A few comments on this screw up
1. This is NOT a screw up by Mueller's office. The Butina case is being handled by @USAO_DC (Jessie K Liu, also same office looking at McCabe), not Mueller
2. "I want the government's walk back to get as much coverage, as prominently, as their initial false allegation," said Robert Driscoll, Butina's attorney"
It won't. She's a honeypot now
This is a good lesson in not running with overblown headlines just because the gov says so
It won't. She's a honeypot now
This is a good lesson in not running with overblown headlines just because the gov says so
3. The original allegation was without caveats and explosive:
"...on at least one occasion, Butina offered an individual other than US Person 1 sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization"
AUSA motion 07/18/18
"...on at least one occasion, Butina offered an individual other than US Person 1 sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization"
AUSA motion 07/18/18
4. Actual story is:
—A friend took Butina's car for an insurance check (likely winter driving)
—He paid for it: texting Butina "I don't know what you owe me for this...they put me through the wringer"
—Butina replied: "Sex", and "that they hire you?"
—It's clearly a joke
—A friend took Butina's car for an insurance check (likely winter driving)
—He paid for it: texting Butina "I don't know what you owe me for this...they put me through the wringer"
—Butina replied: "Sex", and "that they hire you?"
—It's clearly a joke
5. AUSA office now reluctantly offers it may have been mistaking this joke for an actual offer of sex in exchange for a job. Which doesn't even make any sense. She was offering both the sex AND the job —as a JOKE, for a longtime friend who sorted her car out
AUSA motion 07/09/18
AUSA motion 07/09/18
6a. IMPORTANT
(and relevant to FISA):
We only know this because the defence attorney for Butina FORCED the gov prosecutor to turn over the text msgs "justifying" their explosive allegation of "sex for a job" —& it turns out they don't
**There are no defense attorneys in FISA**
(and relevant to FISA):
We only know this because the defence attorney for Butina FORCED the gov prosecutor to turn over the text msgs "justifying" their explosive allegation of "sex for a job" —& it turns out they don't
**There are no defense attorneys in FISA**
6b. Had this been a FISA request, it would have been up to the judge to somehow spot that this allegation was dodgy and not backed by evidence in the motion
Zero chance of that
That's why **prosecutors** can't be allowed to cherry pick or stretch evidence in the FISA process
Zero chance of that
That's why **prosecutors** can't be allowed to cherry pick or stretch evidence in the FISA process
6c. Also, in the Butina case there's plenty of OTHER solid evidence she's a Russian spy
The government prosecutor here prob didn't NEED the honeypot allegation to win the motion, but STILL stretched the evidence – even knowing there WOULD be a defence attorney to challenge it
The government prosecutor here prob didn't NEED the honeypot allegation to win the motion, but STILL stretched the evidence – even knowing there WOULD be a defence attorney to challenge it
6d. So what'd you think they'd do if they *didn't have much evidence to start with* -like with @carterwpage- & knew they'd never be a defence?
Maybe this?
—Use a dossier without verifying it
—Distort an old case from 2013
—Rely on news reports
—Ditch exculpatory evidence
/END
Maybe this?
—Use a dossier without verifying it
—Distort an old case from 2013
—Rely on news reports
—Ditch exculpatory evidence
/END
N.B. Considering the government had access to all of @carterwpage communications for over a year AND was desperate to nail him to the wall –but still failed– I can only conclude not only is he NOT a Russian spy, he must have never even made any jokes either!
Good follow up thread here from @Techno_Fog
Judge in the case: "Took me five minutes to realise these were jokes"
Judge in the case: "Took me five minutes to realise these were jokes"
