AUSas will emerge as not terribly competent or well-intentioned (even incompetent and malevolent), and such characters tend to stick around in their jobs for a LONG time if not thru their entire working careers because: they are or at least see themselves as otherwise unemployable, or they enjoy the power & prestige.

      Plus there’s a related tendency for such characters to start building little empires based on job security and niche projects that at least superficially appear to require either or both specialized familiarity with or experience with the territory.

      With this POTUS & AG, the scope for DoJo & AUSa mischief and ICE-like free-lancing is as bad or worse than I recall at any time over the 4 decades plus I’ve been in this racket.

      • orionATL says:

        avattoir –

        your comment was so far down the list i didn’t realize it was connected to mine.

        “… isn’t this what the doj routinely does?

        Uh, no. But there are a LOT of AUSas employed in DoJ, and many of them arrive with agendas while others develop them over time, which poses problems for maintaining prosecutorial standards, depending a lot, and critically, on leadership…. ”

        i doubt you are right. i wasn’t talking about individual ausa’s or their individual agendas. i said” doj”. i believe doj does routinely use the tactic of offering lenience for informing. why would they not? it is a standard law enforcement tactic is it not?

        if you are saying doing so is unprofessional and many respectable ausa’s won’t use the tactic, all i can say is you would know; i wouldn’t. but that doesn’t seem to be where your comment wanders off to.

        i don’t dispute the comments about staying on too long and creating fiefdoms. i’ve seen that. none of that individual behavior, however, relates to a doj tendency to offer leniency in return for informing.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Whatever happened to pretty please with a bell on it?

    For a few dollars more, they might have had a cooperating informant.  Instead, it has an embarrassing and possibly fruitless prosecution that exposes the FBI – already under considerable pressure from the White House – to being addicted to blackmail to bolster its stock of informants.  Does not enhance its credibility on any level.

  3. Trip says:

    Slimeball and bully tactics. Like earl said, this is why Trump gets traction for his FBI conspiracies.

  4. Trip says:

    OT, but tech related. Apple not fighting for that free speech thingy:
    Telegram says Apple started blocking its global iOS updates when Russia banned it

    “Unfortunately, Apple didn’t side with us.” That’s how Telegram founder Pavel Durov described his company’s current relationship with the U.S. tech giant, after revealing this week that Telegram hasn’t been able to update its iOS app since mid-April, when Russia’s federal censor started blocking Telegram and ordered Apple to remove it from the App Store.
    “While Russia makes up only seven percent of Telegram’s user base, Apple is restricting updates for all Telegram users around the world since mid-April,” Durov explained. “As a result, we’ve also been unable to comply fully with GDPR for our EU-users by the deadline of May 25, 2018.”

    https://meduza .io /en/news/2018/05/31/telegram-says-apple-started-blocking-its-global-ios-updates-when-russia-banned-it

    [Readers should use extra caution when opening Meduza links. / ~Rayne]

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Useful perspective about the White House and MSM’s pearl clutching over Samantha Bee’s potty mouth, calling Ivanka a “feckless c**t” for promoting her father’s cruel policies, while enjoying her Memorial Day photo tweet of toddler with mum.  By “thomas violence,” from EW’s tweeter feed:

    I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word c**t but here in Australia we’re super offended by school children being slaughtered by automatic weapons.

    Broad criticism about American culture that has many expressions.  On German or French television, erotic breasts, breast feeding or full male nudity one might see on television.  One won’t see endless gunfights with shotguns and machetes obliterating one’s body parts.  Perhaps more than just, “Tomato, tomahto.”

     

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      CNN is devoting a long segment again this morning – after several yesterday – on why “people” are focusing on Samantha Bee’s potty mouth instead of, say, racism, misogyny, gun violence or Trump’s cruelest policies. Would it be too much for it to look at its own programming for an answer?

      CNN is taking its Faux News-like trademark to heart.  It is Breaking the News and broadcasting crap.  If that seems too impolite, perhaps CNN would prefer the anatomically impossible advice frequently offered by our most polite Vice President ever, the eponymous Dick Cheney.

      • Trip says:

        Trump really is just like Hallmark in the modern age: there’s a tweet for EVERY occasion.

        Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

        “@MarkMcGrath87: @realDonaldTrump You have a cunty demeanor.” True!

        6:21 PM – 5 Jul 2013

    • Trip says:

      I also liked Sally Fields’ response. I’m not sure if it would pass moderation, but you can look it up.

      Separating babies from parents as a punitive measure surely crosses the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” threshold, you’d think. Ignoring 4k+ American people who died, not only due to a storm, but also by neglect and indifference is an unspeakable disregard for humanity. But it doesn’t matter, because those people are only “animals” or “other”, not human(oid)s like Trump’s plastic Aryan doll daughter, whose motherhood (and child) means something. Her silence on the treatment of other mothers and their children is deafening. She is a WH official. Not a child in the periphery of this administration. Choking up and lying to a child that this administration is “upset” that kids don’t feel safe in school, while doing NOTHING is the epitome of betrayal. Huckster-b is okay with that part of her job, but it’s horrendous to namecall the princess of the palace.

      CNN is playing all of Trump’s cards for him.The southern strategy is alive and well, and manufactures fears and fake victimization. Trump weaponizes race, gender, and ethnicity and lies to bamboozle the populous. CNN gives a handy assist by ignoring the core point of Bee’s rant with false equivalencies, and bothside-isms. It was a poor choice of wording for Bee to use, but it doesn’t have the universal dog-whistling aspect of calling someone an ape. But too much time was invested in that entire fiasco as well, IMO. Which is what Trump wants. Make enemies, feign victimhood and pronounce an attack, all the while actually causing genuine deep harm through policy and actions toward the people he claims are the villains. They have been playing up Giuliani and his “strategy” as well. Giuliani is lying, period. But CNN is declaring winners instead of pushing back on propaganda. Call it what it is: Propaganda to obstruct an investigation.

      This why I appreciate that Avenatti is still around. He’s a junkyard attack dog and he might have a history of mange, but damn, how else do you catch, fight and kill a sewer rat, like Trump? You sure as hell don’t accomplish it by being polite* (*see the Democrats’ meekness). He knows how to trump Trump.

    • harpie says:

      I thought Philip Rucker’s   had a good response:

      FWIW, the word Samantha Bee used (and other such words) was emblazoned on many a T-shirt worn and sold at Trump rallies throughout 2016 campaign  

      A little history: In early 2008, Jane Fonda used the word “cunt” on NBC’s Today Show.

      “Fonda was on the program on Thursday with playwright Eve Ensler to discuss Ensler’s award-winning work, “The Vagina Monologues,” in which women talk about their sexuality using frank language about their bodies and references to genitalia.” 
      “Vagina Monologues” has spawned a movement called V-Day that aims to stop violence against women, and it is celebrating its 10th anniversary on Thursday.”

      On 2/14/2008 NBC apologized for Jane Fonda’s use of the offensive word. 

      Four days later, February 18, 2008, Roger Stone appeared on MSNBC’s Tucker. This was one month after he

      “established the anti-Hillary Clinton 527 group CitizensUnitedNotTimid — which emphasizes its acronym on its website and on T-shirts by bolding the first letter in each word of its name and purports to “educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is””

      In a January 28, 2008 Weekly Standard article, senior writer Matt Labash wrote that professional dirty trickster and high priest of political hijinks” Stone

      “sent Labash an email stating simply:

      ‘Out of NH C.U.N.T. lives. Gearing up!’

      According to Labash, Stone said of his 527 organization:

      [I]t’s one-word education. That’s our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym.

      Stone also reportedly told Labash that the group originally tried to come up with an acronym for “bitch”: “The truth is, we sat around for hours trying to come up with words for B.I.T.C.H. and just couldn’t do it.”

      • orionATL says:

        thanks. the double standard here is infuriating. and pure political exploitation.

        i recall a whole raft of young jeks at the convention and at rallies behaving with this crude visciousness. i don’t ever recall herr trump reprimanding them.

        • Trip says:

          Not that it is surprising, but he ONLY had something to say about Samantha Bee, no criticism of Roseanne’s comments at all.

    • harpie says:

      Philip Rucker: FWIW, the word Samantha Bee used (and other such words) was emblazoned on many a T-shirt worn and sold at Trump rallies throughout 2016 campaign
      *
      A little history:
      In early 2008, Jane Fonda used the word “c***” on NBC’s Today Show.

      “Fonda was on the program on Thursday with playwright Eve Ensler to discuss Ensler’s award-winning work, “The Vagina Monologues,” in which women talk about their sexuality using frank language about their bodies and references to genitalia.”
      “Vagina Monologues” has spawned a movement called V-Day that aims to stop violence against women, and it is celebrating its 10th anniversary on Thursday.”

      On 2/14/2008 NBC apologized for Jane Fonda’s use of the offensive word. 
      Four days later, February 18, 2008, Roger Stone appeared on MSNBC’s Tucker. This was one month after he “established the anti-Hillary Clinton 527 group
      *
      Citizens United Not Timid
      *
      — which emphasizes its acronym on its website and on T-shirts by bolding the first letter in each word of its name and purports to
      *
      educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is“”
      *
      In a January 28, 2008 Weekly Standard article, senior writer Matt Labash wrote that “professional dirty trickster and high priest of political hijinks” Stone
      “sent Labash an email stating simply:

      ” ‘Out of NH C.U.N.T. lives. Gearing up!‘ ”
      According to Labash, Stone said of his 527 organization:
      [I]t’s one-word education. That’s our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym.” Stone also reportedly told Labash that the group originally tried to come up with an acronym for “bitch”: “The truth is, we sat around for hours trying to come up with words for B.I.T.C.H. and just couldn’t do it.”

       

        • bmaz says:

          Blergh! That is on me. I saw the copies and thought I had it down to one. But was otherwise occupied……

  6. klynn says:

    OT

    Re: Presdential pardons –  IANAL

    If Presidential pardons are not vetted/reseached  and reveal a pattern that is meant to send a message to individuals who are indicted/under investigation, and if evidence were to arise that the pardons were meant to impede an investigation by sendng a message, is there any way they could be considered obstruction of justice if the actions being protected date prior to the election and/or the swearing in?

    • bmaz says:

      Yes, there are certainly circumstances where such a question may become very germane. Not yet though, and the clear wording of the Constitution and decisions, both by courts and AG/OLC’s makes it very hard to do so.

Comments are closed.