Maryland high court whitewashes criminal misconduct of Hillary Clinton lawyers

Yeah, I know. I shouldn’t be surprised.

Following the lead of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court whitewashed the criminal misconduct of three attorneys who destroyed more than 30,000 emails while representing Hillary Clinton. In an opinion issued this morning, Chief Justice Mary Ellen Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals wrote that a lower court lacked jurisdiction to compel the Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate David Kendall, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson.

The court’s jurisdictional conclusion is a plausible one, but it cleverly sidesteps the real scandal, which is found near the beginning of the opinion: the court refused to hear my cross-petition.  Allow me to translate. When Maryland bar prosecutors appealed to the Court of Appeals (“COA”), they argued that only the COA could compel them to investigate Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills, and Ms. Samuelson. If that’s true, I responded, then the COA itself should order bar prosecutors to investigate.  The COA’s response? It simply refused to hear my argument, and it did so without any explanation.

It’s hard to win an argument when the court refuses to hear it. Furthermore, as I noted in a post last year, the COA had serious conflicts of interest because it changed the rules after the fact in response to ex parte communications with bar counsel. When I asked the judges to recuse themselves, they likewise denied that request without an explanation.

Of course, if a peon lawyer like me had intentionally destroyed evidence that was covered by Congressional and court subpoenas, he or she would have been disbarred and sent to prison (although not necessarily in that order).  But Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills, and Ms. Samuelson are covered by the Clinton protection racket, ergo they need not worry about the rules and laws that apply to mere mortals. … Read more

Why won’t Seth Rich’s brother authorize Wikileaks to tell what it knows?

It’s time to call somebody’s bluff.

On May 30, 2018, I asked lawyers representing Aaron Rich to authorize Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Kim Dotcom to reveal what they know about payments to Mr. Rich or his brother, murdered Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich. Those lawyers have been stonewalling ever since.

As you may recall, Mr. Rich sued my client, Ed Butowsky, as well as The Washington Times, America First Media, and Matt Couch, in D.C. federal court on March 26, 2018, claiming they defamed him with allegations that he and his brother orchestrated leaks from the DNC to Wikileaks in exchange for cash.

It seemed obvious to me that the fastest way to resolve the dispute was to authorize the people in the best position to know to tell what they know, hence my request that Mr. Rich authorize Wikileaks, et al. to speak freely. Apparently that idea struck a nerve.

On Friday evening, The Gateway Pundit,, and Worldnetdaily broke the news that Mr. Rich’s lawyers had subpoenaed the Twitter records – including direct messages – of a number of right-leaning publications and authors. To the gullible masses, it might seem like Mr. Rich’s attorneys are aggressively trying to find the truth. In reality, it is the exact opposite: Mr. Rich’s attorneys are trying to intimidate anyone who asks inconvenient questions.

Like me, for example. My personal Twitter account was one of those covered by the subpoena. In other words, Mr. Rich’s lawyers tried to get the private communications of their opposing counsel by serving a subpoena on Twitter. … Read more