Reply With Quote
what's the calculation, that the possibility of a pardon comes back in once Trump is acquitted?
Powell has to be running out the clock until the impeachment trial is over. Nothing else makes any sense.
what's the calculation, that the possibility of a pardon comes back in once Trump is acquitted?
I can only guess Trump doesn't want/need any more bad press going in to the trial, though the long waits for anything in this Flynn process is an argument against my conspiracy theory.
And it looks like clemency would be the first step. Flynn has to be sentenced for either process to start anyway.
NANCY PELOSI:
WHAT KIND OF SICK DO THE RUSSIANS HAVE ON MITCH MCCONNELL?
Pelosi reportedly tore McConnell a proverbial new one,
charging that he’s acting like a rogue leader, an accusation she also made last month that is, of course, entirely accurate.
Sources told CNN that Pelosi then “mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections.”
Last July, when the Washington Post ran an op-ed saying that
McConnell “is, arguably more than any other American, doing Russian president Vladimir Putin’s bidding,”
after he blocked numerous bills intended to prevent election meddling
—including one that would have required presidential campaigns to report any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments—
McConnell had a massive conniption on the Senate floor.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...ot_Subscribers
Trash still "punching back" at his opponents from years ago. so Presidential
Trump goes on bizarre Comey rant in front of Chinese delegation:
He ‘choked like a dog!’
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tru..._campaign=3489
Is dog choking a well-known behavior?
All Y'all's adored Trash is one infantile, sicko mofo
You should prob go back and look at his associate’s case the judge dismissed and why it was dismissed.
Justice Dept. Investigating Years-Old Leaks and Appears Focused on Comey
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/u...mes-comey.html
TSA getting his hopes up again.
Why have Trash and his mafiya been forgetting, lying, obstructing investigations?
Feel free to make your own point whenever you're done clearing your throat.
Nothing but Barr deflecting from Trash's impeachment
Comey Under Investigation?
Latest News Raises ‘Su ions’ of Political Revenge
President Donald Trump calling for—and getting–investigations of his enemies is not without precedent,
so it didn’t take long for “su ions” to be raised about the timing of this news, and
whether the probe is politically motivated.
“prosecutors and F.B.I. agents typically investigate leaks of classified information around the time they appear in the news media, not years later.”
this investigation “should raise su ions (or at least eyebrows) to any reasonable person,” given that it focuses on Comey.
National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss, a partner at Zaid’s firm, suggested Trump’s fingerprints are all over this.
Others legal commentators said similar things.
What is being examined, you ask?
The leak of details to the media about a “Russian intelligence do ent” that reportedly “played a key role” in Comey’s decision to hold a July 2016 news conference announcing that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be charged over private email server use.
The Russian intelligence do ent included an unverified email that was apparently troubling enough to Comey that he decided to take matters into his own hands and sidestep then-AG Loretta Lynch:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/comey-under-investigation-latest-news-raises-su ions-of-political-revenge/
WASHINGTON — A federal court in Virginia acquitted a former business associated of Michael Flynn on Tuesday, throwing out his July conviction by a jury on two counts of violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act during his work on behalf of Turkey.
Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the indictment against Bijan Rafiekian, citing insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on either count.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...rtner-n1058386
That's a case against *someone else*
NoThat's a case against *someone else*
Flynn was never indicted or charged for what you claimed. Explain how Flynn was acting illegally as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey while his associate’s charges were tossed by the judge for lack of evidence.
Flynn avoided indictment for more serious chages because he pleaded out.
If his motion to nullify the plea deal is granted, superceding charges and charges against Flynn Jt can come back in.
God, you're dense, TSA
You think Flynn would be charged for what a judge dismissed in his associate’s case due to lack of evidence?
God, you’re dense. You really need to read up on the Rafiekian case.
Moscow Mitch blows off latest Russian hacking news, says
we've done enough
to protect 2020 election
The news that Russian spies had hacked into Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company central to debunked conspiracy theories from Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani about Ukrainian election interference, has rocketed 2020 election protection to the top of the intelligence community's list of concerns.
Pelosi blasted Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump Tuesday for refusing to "take meaningful action to strengthen our election security."
McConnell, she said, is "giving hostile foreign powers the green light to attack our country" by refusing to take up House-passed legislation
Congress must be briefed on what the Administration knows about this attack and why the President doesn’t have a plan to protect our elections."
McConnell blew the question off. "We've appropriated $800 million over the last couple of years to deal with it," he said, scoffing off the possibility of doing further.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...-2020-election
It's odd you think the facts are the same for the two men or that the disposition of someone else's case is predictive for Flynn.You think Flynn would be charged for what a judge dismissed in his associate’s case due to lack of evidence?
God, you’re dense. You really need to read up on the Rafiekian case.
If Flynn is innocent, why did he plead guilty to something you've claimed repeatedly he didn't do? It makes no sense.
Flynn wants to take back his plea deal of reduced, but still imprisonable charges,
does he want to take back, annul, cancel the information he gave as squealer?
Stay on topic, you claimed Flynn acted as an unregistered foreign agent of the government of Turkey. He didn’t plead guilty to that and in fact refused to sign the plea agreement that said he knowingly signed false FARA do ents. What facts are you claiming are different between the two business partners?
——————————-
The Government has failed to offer substantial evidence from which any rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian knowingly acted and caused others to act in the United States as an agent of a foreign government without proper notification to the Attorney General in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951.
First, there is no substantial evidence that Rafiekian agreed to operate subject to the direction or control of the Turkish government. There is no evidence of any actual or implied agreement between Rafiekian and the government of Turkey or any official of the government of Turkey. In fact, the only contact between Rafiekian and any Turkish official occurred during the September 19, 2016 meeting, and there is no evidence concerning anything said at that meeting from which a rational juror could find that Rafiekian had agreed to operate at the direction or control of the Turkish government. Nor do any of the actual agreements in evidence reflect any involvement by the Turkish government or any agreement by Rafiekian to operate subject to its direction and control; in fact, they all explicitly disclaim any agency relationship. The Government's entire case therefore substantially boils down to Rafiekian's interactions with Alptekin and its contention that Alptekin and Inovo were "intermediaries" for the Turkish government, through whom the Turkish government obtained Rafiekian's agreement to operate subject to its direction and control.
There was no competent evidence from which the jury could find that Alptekin acted as the type of "intermediary" the Government contends. In fact, the only evidence of any association between Alptekin and the Turkish government in connection with FIG's retention is reflected in the hearsay statements of Alptekin to Rafiekian, which were admitted not as proof of Alptekin's relationship or role relative to Turkey, but solely as evidence of what Alptekin told Rafiekian. Accordingly, the jury had no evidence of what Alptekin's actual relationship or role was relative to the Turkish government, and because of that absence of evidence could not find for its purposes in deciding the case that Alptekin was, in fact, operating as an agent, alter ego, representative, "cut-out", or any other type of "intermediary" for the Turkish government. The question therefore reduces to whether what Alptekin told Rafiekian, when viewed in combination with the other evidence in the case, was sufficient for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian knowingly acted as an undisclosed agent of the Turkish government.
Nothing Alptekin said to Rafiekian was sufficient for a rational juror to find that Rafiekian had agreed to act or was knowingly acting as an agent of the Turkish government. There is nothing in those communications that could be construed as a request that Rafiekian do so or an agreement by Rafiekian to do so. What Alptekin said about his interactions with Turkish officials, or his own motivations or instructions, did not reflect any expectation by the Turkish government that by entering into a commercial contract with Inovo, Rafiekian would be acting or agreeing to act as its agent. Likewise, there is no evidence of any statements by Rafiekian that would allow a rational juror to find that Rafiekian had agreed to operate as an agent of the Turkish government, or that he thought he was acting as a Turkish agent. That Rafiekian expressed sentiments aligned with the well-known publicly stated views, goals, and objectives of the Turkish government or that he expressed admiration for the Turkish President is not a sufficient evidentiary basis for a juror to find, without improperly speculating, that Rafiekian had signed on as a Turkish agent.
Nor could a rational juror find a violation of Section 951 based on Rafiekian's conduct during the course of the engagement with Inovo. The engagement was memorialized in written agreements that disclaimed any agency relationships, and while what the parties call their relationship is not controlling, there is no evidence sufficient to establish an agency relationship between Rafiekian and Turkey. Rafiekian essentially subcontracted or otherwise assigned the entirety of the work associated with the engagement to others, including Sphere, and within FIG, Flynn, who was designated as the engagement's lead, McCauley, who was the investigation lead, and Boston, the engagement coordinator, none of whom the Government contended were themselves acting as Turkish agents. Thus, the evidence is that the work contemplated by the engagement was to be performed, and was actually performed, largely by individuals other than Rafiekian; and there is no evidence that Rafiekian, or Alptekin for that matter, was channeling instructions from the Turkish government concerning the day-to-day operational details of that work.
Similarly, nothing in the structure of this commercial engagement gives rise to a reasonable inference that Rafiekian was acting as an agent of, or even on behalf of, the Turkish government. The relationship between Alptekin and FIG/Rafiekian was structured as a commercial contract between Inovo and FIG, who entered into an Independent Advisory Services Agreement, as well as a related supplemental consulting agreement between Alptekin and FIG. The Government contends that the payments made to FIG from Inovo and from FIG to Alptekin allows the inference that Rafiekian was acting as an agent of the Turkish government or that Alptekin was acting as the agent of Turkey in retaining FIG. But there is no evidence, direct or otherwise, sufficient to reasonably infer that Turkey funded the engagement of FIG, or that the engagement was not in fact being funded by a group of Turkish businessmen, as Rafiekian stated consistently throughout. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 395:19-24, [Doc. No. 330] (McCauley); 333:11-16, [Do. No. 333] (Courtovich). And as the Court has previously observed, FIG's payments to Alptekin, no matter how Rafiekian characterized them over time, are insufficient to support the inference that Rafiekian was acting or had agreed to act as a Turkish agent. See [Doc. No. 292 at 31]. Ultimately, nothing about the structure of FIG's contracts with Inovo and Alptekin or the payments made pursuant to those contracts gives rise to a reasonable or rational inference that Rafiekian had acted or agreed to act as an agent of the Turkish government. Nor do Rafiekian's statements to Covington cons ute substantial evidence from which a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian had agreed to operate as a Turkish agent.
Even assuming there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude Rafiekian was acting or had agreed to act "on behalf of the Turkish government" (which the Court does not find), such a showing by itself, as the Government concedes, is not enough to convict under Section 951; adequate proof of an agreement to operate subject to Turkey's direction or control was also required. The government failed to carry that burden. Apart from identifying the scope of services and overall objective for FIG's engagement - a public relations effort, contemplating a never-produced video to support the extradition of Gulen to Turkey by the U.S. government, there is no substantial evidence that Inovo, Alptekin, or the Turkish government exercised the requisite direction or control. As mentioned above, in addition to Rafiekian, many others were involved in determining how to proceed with that work, including centrally Sphere, who controlled the details of the proposed video and at least some of the related research and interviews, and who came up with the idea of creating a board game called Gulenopoly. There is no evidence, not even in the hearsay statements from Alptekin to Rafiekian, that Alptekin, Inovo, or anyone associated with the Turkish government directed or controlled the work performed by FIG or Sphere personnel. Indeed, the lack of direction or control over Rafiekian, FIG, and its consultants is reflected in the accounts of Alptekin's disappointment in what FIG and Sphere presented to Alptekin at the November 2, 2016 meeting, see Trial Tr. 723:3-9, [Doc. No. 333] (Courtovich); 431:23-432:4, 444:6-8, [Doc. No. 330] (McCauley).
This lack of direction or control is also reflected in Rafiekian's, FIG's, and Sphere's rejection of requests or suggestions by Alptekin. For example, in the one instance where Alptekin inquired as to whether FBI or other government information could be accessed through FIG's contacts with former FBI agents, his suggestion was rejected out of hand. See Trial Tr. 442:13-443:20, 444:6-16, [Doc. No. 330] (McCauley). Similarly, on another occasion, Rafiekian told Flynn that Alptekin had "shared some very specific expectations with [him]" for work beyond that which was contemplated in the agreement between FIG and Inovo, and that Rafiekian had "told him that the expectations are unreasonable" and "dismissed [them] immediately." GEX 29. FIG and the consultants it retained based their work on open source research, most of which was conducted by people and companies other than Rafiekian and FIG, was never disseminated, and was to a large degree duplicative of research that the Turkish government had already hired the law firm Amsterdam & Partners LLP to perform. See Trial. Tr. 425:13-15, 428:10-18, [Doc. No. 330] (McCauley); id. at 592:1-593:11, [Doc. No. 331] (Neer). The Government points to FIG's periodic reports concerning the progress of the work, contemplated under the Agreement, as evidence of direction or control, but there is no evidence that those updates were used to pass on what were viewed as binding instructions from the Turkish government.
Finally, the Government points to the op-ed published by Flynn on November 8, 2016 and Rafiekian's statement to Alptekin that "a promise made is a promise kept" as sufficient evidence that Rafiekian was a Turkish agent. But there is no evidence that the op-ed had been requested by the Turkish government, either directly or through Alptekin; or that it was Rafiekian, as opposed to Flynn, who decided to have the op-ed published at that time.
The Government essentially contends that the jury could have considered all of this evidence, weighed it, rejected it, and found otherwise. But there was no substantial evidence upon which a rational jury could have found otherwise without impermissible speculation and conjecture. For the above reasons, the Government has failed to present substantial evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian acted or caused others to act as an agent of a foreign government in violation of 18 U.S.C § 951.
Nor has the Government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian conspired with Alptekin or anyone else to violate 22 U.S.C. § 618(a)(2). There is no evidence of discussions or suggestions, let alone an agreement, express or implied, to either avoid filing under FARA or to cause the filing of a false FARA registration statement. As referenced above, following his conversations with Alptekin in August 2016 and in anticipation of FIG's engagement with Inovo pertaining to Gulen, Rafiekian consulted with two law firms concerning his obligations to register under FARA before ultimately filing under the LDA in accordance with the legal advice he obtained. Likewise, Sphere, the experienced consultants retained by FIG, also considered their registration obligations and chose to file under the LDA after consulting with legal counsel. See Trial Tr. 639:15-640:2, [Doc. No. 331] (Miller). The Government contends that these filings simply reflected Rafiekian's misrepresentations to his lawyers and to his consultants concerning his true relationship with the Turkish government or on whose behalf he and FIG were acting. But for the reasons discussed above, there is no evidence sufficient to establish that Rafiekian was, or thought he was, working as an agent of the Turkish government, or that the "client" was not, in fact, Inovo.
Nor can any conspiracy to violate FARA be inferred from the FARA filing itself for the reasons previously stated in the Court's July 9, 2019 Order, which is incorporated herein by reference. See [Doc. No. 292 at 8-11, 29-31]. The superseding indictment alleges that the alleged conspiracy began from at least July 2016; but the DOJ did not even raise the specter of a need for a FARA filing until its letter to Flynn dated November 30, 2016 (which did not become known to Flynn until December 24, 2016), by which time FIG had ceased operations and was not performing any work for Inovo or anyone else. More centrally, there is no evidence of any communications between Rafiekian and anyone else concerning the substance of any FARA filing other than with Covington during its investigation into whether a FARA filing was necessary after it was retained by FIG and Flynn in December 2016 or early January 2017.
The Government claims "the three co-conspirators [Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin] again gave substantially identical explanations [in the FARA filings] that the jury plainly deemed false and used as further evidence of a concerted agreement to lie." [Doc. No. 365 at 20]. But that contention ignores the lack of evidence to establish the presumed conspiracy, or any agreement, among these three individuals concerning the FARA filing, as discussed above. In fact, until the eve of trial, the Government contended that Flynn was not part of the alleged conspiracy. There were also material differences in the explanations these individuals gave to Covington, particularly by Alptekin, but even accepting the Government's characterization, no inference of a conspiracy could be drawn from those statement by themselves. See Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564-566 (2007) (parallel conduct by itself does not plausibly allege a conspiratorial agreement). For the above reasons, the Government failed to present substantial evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafiekian knowingly participated in a conspiracy to (1) act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government in violation of Section 951; and (2) make willful and material false statements and omissions in a FARA filing in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 618(a)(2).
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rafiekian-1
That's just a longer version of what you already said.
Flynn pleaded down because more serious charges were hanging over his head. He spoiled that deal by hiring a dumbass to represent him.
Flynn will be going to prison soon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
