Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Chris]

"Dr. Mengele stands, determining whether new arrivals are fit to work or whether they are to be killed immediately. Taking the prisoner’s advice, Eliezer lies about his age, telling Mengele he is eighteen. He also says that he is a farmer rather than a student, and is motioned to Mengele’s left, along with his father."

[boutons_deux]

No Law Is Above Repug Politics

[clambake]

"Dr. Mengele stands, determining whether new arrivals are fit to work or whether they are to be killed immediately. Taking the prisoner’s advice, Eliezer lies about his age, telling Mengele he is eighteen. He also says that he is a farmer rather than a student, and is motioned to Mengele’s left, along with his father."

lol

[TSA]

New Red Flags Emerging From FBI's Handling of Michael Flynn's Case

The Justice Department’s closing of its criminal case against President Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Thursday came as new red flags emerged from recently released documents revealing the FBI’s handling of the matter.

Former FBI agents and federal prosecutors tell RealClearInvestigations that the documents show suspiciously irregular handling and editing of Flynn’s FD-302 form, the official document used to record what happens in FBI interviews. That form served as a key record used to charge Flynn with lying to federal agents. He pleaded guilty to that charge in December 2017 but had been trying to withdraw the plea, arguing, as his lawyer put it, that he was “deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI.”

Since the documents were released last week, much attention has focused on a handwritten note by FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap in advance of the January 2017 interview with Flynn that would result in the retired lieutenant general being charged with lying to federal agents: “What is our goal?” Priestap asked, “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The new irregularities concern what happened after Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka on January 24, 2017 – the interview in which Flynn was alleged to have lied about a December phone call with the Russian ambassador. FBI procedure is that one agent asks questions while another takes notes. Here, lead agent Strzok was the questioner and Pientka was responsible for memorializing the interview. After completing an interview, those notes are required to be organized and written up on an FD-302 form, which then becomes an official document used as evidence in an investigation.

FBI policy requires 302 forms to be submitted within five working days of an interview. The FBI took three weeks to deliberate on and compose Flynn’s 302 form, and it was mislabeled a “DRAFT DOCUMENT,” requiring a resubmission of the form three months later. A prosecutor working in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which eventually charged Flynn, was required to submit a separate document to a federal judge to explain that irregularity.

The new Flynn documents shed light on what happened during the unusual three weeks composing the 302. They include texts between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were communicating extensively during an extramarital affair in which they revealed an anti-Trump bias resulting in their later dismissal from Mueller’s investigation.

In one text, dated February 10, Strzok tells Page he is heavily editing Pientka’s 302 form to the point he’s “trying not to completely re-write” it. Other messages reveal that Page, who did not attend the interview, reviewed the 302 form and made editing suggestions. On February 14, Page texts Strzok, "Is Andy good with the 302?" – presumably referring to FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The next day, February 15, the Flynn 302 was officially submitted and filed with the FBI.

FBI supervisors, however, are not supposed to rewrite other agents’ 302 forms. Nor are 302 forms supposed to be edited by FBI personnel who were not present at the interview, and both of these things happened in the Flynn case. “I've probably written in the close to the low thousands of 302s. I've probably supervised or overseen thousands upon thousands of more of those,” James Gagliano, retired 25-year veteran of the FBI and current CNN analyst, told RealClearInvestigations. “This is not how we do business as an FBI supervisor. I never, ever materially altered a 302.”

Former Special Agent Thomas J. Baker agreed: ”We never changed an agent's 302. An agent would fight a supervisor who wanted him to change the 302, because it's what that agent observed and heard and in his interview. So for us to read, what’s documented in this new material, that coming back from that interview with Flynn, which is a key event, that Peter Strzok said he virtually rewrote the whole thing – it damned them with their own words.”

Both former agents also expressed concern that Page, who was not present at the interview, was editing the 302 form against FBI protocol. “For [Strzok] to send that 302 to Lisa Page, a non-badge wearing, non-credential-having FBI agent, is unconscionable,” says Gagliano.

Baker said it was “not normal and suspicious” that it took three weeks for Pientka’s 302 form chronicling the Flynn interview to be filed. Gagliano also found the time delay concerning. “If the interview is on Monday, you better have that 302 uploaded on Friday. That's a requirement. Now if you go outside of that, does that mean that there's some skullduggery afoot? No, but you're going to explain that in court,” Gagliano said. “A defense attorney worth his or her salt will make hay with that. ‘Hey agent Gagliano, you know what the requirement is in the Bureau, right? Why was this thing typed up seven days after the interview?’ And then you sit there hemming and hawing and a dead-to-rights case gets blown open because you didn't follow a protocol.”

Even after the Flynn 302 was collectively written during the weeks-long delay in submission, the original wasn’t initially used in the case. Instead, Baker said, Mueller’s team submitted their own interview with Strzok “about his recollection of the interview with Flynn five or six months ago. Now that’s just bizarre.”

Eventually, the 302 was filed to the court in two versions, requiring a convoluted explanation about what had happened. In a cover letter to District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan dated December 17, 2018, Brandon Van Grack, a prosecutor on the Mueller probe, explained:

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated today, the government hereby files two redacted versions of the FD-302 report summarizing the FBI’s interview of the defendant on January 24, 2017. See Attachment. The content of both versions of the report is identical, except that the first version, which was digitally signed and certified in February 2017, inadvertently contained a header labeled “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL.” Once that error was recognized, the header was removed and a corrected version, omitting only the header, was re- signed and re-certified in May 2017.

Sol Wisenberg, a former federal prosecutor who served as deputy independent counsel during the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigation, says that Van Grack’s letter is “very embarrassing as a prosecutor. Forget about the five day rule, if it's three weeks or a month, it's just like, ‘What took you so long?’”

On Thursday, shortly before news broke that the Justice Department was dropping the Flynn prosecution, Van Grack submitted a request to withdraw from the team of federal prosecutors on the Flynn case. Van Grack’s withdrawal request also came amid allegations he had withheld exculpatory information from Flynn’s attorneys that was contained in the document dump the previous week.

Hovering over all these questions about what happened with Flynn’s 302 is the silence of Joe Pientka, the other agent who was present for the Flynn interview. The FBI rebuffed congressional requests to make him available for questions. The Bureau argued that because Pientka was assigned to the Mueller probe, interviewing him would interfere with the special counsel’s investigation.

However, the Muller probe concluded last year, and the new revelations are shining a spotlight on Pientka’s absence. On May 4, Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Johnson of Louisiana sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding, among other things, that he make Pientka available for a transcribed interview regarding Flynn.

And other key lawmakers are determined to hold the FBI accountable for what happened in the Flynn case. “The FBI set up General Flynn -- that is clear as day,” Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, tells RealClearInvestigations. “There is FBI leadership ordering the case kept open when agents wanted to close it for lack of evidence, the discussion of getting Flynn to lie or trying to get him fired, the ambush interview, the withholding of exculpatory evidence, and many other acts of blatant malfeasance. None of this is standard procedure. It’s a naked abuse of authority.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_c ase_123520.html

[boutons_deux]

A Catastrophe for the DOJ

Your brief write-up is true as far as it goes,

but doesn’t even scratch the surface of what a long-term catastrophe this will be for the Justice Department.

I’ve been around federal law enforcement for virtually all of my career —
as a federal prosecutor,
defense lawyer,
official at top levels of Main Justice, and judge —

and I don’t think the Department has ever suffered a greater self-inflicted wound.


Good lawyers and law enforcement agents give up lucrative careers to serve the Department,

and then work tremendously hard, usually in complete obscurity, because

they want to feel like they’re doing the right thing.

Now they know that their work and their professional reputations are expendable in Barr’s DOJ.

The public in general, and jurors in particular, will lose faith that DOJ follows the law —

making it harder to get convictions even in non-political cases.

For many judges, this will undermine their willingness to assume DOJ’s good faith and honesty for as long as Barr is in charge,

and likely even longer (their handling of the pandemic’s effect on prisoners ain’t helping in that department, either).

Prosecutors and agents rely on that presumption not only to win marginal cases but also to make their jobs easier so that they can bring more cases than would be possible if they had to satisfy more skeptical judges.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of DOJ’s good reputation to the success of its mission.

Both in terms of attracting and keeping good lawyers and agents, and

in terms of bringing and winning cases,

today’s debacle will haunt DOJ for years.

Michael Flynn won’t nearly be the last criminal to benefit from that.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-catastrophe-for-the-doj (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-catastrophe-for-the-doj)

[TSA]

You stupid fucks slurped it up

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1258753675700338694

“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”

“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.

“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.

“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.

“No,” Farkas admitted.

“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.

“Correct,” Farkas responded.

Gowdy didn’t stop there.

“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.

“Correct,” Farkas answered.

“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.

“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1258776889705082880

[TSA]

If this blows up in their fucking faces too omg :lol

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258602574325985283

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258605641024843777

https://twitter.com/bleidl/status/1258773543745130496

https://twitter.com/bleidl/status/1258782456423088131

[Spurs Homer]

Funny how all the cherry-pickers are on the same side that already spiked the football and claimed victory.


WTF are they defending now?

If anyone has time they can cherry-pick bannons, kuckner or trump jrs transcripts and then clutch their pearlz and claim it is the smoking gun

but truth is truth and anyone can read these GOP majority in control- at the time transcripts and see with their own eyes how the GOP softballed the trump team witnesses and clutched their pearls and attacked any non trump team witness

from the jump!

[boutons_deux]

Bill Barr Tests Negative for Integrity

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5eb56fc5ce7033e03b086244/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Borowitz-Barr.jpg

Barr said that he was putting into place new protocols that would

require Justice Department employees to be tested for integrity before entering the building.

“I thought that anyone with integrity had already left the Justice Department, but apparently I was mistaken,” he said.

“It’s better to be safe than sorry.”

Although he was elated to learn that he had tested negative for integrity,

Barr said that he shuddered to think how close he came to contracting the dreaded virtue.

“Having integrity would have made it impossible for me to work for President Trump,” he said.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/bill-barr-tests-negative-for-integrity (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/bill-barr-tests-negative-for-integrity)

[boutons_deux]

William Barr Reads “Moby-Dick,” Finds No Evidence of Whales

WASHINGTON —Attorney General William Barr has just read the classic American novel “Moby-Dick (https://www.amazon.com/Moby-Dick-Penguin-Classics-Herman-Melville/dp/0142437247),” by Herman Melville, and

found that the book contains “no evidence whatsoever of whales,” Barr stated on Tuesday.

The Attorney General issued his statement on the absence of whales in the Melville classic in a

two-paragraph book report released to the news media.

“Those who read ‘Moby-Dick’ looking for whales will be sorely disappointed,” Barr wrote.

“There are no whales here.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/william-barr-reads-moby-dick-finds-no-evidence-of-whales?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Borowitz_050820&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c1048022fcc&cndid=43758549&hasha=992d608214b505003aa04bf10a595031&hashb=542eb31d958e85ddd5a4c3ccf3faae18526a77bd&hashc=54b3612ab970ce13a64a16665b1987080ca5b72e2ee7 62b722fbba6ab378f2f5&esrc=bounceX&utm_term=TNY_Borowitz (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/william-barr-reads-moby-dick-finds-no-evidence-of-whales?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Borowitz_050820&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c1048022fcc&cndid=43758549&hasha=992d608214b505003aa04bf10a595031&hashb=542eb31d958e85ddd5a4c3ccf3faae18526a77bd&hashc=54b3612ab970ce13a64a16665b1987080ca5b72e2ee7 62b722fbba6ab378f2f5&esrc=bounceX&utm_term=TNY_Borowitz)

[ElNono]

Asked whether he was doing Trump’s bidding, Barr said: “I’m doing the law’s bidding.”

The proclamation rang hollow to numerous Justice Department employees.

“There seems to be a different set of rules for political appointees,” said one longtime DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I was surprised. I didn’t think it would end like this — and this quickly.”

The official said Barr’s move was another signal to career officials that their work could be readily upended for political reasons. “It’s more demoralizing than anything else,” the DOJ official said.

One Justice Department lawyer added: “It's deeply disheartening to see politics infect Justice. It's everywhere now under Barr."

While officials predicted more departures at DOJ, the overt signs of protest from within the department Thursday were relatively mild.

While the longtime prosecutor on the Flynn case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew shortly before the government moved to dismiss the case, department officials said Van Grack would remain in his post overseeing foreign-agent cases.

The other line prosecutor handling the Flynn case in recent months, Jocelyn Ballantine, appeared to have declined to sign the 20-page pleading explaining why DOJ was seeking to drop the prosecution.

Some lamented that there was not already a more dramatic response to Barr’s actions.

“This moment represents the full collapse of an apolitical Justice Department. An astonishing assault on the rule of law and in a functional DOJ it would prompt mass resignation,” former intelligence community lawyer Susan Hennessey wrote on Twitter.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/barr-flynn-trump-mueller-244043

[Spurs Homer]

Asked whether he was doing Trump’s bidding, Barr said: “I’m doing the law’s bidding.”

The proclamation rang hollow to numerous Justice Department employees.

“There seems to be a different set of rules for political appointees,” said one longtime DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I was surprised. I didn’t think it would end like this — and this quickly.”

The official said Barr’s move was another signal to career officials that their work could be readily upended for political reasons. “It’s more demoralizing than anything else,” the DOJ official said.

One Justice Department lawyer added: “It's deeply disheartening to see politics infect Justice. It's everywhere now under Barr."

While officials predicted more departures at DOJ, the overt signs of protest from within the department Thursday were relatively mild.

While the longtime prosecutor on the Flynn case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew shortly before the government moved to dismiss the case, department officials said Van Grack would remain in his post overseeing foreign-agent cases.

The other line prosecutor handling the Flynn case in recent months, Jocelyn Ballantine, appeared to have declined to sign the 20-page pleading explaining why DOJ was seeking to drop the prosecution.

Some lamented that there was not already a more dramatic response to Barr’s actions.

“This moment represents the full collapse of an apolitical Justice Department. An astonishing assault on the rule of law and in a functional DOJ it would prompt mass resignation,” former intelligence community lawyer Susan Hennessey wrote on Twitter.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/barr-flynn-trump-mueller-244043


pure cowardice


there should be mass resignations

there should be mass leaks of the full mueller report, leaks of the 13 cases mueller referred to other fbi units

but

just cowards in the DOJ now.

[ElNono]

pure cowardice


there should be mass resignations

there should be mass leaks of the full mueller report, leaks of the 13 cases mueller referred to other fbi units

but

just cowards in the DOJ now.

I rather they stay and work from within, tbh... in this shady times, if they resign, they'll probably be replaced with partisan hacks, so it's better they keep their post.

[DMC]

Hey man, sorry I couldn't get back to you until now. I'm sure you've been on the edge of your seat waiting to see how I'd respond to this absolute behemoth of a reply.

It's a little surprising seeing you in this thread celebrating with TSA and Chris like you guys just won an NBA Championship, because unlike those guys, you don't spend your entire day scraping the fringes of Twitter looking for takes that validate your fetish for everything Trump. To your credit, you don't bother doing the work. You just wait for a W and hop on the bandwagon.

Anyway, in response to your post, I can assure you that if a Democratic President installs an AG on the basis of his loyalty to him, who subsequently uses the office of the AG to protect the President's interests at all costs, I will have plenty of bad things to say about it. But it remains to be seen if the next Democratic administration will follow the low bar set by this one.

So you agree with me then.

[TSA]

Asked whether he was doing Trump’s bidding, Barr said: “I’m doing the law’s bidding.”

The proclamation rang hollow to numerous Justice Department employees.

“There seems to be a different set of rules for political appointees,” said one longtime DOJ official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I was surprised. I didn’t think it would end like this — and this quickly.”

The official said Barr’s move was another signal to career officials that their work could be readily upended for political reasons. “It’s more demoralizing than anything else,” the DOJ official said.

One Justice Department lawyer added: “It's deeply disheartening to see politics infect Justice. It's everywhere now under Barr."

While officials predicted more departures at DOJ, the overt signs of protest from within the department Thursday were relatively mild.

While the longtime prosecutor on the Flynn case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew shortly before the government moved to dismiss the case, department officials said Van Grack would remain in his post overseeing foreign-agent cases.

The other line prosecutor handling the Flynn case in recent months, Jocelyn Ballantine, appeared to have declined to sign the 20-page pleading explaining why DOJ was seeking to drop the prosecution.

Some lamented that there was not already a more dramatic response to Barr’s actions.

“This moment represents the full collapse of an apolitical Justice Department. An astonishing assault on the rule of law and in a functional DOJ it would prompt mass resignation,” former intelligence community lawyer Susan Hennessey wrote on Twitter.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/barr-flynn-trump-mueller-244043

It’s hilarious watching you still go to bat for the bad actions of the former FBI/DOJ agents. Even more hilarious Politico tossed in a quote from Lawfare’s Susan Hennessy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EliLake/status/1258689907238764544

[ChumpDumper]

It’s hilarious watching you still go to bat for the bad actions of the former FBI/DOJ agents. Even more hilarious Politico tossed in a quote from Lawfare’s Susan Hennessy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EliLake/status/1258689907238764544:lol He should never have even been considered for the NSA job. Why would you want one who lies to the Vice President, the chief of Staff and the Press Secretary?

[ElNono]

It’s hilarious watching you still go to bat for the bad actions of the former FBI/DOJ agents. Even more hilarious Politico tossed in a quote from Lawfare’s Susan Hennessy.

I'm only going to bat for an independent, non politicized DOJ.

It's all fun and games until the AG is a democrat and does the same politicization and abuses (which I will condemn just as strongly, but you will only then join me). The worst part is that now they'll have justification to do so. I had the same opinion when Fast n Furious happened, BTW.

[ElNono]

I don't care about feelings or politics... This was a case where the criminal confessed to the crime, twice, there's not many more straightforward cases like this in our judicial system.

What the DOJ did with this decision is universally considered extremely exceptional. We already had other prosecutors leaving after the same sort of treatment on the Roger Stone case.

It's unfortunate for all Americans when this happens.

[TSA]

I'm only going to bat for an independent, non politicized DOJ.

It's all fun and games until the AG is a democrat and does the same politicization and abuses (which I will condemn just as strongly, but you will only then join me). The worst part is that now they'll have justification to do so. I had the same opinion when Fast n Furious happened, BTW.

It would be easier to believe you if you hadn't sat silent while the FBI/DOJ ran roughshed over Trump and his campaign.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1258824866066808833

[TSA]

I don't care about feelings or politics... This was a case where the criminal confessed to the crime, twice, there's not many more straightforward cases like this in our judicial system.

What the DOJ did with this decision is universally considered extremely exceptional. We already had other prosecutors leaving after the same sort of treatment on the Roger Stone case.

It's unfortunate for all Americans when this happens.

And yet you're still mum on what Jensen uncovered Van Grack doing :lol

[TSA]

The Wittes, Hennesseys, and Rangappas of the world are furiously putting out pieces against Barr while ignoring what US Attorney Jensen uncovered.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258848830222733314

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258849765690871811

https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258852043718103047

:cry but he resigned in protest :cry

[ChumpDumper]

Again, how does this change Flynn's lying to everyone?

[spurraider21]

It would be easier to believe you if you hadn't sat silent while the FBI/DOJ ran roughshed over Trump and his campaign.
they investigated his campaign for collusion, found none, and did not charge anybody with any crimes related to that

nothing they were doing was in the public sphere until after the election. if they were trying to fuck with the election, there certainly would have been leaks about the FBI investigating the trump campaign.

the only people related to the trump campaign who got in any trouble whatsoever got in trouble for lying to investigators or impeding the investigators. the whole thing would have been much cleaner and smoother if they didnt keep lying to the investigators or if trump didnt stupidly fire comey mid-investigation.

imagine how much cleaner the mueller report (or if left unimpeded, the "comey report") would have been for "your side" if there was only a section 1 and it concluded that there was no evidence of collusion. that would be a slam dunk. instead we had a whole volume 2 about obstruction where they expressly refused to exonerate him (and imo, laid out a case for impeachment which the dems didnt act on).

this doesnt excuse the issues detailed by Horowitz about how they went about fucking around with the FISA applications. i'm glad they are reviewing/revising their protocol on that to prevent future subsequent abuses.

[TSA]

they investigated his campaign for collusion, found none, and did not charge anybody with any crimes related to that

nothing they were doing was in the public sphere until after the election. if they were trying to fuck with the election, there certainly would have been leaks about the FBI investigating the trump campaign.

the only people related to the trump campaign who got in any trouble whatsoever got in trouble for lying to investigators or impeding the investigators. the whole thing would have been much cleaner and smoother if they didnt keep lying to the investigators or if trump didnt stupidly fire comey mid-investigation.

imagine how much cleaner the mueller report (or if left unimpeded, the "comey report") would have been for "your side" if there was only a section 1 and it concluded that there was no evidence of collusion. that would be a slam dunk. instead we had a whole volume 2 about obstruction where they expressly refused to exonerate him (and imo, laid out a case for impeachment which the dems didnt act on).

this doesnt excuse the issues detailed by Horowitz about how they went about fucking around with the FISA applications. i'm glad they are reviewing/revising their protocol on that to prevent future subsequent abuses.

The FBI used a DNC funded dossier they knew was bullshit and lied to the FISC about it in order to obtain a warrant for the most intrusive type of surveillance our government is capable of on a man they knew to be innocent and your reaction is that you are just glad they are reviewing/revising FISA protocol :lol

[Spurminator]

So you agree with me then.

Nope. Not sure how you inferred that.

[spurraider21]

The FBI used a DNC funded dossier they knew was bullshit and lied to the FISC about it in order to obtain a warrant for the most intrusive type of surveillance our government is capable of on a man they knew to be innocent and your reaction is that you are just glad they are reviewing/revising FISA protocol :lol
i dont think they "knew" he was innocent. i dont have an issue with investigations happening just because it turns out that that the subject hadn't, in fact, committed a crime.

i do have issues with how they approached the FISA warrants and have said as much when the Horowitz report was released. i dont think that somehow justifies people then lying to investigators or impeding the investigation. while the FISA warrants certainly have issues, it has already been determined that there was sufficient, valid factual predicate to the opening and conducting of the investigation

[TSA]

i dont think they "knew" he was innocent. i dont have an issue with investigations happening just because it turns out that that the subject hadn't, in fact, committed a crime.

i do have issues with how they approached the FISA warrants and have said as much when the Horowitz report was released. i dont think that somehow justifies people then lying to investigators or impeding the investigation. while the FISA warrants certainly have issues, it has already been determined that there was sufficient, valid factual predicate to the opening and conducting of the investigation

So you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan. :lol

[ElNono]

It would be easier to believe you if you hadn't sat silent while the FBI/DOJ ran roughshed over Trump and his campaign.


And yet you're still mum on what Jensen uncovered Van Grack doing :lol


The Wittes, Hennesseys, and Rangappas of the world are furiously putting out pieces against Barr while ignoring what US Attorney Jensen uncovered.

What they did uncover though? The FBI hasn't admitted any wrongdoing to date, nor has been charged with anything here.

It's the DOJ that unilaterally has moved to close the case. Again, Barr has made some very dubious calls in a number of cases that are directly associated with this administration, and that undermine their own employees.

I don't think I need to explain how this comes across as extremely corrupt.

[spurraider21]

So you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan. :lol
i do take issue with it. i dont have any issue with people who knowingly made misrepresentations facing the appropriate discipline. i think the attorney who made adjustments to the email from CIA has to be closely looked at, and if they can show wrongful intent behind that, she should face whatever the appropriate charges are

i dont think any of this excuses people from trump's campaign/administration knowingly lying to federal investigators.

[ElNono]

So you take issue with them lying to investigators but somehow don't take issue with one of Mueller's top prosecutors lying to Judge Sullivan. :lol

I would think you should take issue with both instances?

[TSA]

What they did uncover though? The FBI hasn't admitted any wrongdoing to date, nor has been charged with anything here.

It's the DOJ that unilaterally has moved to close the case. Again, Barr has made some very dubious calls in a number of cases that are directly associated with this administration, and that undermine their own employees.

I don't think I need to explain how this comes across as extremely corrupt.

Jensen uncovered everything Van Grack had been hiding from Sullivan and Flynn’s defense team. If there was nothing to find Flynn would still be sitting here hoping for a pardon or dismissal by Sullivan. You keep acting as if Barr or his DOJ created all of this exculpatory evidence out of thin air.

Jeffrey Jensen served in the FBI for 10 years and has been a federal prosecutor for almost 20 years. He is the one who made the recommendation to Barr to drop the case after reviewing everything Van Grack had done.

[TSA]

i do take issue with it. i dont have any issue with people who knowingly made misrepresentations facing the appropriate discipline. i think the attorney who made adjustments to the email from CIA has to be closely looked at, and if they can show wrongful intent behind that, she should face whatever the appropriate charges are

i dont think any of this excuses people from trump's campaign/administration knowingly lying to federal investigators.

If you do take issue with Van Grack and Clinesmith that’s news to me because you sure as fuck don’t like talking about it when I bring it up and continuously deflect to something else.

[TSA]

I would think you should take issue with both instances?

Sure. Except he only wants to discuss one.

[spurraider21]

If you do take issue with Van Grack and Clinesmith that’s news to me because you sure as fuck don’t like talking about it when I bring it up and continuously deflect to something else.
you're the one who keeps deflecting away from Flynn's lies (the subject of this thread)

[spurraider21]

If you do take issue with Van Grack and Clinesmith that’s news to me because you sure as fuck don’t like talking about it when I bring it up and continuously deflect to something else.
let them be investigated, interviewed, and if needed, take the appropriate action.

if that process was underway, and then a democrat became president in 2021, made Adam Schiff the AG, and then the DOJ decides to drop charges after a guilty plea, i'd be critical of that too

[TSA]

you're the one who keeps deflecting away from Flynn's lies (the subject of this thread)

You’re so full of shit :lol We were just discussing Flynn yesterday. And :lol @ Flynn being the only subject this threads about. It’s okay to admit you don’t like talking about prosecutors that make your profession look bad, I’d understand.

[Spurs Homer]

lol pizzagate logic


flynn in court under oath: "Yes, your honor I plead guilty because I am - in fact - guilty."

Barr: "yes it is a crime - UNLESS - you are on team Trump"

[TSA]

let them be investigated, interviewed, and if needed, take the appropriate action.

if that process was underway, and then a democrat became president in 2021, made Adam Schiff the AG, and then the DOJ decides to drop charges after a guilty plea, i'd be critical of that too

What do you think the appropriate action would be for an FBI agent who altered an exculpatory email from the CIA and presented a fraudulent document to the FISC in order to obtain a FISA warrant?

What do you think the appropriate action is for a federal prosecutor that hides exculpatory evidence from the defense and lies to the judge?

[ChumpDumper]

There was nothing that exculpated Flynn of his lying.

[spurraider21]

What do you think the appropriate action would be for an FBI agent who altered an exculpatory email from the CIA and presented a fraudulent document to the FISC in order to obtain a FISA warrant?

What do you think the appropriate action is for a federal prosecutor that hides exculpatory evidence from the defense and lies to the judge?
i dont know

if they constitute criminal acts, and the US Attorneys office believes they have probable cause to prove the required elements, intent, etc, then i dont see any reason it shouldnt be referred to a federal grand jury for potential indictment

if they are tried found to be guilty of those things, i would not be opposed to them getting punished based on appropriate sentencing guidelines

if it doesnt rise to those levels, and theres a sufficient internal finding of wrongdoing, they should face whatever discipline is deemed appropriate. it's not that complicated. none of it has to do with Flynn lying and admitting to it twice in open court

[spurraider21]

You’re so full of shit :lol We were just discussing Flynn yesterday. And :lol @ Flynn being the only subject this threads about. It’s okay to admit you don’t like talking about prosecutors that make your profession look bad, I’d understand.
a lot of attorneys do shady shit. i think prosecutors are among the most overzealous attorneys out there. its a big reason why i never considered prosecution as a career path and had aspirations to go into public defense work*

i've expressed that on more than one occasion, even as it relates to the Mueller probe. heck, this was one of my early reactions/responses after Horowitz report was released


:tu

i'm skimming through the main report, dont have time to read the whole thing in one sitting. there were clearly a lot of mistakes made by FBI officials in the warrant applications tbh. its not surprising (but also not acceptable) that a law enforcement agency will take liberties in trying to successfully obtain a warrant that they want. i do think the proper purpose/factual predicate, and opening of investigation prior to Steele dossier does cut quite a bit into some of the big arguments we've heard all along, imo

*market is hyper competitive back in LA, and wasn't able to get a foot in the door, so couldnt get a job there without substantial experience. would be easier to find that kind of gig here in Virginia (if not for the pandemic), but based on how much they get paid here, is a paycut that i probably wouldnt be able to afford at this time. when i eventually move back to LA i still want to go into that field.

[Spurs Homer]

Since only cherry-picked excerpts will ever be posted here by cultists -
here is Adam Schiff's statement upon releasing the Intel transcripts -

explains some of the misinformation that the cherry-pickers will post;

After releasing the transcripts, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated:“From 2017 to 2018, the House Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Despite the many barriers put in our way by the then-Republican Majority, and attempts by some key witnesses to lie to us and obstruct our investigation, the transcripts that we are releasing today show precisely what Special Counsel Robert Mueller also revealed: That the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself, invited illicit Russian help, made full use of that help, and then lied and obstructed the investigations in order to cover up this misconduct.“Unfortunately, the President’s misconduct did not end with his election in 2016 or his attempts to cover up that effort. Rather, in the course of his presidency, he continued to seek illicit foreign help in his campaign by coercing another nation, Ukraine, to smear his opponent. After making use of Russia’s help with his first presidential campaign, President Trump pressed the Ukrainian president to help him in 2020 by withholding critical military aid to that country and a coveted head of state meeting.“These acts ultimately led to the President’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and the first bipartisan vote in the Senate in our history in support of a conviction of a President of the United States. The President’s efforts to make use of the help of a foreign power to win an election, and then to extort yet another foreign power to try to win again, represent a grave threat to the health of our democracy now and in the future.“The transcripts released today richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller identified in his report similar, and even more extensive, evidence of improper links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. A bipartisan Senate investigation also found that Russia sought to help the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016.“While Special Counsel Mueller found insufficient evidence to prove the crime of criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he refused to draw any conclusion on the issue of collusion — contrary to false representations made by Attorney General Bill Barr and others. There is ample evidence of the corrupt interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia, both direct and circumstantial, in the record:

In June of 2016, a Russian delegation offered dirt on Donald Trump’s rival—presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—to the highest levels of the Trump campaign, and did so in writing. Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., accepted that offer, and then set up a secret meeting between the Russian delegation, himself, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to discuss that illicit help. When news of the meeting was about to break, Trump and his son drafted a false statement for the press together in order to cover up the true purpose of the meeting. This written offer of illegal help by the Russians and its acceptance by the President’s campaign, and the secret meeting that followed, provide some of the most damning and direct evidence of the President’s to make use of Russia’s assistance in the election.


Throughout the summer of 2016, the Trump campaign and candidate Trump himself repeatedly sought damaging information on Clinton from Russia. In July of 2016, Trump publicly called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and – as the Special Counsel found – that night, Russian military intelligence officers did precisely that. Our transcripts show that numerous individuals affiliated with or working for the Trump campaign were in communication with individuals offering help to set up private backchannels with the Russian government.


Multiple witnesses sought to hide and cover up illicit activity related to Russia during the presidential campaign. One-time campaign advisor and close confidant to Trump, Roger Stone, has been sentenced to prison for lying to the Committee about his advanced knowledge of impending WikiLeaks releases of Clinton campaign information. Former personal attorney to Trump, Michael Cohen, was imprisoned in part on charges that he lied to the Committee about Trump’s role in arranging a lucrative business deal in Russia during the course of his campaign and early presidency. The President’s pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow — potentially the most lucrative deal of his life — while lying to the American people about his business interests in Russia, provided the most serious counterintelligence risk to the United States.


Another associate of Trump, Erik Prince, misled our Committee about his efforts to take part in a secret backchannel with a senior Russian government official while he was unofficially supporting the Trump campaign.


And the transcripts also show that during the transition period in late 2016, the incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn undertook efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed by the previous administration over Russia’s interference in the election on Trump’s behalf. Flynn would later lie to the FBI about these efforts, and the President would try to pressure then-FBI Director Comey to shut down any investigation into Flynn. It would take the firing of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the later appointment of an unscrupulous Attorney General, Bill Barr, for the President to achieve his aim of seeking dismissal of the case against Flynn, and only after Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

“Despite taking part in this investigation and hearing these facts first-hand, the transcripts reveal how House Republicans used witness interviews not to gain the facts, but to press President Trump’s false narrative of ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It would be a pattern they would follow throughout the Russia investigation and into the President’s subsequent Ukraine misconduct. To that end, House Republicans sought to use the Committee’s Russia investigation to undermine the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Russia sought to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. That assessment has been affirmed by this Committee’s Democrats, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, and Special Counsel Mueller. “These transcripts should have been released long before now, but the White House held up their release to the public by refusing to allow the Intelligence Community to make redactions on the basis of classified information, rather than White House political interests. Only now, and during a deadly pandemic, has the President released his hold on this damning information and evidence. “Like the Ukraine investigation that would follow it, the investigation into the Trump campaign’s effort to seek and utilize Russian help in 2016 and to obstruct justice, reveal a President who believes that he is above the law. But we are a country where the truth still matters and where right still matters. Our investigation into the Trump campaign, and the evidence we uncovered despite formidable obstruction, affirms that.”Background:On September 17, 2018, the Committee voted unanimously to send all transcripts to the ODNI for a nonpartisan classification review by the Intelligence Community, and authorized the public release of the transcripts once the classification review was completed. In March of 2019, the Committee was informed that ODNI intended to share the Committee transcripts with the White House because the White House claimed the transcripts implicated “White House equities.” In response, the Committee directed that the ODNI refrain from sharing the transcripts, which remain Committee property and were shared with the intelligence community only for the purpose of declassification. We urged that ODNI complete the classification review as requested and without any further delay.In September 2019, the Committee again voted to release the transcripts. Nevertheless, the White House continued to insist on a prior review and the right to redact non-classified matters that it alleged would implicate their “equities.” The Committee continued to reject this unprecedented interference in the classification review, and continues to reject the idea that the White House can exert some after the fact rationale to deprive Congress of the ability to release its own work product to the public.Only this week, the Acting DNI finally informed the Committee that the White House was abandoning its hold. As of May 4, the ODNI reported that “the interagency review of the remaining ten transcripts has been completed,” and that ODNI completed the redaction process begun 18 months ago. The Committee, after a review of the 53 transcripts which totaled tens of thousands of pages and to avoid any further delays, has allowed all of the redactions proposed by ODNI despite our concerns that the ODNI excessively over-redacted information that has since been declassified.Redactions applied to the classified and sensitive transcripts released today were the work of the ODNI, not the Committee, and the Committee has accepted all IC-proposed redactions for now. The Committee previously applied limited redactions to all transcripts to protect personally identifiable information such as email addresses, phone numbers, or staff names.

[TSA]

a lot of attorneys do shady shit. i think prosecutors are among the most overzealous attorneys out there. its a big reason why i never considered prosecution as a career path and had aspirations to go into public defense work*

i've expressed that on more than one occasion, even as it relates to the Mueller probe. heck, this was one of my early reactions/responses after Horowitz report was released



*market is hyper competitive back in LA, and wasn't able to get a foot in the door, so couldnt get a job there without substantial experience. would be easier to find that kind of gig here in Virginia (if not for the pandemic), but based on how much they get paid here, is a paycut that i probably wouldnt be able to afford at this time. when i eventually move back to LA i still want to go into that field.

best of luck getting back to LA :bobo

[TSA]

Since only cherry-picked excerpts will ever be posted here by cultists -
here is Adam Schiff's statement upon releasing the Intel transcripts -

explains some of the misinformation that the cherry-pickers will post;

After releasing the transcripts, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated:“From 2017 to 2018, the House Intelligence Committee conducted an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Despite the many barriers put in our way by the then-Republican Majority, and attempts by some key witnesses to lie to us and obstruct our investigation, the transcripts that we are releasing today show precisely what Special Counsel Robert Mueller also revealed: That the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself, invited illicit Russian help, made full use of that help, and then lied and obstructed the investigations in order to cover up this misconduct.“Unfortunately, the President’s misconduct did not end with his election in 2016 or his attempts to cover up that effort. Rather, in the course of his presidency, he continued to seek illicit foreign help in his campaign by coercing another nation, Ukraine, to smear his opponent. After making use of Russia’s help with his first presidential campaign, President Trump pressed the Ukrainian president to help him in 2020 by withholding critical military aid to that country and a coveted head of state meeting.“These acts ultimately led to the President’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and the first bipartisan vote in the Senate in our history in support of a conviction of a President of the United States. The President’s efforts to make use of the help of a foreign power to win an election, and then to extort yet another foreign power to try to win again, represent a grave threat to the health of our democracy now and in the future.“The transcripts released today richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller identified in his report similar, and even more extensive, evidence of improper links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. A bipartisan Senate investigation also found that Russia sought to help the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016.“While Special Counsel Mueller found insufficient evidence to prove the crime of criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he refused to draw any conclusion on the issue of collusion — contrary to false representations made by Attorney General Bill Barr and others. There is ample evidence of the corrupt interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia, both direct and circumstantial, in the record:

In June of 2016, a Russian delegation offered dirt on Donald Trump’s rival—presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—to the highest levels of the Trump campaign, and did so in writing. Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., accepted that offer, and then set up a secret meeting between the Russian delegation, himself, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to discuss that illicit help. When news of the meeting was about to break, Trump and his son drafted a false statement for the press together in order to cover up the true purpose of the meeting. This written offer of illegal help by the Russians and its acceptance by the President’s campaign, and the secret meeting that followed, provide some of the most damning and direct evidence of the President’s to make use of Russia’s assistance in the election.


Throughout the summer of 2016, the Trump campaign and candidate Trump himself repeatedly sought damaging information on Clinton from Russia. In July of 2016, Trump publicly called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and – as the Special Counsel found – that night, Russian military intelligence officers did precisely that. Our transcripts show that numerous individuals affiliated with or working for the Trump campaign were in communication with individuals offering help to set up private backchannels with the Russian government.


Multiple witnesses sought to hide and cover up illicit activity related to Russia during the presidential campaign. One-time campaign advisor and close confidant to Trump, Roger Stone, has been sentenced to prison for lying to the Committee about his advanced knowledge of impending WikiLeaks releases of Clinton campaign information. Former personal attorney to Trump, Michael Cohen, was imprisoned in part on charges that he lied to the Committee about Trump’s role in arranging a lucrative business deal in Russia during the course of his campaign and early presidency. The President’s pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow — potentially the most lucrative deal of his life — while lying to the American people about his business interests in Russia, provided the most serious counterintelligence risk to the United States.


Another associate of Trump, Erik Prince, misled our Committee about his efforts to take part in a secret backchannel with a senior Russian government official while he was unofficially supporting the Trump campaign.


And the transcripts also show that during the transition period in late 2016, the incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn undertook efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed by the previous administration over Russia’s interference in the election on Trump’s behalf. Flynn would later lie to the FBI about these efforts, and the President would try to pressure then-FBI Director Comey to shut down any investigation into Flynn. It would take the firing of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the later appointment of an unscrupulous Attorney General, Bill Barr, for the President to achieve his aim of seeking dismissal of the case against Flynn, and only after Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

“Despite taking part in this investigation and hearing these facts first-hand, the transcripts reveal how House Republicans used witness interviews not to gain the facts, but to press President Trump’s false narrative of ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It would be a pattern they would follow throughout the Russia investigation and into the President’s subsequent Ukraine misconduct. To that end, House Republicans sought to use the Committee’s Russia investigation to undermine the Intelligence Community’s assessment that Russia sought to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. That assessment has been affirmed by this Committee’s Democrats, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, and Special Counsel Mueller. “These transcripts should have been released long before now, but the White House held up their release to the public by refusing to allow the Intelligence Community to make redactions on the basis of classified information, rather than White House political interests. Only now, and during a deadly pandemic, has the President released his hold on this damning information and evidence. “Like the Ukraine investigation that would follow it, the investigation into the Trump campaign’s effort to seek and utilize Russian help in 2016 and to obstruct justice, reveal a President who believes that he is above the law. But we are a country where the truth still matters and where right still matters. Our investigation into the Trump campaign, and the evidence we uncovered despite formidable obstruction, affirms that.”Background:On September 17, 2018, the Committee voted unanimously to send all transcripts to the ODNI for a nonpartisan classification review by the Intelligence Community, and authorized the public release of the transcripts once the classification review was completed. In March of 2019, the Committee was informed that ODNI intended to share the Committee transcripts with the White House because the White House claimed the transcripts implicated “White House equities.” In response, the Committee directed that the ODNI refrain from sharing the transcripts, which remain Committee property and were shared with the intelligence community only for the purpose of declassification. We urged that ODNI complete the classification review as requested and without any further delay.In September 2019, the Committee again voted to release the transcripts. Nevertheless, the White House continued to insist on a prior review and the right to redact non-classified matters that it alleged would implicate their “equities.” The Committee continued to reject this unprecedented interference in the classification review, and continues to reject the idea that the White House can exert some after the fact rationale to deprive Congress of the ability to release its own work product to the public.Only this week, the Acting DNI finally informed the Committee that the White House was abandoning its hold. As of May 4, the ODNI reported that “the interagency review of the remaining ten transcripts has been completed,” and that ODNI completed the redaction process begun 18 months ago. The Committee, after a review of the 53 transcripts which totaled tens of thousands of pages and to avoid any further delays, has allowed all of the redactions proposed by ODNI despite our concerns that the ODNI excessively over-redacted information that has since been declassified.Redactions applied to the classified and sensitive transcripts released today were the work of the ODNI, not the Committee, and the Committee has accepted all IC-proposed redactions for now. The Committee previously applied limited redactions to all transcripts to protect personally identifiable information such as email addresses, phone numbers, or staff names.

:lmao Schiff

Adam Schiff lied about the Trump investigation — and the media let him




Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell forced Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s hand. If the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee didn’t release the transcripts of 53 interviews from the committee’s Russia collusion investigations, then he’d do it himself. The transcripts, many of them from nearly three years ago, were declassified and ready for public viewing since June.

As the grand impresario of collusion, Schiff has filled print and broadcast media since January 2017 claiming that he has seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of a Trump-Putin conspiracy. Obviously there was none in the transcripts, or he’d have pulled back the curtain years ago. But Schiff didn’t want to hand control of the narrative to one of Trump’s most effective deputies, so on Thursday they finally went live.

They show exactly what you’d expect them to show: None of the former Obama administration officials who took to the airwaves immediately after Trump’s election to claim collusion had any evidence of it.

Here’s Obama’s director of national intelligence, and CNN analyst, James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former Pentagon official and now candidate for New York’s 17th Congressional District Evelyn Farkas claimed in a notorious 2017 MSNBC segment that she advised her colleagues to disseminate intelligence so that Trump could not destroy evidence of collusion. Under oath, however, she testified she “didn’t know anything” about Trump staff dealing with Russians.

But what makes the transcripts significant is not what’s contained in them. Rather, it’s what they represent.

Grenell’s deputy at DNI is Kash Patel. He was lead investigator in the Russia probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, when it was chaired by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes. He told me for my book “The Plot Against the President” that he and GOP colleagues asked every former Obama official they interviewed if they had any evidence of collusion.

“I’m not asking if you thought it happened or if you heard it happened,” Patel told them all, from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to FBI Director James Comey. “I said, ‘Do you have information that exactly addresses this issue?’ ”

It was when Patel and Nunes saw no Obama official had any that their inquiry changed course. If there was no evidence of the Trump team’s ties to Russia, why was the FBI investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign?

And thus began what Patel called “Objective Medusa,” the Nunes team’s investigation of the FBI team that targeted the Trump campaign. Their efforts not only unraveled the collusion myth but also first illuminated the FBI’s crimes and abuses. Their groundwork led, among other things, to Attorney General William Barr’s decision, also Thursday, to drop the DOJ’s case against Gen. Michael Flynn.

The transcripts also represent yet another blow to the media’s credibility. The Obama officials interviewed were among the many sources, like Schiff, the press tapped for its prize-winning collusion reporting. They lied for years about Trump and Russia and the press peddled their narrative without question.

No matter what evidence surfaced to prove the collusion story wrong, the media continued to credential the destructive conspiracy theory. It didn’t matter when Objective Medusa showed that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s reports were paid for by the Clinton campaign. Or when the Nunes memo explained that the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. It didn’t even matter when resistance messiah Robert Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.

After Mueller filed his report last spring, CNN’s Jake Tapper said that “I don’t know anybody who got anything wrong.” Don’t expect anyone in the mainstream media to admit gross journalistic malpractice this time either. The tragic fact is that once-prestigious press organizations, including CNN as well as MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, weren’t fooled by the collusion hoax. They were an essential part of it.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/adam-schiff-lied-about-the-trump-probe-and-the-media-let-him/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Spurs Homer]

Lol pizzagate gullible idiotill take schiffs (and my own eyes and ears) over any cultist or barr henchmani can read FULL transcripts myselfi dont need conspiracists to tell me their twisted interpretation of their propaganda

[Spurs Homer]

Lol pizzagate gullible idiot

i’ll take schiffs word (and my own eyes and ears) over any cultist or barr henchman



I can read FULL transcripts myself


I dont need conspiracists to tell me their twisted interpretation of their propaganda

[Spurs Homer]

Dupe

[TSA]

Lol pizzagate gullible idiotill take schiffs (and my own eyes and ears) over any cultist or barr henchmani can read FULL transcripts myselfi dont need conspiracists to tell me their twisted interpretation of their propaganda

Give me your own interpretation of the Matt Tait testimony from Comey’s semen shielding propaganda arm Lawfare blog

https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1258871302976200704

https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1258872367058522112

https://mobile.twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1258873028512899072

[ChumpDumper]

R:lolsie Mem:lols

[spurraider21]

best of luck getting back to LA :bobo
:bobo

3 years away at the earliest

[Winehole23]

Did I miss the prima donna pirouette?

(My sister's school was Russian influenced; athletic leaping and bounding were emphasized. The women looked like male soccer players, only more athletic.)

[Chris]

Testimony Reveals Deep State Spy Joseph Mifsud Is Member of the Clinton Foundation https://t.co/dG6fnBo4QM

[ChumpDumper]

Testimony Reveals Deep State Spy Joseph Mifsud Is Member of the Clinton Foundation https://t.co/dG6fnBo4QM1258925338622451712

He just found out about this when the hearsay was from his wife?

:lmao

[ElNono]

Jensen uncovered everything Van Grack had been hiding from Sullivan and Flynn’s defense team. If there was nothing to find Flynn would still be sitting here hoping for a pardon or dismissal by Sullivan. You keep acting as if Barr or his DOJ created all of this exculpatory evidence out of thin air.

Jeffrey Jensen served in the FBI for 10 years and has been a federal prosecutor for almost 20 years. He is the one who made the recommendation to Barr to drop the case after reviewing everything Van Grack had done.

Jeffrey Jensen was appointed by Barr specifically to dig dirt on this case, which in and of itself is an extraordinary move. You can't divorce Barr from this outcome, and this is the AG explicitly undermining his own department's employees, and not the first time either.

I have nothing against Jeffrey Jensen, and Van Grack could be the ultimate slime, but only a corrupt AG would not recuse itself from getting involved in any case associated with friends (political or not) of the president/administration. You let justice run it's course, and then the prez always have the option to pardon.

Then again, this is not surprising, Barr was appointed to do the dirty deeds that Jeff Sessions would not do, tbh, it's just frankly egregious at this point.

[Chris]

1258925338622451712

He just found out about this when the hearsay was from his wife?

:lmao

Where did he say he just found out about it?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1258962435983183877?s=19

Someone is squirming :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Where did he say he just found out about it?Did he say it before?

Let me know.

Seems excited.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd believe it if his wife never told him.

[Spurs Homer]

Jeffrey Jensen was appointed by Barr specifically to dig dirt on this case, which in and of itself is an extraordinary move. You can't divorce Barr from this outcome, and this is the AG explicitly undermining his own department's employees, and not the first time either.
K
I have nothing against Jeffrey Jensen, and Van Grack could be the ultimate slime, but only a corrupt AG would not recuse itself from getting involved in any case associated with friends (political or not) of the president/administration. You let justice run it's course, and then the prez always have the option to pardon.

Then again, this is not surprising, Barr was appointed to do the dirty deeds that Jeff Sessions would not do, tbh, it's just frankly egregious at this point.


nono with some truth nukes

boom!

[Chris]

Did he say it before?

Let me know.

Seems excited.

Where did he say he just found out about it?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/jeffsessions/status/1258827647653679106?s=19
https://twitter.com/jeffsessions/status/1258827989179129857?s=19
https://twitter.com/jeffsessions/status/1258828255857082369?s=19
https://twitter.com/jeffsessions/status/1258828832976625665?s=19


Stealth Jeff

[ChumpDumper]

Where did he say he just found out about it?Sure acts like it.

Don't think there would be a reason to hold that hearsay back if he thought it was true.

Let me know if he talked about it before.

[Chris]

Sure acts like it.

Don't think there would be a reason to hold that hearsay back if he thought it was true.

Let me know if he talked about it before.

Sure thing pal.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure thing pal.I know you won't. That's the joke.

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1258962435983183877?s=19

Someone is squirming :lol

:lol would that be you whenever you see Obama?

[TSA]

Jeffrey Jensen was appointed by Barr specifically to dig dirt on this case, which in and of itself is an extraordinary move. You can't divorce Barr from this outcome, and this is the AG explicitly undermining his own department's employees, and not the first time either.

I have nothing against Jeffrey Jensen, and Van Grack could be the ultimate slime, but only a corrupt AG would not recuse itself from getting involved in any case associated with friends (political or not) of the president/administration. You let justice run it's course, and then the prez always have the option to pardon.

Then again, this is not surprising, Barr was appointed to do the dirty deeds that Jeff Sessions would not do, tbh, it's just frankly egregious at this point.

Barr already knew one of his own department’s employees (Van Grack) was withholding evidence from Flynn as the FBI had already turned it over to both Horowitz and Durham (per FBI statement). Barr was 100% justified in asking Jensen to review the Flynn case. Nothing would have come of the review had Van Grack not been hiding evidence and lying to the Judge.

[hombre]

Foreign Agent Flynn.

[TSA]

You're obviously not as this was never a plea bargain :lol

Here is someone with a bit more experience than you on these matters, educate yourself :bobo

Understanding the Process Used to Coerce Gen. Flynn’s Guilty Plea Shows Why His “Admission” to the Crimes Is Practically Meaningless

General Flynn entered his guilty plea on Friday, December 1, 2017, to the charge that he knowingly and intentionally made false representations, and omitted material information, in responding to questions posed to him by FBI Agents who interviewed him on January 24, 2017.

Gen. Flynn pled guilty to an “Information” which is a charging document created and signed by a Department of Justice prosecutor – in this case, a member of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO). Charging by way of Information is an alternative to seeking an “Indictment” from a federal grand jury, and can only be done with the consent of the defendant charged in that fashion.

Charging by way of “Information” happens almost exclusively when the prosecution and defense have agreed in advance to the specific crime(s) the defendant will plead guilty to having committed. The terms of the deal are set forth in another document called a “Plea Agreement,” which includes a “factual” section describing what it is the defendant admits to having done. The “factual basis” must establish each element of the offense charged. This “factual basis” is, for all practical purposes, a “confession” by the defendant.

This kind of outcome is not called a “plea bargain” – it’s called a “charge bargain.” A “plea bargain” is negotiated after an Indictment is filed, and the defense has been provided the discovery in the case. “Discovery” includes the documents, witness statements, and physical evidence which the government believes will be used in a trial to establish the defendant’s guilt. The “plea bargain” process can involve a “give and take” negotiation between the two sides resulting in a written agreement wherein the defendant admits to one or more of the offenses charged in the Indictment, normally in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining charges. But the defendant, for the most part, understands the nature of the evidence the government possesses with regard to the crimes charged and can make a judgment for himself as to the “strength” of the government’s case against him when deciding to take the case to trial or accept the plea bargain offered.

A “charge bargain” – as happened in General Flynn’s case — comes before the government has filed an Indictment. The government only “threatens” the putative defendant with being charged with more serious offenses if the defendant doesn’t agree to plead guilty as suggested by the prosecutor. But what other charges the defendant might be facing — and the nature of the evidence supporting such potential charges – are commonly known only to the prosecutor. The defendant and his attorney know only what the prosecutor chooses to share with them.

When moving forward to a guilty plea pursuant to an Information, the prosecution has no obligation to provide “discovery” to a defendant. The right to discovery only arises when a defendant is charged by way of Indictment and makes an appearance in court to enter a “not guilty” plea. One significant category of evidence the government must produce after an Indictment is any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant which are in the government’s possession. In a case like Gen. Flynn’s where the allegations involve lying to investigators, the discovery would include all the memorandum of interview(s) conducted of the defendant. This means that a defendant pleading guilty to a “false statement” charge would have the Agent’s report of his interview, and he would know exactly what the Agents wrote in their report about what they claim a defendant said in the interview. But a defendant pleading guilty to an Information must make that decision without the right to see the FBI Agent’s report — unless it is given to him by the prosecution.

When Gen. Flynn and his attorneys began discussing a possible plea deal with the SCO, no Indictment had been filed, and no discovery rights/obligations existed. Since changing lawyers in June 2019, hiring attorney Sidney Powell, the subject of the defense getting access to all versions of the memorandum of interview from the January 24, 2017, interview – referred to FBI form “302” – has been extensively litigated. What seems clear now is that the 302 of the January 24 interview underwent several revisions from start to finish in the weeks and months following the interview. But it also seems that Gen. Flynn’s previous attorneys either never asked for – or they simply never received — either the final version of the 302 or any of the earlier versions of the draft 302 that are now known to have existed.

What that means is that when Gen. Flynn’s attorneys were negotiating the “factual basis” of his plea agreement – the “facts” of his confession — Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not know what the Agents had written about what they claimed he said. If both sides had access to the documents there would be little or no need for lengthy negotiations over the language in the plea agreement. Both sides could point to specific passages in the transcript, and the specific words of the Agents reporting what Gen. Flynn had told them, and the “factual basis” for his misrepresentations or omissions would be easily set forth. If Gen. Flynn disagreed with the Agents’ 302, his attorneys could point to their specific words, and characterize the nature of Gen. Flynn’s disagreement with what they wrote. Without knowing the specific words in the report, Gen. Flynn’s attorneys could only base their advice to Gen. Flynn on what the SCO prosecutor said the Agents had written.

The factual basis set forth in the plea agreement is drafted by the prosecutor. Ultimately the defendant must agree to a factual basis before each side signs the agreement. But, in the end, the facts say what the prosecutor wants them to say, and the defendant has a “take it or leave it” decision to make. This often comes down to a “risk/benefit” calculation about what is more important — the strict accuracy of the prosecutor’s language, or the outcome of the case that might ride on the willingness to accept less-than-perfect language. For Gen. Flynn the outcome of the case was as good as he could expect — a “no time” recommendation to a sentence of probation, and no exposure for people close to him.

With the benefit of hindsight, and having now had a bit of a window into the way the SCO operated, it does not seem unfair to consider the real likelihood that the SCO prosecutor was not upfront and “forthright” in communicating what the Agents wrote in their report. But the dynamic of the process, in this kind of circumstance, is that the prosecutor holds all the cards when it comes to what the defendant will be compelled to admit in the “factual basis” of the plea agreement.

The key point to understand – based on what’s been filed and reported — is that only the SCO had all the documents to work with when hashing out the language of Gen. Flynn’s “confession.” He had a transcript of Gen. Flynn’s calls with the Russian Ambassador, and he had the Agents’ report of what they said Gen. Flynn said in response to their questions. With this “monopoly” on information, the SCO prosecutor could “characterize” what the Agents had written in a manner most optimal to his negotiating tactics. He did not have to fear being contradicted because Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not have the same source documents to work with. Given his track record, I have no confidence that SCO prosecutor Van Grack was “forthright” in characterizing what he expected the Agents would to testify to if Gen. Flynn refused to plead guilty. We saw for ourselves how the FARA prosecution of Gen. Flynn’s former business partner buckled and collapsed under scrutiny in a trial. We see how the “Troll Farm” case buckled and collapsed when the SCO’s “dream team” of prosecutors had to actually defend the Indictment they conned a grand jury into returning.

SCO prosecutor Van Grack demanded that General Flynn make a decision to plead guilty or face indictment on a very short time frame. Just 30 days earlier Manafort and Gates had been indicted. Papadopoulos had pled guilty only 45 days earlier.

When you see former federal prosecutors – or wannabe pretenders like Benjamin Wittes at Lawfareblog – repeatedly point to the fact that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to having committed the crimes with which he was charged, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to the characterization of events and statements that was fashioned by SCO prosecutor Van Grack, and Gen. Flynn had precious little leeway when having to decide whether to agree or not agree to the SCO’s characterization of the facts. His options were to accept what was presented, or to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in his own defense, and possibly expose family members to criminal charges by the same prosecutors he was watching run roughshod over the lives of numerous individuals simply because they had the temerity to work for the Trump campaign, or in the Trump Administration.

I’ve been there, and I did this. I used the “process” to leverage guilty pleas on my terms. I raised the price of saying “no” so high that I knew the defendants couldn’t do anything but say “yes” to what I was demanding in terms of a guilty plea. I didn’t demand that anyone admit anything that was false, but I knew defendants would sign whatever I wrote in the end because they had nothing to bargain with.

It comes down to the integrity and motives of the prosecutor. The SCO staff hired by Mueller have revealed themselves over time to not warrant any favorable presumptions on either count.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/07/the-process-used-to-coerce-gen.-flynns-guilty-plea-is-key-makes-his-admission-to-the-crimes-nearly-meaningless./The Government Could Not Win the Case Against Gen. Flynn; Dismissal Was the Only Option (Part Two)

This is Part Two of a two-part story analyzing the process used to coerce a guilty plea out of General Michael Flynn. (Read Part One here.) This part examines the significance of the recent document disclosures, and why those documents would have prevented the government from proving a necessary fact at trial — it had no witnesses or evidence to show a legitimate investigation of Gen. Flynn was underway.

The Government Could Not Win the Case Against Gen. Flynn; Dismissal Was the Only Option (Part Two)

Shipwreckedcrew
AP featured image
FILE – In this July 10, 2018, file photo, former President Donald Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, right, arrives at federal courthouse in Washington, for status hearing. Prosecutors with the special counsel’s office say Flynn is not yet ready to be sentenced. The joint filing with defense lawyers Tuesday, Aug. 21, is a sign that Flynn’s cooperation with investigators is continuing.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
This is Part Two of a two-part story analyzing the process used to coerce a guilty plea out of General Michael Flynn. (Read Part One here.) This part examines the significance of the recent document disclosures, and why those documents would have prevented the government from proving a necessary fact at trial — it had no witnesses or evidence to show a legitimate investigation of Gen. Flynn was underway.



While trying to resist the temptation to turn this into a law school lecture on an obscure point of substantive federal criminal law, it is nevertheless important to understand the evidentiary significance of some of the documents in the Flynn case that have recently come to light. Those documents — had they been timely disclosed to 1) Flynn’s attorneys; 2) the Court; 3) the Inspector General; or 4) Congress — would have destroyed the justification repeatedly asserted for questioning Gen. Flynn on January 24, 2017, and raised the obvious implication of there being a political motivation in the FBI and SCO’s pursuit of Gen. Flynn.

Recognizing this problem, the Department of Justice earlier today filed with the District Court a notice of its intention to seek permission to drop the prosecution of Gen. Flynn.

Before I explain the significance of the newly released documents, let me make an observation based on my 22+ years as a federal prosecutor having dealt with hundreds of federal law enforcement agents from more than a dozen different agencies. First, some agents are excellent, while some agents are terrible. The excellent agents generally understand their jobs and their roles, and understand that being “prosecutor” isn’t part of either. The terrible agents tend to think they understand the entire process, and can answer questions about how to prove a case as well as the prosecutor because they gathered the “evidence” — agents who are attorneys are the worst offenders.

But prosecutors who are good trial lawyers — and not all of them are good trial lawyers — bring a different set of questions to the table when looking at prospects of success at trial in a given case, and a criminal case should always be evaluated in terms of the likelihood of success at trial.

The first question a prosecutor who is a good trial attorney asks is “What are the elements of the offense that I will need to prove?”

The second question is “What witnesses or evidence will I be able to get admitted at trial to prove each of those elements?”

A third question that doesn’t normally get asked — but is highly pertinent to the case against Gen. Flynn — is “Has anything happened during the course of the investigation that will make it difficult or impossible for me to prove one of those elements?”

The newly released documents go to this third question — and the answer was unequivocally “Yes.”

Unknown to Gen. Flynn or his attorneys when he pled guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, nearly 11 months earlier, on January 4, 2017, an unnamed FBI agent completed a draft “Closing EC” to close out the investigation of Gen. Flynn (code-named “Crossfire Razor”) that had been opened under the umbrella of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation. The Closing EC is the last document in a closed investigation, and no further investigative activity is allowed unless there is another EC “Reopening” a closed investigation, and the new EC justifies the further efforts.

The draft Closing EC reflected that several months of investigative effort had revealed “no derogatory information” about Gen. Flynn in connection with the allegations that caused him to be included as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The Crossfire Razor investigation of Gen. Flynn began in August 2016, in order to determine if Gen. Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or constitute a threat to national security.” The Closing EC details the various types of investigative steps taken to develop information that answer that question as to Gen. Flynn. The EC documented that the outcome of those efforts was a determination that no such information existed — he wasn’t a Russian agent.

It is quite likely that the Agent tasked with performing the ministerial task of drafting the Closing EC was simply a member of the squad supervised by Joe Pientka. Such a task would normally fall to a squad agent — it would not be done in the first instance by a supervisor, certainly not by someone at Peter Strzok’s level, or even at Joe Pientka’s level. Normally, a case agent would meet with his squad supervisor, detail the findings of the investigation over several months (after having kept the supervisor up to date as the investigation proceeded), and would then be given the instruction by the supervisor to “close” the file since nothing had been developed that warranted further investigation. After the “Draft” was complete and uploaded into the electronic database, the Supervisor would sign off on the closing, and the file would be closed in the FBI’s internal case tracking system.

In text messages on January 5, 2017, Strzok and Lisa Page discussed the need to prevent the file from being closed even though the draft Closing EC had been completed. My guess is that the only thing lacking at that point was the approval of the supervisor — maybe Pientka — who had given the instruction in the first instance. But January 5 was the day of the Oval Office meeting between representatives of DOJ, FBI, and IC agencies, during which the results of the IC investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election were discussed with Pres. Obama and his national security staff. Part of this meeting involved a discussion of what to tell — and what not to tell — members of the incoming Trump Administration about the investigation. The text messages indicated that the decision to not close Crossfire Razor came from senior FBI management — some of whom had been at that meeting.

The calendar becomes important here because Flynn’s two contacts with the Russian Ambassador, which became the point of controversy connected to his later interview, took place on Dec. 22 and 29, 2016. By January 5, 2017, the FBI certainly had transcripts of both calls, and knew exactly what Flynn had said to the Ambassador. So, on January 4, 2017, the FBI agents and supervisors on Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor had determined there was no evidence, including in the transcripts of the calls, to support the proposition that Gen. Flynn was “wittingly or unwittingly” involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation that was a crime or a threat to national security.

That determination meant that had the closing of the file taken place as contemplated, any subsequent effort to interview Gen. Flynn would not be part of a pending or open investigation of him. That doesn’t mean the FBI could not interview Gen. Flynn — it means that the FBI could only interview Gen. Flynn about the specific matters still open with regard to Crossfire Hurricane. Questions put to Gen. Flynn about any other subject would not be deemed “material” to the pending investigation that justified an interview.

Whether or not interview answers given to FBI Agents are “material” is a question of fact that the jury must decide at trial. So “materiality” is an issue the government must prove as part of its case-in-chief.

The legal question is generally formulated as follows: “To establish “materiality” … it is sufficient that the statement have the capacity or a natural tendency to influence the determination required to be made.” The Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual advises federal prosecutors that “Materiality is best shown by the testimony of a witness, generally those who make the decisions … in the particular case, concerning the influence that defendant’s allegedly false statement might have had on the ultimate result….”

So, at any trial of Gen. Flynn on the charge that his false statements to the Agents were “material”, it would have been necessary for the government to call witnesses who could answer the questions about why Gen. Flynn’s answers were “material” — i.e., capable of influencing their decision making in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The witnesses would have needed to explain how it was that Gen. Flynn’s answers to questions about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador were “material” to the investigation into alleged activities of the Russian Federation that were a “crime or threat to national security”? How was the subject of the potential Russian response to the Obama Administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats “material” to a crime or threat to national security? How did the Russian position on the UN vote on the Egyptian resolution involve a “crime” or “threat to national security”?

FBI agents are not empowered by law to questions people on “spec”. Their questions must relate to an authorized pending investigation. We know now that the pending investigation of Gen. Flynn was set to be closed on January 4, but it was then kept open at the direction of top FBI management. Why was it kept open when there was a finding of “no derogatory information” on the original justification for opening the investigation? The transcripts of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were known to the FBI agents who were closing the investigation. Any fertile line of cross-examination at trial would have involved running down the “pretextual” reasons that were offered — such as the Logan Act canard — for justifying keeping the matter open in order to interview Gen. Flynn.

[TSA]

Relating back to Part One of this story, remember that it was SCO prosecutor Van Grack who drafted the “factual basis” for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea. A necessary part of that factual basis to set forth for the Court was the element of the offense meeting the “materiality” requirement. Van Grack wrote: “FLYNN’S false statements and omissions impeded or otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.”

How would Gen. Flynn know if that was a true or false statement? What insights would Gen. Flynn have on the issue of whether his answers to questions on Jan. 24 “impeded” or “otherwise had a material impact” on the investigation? He didn’t. This is a subject where the Prosecutor has a monopoly on the information that Gen. Flynn is being forced to “admit”. The accuracy of this claim all rides on the integrity of the SCO prosecutor in telling the defendant and his lawyers that it is true, and then telling the Court that it is true.

So what impact does it have on the viability of a prosecution if it turns out that the prosecutor lied to Gen. Flynn and his lawyers about the issue of materiality? What impact does it have on the case when the Prosecutor withholds derogatory information about the federal agents who would be called to show “materiality”, and that information shreds their credibility and makes them useless as witnesses at trial?

Who would Van Grack have called as a witness at trial to prove that the substance of Gen. Flynn’s discussions with the Russian Ambassador would have influenced the decisions to be made in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — with that testimony being offered against the backdrop of the documentary evidence showing that the proffered justifications for the interview of Gen. Flynn were pretextual, and the investigation into him was supposed to have been closed by the FBI 20 days earlier?

This goes back to the three questions I posed at the outset — 1) What are the elements of the “false statement” crime? Materiality is one element. 2) Who are the witnesses and what evidence is admissible to prove that element? The witnesses are badly compromised by expressions of bias and potentially illegal conduct. 3) Did anything happen during the course of the investigation to making proving an element difficult or impossible? The FBI was set to close out the investigation, but then decided to keep it open on transparently pretextual grounds in order to justify the interview, and there is a written record of that fact.

The government could not win the case against Gen. Flynn if he was successful in withdrawing his guilty plea, and forcing a decision on the part of the DOJ as to whether to continue the case against him or not. Today’s filing was simply a recognition of that fact — and it was long overdue.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/07/why-newly-released-documents-in-the-flynn-case-undermine-a-finding-of-materiality-in-his-false-statements-and-would-doom-any-prosecution-of-him-at-trial/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[pgardn]

So a new precedent established will be the president and the WH taking over the function of the DOJ.

Thats just wonderful.

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1258925465823137793

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/aluminumnatti/status/1259122961753223170

“Mr. Lake’s report confirms Mr. Nunes account: That the Obama administration had collected incidental information on the Trump transition team and that some of the unmasked names had nothing to do with Russia. That the requests for the unmasking came directly from Ms. Rice — someone who was so close to Mr. Obama — is startling.”

[boutons_deux]

They know materials are incriminating, so they must never be seen.

AG Barr's Justice Department still trying to deep-six Mueller grand jury materials (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/8/1943724/-AG-Barr-s-Justice-Department-still-trying-to-deep-six-Mueller-grand-jury-materials)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724)

If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?

[ChumpDumper]

So there still was an investigation and Flynn still lied and they could still prove it.:tu

[Spurs Homer]

They know materials are incriminating, so they must never be seen.

AG Barr's Justice Department still trying to deep-six Mueller grand jury materials (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/8/1943724/-AG-Barr-s-Justice-Department-still-trying-to-deep-six-Mueller-grand-jury-materials)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724)

If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?







Meuller report is still under a cover up


just imagine if this was the left doing it


the outrage!

[DMC]

So a new precedent established will be the president and the WH taking over the function of the DOJ.

Thats just wonderful.

Strawman

incredulity

:lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1259206515354996737?s=19

[Chris]

So a new precedent established will be the president and the WH taking over the function of the DOJ.

Thats just wonderful.

wrong

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1259185125910360069?s=19

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1259206515354996737?s=19
try to keep up


:lol there's no perjury here. perjury is when you are under oath. flynn didnt lie under oath. thats why he was charged with false statements. i linked you to the statute. requires it to be both willful and knowingly a false statement

so Flynn had to plead guilty to prevent his son from knowingly and willingly lying to the feds :lol. he must not have much respect for his son if he was so sure his son would instantly break the law if given the chance to

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao "disgraced"

[Spurtacular]

**

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1259130264120438784

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1259227650461179904

Who ya’ll got on who lied under oath, Comey or Clapper?

[ChumpDumper]

Who ya’ll got on who lied under oath, Comey or Clapper?Flynn.

[Spurtacular]

So there still was an investigation and Flynn still lied and they could still prove it.:tu

Is lying that big a crime to you? You lie every day.

[ChumpDumper]

Is lying that big a crime to you? You lie every day.Lying about material matters to federal investigators is a crime.

[Spurs Homer]

Flynn.

lol - the ONE thing they do NOT want to discuss...

was reading the Michael Cohen transcript today (which was recorded BEFORE -Cohen declared he was NOT carrying Trumps water anymore - so he was still on trump team 100%)

and he made a statement to the effect of

"i know of no one - colluding, cooperating, conspiring...blah blah with any russian person, agent , representative..etc..."

then an hour later swallwell was grilling him and pulled out a transcript of felix sater and cohen discussing a internet news item - that said - something to the effect of...

"putin will bless this deal (Moscow tower deal) - and will go on a stage with our boy and our boy will have the election wrapped up..."


and then cohen quoted that article and emailed sater and referenced the internet news story showing how putin was praising trump...

so swallwell presented the item and

asked cohen


"you said you knew of no one colluding...conspiring...etc...yet - what was the purpose of you posting this quote and internet story and telling sater - to CALL ME NOW TO DISCUSS?"

"and isnt you and sater telling you he had putins blessing to get your boss elected - cooperation or conspiring in some way?"

lol

Cohen tap danced and his attorney intervened and they basically made idiots of themselves and tried to squirm out of the fact that putin and trump were colluding and conspiring like a motherf -


if i had the time and energy - I guess I could cherry-pick and play the TSA game - but


nah - brainwashing is deep.

[pgardn]

Strawman

incredulity

:lol

emoticon

frustration with the analysis.

[pgardn]

Red team has come a long way since telling Trump not to fire Sessions.
That firing Sessions would be a clear indication of subverting his purpose.

Once the orange guy started threatening these Senators (who he knows are part of the swamp and want so badly to be relected with zero controls on how they get funded), they fell into place and stomped all over appearances of corruption and graft.

Drain the swamp my ass... Promises made, promises kept... a laugher.

[DMC]

Update: Flynn NOT in major trouble

DJohn can issue a retraction on the last page of the paper.

[DMC]

Red team has come a long way since telling Trump not to fire Sessions.
That firing Sessions would be a clear indication of subverting his purpose.

Once the orange guy started threatening these Senators (who he knows are part of the swamp and want so badly to be relected with zero controls on how they get funded), they fell into place and stomped all over appearances of corruption and graft.

Drain the swamp my ass... Promises made, promises kept... a laugher.

The system existed. Trump entered into it and now controls it. It's like the Matrix. ergo vis a vis.

[ElNono]

Barr already knew one of his own department’s employees (Van Grack) was withholding evidence from Flynn as the FBI had already turned it over to both Horowitz and Durham (per FBI statement). Barr was 100% justified in asking Jensen to review the Flynn case. Nothing would have come of the review had Van Grack not been hiding evidence and lying to the Judge.

That's not how the judicial works. If Barr knew anything, he needed to communicate it immediately to the judge of the case (he didn't). Clearly there was nothing to review if he already knew there was wrongdoing. Furthermore, Van Grack wasn't disciplined or any of the sort, something that would be pretty obvious if your boss found out you did some dirty shit.

So none of that adds up. It's clear what Barr wanted, and as soon as he found a technicality he moved to dismiss a case that not only they've won in this instance, but there was no doubts about the facts of the case (that Flynn lied).

Again, this is pretty transparent if you're impartial observer. Like I said, I'm more worried about the integrity of the DOJ going forward than anything specific to this case. When the inevitable Dem comes around to lead the DOJ, he/she is going to feel like they can pull this crap and get away with it, and we all lose.

[Spurs Homer]

That's not how the judicial works. If Barr knew anything, he needed to communicate it immediately to the judge of the case (he didn't). Clearly there was nothing to review if he already knew there was wrongdoing. Furthermore, Van Grack wasn't disciplined or any of the sort, something that would be pretty obvious if your boss found out you did some dirty shit.

So none of that adds up. It's clear what Barr wanted, and as soon as he found a technicality he moved to dismiss a case that not only they've won in this instance, but there was no doubts about the facts of the case (that Flynn lied).

Again, this is pretty transparent if you're impartial observer. Like I said, I'm more worried about the integrity of the DOJ going forward than anything specific to this case. When the inevitable Dem comes around to lead the DOJ, he/she is going to feel like they can pull this crap and get away with it, and we all lose.

When a dirty corrupt Dem comes around and does the exact thing or worse -


the pearl clutching will be unprecedented!

God forbid that Dem is a non-white person!

[pgardn]

The system existed. Trump entered into it and now controls it. It's like the Matrix. ergo vis a vis.

Any system can be abused.

[boutons_deux]

They know materials are incriminating, so they must never be seen.

AG Barr's Justice Department still trying to deep-six Mueller grand jury materials (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/8/1943724/-AG-Barr-s-Justice-Department-still-trying-to-deep-six-Mueller-grand-jury-materials)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724)

If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?

Same story with the FULL TRANSCRIPT of the "do us a favor" call and other Ukraine docs.

ALL of it OBSTRUCTED from (judicial/legislative, not political) Congressional oversight

[Spurs Homer]

They know materials are incriminating, so they must never be seen.

AG Barr's Justice Department still trying to deep-six Mueller grand jury materials (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/8/1943724/-AG-Barr-s-Justice-Department-still-trying-to-deep-six-Mueller-grand-jury-materials)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724)

If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?

Same story with the FULL TRANSCRIPT of the "do us a favor" call and other Ukraine docs.

ALL of it OBSTRUCTED from (judicial/legislative, not political) Congressional oversight


“The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. Once the government discloses the secret grand-jury records, their secrecy will irrevocably be lost,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote. “That is particularly so when, as here, they are disclosed to a congressional committee and its staff.”
Red alert, red alert! Congress might learn the truth about all the stuff that has heretofore been hidden from the public.


Imagine the pearl clutching if this was Obama and the USA AG/DOJ covering up their misdeeds!

[TSA]

That's not how the judicial works. If Barr knew anything, he needed to communicate it immediately to the judge of the case (he didn't). Clearly there was nothing to review if he already knew there was wrongdoing. Furthermore, Van Grack wasn't disciplined or any of the sort, something that would be pretty obvious if your boss found out you did some dirty shit.

So none of that adds up. It's clear what Barr wanted, and as soon as he found a technicality he moved to dismiss a case that not only they've won in this instance, but there was no doubts about the facts of the case (that Flynn lied).

Again, this is pretty transparent if you're impartial observer. Like I said, I'm more worried about the integrity of the DOJ going forward than anything specific to this case. When the inevitable Dem comes around to lead the DOJ, he/she is going to feel like they can pull this crap and get away with it, and we all lose.

Hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense and lying to the Judge is just a...”technicality” :lol

[boutons_deux]

Hiding incriminating evidence from Congress is Constitutional crime of obstruction

[TSA]

They know materials are incriminating, so they must never be seen.

AG Barr's Justice Department still trying to deep-six Mueller grand jury materials (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/8/1943724/-AG-Barr-s-Justice-Department-still-trying-to-deep-six-Mueller-grand-jury-materials)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724 (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1943724)

If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?

Same story with the FULL TRANSCRIPT of the "do us a favor" call and other Ukraine docs.

ALL of it OBSTRUCTED from (judicial/legislative, not political) Congressional oversight

When did the world start getting to see grand jury materials?

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1259253128727232512

[boutons_deux]

When did the world start getting to see grand jury materials?

Congressional oversight of the Exec is a Constitutional power (until the SCOTUS 5 whores rule it's "political")

You said "world", I said Congress

[TSA]

Congressional oversight of the Exec is a Constitutional power (until the SCOTUS 5 whores rule it's "political")

You said "world", I said Congress


If there were no incriminating info, then why not let the world see?

[ElNono]

Hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense and lying to the Judge is just a...”technicality” :lol

If you actually read the dismissal, the argument to dismiss the case was based on a technicality (whether the initial interview with Flynn was "material" to an investigation or not).

Something that was argued before in the case, where Van Grack argued that it was material, and the judged agreed with. This is why the entire move is uncommon and fishy. This is the DOJ withdrawing over a point they already won in court.

[ducks]

NBC admits Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' deceptively edited Barr remarks on Flynn

[Chris]

#Obamagate trending

[ChumpDumper]

#Obamagate trendinghive mind

[TSA]

If you actually read the dismissal, the argument to dismiss the case was based on a technicality (whether the initial interview with Flynn was "material" to an investigation or not).

Something that was argued before in the case, where Van Grack argued that it was material, and the judged agreed with. This is why the entire move is uncommon and fishy. This is the DOJ withdrawing over a point they already won in court.

The judge agreed with Van Grack on materiality because he knew no better. The judge wasn’t aware that Van Grack was withholding documentation from the FBI saying to shut down the months long Flynn investigation after coming up with zero derogatory information.

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1259845591909138434

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1259828876685053954

The man who handed over all the documents to Nunes and basically got the ball rolling on exposing everything is back :bobo

[TSA]

NBC admits Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' deceptively edited Barr remarks on Flynn

https://mobile.twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1259630134614790146

[Spurs Homer]

"wrong about pizzagate" ^

[TSA]

“still wrong about russiagate” ^

[TSA]

If you actually read the dismissal, the argument to dismiss the case was based on a technicality (whether the initial interview with Flynn was "material" to an investigation or not).

Something that was argued before in the case, where Van Grack argued that it was material, and the judged agreed with. This is why the entire move is uncommon and fishy. This is the DOJ withdrawing over a point they already won in court.

On materiality

Lawfareblog Doubles Down With an Actual Legal Author — but Gets Same Bad Results

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/10/lawfareblog-doubles-down-with-an-actual-legal-author-but-gets-same-results/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Spurs Homer]

“still wrong about russiagate” ^

Hey Comrade - I notice you only "cherry-pick" garbage from tweets and NEVER from sworn testimony - UNDER OATH - so I cherry-picked some tidbits for you to run away from -

this is McCabe under oath answering questions about FISA and REAL COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE:



MR. SCHIFF: I want to ask * follow up with a couple of questions aboutthe FISA application.
MR. MCCABE: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: I have been on the committee for about a decade. This isthe most scrutiny we have ever given lo any FISA application. lt's more thanappropriate for us to scrutinize a FISA application of a U.S. citizen, so there'snothing wrong with that.


MR. SCHIFF: But nonetheless, the amount of focus on this particular onesuggests to me it is about more than just the fact that it was a FISA application.
So let me ask you this: I think there's a sense in the outside - outside ofthis building, that if the FISA application was fraud in any way, then the wholeinvestigation crumbles.
So I want to ask you: What was the role of the FISA application in thisinvestigation? And let me ask it this way: Had the FISA application not beenapproved by the court, would the investigation have ended?
MR. MCCABE: No, sir. The investigation of Carter Page would havecontinued without the use of the FISA technique. And certainly, the investigationinto Russian influence in the 2016 campaign would have continued.
MR. SCHIFF: And thE would have continued?MR. MCCABE: Of course.
MR. SCHIFF: And the investigation of Flynn would have continued?MR. MCCABE: That's conect.
MR. SCHIFF: And the investigation of Papadopoulos would havecontinued?
MR. MCCABE: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: So all that would happen even if the court had turned itdown?
MR. MCCABE: That's conect.
MR. SCHIFF: So tf the information about Fusion GPS and an attorney,and the Democratic Party and the Washington Free Beacon, and all of that hadbeen in the FISA application and had been tumed down, the investigation would
I


MR. MCCABE: Yes, sir.


84



I

85


have gone on?
MR. MCCABE: Thafs right. FISA is one investigative technique. We
had dually predicated cases against the individuals you mentioned. We weregoing to investigate those cases with whalever techniques were at our fingertips.Had we decided not to pursue FISA, or had the FISA been turned down, we wouldhave continued investigating without it.
MR. SCHIFF: lf you had credible allegations that a U.S. person wasessentially acting as a foreign agent of an adversarial power, would it be negligentof the FBI not to investigate that?
MR. MCCABE: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: ln this case,
Correct?
MR. MCCABE That's corect.MR. SCHIFF: You also
ls that also true?MR, MCCABE: That's conect.
MR. SCHIFF: So you apply for the FISA application. The FISAapplication is granted. did you learn that Carter Page had
MR. MCCABE: That's our assessment, yes.
MR. SCHIFF: And it's also your assessment that
ls that true as well?MR. MCCABE: That is true.
I



r
MR. SCHIFF: And as a result of the FISA, you learned that -- and other
MR. MCCABE: That's correct.
MR. SCHIFF: And in fact, as a result of your investigation and the FISA,

85


MR. MCCABE: That's right.
MR. SCHIFF: And in fact, Mr. Steele
MR. MCCABE: He did.


MR. SCHIFF: And so if we were interested in confirming what part of thedossier is true and what part is not true, the FISA application has actually helped,has it not?
MR. MCCABE: lt has.
MR. SCHIFF: Now, let me ask you about, if I could, the role of the Steeledossier because I think there's a similar theory outside the building that if theSteele dossier can be discredited, the whole investigation goes away or can bediscredited.
You've already testified that the investigation began not because of theSteele dossier, but because of the information about George Papadopoulos. lsthat right?
I


I



I

87


MR. MCCABE: That's conect.
MR. SCHIFF: So let's say that you never received the Steele dossierWould you still have
MR. MCCABE: Yes. We opened the J case before we had thedossier.
MR. SCHIFF: And would you still have investigated Mike Flynn?
MR. MCCABE: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: Given that some of the information in the dossier has been
corroborated in part by the FISA, but through other investigative means as well,would it be negligent not to try to determine how much else of the dossier wasaccurate?
MR. MCCABE: lt would be negligent not to determine that. That'scorrect.
MR. SCHIFF: Did you ever accept the dossier as the last word? ln otherwords, you were going to rely on this and no further investigation necessary?
MR. MCCABE: No, sir.







All those blanks/empty spaces - are REDACTIONS - from Trumps/BARRS DOJ....


"but-but - FISA - means the whole thing is a HOAX!!! I TELL YA!"

[pgardn]

“still wrong about russiagate” ^

So you also dont believe that the Russians interfered in our elections along with Hater, Spurtacular, and Darrin?

[TSA]

So you also dont believe that the Russians interfered in our elections along with Hater, Spurtacular, and Darrin?

That was never what “Russiagate” was about. You’ve been told this numerous times by numerous people. And I’ve already answered yes to your question about Russia interfering numerous times.

[DarrinS]

So you also dont believe that the Russians interfered in our elections along with Hater, Spurtacular, and Darrin?

^this ain't russiagate

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Greg651/status/1259625117849653249

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Greg651/status/1259625117849653249

https://mobile.twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1259893050857287680

[boutons_deux]

these lawyers should listen to TSA, he/she knows Flynn, Trash, and his mafiya are innocent being compromised by Pootin

Nearly 2000 former DOJ officials sign letter calling on Barr to resign over his ‘assaults on the rule of law’

Barr to resign over his “political interference” in the Mike Flynn case,

it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside,”

“demand that [Barr] answer for his abuses of power.

We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law

in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest.

Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice,

not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/05/nearly-2000-former-doj-officials-sign-letter-calling-on-barr-to-resign-over-his-assaults-on-the-rule-of-law/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4505

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1259960400730300416

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1259896343226548229

Pretty amazing infographic but sucks on a mobile

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wsteaks/status/1259962501766230019

Grenell

[Spurs Homer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wsteaks/status/1259962501766230019

Grenell


Acting Asst AttorneY General - McCord - SHITTING in your Flynn Fantasy and in Barrs mouth;


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html




But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

[TSA]

Acting Asst AttorneY General - McCord - SHITTING in your Flynn Fantasy and in Barrs mouth;


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html




But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1259893050857287680Clueless McCord marched to the tree of woe.

[Spurs Homer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1259893050857287680Clueless McCord marched to the tree of woe.


Lets see what the Judge says -

since she is claiming Barr twisted/misrepresented her words and Barr thought he could use her -

but she aint going for it


Judge can see whats up

[pgardn]

That was never what “Russiagate” was about. You’ve been told this numerous times by numerous people. And I’ve already answered yes to your question about Russia interfering numerous times.


^this ain't russiagate

So we just throw -gate on the back of anything.
Why not Trump-Russia gate.
Because you get away with both?

Darrin still does not believe the Russians interfered in our elections. The red team as a whole dont give a shit because Trump won?

[TSA]

Lets see what the Judge says -

since she is claiming Barr twisted/misrepresented her words and Barr thought he could use her -

but she aint going for it


Judge can see whats up

They are her literal words from her testimony :lol

[TSA]

So we just throw -gate on the back of anything.
Why not Trump-Russia gate.
Because you get away with both?

Darrin still does not believe the Russians interfered in our elections. The red team as a whole dont give a shit because Trump won?

clueless

[pgardn]

clueless

You want it both ways.
Ask Darrin, it serves both purposes.

And as far as Flynn, thats a big distraction.
He is a liar and should be in jail.
Consider yourself clueless for defending a guy who is a criminal and has a DOJ controlled by the WH.

[Winehole23]

^this ain't russiagate

What do you Obamagaters think about Flynn being an agent of Turkey during the campaign (advising Trump on NATSEC), as well as after he was dismissed?

Hard to imagine red team taking it easy on would be and actual blue team cabinet officers who forgot to mention participation in a scheme by a foreign country to kidnap a legal US resident, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment to carry water for said foreign country.

[Spurs Homer]

They are her literal words from her testimony :lol

You didnt read her op- ed -

Barr did what Barr does - takes the words of (Mueller/McCord) and spins them to help trump

let the judge ask for McCords input and see what happens.

[Chris]

https://mobile.twitter.com/wsteaks/status/1259962501766230019

Grenell

:tu

[TSA]

What do you Obamagaters think about Flynn being an agent of Turkey during the campaign (advising Trump on NATSEC), as well as after he was dismissed?

Hard to imagine red team taking it easy on would be and actual blue team cabinet officers who forgot to mention participation in a scheme by a foreign country to kidnap a legal US resident, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment to carry water for said foreign country.

Flynn Intel Group shut down before he was named Trump’s NSA.

[TSA]

You didnt read her op- ed -

Barr did what Barr does - takes the words of (Mueller/McCord) and spins them to help trump

let the judge ask for McCords input and see what happens.

He can already read her testimony :lol

[ChumpDumper]

TSA still can't explain why Flynn's lying to the feds, Pence, Spicer and Priebus is a good thing.

[pgardn]

Flynn Intel Group shut down before he was named Trump’s NSA.

So he was registered as a foreign agent.
What did he tell Trump about this before he was hired?

[TSA]

What do you Obamagaters think about Flynn being an agent of Turkey during the campaign (advising Trump on NATSEC), as well as after he was dismissed?

Hard to imagine red team taking it easy on would be and actual blue team cabinet officers who forgot to mention participation in a scheme by a foreign country to kidnap a legal US resident, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payment to carry water for said foreign country.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1256573685990928385

[ChumpDumper]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1256573685990928385

Not all of Flynn’s missteps involved Russia. On Election Day 2016, Flynn published an op-ed in the Hill calling on the U.S. to further embrace Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan and extradite dissident cleric Fethullah Gülen from his Pennsylvania compound. The article itself made little sense.

First, it ignored ample evidence that Erdogan was supporting and supplying al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, if not the Islamic State itself. Second, anyone who had spoken to Flynn or heard him publicly speak understood immediately that his article was likely ghostwritten as Flynn was not ordinarily conversant in Turkish affairs. This is why I had, at the time, speculated that Flynn’s op-ed could be “Team Trump’s First Ethics Scandal.” Third, the arguments in Flynn’s op-ed stood in sharp contrast to his previous statements about Turkey. It was almost as if he had been paid to write the op-ed and, indeed, that appears to be what occurred. Multiple Turks say that Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman who apparently helped bankrolled Flynn’s efforts, sought to ingratiate himself to Erdoğan in order to perhaps win an appointment to be foreign minister (a notion Alptekin denies). Either way, that Flynn changed his position for money, or again did not realize a foreign interest was seeking to use him remains problematic.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/michael-flynns-vindication-doesnt-fix-his-bad-judgement

:lol defending this dumbass

[Winehole23]

Flynn Intel Group shut down before he was named Trump’s NSA.So the 400 grand ceased to be effective once Flynn was appointed? I don't see that you have any convincing point, TSA.

[pgardn]

Trump says drain that swamp and he hires Flynn.

You dont hear about swamp monsters anymore because Trump hired them with impunity.

[Winehole23]

Flynn didn't disclose any of this until after he was fired.

[Winehole23]

lol TSA admitted Flynn was a Turkish agent during the Trump 2016 campaign.

[ElNono]

The judge agreed with Van Grack on materiality because he knew no better. The judge wasn’t aware that Van Grack was withholding documentation from the FBI saying to shut down the months long Flynn investigation after coming up with zero derogatory information.

Judges don't just generally agree on hearsay, especially if there's an actual motion from the defendants. But even if we were to pretend that's the case, the other problem with this take is that Barr knew and didn't tell the judge, nor remove Van Grack.

Plus the motion specifically mentioned the first interview, IIRC, when there was an actual investigation ongoing.

[pgardn]

Flynn didn't disclose any of this until after he was fired.

When he registered as a foreign agent he knows he supposed to disclose when hired by the US government.
The guy is a lying swamp thing.

[ChumpDumper]

You can be bought and paid for by foreign powers and lie about that and about your foreign contacts to anyone that will listen.

You can be US National Security Adviser.

You can't be both.

[Winehole23]

You can be bought and paid for by foreign powers and lie about that and about your foreign contacts to anyone that will listen.

You can be US National Security Adviser.

You can't be both.I think the working hypothesis on the other side is that you can. Who's President?

[ChumpDumper]

I think the working hypothesis on the other side is that you can.I'm not even sure the other side knows the former for the most part.

[Winehole23]

When he registered as a foreign agent he knows he supposed to disclose when hired by the US government.
The guy is a lying swamp thing.He forgot. We all mess up, sometimes.

[Winehole23]

I'm not even sure the other side knows the former for the most part.I'll put a finer point in it. I don't think Flynn lied to Mike Pence. That's just another convenient lie.

[ElNono]

Bears repeating, if there was corrupt/criminal behavior in the DOJ/FBI back then, it should be investigated and punished. That doesn't excuse Flynn lying to federal agents any less, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.

On that vein, hopefully we have an investigation into this DOJ come next February.

[Winehole23]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1256573685990928385In a nutshel, what does it say?

[Winehole23]

He forgot. We all mess up, sometimes.Jared Kushner's belated refreshed memory updates of his required financial disclosure forms and the very same from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross come to mind for some reason.

[Chris]

TSA still can't explain why Flynn's lying to the feds, Pence, Spicer and Priebus is a good thing.

General Flynn was protecting his family.

[ElNono]

General Flynn was protecting his family.

:lol That why he lied to Pence?

[Chris]

:lol That why he lied to Pence?

You were stealing his shit.

[ChumpDumper]

General Flynn was protecting his family.From what?

[ElNono]

You were stealing his shit.

gotcha

[Chris]

From what?

From hatchet man Mueller and his team of Obama prosecutors.

[boutons_deux]

Former Justice Department Official Says

Barr ‘Twisted’ Her Words

Barr misused her statements to justify the department’s decision to drop the criminal case against Michael Flynn.

that the motion to dismiss the charges relied heavily on her account of events leading to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s interview of Flynn

Neither that account nor the circumstances surrounding the interview supports a dismissal of the case, McCord wrote in the 1,300-word op-ed.

She said Barr came up with his own justification to drop the case after Flynn had twice pleaded guilty.

“The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that

the FBI should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him,” McCord wrote, adding that

“the account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and

it is disingenuous A LIE! for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-10/former-justice-department-official-says-barr-twisted-her-words

[Spurs Homer]

Former Justice Department Official Says

Barr ‘Twisted’ Her Words

Barr misused her statements to justify the department’s decision to drop the criminal case against Michael Flynn.

that the motion to dismiss the charges relied heavily on her account of events leading to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s interview of Flynn

Neither that account nor the circumstances surrounding the interview supports a dismissal of the case, McCord wrote in the 1,300-word op-ed.

She said Barr came up with his own justification to drop the case after Flynn had twice pleaded guilty.

“The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that

the FBI should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him,” McCord wrote, adding that

“the account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and

it is disingenuous A LIE! for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-10/former-justice-department-official-says-barr-twisted-her-words




i posted the ny times op- ed on post #49884

(last page)

for comrade tsa


then he posted more propaganda

[Chris]

"muh NYT op-eds" :lol

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Trump has completely ruined the DOJ's credibility going forward.

Him and McConnell have shown the flaws in lifetime appointments and the incapability of an AG appointed to remain 'unbiased'
Exposing the flaws of 'checks and balances', 'precedent', all the BS words that law is based on that people are finally realizing are all bull shit ideas never grounded in reality waiting to be corrupted by an idiot with the right horses.

[spurraider21]

Chris thinks that if Flynn didn’t plead guilty, it was a foregone conclusion that given the opportunity, his son would knowingly and willfully lie to investigators and thereby get himself into trouble, and so Flynn took the bullet to not allow that to happen

[TSA]

Judges don't just generally agree on hearsay, especially if there's an actual motion from the defendants. But even if we were to pretend that's the case, the other problem with this take is that Barr knew and didn't tell the judge, nor remove Van Grack.

Plus the motion specifically mentioned the first interview, IIRC, when there was an actual investigation ongoing.

The EC had already been filed to close the investigation before the interview happened. There was no legitimate investigation going on at the time of the interview, for it to have been legitimate the FBI would have needed to file a new EC saying they were pursuing a Logan Act violation. DOJ laid this out clearly in the dismissal.

[Chris]

Chris thinks that if Flynn didn’t plead guilty, it was a foregone conclusion that given the opportunity, his son would knowingly and willfully lie to investigators and thereby get himself into trouble, and so Flynn took the bullet to not allow that to happen

Spinning away the moments that make up a dull day.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/BrookeSingman/status/1260167546134827013

[Winehole23]

Erstwhile Pizzagater, present day Obamagater.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/1260200188247003140

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/AndrewCMcCarthy/status/1260200188247003140Man, turns out King Spook was an easily fooled rube according to you.

:lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao he plead guilty

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao he plead guiltyTwice:lol

[TSA]

:lmao he plead guilty

He plead guilty to an immaterial “lie” during an FBI interview for an investigation that was not properly predicated.
Do you think that if Sullivan had let Flynn withdraw his appeal the DOJ would have been able to prove their case in court?

[ChumpDumper]

He plead guilty to an immaterial “lie” during an FBI interview for an investigation that was not properly predicated.
Do you think that if Sullivan had let Flynn withdraw his appeal the DOJ would have been able to prove their case in court?He had already ruled on whether the lie was material and Flynn already admitted it twice, so yeah.

[RandomGuy]

Erstwhile Pizzagater, present day Obamagater.

Obamagate :lmao

"Don't look at how bad Trump is fucking up the coranvirus-gate"

[RandomGuy]

He plead guilty to an immaterial “lie” during an FBI interview for an investigation that was not properly predicated.
Do you think that if Sullivan had let Flynn withdraw his appeal the DOJ would have been able to prove their case in court?

Why do we still not have enough corona tests?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1260290557588340736?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1260296813632000000?s=19

[TSA]

Judge Emmet Sullivan Likely Committed Reversible Error In Taking The Guilty Plea of General Michael Flynn

Judge Sullivan screwed up the factual basis of the guilty plea entered by Gen. Flynn, and the procedure he employed was unsound and violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I think DOJ knows this to be the case, but given Judge Sullivan’s unpredictability they have opted to not “call him out” on it at this point. Instead, I suspect there is a hope that he may recognize his error — it’s right there in the transcript — and will instead grant the DOJ motion which solves his problem without him having to confront — or be confronted on — his own astonishing error.

Below are passages from the hearing transcript. I note the page number for each passage that instructs my conclusion.

"P. 5
THE COURT: And there are some questions that I’m going to ask Mr. Flynn, and because this is an extension, in my opinion, of the plea colloquy, I’m going to ask the courtroom deputy at that time to administer the oath, because normally when we have plea colloquies, we always require a defendant to be under oath, and that’s what I’m going to do this morning, unless there are objections"

In this passage, Judge Sullivan admits that he believes a further “colloquy” is necessary with regard to Gen. Flynn’s decision to enter a guilty plea. That means that as of this point in the transcript, he still has not found that all the necessary subjects have been addressed to his satisfaction, and he’s not yet prepared to accept Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11(b)(3) states: Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. That means the Court must determine there are facts which satisfy each element of the charged offense before the Court can “enter judgment” against a defendant based on a guilty plea.

Judge Sullivan goes down that road here:

"P. 7
THE COURT: As such, the Court concludes that it must now first ask Mr. Flynn certain questions to ensure that he entered his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel. I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today."

After addressing several matters raised by Gen. Flynn’s original attorneys in their Sentencing Statement — expressing some concern that the arguments made by the attorneys potentially impact the question of whether or not Gen. Flynn was really “accepting responsibility” for his conduct — in a very manner by which Judge Sullivan expressed a clear understanding that the press was going cover extensively what he said — Judge Sullivan walked back from his reservations on the “acceptance” issue (seeemingly to relief of prosecutor Van Grack), and stated as follows:

"P.16
THE COURT: All right. I am satisfied that Mr. Flynn entered his guilty plea while competent and capable. He understood at that time the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty. Having carefully read all the materials provided to the Court in this case, including those materials reviewed under seal and in-camera, I conclude that there was and remains to be a factual basis for Mr. Flynn’s plea of guilty."

The problem is that while he said that, he never actually did that — which he happened to admit later in the hearing.

Remember, “materiality” is a a factual element of the offense of making a false statement to a federal agent. It is subject to proof at trial — meaning the prosecution must offer witness testimony or documents to prove “materiality”, and a jury would have to conclude that the evidence established “materiality” beyond a reasonable doubt”, i.e., that the false statement had a natural tendency to influence or to be capable of influencing the decision of the decision-maker to which it was addressed.

Under Rule 11, before Judge Sullivan could “enter judgment” on Gen. Flynn, he needed to determine that there was a factual basis — as to EACH element of the charged offense.

Here’s the part where he screwed up.

He didn’t do that — which he confirmed with his own comments, not once, but twice.

"P. 19
Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was."

Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can’t determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.

But Judge Sullivan didn’t just say he didn’t know if the statements were material one time — he came back to it at the end of the hearing and confirmed a second time that he didn’t know if Gen. Flynn’s statements were material.

"P. 50
THE COURT: Let me just throw this out. Let me just share this with you. What I could do, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it now, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it in March. At some point — it probably won’t surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions, and at some point what I may do is share those questions with counsel so you can give some thought, maybe do some additional research to be prepared for an eventual sentencing. I’m not sure if I want to do that. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I’m not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.[/i]

So, when discussing what might take place at the next hearing, Judge Sullivan reaffirms that he still needs to hear from both sides why Gen. Flynn’s statements were “material.”

Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.

The DOJ motion says the issue of “materiality” cannot be factually established based on the investigative records in the case.

It is also clear that Judge Sullivan never made a finding on materiality that needs to be reversed.

The guilty plea was invalid as a matter of law independent of the DOJ motion.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/12/very-likely-judge-emmet-sullivan-committed-error-in-connection-with-flynn-sentencing/

[Spurs Homer]

still defending their ^ victory


games already fixed - Barr is already committing crimes and 2000 peers already denounced his criminality and corruption -

but


still trying to convince people that this was really really really a legit victory!

all criminals are alike

they know they committed the crime - and even when they get away with it - they continue to defend it and swear to "find the real criminals"


lolol

[ElNono]

The EC had already been filed to close the investigation before the interview happened. There was no legitimate investigation going on at the time of the interview, for it to have been legitimate the FBI would have needed to file a new EC saying they were pursuing a Logan Act violation. DOJ laid this out clearly in the dismissal.

But they didn't actually close it, and directly due to the Ambassador call. You posted the transcripts right here. So there was an investigation ongoing, and it was material to the Russia probe. Not to mention that the Mueller probe came afterwards and was also well within it's right to look at Flynn's involvement with Russia.

Again, the discussion of whether it's material or not is a technicality. As a matter of fact, guys like McCabe and Comey pretty much disagree with Barr (and I'm not defending them or taking their side, I'm merely pointing out how this was decided based on opinion/interest, not law).

[spurraider21]

aww, sullivan bad now. i remember when he was the savior because of his (standing) BRADY ORDER

[ElNono]

He plead guilty to an immaterial “lie” during an FBI interview for an investigation that was not properly predicated.
Do you think that if Sullivan had let Flynn withdraw his appeal the DOJ would have been able to prove their case in court?

Don't need to use quotes. If Flynn himself admitted he lied, twice, then he lied. I would've certainly liked to see the court decide the case.

[ElNono]

aww, sullivan bad now. i remember when he was the savior because of his (standing) BRADY ORDER

it's like Mueller... he was a hero, then bad... :lol

[DarrinS]

1260317786204667904

[TSA]

But they didn't actually close it, and directly due to the Ambassador call. You posted the transcripts right here. So there was an investigation ongoing, and it was material to the Russia probe. Not to mention that the Mueller probe came afterwards and was also well within it's right to look at Flynn's involvement with Russia.

Again, the discussion of whether it's material or not is a technicality. As a matter of fact, guys like McCabe and Comey pretty much disagree with Barr (and I'm not defending them or taking their side, I'm merely pointing out how this was decided based on opinion/interest, not law).

You’re wrong on the investigation aspect and materiality. The original investigation into Flynn being an agent of Russia, as flimsy as it was based on documented but unknown lies to the FBI at that time from a CHS, would be considered properly predicated. That investigation was closed after 5 months of no derogatory information showing up with the electronic communication being filed. With the Flynn/Kislyak calls the FBI was going after the laughable never been prosecuted Logan Act. In order for the new investigation into the Logan Act to be properly predicated the FBI would have needed to file another electronic communication stating they are now investigating per the Logan Act, and they didn’t.

It doesn’t matter if guys like Comey and McCabe think they were justified based on their feelings, the law is the only thing that matters. They didn’t follow the law, end of story.

[TSA]

aww, sullivan bad now. i remember when he was the savior because of his (standing) BRADY ORDER

It appears Sullivan’s fucked up. Do you disagree, or are you even knowledgeable enough to dispute anything I posted from a much more experienced federal prosecutor than whatever stage you’re at now?

Sullivan bad now looks like a white flag from here.

[TSA]

Don't need to use quotes. If Flynn himself admitted he lied, twice, then he lied. I would've certainly liked to see the court decide the case.

These guys all admitted to crimes they never committed too...must be because they actually committed them and not because they were threatened with harsh punishment unless they pled amirite?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

[spurraider21]

These guys all admitted to crimes they never committed too...must be because they actually committed them and not because they were threatened with harsh punishment unless they pled amirite?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/
you think those are all guilty pleas? :lol

a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.

[TSA]

it's like Mueller... he was a hero, then bad... :lol

Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned :lol

[spurraider21]

Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned :lol
why was the Concord case dismissed, TSA?

[TSA]

you think those are all guilty pleas? :lol

a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.

If your point is no one pleads guilty when innocent after being threatened with a harsher sentence you’ve failed spectacularly.

[ChumpDumper]

If your point is no one pleads guilty when innocent after being threatened with a harsher sentence you’ve failed spectacularly.Difference here is Flynn is actually guilty.

[TSA]

why was the Concord case dismissed, TSA?

Why was it even brought if for nothing more than political show and that Mueller’s team finally “got” something?

[Spurtacular]

aww, sullivan bad now. i remember when he was the savior because of his (standing) BRADY ORDER

Human error does not make one bad, Philo; not in the context you're implying.

[TSA]

It appears Sullivan’s fucked up. Do you disagree, or are you even knowledgeable enough to dispute anything I posted from a much more experienced federal prosecutor than whatever stage you’re at now?

Sullivan bad now looks like a white flag from here.

It appears you want to respond to everything except what was actually directed at you :lol

[spurraider21]

These guys all admitted to crimes they never committed too...must be because they actually committed them and not because they were threatened with harsh punishment unless they pled amirite?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/


you think those are all guilty pleas? :lol

a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.


If your point is no one pleads guilty when innocent after being threatened with a harsher sentence you’ve failed spectacularly.
:lol

[spurraider21]

Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned :lol


why was the Concord case dismissed, TSA?


Why was it even brought if for nothing more than political show and that Mueller’s team finally “got” something?
not an answer

[Winehole23]

you think those are all guilty pleas? :lol

a total of 41 of their cases are guilty pleas. 343 of them are not.TSA's concern about coercive pleading appears to be situational, not ethical or merciful.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1260355161991475201?s=19

[ElNono]

You’re wrong on the investigation aspect and materiality. The original investigation into Flynn being an agent of Russia, as flimsy as it was based on documented but unknown lies to the FBI at that time from a CHS, would be considered properly predicated. That investigation was closed after 5 months of no derogatory information showing up with the electronic communication being filed. With the Flynn/Kislyak calls the FBI was going after the laughable never been prosecuted Logan Act. In order for the new investigation into the Logan Act to be properly predicated the FBI would have needed to file another electronic communication stating they are now investigating per the Logan Act, and they didn’t.

It doesn’t matter if guys like Comey and McCabe think they were justified based on their feelings, the law is the only thing that matters. They didn’t follow the law, end of story.

So you're saying everybody is lying except the guy that admitted to lying? :lol

We covered this already, at least one judge had to decide on materiality in the case and sided with the FBI. I have no reason to believe that judge was lying. The evidence that judge was lied to is simply unconvincing. If the material presented to dismiss the case would've been presented to the judge for him to make a determination, and the judge decided that indeed that was the case, then I think nobody would be talking about Barr's corruption in this particular move, IMO.



These guys all admitted to crimes they never committed too...must be because they actually committed them and not because they were threatened with harsh punishment unless they pled amirite?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

But they didn't plead guilty to committing them. Then it becomes the burden of prosecution to prove the case. That's why I said I would've liked the courts to decide this particular case, since the prosecution already won it.

At the end of the day, that's exactly how justice works.

[ElNono]

Mueller never ran that team and was nothing but a face to give it legitimacy. His testimony was embarrassing and he looked like a slightly more coherent Biden. The case against the Russian troll farm was dismissed by the judge and the case against Flynn’s business partner was overturned :lol

I'm pretty sure Mueller ran that team and he put his neck on the line with the report. I also think it's likely not the last we've heard of said report, but time will tell.

[ElNono]

TSA's concern about coercive pleading appears to be situational, not ethical or merciful.

Of course... don't have to be Nostradamus to hear the crying when the next Dem AG pulls a similar stunt...

[Winehole23]

Of course... don't have to be Nostradamus to hear the crying when the next Dem AG pulls a similar stunt...So whiny in his epigonism of the great man. Only the great man himself is whinier than his epigones in these pages.

[TSA]

not an answer

It was going to be a waste of government resources for people who’d never be extradited.

Still waiting for an answer.

It appears Sullivan fucked up. Do you disagree, or are you even knowledgeable enough to dispute anything I posted from a much more experienced federal prosecutor than whatever stage you’re at now?

Sullivan bad now looks like a white flag from here.

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1260355161991475201?s=19

And they slurped it up every single time, minus spurraider who mocked Schiff’s “memo”. :bobo

[pgardn]

I think this is fairly new.

A U.S. judge put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said in an order Tuesday that he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case. Having others weigh in could preface more aggressive steps that the federal judge in Washington could take, including — as many outside observers have called for — holding a hearing to consider what to do.
Sullivan’s order came after the government took the highly irregular step Thursday of reversing its stance on upholding Flynn’s guilty plea.


And I don’t understand how significant it is because the reversal from the DOJ was so bizarre.
Sorry If Its already been posted.

From WaPo

[TSA]

So you're saying everybody is lying except the guy that admitted to lying? :lol

We covered this already, at least one judge had to decide on materiality in the case and sided with the FBI. I have no reason to believe that judge was lying. The evidence that judge was lied to is simply unconvincing. If the material presented to dismiss the case would've been presented to the judge for him to make a determination, and the judge decided that indeed that was the case, then I think nobody would be talking about Barr's corruption in this particular move, IMO.




But they didn't plead guilty to committing them. Then it becomes the burden of prosecution to prove the case. That's why I said I would've liked the courts to decide this particular case, since the prosecution already won it.

At the end of the day, that's exactly how justice works.

I never claimed Sullivan lied. I claimed and have shown the lead prosecutor lied to him.

You consider it a win when the prosecutor hides evidence from the judge?

[spurraider21]

It was going to be a waste of government resources for people who’d never be extradited.

Still waiting for an answer.

It appears Sullivan fucked up. Do you disagree, or are you even knowledgeable enough to dispute anything I posted from a much more experienced federal prosecutor than whatever stage you’re at now?

Sullivan bad now looks like a white flag from here.
its hard to acknowledge that sullivan fucked up given that we dont have any ruling to that effect, just the DOJ waiving the white flag at the direction of Barr

so when you say the judge dismissed the case (every dismissal is done by a judge), who asked for the dismissal?

[TSA]

its hard to acknowledge that sullivan fucked up given that we dont have any ruling to that effect, just the DOJ waiving the white flag at the direction of Barr

so when you say the judge dismissed the case (every dismissal is done by a judge), who asked for the dismissal?

Judge...DOJ...was going off memory and doesn’t matter either way, was going to be a waste of gov resources.


“Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.”

Agree or disagree? If disagree why?

[TSA]

I think this is fairly new.

A U.S. judge put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said in an order Tuesday that he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case. Having others weigh in could preface more aggressive steps that the federal judge in Washington could take, including — as many outside observers have called for — holding a hearing to consider what to do.
Sullivan’s order came after the government took the highly irregular step Thursday of reversing its stance on upholding Flynn’s guilty plea.


And I don’t understand how significant it is because the reversal from the DOJ was so bizarre.
Sorry If Its already been posted.

From WaPo

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1260355486362349569

[ElNono]

lol I see why Judge Sullivan bad now... he's going to let outside counsel argue against the DOJ motion...

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mizdonna/status/1260369386382163972

The Unraveling Part...?

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn is innocent because of a series of timing technicalities?

:lol

[ElNono]

“Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.”

I think that's a sound argument that could've been brought up in appeals. That's basically how the judicial works. It doesn't nullify the entire trial unless a higher instance says it does.

[spurraider21]

Judge...DOJ...was going off memory and doesn’t matter either way, was going to be a waste of gov resources.


“Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.”

Agree or disagree? If disagree why?
i dont know that a factual basis didnt exist. there are transcripts of his calls with kislyak, and notes reflecting what he told the Feds, during an ongoing investigation.

i'm not saying that i know or believe for a fact that it was all kosher, but i dont have much reason to believe it wasnt, other than the DOJ's curious recent change in tune. would have loved to have a ruling or judicial opinion on the matter

[ElNono]

yah, I don't think the lying to agents is disputed here... not even by the DOJ

[DarrinS]

i dont know that a factual basis didnt exist. there are transcripts of his calls with kislyak, and notes reflecting what he told the Feds, during an ongoing investigation.

i'm not saying that i know or believe for a fact that it was all kosher, but i dont have much reason to believe it wasnt, other than the DOJ's curious recent change in tune. would have loved to have a ruling or judicial opinion on the matter



Those pesky notes

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

[ChumpDumper]

Those pesky notes

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"Doesn't matter what their goal was.

Flynn lied to them all on his own.

Those pesky lies.

[ElNono]

Those pesky notes

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

Still don't get what's wrong with that particular note, tbh

[DarrinS]

Doesn't matter what their goal was.

Flynn lied to them all on his own.

Those pesky lies.


Don't know why you're so invested in Flynn getting screwed.

[DarrinS]

Still don't get what's wrong with that particular note, tbh

Really?

[pgardn]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1260355486362349569

Well it looks like Sullivan was not pleased so the invitation has been given.

You get to continue sailing through the storm.
Godspeed.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't know why you're so invested in Flynn getting screwed.No one made him lie.

He's a security risk and there is no way in hell he should've been National Security Adviser for the United States of America.

Don't know why you're so invested in being his apologist.

[pgardn]

Don't know why you're so invested in Flynn getting screwed.

I know?

Hes supposedly a really nice liar who did not even tell Trump he was a registered foreign agent helping Turkey.

[Chris]

2000 pages lawdy where is djohn?? :lol

[DarrinS]

No one made him lie.

He's a security risk and there is no way in hell he should've been National Security Adviser for the United States of America.

Don't know why you're so invested in being his apologist.

He was a national security risk? Based on what?

[TSA]

i dont know that a factual basis didnt exist. there are transcripts of his calls with kislyak, and notes reflecting what he told the Feds, during an ongoing investigation.

i'm not saying that i know or believe for a fact that it was all kosher, but i dont have much reason to believe it wasnt, other than the DOJ's curious recent change in tune. would have loved to have a ruling or judicial opinion on the matter

You don’t know? :lol

Sullivan said it himself.

Under Rule 11, before Judge Sullivan could “enter judgment” on Gen. Flynn, he needed to determine that there was a factual basis — as to EACH element of the charged offense.

Here’s the part where he screwed up.

He didn’t do that — which he confirmed with his own comments, not once, but twice.

"P. 19
Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was."

Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can’t determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.

But Judge Sullivan didn’t just say he didn’t know if the statements were material one time — he came back to it at the end of the hearing and confirmed a second time that he didn’t know if Gen. Flynn’s statements were material.

"P. 50
THE COURT: Let me just throw this out. Let me just share this with you. What I could do, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it now, and maybe it’s not appropriate to do it in March. At some point — it probably won’t surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions, and at some point what I may do is share those questions with counsel so you can give some thought, maybe do some additional research to be prepared for an eventual sentencing. I’m not sure if I want to do that. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I’m not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the government’s investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.

So, when discussing what might take place at the next hearing, Judge Sullivan reaffirms that he still needs to hear from both sides why Gen. Flynn’s statements were “material.”

Judge Sullivan entered judgment on a guilty plea without first finding that a factual basis existed. That violated the requirements of Rule 11, and makes the guilty plea unsound.

[pgardn]

Judge Sullivan now says this is not over.

[ChumpDumper]

He was a national security risk? Based on what?Based on his lying to the investigators and administration about his foreign contacts.

[TSA]

I think that's a sound argument that could've been brought up in appeals. That's basically how the judicial works. It doesn't nullify the entire trial unless a higher instance says it does.

It’s unfortunate the lead prosecutor lied to the judge and hid evidence from the defense, I too wanted to see Sullivan rule on the case.

[TSA]

2000 pages lawdy where is djohn?? :lol

Fitting we are on page 2000 and that broke welshing faggot still owes me $2000 :lol

[Spurs Homer]

He was a national security risk? Based on what?

he said one thing to the russians
he said something different (about the same conversation) to pence
pence publicly revealed what fynn said - which was not what flynn told the russians
the russians knew flynn lied to his own boss and they now knew they could blackmail flynn or expose his lies
the fbi listened to the conversation because they always listen to the russian spies and the russians listen to our calls

sally yates did her duty and reported it to the white house- thinking it might be an honest administration


in a clean - non- criminal white house - flynn would have been immediately fired and yates would get a thank you

in a corrupt - russian compromised trump white house

they kept flynn for three weeks - until the wapo or ny times exposed the truth

then the lies/cover up began


and here we are

[TSA]

i dont know that a factual basis didnt exist. there are transcripts of his calls with kislyak, and notes reflecting what he told the Feds, during an ongoing investigation.

i'm not saying that i know or believe for a fact that it was all kosher, but i dont have much reason to believe it wasnt, other than the DOJ's curious recent change in tune. would have loved to have a ruling or judicial opinion on the matter

:lol curious recent change of tune

Did you completely miss what Jensen uncovered?

[spurraider21]

Judge Sullivan now says this is not over.
he's going to allow amicus briefs... interesting

[TSA]

Lost in all this is the recent revelation from Crowdstrike testimony that they never had proof Russia exfiltrated any emails. No one even attempted to touch that one :lol

[Reck]

he's going to allow amicus briefs... interesting

Fuck does that mean? Allowing a third party to do what what the DOJ refused to do?

[ChumpDumper]

Lost in all this is the recent revelation from Crowdstrike testimony that they never had proof Russia exfiltrated any emails. No one even attempted to touch that one :lolAsked by the head of the committee, Adam Schiff, when the emails from the DNC were exfiltrated, Henry replied: "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated."

And in response to another query, Henry said: "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

https://www.itwire.com/security/crowdstrike-chief-admits-no-proof-that-russia-exfiltrated-dnc-emails.html

Sounds reasonable.

What's your theory?

[TSA]

It’s unfortunate the lead prosecutor lied to the judge and hid evidence from the defense, I too wanted to see Sullivan rule on the case.

Also unfortunate the FBI never had a properly predicated investigation going when they went around WH/DOJ protocol and Comey sent two agents in to “interview”Flynn after persuading him WH counsel was not needed and the proceeded to not write up a 302 in five days as is required but then only completed the 302 3 weeks later and one of the agents edited so much he was worried about keeping the same voice of the agent who actually wrote it, and sent it to a DOJ lawyer who was never in the room for the interview and shouldn’t ever touch it to edit further.

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn shouldn't have lied.

King Sp:lol:lolk

[spurraider21]

Fuck does that mean? Allowing a third party to do what what the DOJ refused to do?
amicus briefs are more common in high profile supreme court cases... basically when outside parties can chime in and give arguments before a ruling is made

[Spurs Homer]

Also unfortunate the FBI never had a properly predicated investigation going when they went around WH/DOJ protocol and Comey sent two agents in to “interview”Flynn after persuading him WH counsel was not needed and the proceeded to not write up a 302 in five days as is required but then only completed the 302 3 weeks later and one of the agents edited so much he was worried about keeping the same voice of the agent who actually wrote it, and sent it to a DOJ lawyer who was never in the room for the interview and shouldn’t ever touch it to edit further.


you just

flat out lie

make up shit

and you are always 100% wrong

just like pizzagate

fucking liar - just like your heroes

[ElNono]

Really?

Yeah, what's wrong with it? These are a number of agents that have evidence in their possession and the person they're interviewing doesn't know about it. You don't think they're going to prepare for the interview?

[ElNono]

amicus briefs are more common in high profile supreme court cases... basically when outside parties can chime in and give arguments before a ruling is made

We should, however, point out that this is a fairly exceptional circumstance, both for criminal cases and in this particular situation.

While it's true that the DOJ move was also exceptional, I don't recall a similar motion.

[ElNono]

It’s unfortunate the lead prosecutor lied to the judge and hid evidence from the defense, I too wanted to see Sullivan rule on the case.

Not Van Grack's fault that Sullivan isn't ruling on the case, tbh... nor on the merits on the DOJ's allegations.

[DMC]

He was a national security risk? Based on what?

From the same group that wants porous borders :lol

[ChumpDumper]

From the same group that wants porous borders :lol:lol straw man

You can't talk about any actual topic anymore. We broke you.

[Chris]

:lol straw man

You can't talk about any actual topic anymore. We broke you.

^hive mind