end of a railroad job.

End of the department of Justice. Glad your happy with our banana republic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

End of the department of Justice. Glad your happy with our banana republic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the assistant director of the FBI asks if the goal is to get him fired, that doesn't indicate a problem to you? It does to me. And I'm not a trump zombie, like you are an anti trump zombie.

The goal, is supposed to be to find out the truth. We know that the Strzok camp had very strong anti Trump leanings. We know this.

When the assistant director of the FBI asks if the goal is to get him fired, that doesn't indicate a problem to you? It does to me. And I'm not a trump zombie, like you are an anti trump zombie.

The goal, is supposed to be to find out the truth. We know that the Strzok camp had very strong anti Trump leanings. We know this.

Your clueless he pleaded guilty ...... Trumps just opened pandora's box 1 more step closer to an authoritarian state and you applaud

Both left and right now seem to believe that the justice department's prosecutorial process has been wholly corrupted and politicised - whether it was through Flynn's prosecution or by his liberation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your clueless he pleaded guilty ...... Trumps just opened pandora's box 1 more step closer to an authoritarian state and you applaud

Both left and right now seem to believe that the justice department's prosecutorial process has been wholly corrupted and politicised - whether it was through Flynn's prosecution or by his liberation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know he plead guilty. I'm not clueless about that. They threatened to prosecute his son. Are you clueless about that? You left that part out.

Do you understand, that before the FBI interviewed him for the first time, the assistant director sent a note asking if the goal was to "get him to lie", or to get him fired. A lot of people would say that's a tainted investigation.

There is a big, big difference between trying to find out if he had previously lied, and trying to get him to lie during the investigation..

America 1st
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

End of the department of Justice. Glad your happy with our banana republic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd also be curious to know, since you stated a real problem with Flynn taking money from foreign countries, why it didn't bother you that Hilary took big money from foreign nations.

Open Trumps taxes and let’s have fun about who owes who favors.

I'd also be curious to know, since you stated a real problem with Flynn taking money from foreign countries, why it didn't bother you that Hilary took big money from foreign nations.

I didn't realize Flynn was running a foundation. Was it a 503b?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Raise a cold glass of your favorite for Flynn.🍺
A wrong is being righted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know he plead guilty. I'm not clueless about that. They threatened to prosecute his son. Are you clueless about that? You left that part out.

Do you understand, that before the FBI interviewed him for the first time, the assistant director sent a note asking if the goal was to "get him to lie", or to get him fired. A lot of people would say that's a tainted investigation.

There is a big, big difference between trying to find out if he had previously lied, and trying to get him to lie during the investigation..

No jim he lied how they got him to lie is irrelevant

If I ask you a question I already know the answer . And ask you directly you have 2 choices admit it or lie .. how am I the dirty party aka FBI ,, the notes you keep bringing up have zero to do with him pleading guilty

I didn't realize Flynn was running a foundation. Was it a 503b?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And did any of her pals get paid positions on that foundation? Was any of that money from her foundation used to benefit them in any way, travel, meals, etc? Funny how some of the big donors got to see her face to face when she was secstate.

No jim he lied how they got him to lie is irrelevant

If I ask you a question I already know the answer . And ask you how am I the dirty party aka FBIdirectly you have 2 choices admit it or lie .. ,, the notes you keep bringing up have zero to do with him pleading guilty

"how they got him to lie is irrelevant "

Not to many people.

So at the start of the investigation, he hadn't committed a crime. And "if" the goal was to get him to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed, and "if" this was done for political reasons (still a pretty big "if" but becoming more and more plausible), most people would have a huge problem with that.

The Justice Department isn't supposed to be a weapon used to settle political vendettas.

Anyway, he's free.

We also have some documents released yesterday which show that the democrats found precisely zilch to support the Russian collusion fiasco.

And then, we have the findings of John Durham's inquiry, which became an criminal probe as we all know. You can bet those findings get released right before the election.

And finally, we have Tara Reade doing a piece with Ronan Farrow (hero of the metoo movement) for the New Yorker soon.

Combine all that, with Biden's ill-timed onset of senility.

"how am I the dirty party aka FBI"

If they just asked him straight up and he lied, that's on him, I agree. What you are denying (cuz it doesn't fit your political agenda, which trumps all else) is that if it was done in a way to entice or incentivize him to lie, that's entrapment, right? I wasn't there and you weren't there, so neither of us knows. What we do know, is that right at the start, there's obvious evidence that they were out to get him. We know that senior FBI officials made no secret that they hated Trump and "they'd stop him" from becoming President.

I wonder where it says in the FBI's charter, that one of their functions is to influence presidential elections.

Raise a cold glass of your favorite for Flynn.��
A wrong is being righted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big time.

When an assistant director of the FBI asks in writing if the goal is to "get him to lie", or to "get him fired", something is very fishy. He put it in writing!

They were so sure he'd lose, so sure his income taxes would get him, so sure of Russian collusion, so sure of an impeachable quid pro quo. He hit them in the face with pies every single time.

The AG dropping the case on Flynn turns the entire purpose of the Special Counsel regs on its head. The SC is appointed *precisely* to insulate an investigation from influence by a political appointee, namely, the AG.
The opportunity to object to investigatory and prosecutorial decisions taken by the Special Counsel was in the hands of Rod Rosenstein (Trump's own appointee), during the course of the investigation. Rosenstein had to APPROVE each major step, and he did.
These decisions have already been vetted. Once by Rosenstein, and then again by a separate branch of government: the judiciary. Judge Sullivan had to review the case, and accept Flynn's plea. His view was that Flynn "arguably sold out the country."
It makes zero sense to appoint a Special Counsel, have his decisions reviewed and approved by both the DAG and a fed judge, and allow a future AG to come in and simply substitute his judgment. Especially an AG who lied about the findings of the investigation from the get-go.
Had Rosenstein overruled Mueller's decisions, he would have been required to notify Congress, and explain his reasons. Barr needs to answer to the judiciary committees for his actions -- these decisions are, ultimately, not really his to make if the SC regs mean anything.
Basically, Barr provides the workaround for any future president (D or R) for whom a Special Counsel is appointed. Let the investigation take its course. Then fire the AG who appointed him. Hire another, who undoes and dismisses all the actions the SC took. Voila!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But according to the Death Star Stormtroopers anything that is against Trump* is a deep state plot because for years Americans who go into government service are just laying in wait for the Stable Genius.
They were obviously recruited in high school and trained by libs in those decadent institutions of higher education.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you’re angry about what Donald Trump & Bill Barr just did, then you better get off your ass this November and vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

great day for America and a Great American Patriot! God Bless General Flynn!

bad day for perpetually wrong pete and the obama corruption crew

Winners focus on winning
Losers focus on winners
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

General Flynn is a traiter as is his former boss. He failed to report he was an agent for a foreign power. He admitted to lying about it to the FBI. He plead guilty to it twice. Trump fired him because he said he lied to the Vice President. These are facts. The prosecutor in charge of the case was pressured to quit and replaced by a crony of Barrs who and now Barr is refusing to prosecute the case despite a guilty plea. This will save Trump the trouble with pardoning Flynn which he must do to prevent Flynn from spilling the beans about the Trump/Russian collusion in their intervention in our elections and their payoff-the dropping of sanctions. There you go that's a quick summary. Meanwhile we have 75000 Americans dead and counting because we have an incompetent fool as President who cares more about himself and his re-election than the welfare of the country. Vote this asshat out of office in November!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Barr’s memo isn’t that they can’t prove that he lied, he did and they can’t get around it. They claim that’s not “material.”

Meanwhile, Starr and Kavanaugh argued that whether a president lied about having sexual relations with someone was “material” and enough to warrant impeachment.

The administration is trying to block the Grand Jury testimony that the report that “clears” Trump* was based on.
Who would be concerned about information that proves their innocence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He plead guilty to it and was found guilty by a jury.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:1poke:

After DOJ drops Flynn case, a simple question: If Flynn did nothing wrong, why did he conceal his actions?
“There was always a deeper problem, one that still isn’t resolved. Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election?”

the right hails the dropping of flynn

But have no opinions with it taking 3 months to arrest 2 people who gunned down a black unarmed jogger.. in daylight

But thier upset that a judge locked up a hairdresser for staying.open after lock down restrictions in texas.
Hmmm Black judge white women .. how dare he..

Then flynn some how Obama's hold overs going after poor old flynn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the right hails the dropping of flynn

But have no opinions with it taking 3 months to arrest 2 people who gunned down a black unarmed jogger.. in daylight

But thier upset that a judge locked up a hairdresser for staying.open after lock down restrictions in texas.
Hmmm Black judge white women .. how dare he..

Then flynn some how Obama's hold overs going after poor old flynn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so if I'm talking about something other than the jogger, that means I don't care?

Find who did it, and execute him. Fair enough?

"But thier upset that a judge locked up a hairdresser for staying.open after lock down restrictions in texas."

It's different. It wasn't an official instrument of the government that killed that jogger, just some jerk who needs to be dealt with. What happened to the salon owner, is indicative of how crazy things have gotten. Not saying that's worse, because it's not, nobody died.

But being concerned about one, doesn't mean you can't simultaneously be concerned about the other.

Then flynn some how Obama's hold overs going after poor old flynn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you read what the assistant director of the FBI wrote, before the first conversation with Flynn? Yes or no?

An important point to remember in why Flynn is being rewarded: He never gave up the missing piece of the puzzle which is whether Trump knew about or directed the call to Kislyak. Mueller said he couldn't get to bottom of it, because Flynn and McFarland claimed to not remember.

so if I'm talking about something other than the jogger, that means I don't care?

Find who did it, and execute him. Fair enough?

"But thier upset that a judge locked up a hairdresser for staying.open after lock down restrictions in texas."

It's different. It wasn't an official instrument of the government that killed that jogger, just some jerk who needs to be dealt with. What happened to the salon owner, is indicative of how crazy things have gotten. Not saying that's worse, because it's not, nobody died.

But being concerned about one, doesn't mean you can't simultaneously be concerned about the other.

Jim bigger picture.. i wasn't speaking at you specifically .. but lets review if you commit war crimes your OK with trump supporters
if you lie about the russians and got fired for lying from the POTUS your Ok with his supporters

Ms Luther was fined $7,000 (£5,652) and was warned that she would be fined a further $500 a day from now until Friday if the business continued to remain open. She was ordered to remain in jail for seven days after the judge found her guilty of contempt of court.

Judge Moyé told Ms Luther: "The rule of law governs us. People cannot take it upon themselves to determine what they will and will not do."

shes ok with trump supporters

If your a Captain of an aircraft carrier and didn't go along with Covid 19 line coming out of the white house your not ok with his supporters

the Judge who locked her up is not ok with Trump supporters

a this says it all in trump land

Jim bigger picture.. i wasn't speaking at you specifically .. but lets review if you commit war crimes your OK with trump supporters
if you lie about the russians and got fired for lying from the POTUS your Ok with his supporters

Ms Luther was fined $7,000 (£5,652) and was warned that she would be fined a further $500 a day from now until Friday if the business continued to remain open. She was ordered to remain in jail for seven days after the judge found her guilty of contempt of court.

Judge Moyé told Ms Luther: "The rule of law governs us. People cannot take it upon themselves to determine what they will and will not do."

I'm not supporting Flynn. I support the idea that the FBI can't go after someone for political reasons, no matter who it is. This isn't about Flynn, as much as it's about the FBI. All you see is Flynn getting let off, you can't focus on what the FBI did, or why they might have done it.

shes ok with trump supporters

If your a Captain of an aircraft carrier and didn't go along with Covid 19 line coming out of the white house your not ok with his supporters

the Judge who locked her up is not ok with Trump supporters

a this says it all in trump land

"if you lie about the russians and got fired for lying from the POTUS your Ok with his supporters"

If Flynn committed a crime, he should be punished. But law enforcement has to go about it the right way, they can't be motivated by politics, and they can't entrap him. DO you agree with that?

Alan Dershowitz is very very liberal, and a Harvard Law School professor, and he says it was "absolutely the right thing" to drop it.

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

sorry about your frustration pete...try to relax over the weekend

If Flynn committed a crime, he should be punished. But law enforcement has to go about it the right way, they can't be motivated by politics, and they can't entrap him. DO you agree with that?
The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

The FBI assistant director asked if the goal was "to get him to lie". That's very different from "see if he already lied".

Anyway, Alan Dershowitx is a subject matter expert (unlike you) who is a rare person that doesn't always agree with one side or the other (also very unlike you). He therefore has some credibility..

I'm not defending what Flynn did. This is about what the FBI did. The libs here won't go near the FBI's actions, because it doesn't fit the Narrative.

The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

Nobody is saying the FBI engineered what he did before the investigation. But the FBI did engineer the way they chose to conduct themselves.

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

so bitter

Nobody is saying the FBI engineered what he did before the investigation. But the FBI did engineer the way they chose to conduct themselves.

obama was the engineer

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape. "

I'm confused. Didn't you very recently post a 50,000 word article written by a former Jeb Bush staffer, to support your position that Trump is bad? Yes, you did. Does that mean you agree with every position that man has ever taken?

So why is it OK for you to support your position with words of someone who you don't agree with on other topics, but it's not valid when I do it? I'd just love to hear you attempt to explain that.

Pete, you are again and again, backing yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.

the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute."

I don't dispute he lied to the FBI. But there seems to be some question about whether or not the FBI acted appropriately during the investigation. All the libs here are having trouble distinguishing between whether or not Flynn committed a crime, and whether or not the FBI broke the rules in trying to establish that he committed a crime.

"Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity"

Nooo...he wants to create a world where the government cannot break the rules in trying to bring criminals to justice. I have no issue with creating a world where the FBI doesn't set out "to get" someone for political reasons. They can't do that.

This is not the first time that Barr interfered in criminal investigations involving Trump* courtiers. He also intervened to with a sentencing memorandum for Stone, that led to the withdrawal of four career prosecutors from the case and a call from thousands of DOJ alumni for Barr’s resignation. He earlier sought to soften the sentence to be imposed on General Flynn. This time, Barr has gone a step further and moved to dismiss the Flynn case outright. So once again, the lead prosecutor has quit the case, and the government’s filing was so unpersuasive that no career prosecutor was willing to sign it. It is signed only by a political appointee—Timothy Shea, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who was appointed by Barr—acting at the Attorney General’s direction.

Flynn was caught lying about his conversation with a foreign ambassador during a foreign-counterintelligence investigation. The lie was material when Flynn admitted it was, and nothing has changed since he did so.

Barr’s actions are so destructive—they destroy the norms of discretionary decision making. The American system of justice asks prosecutors to consider systematic questions—for example, whether the prosecution is a federal-law-enforcement priority or will have a significant deterrent effect—and issues that are specific to the individual, such as a person’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offense.

But never, until now‚ has it been acceptable to ask whether an individual has political connections to the president. Or if the prosecution would benefit his political interests.

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

Before the interview, the FBI was ready to drop the case against Flynn. It did not find that he did anything wrong. Nor was his conversation with kislyak illegal or treasonous. As the incoming National Security Adviser, it was not some illegal, nefarious, "talks to Russia," it was a perfectly legal conversation in response to the Russian Ambassador calling him and questioning a policy issue. Flynn did not say anything treasonous in the call. And knew that his call had been monitored. So there was no reason to lie about it. The FBI knew what was said on the call and had no need to have Flynn regurgitate the details. The sole purpose of questioning Flynn was to entrap him in a perjury charge. If Flynn didn't remember correctly and said the wrong thing, it was not a deliberate lie, but they would have what they really wanted. What they wanted was not to convict a traitor or criminal, it was to remove an obstacle that would frustrate their intention to preserve the Trump-Russia probe, as Andy McCarthy wrote: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/fbi-set-up-michael-flynn-to-preserve-trump-russia-probe/

If Flynn had actually done something treacherous or illegal (other than so-called lying to the FBI), he would have, and should have, been prosecuted for that. They had no evidence of him doing any of that. They had no evidentiary reason for any further investigation of him (as I noted above, they were ready to close the investigation of Flynn), but he had to be removed in order to protect the attempt to continue the bogus Trump/Russia conspiracy. McCarthy spells it out very well in the above linked article.

On December 29, 2016 the Obama administration announced punitive sanctions on Russia.

The imminence of these sanctions triggered a flurry of communications between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, reached out to Flynn on December 28. Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, but on December 29, he spoke multiple times with Kislyak.

On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not respond to the sanctions. That same day, Trump tweeted his thanks: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!” Another round of calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

What exactly happened here? At first, Trump’s team denied that anything untoward had occurred. On January 15, 2017, Vice President–elect Mike Pence appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation to assure the country that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed the Obama sanctions. “He had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place,” Pence said, referring to a December 25, 2016, accident that had killed 92 people. “It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Pence’s statement was not true. Flynn lied to the FBI about the calls. Back in 2017, Pence insisted that Flynn had lied to him too.

Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.

And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit.

The FBI assistant director asked if the goal was "to get him to lie". That's very different from "see if he already lied".
Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

you sound like a fool

this was not law enforcement trying to solve a crime...this was partisan hacks trying to take down a president

great day for America and a Great American Patriot! God Bless General Flynn!

bad day for perpetually wrong pete and the obama corruption crew

:1poke:

sorry about your frustration pete...try to relax over the weekend

so bitter

obama was the engineer

you sound like a fool

Obviously a Death Star Stormtrooper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tquaim7OMaQ

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

No I'm not that naïve. But when an assistant director asks in writing if the goal is to get him fired, that sounds like bias to me.

Again, Dershowitz knows more than both of us, and he's a lot less politically deranged than you. No offense, he has the credibility.

Here are the predicates for the Flynn investigation and predicates are cumulative or in simple words, they add up.
Now if you look at these and you are a government official charged with national security, do you say there is a possible threat here (predicate) which makes the lies material or just walk away?
Walking away is what the DOJ leadership purports to be the correct solution.

1. A senior official with a TS/SCI (top secret/sensitive compartmented information) clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities.
2. He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
3. As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he has phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he asked Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
4. He subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public.
5. The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

Here are the predicates for the Flynn investigation and predicates are cumulative or in simple words, they add up.
Now if you look at these and you are a government official charged with national security, do you say there is a possible threat here (predicate) which makes the lies material or just walk away?
Walking away is what the DOJ leadership purports to be the correct solution.

1. A senior official with a TS/SCI (top secret/sensitive compartmented information) clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities.
2. He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
3. As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he has phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he asked Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
4. He subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public.
5. The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

Pete, you criticized me for relying on Dershowitz's opinion. So please (for the second time), can you explain why you relied on the opinion of a Jeb Bush staffer to bolster your claim that Trump is a bad person? Do you agree with every single opinion that man has?

Boy do you have a problem answering questions.

Most, he's a good honest guy.

Dershowitz is a suckup and easily impressed, buddied up to Epstein and Trump, I'm not surprised you like him.

Most, he's a good honest guy.

Dershowitz is a suckup and easily impressed, buddied up to Epstein and Trump, I'm not surprised you like him.

there’s the baby i’ve been missing. you got called out for having weak arguments, and instead of admitting anyone else is right, or could even have a point, you go on the attack.

that’s what makes you a bore. that’s what makes you a bitch slapped pussy.

so Dershowitz doesn’t know
much about the law, despite spending his career at Harvard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

you don’t think we have to open
the economy back up soon?

how did taiwan, which is densely populated and close to china, manage to keep deaths to less than 20 without destroying themselves?

unemployment is the highest since the great depression. and not because the economy was unhealthy, but because we shut it off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there’s the baby i’ve been missing. you got called out for having weak arguments, and instead of admitting anyone else is right, or could even have a point, you go on the attack.

that’s what makes you a bore. that’s what makes you a bitch slapped pussy.

so Dershowitz doesn’t know
much about the law, despite spending his career at Harvard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this the point at which to praise liberal educational institutions, that you otherwise denigrate?
Really are you that much of a hypocrite?
Is Alan stealing money from you like Liz Warren or is his excessive salary OK because he said something you like?
Quite the hypocrite you are, guess you didn’t listen to the Jesuits you claim to have been educated by.
Maybe you should have gone to summer school
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

This is where MR1 usually says greatest President ever!
Of course that’s if your metric equates most infected with #1
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

I like suburbans and I don’t watch news. He is not a likable person but he happens to be the best thing that has happened to you in a long time. Trust me. ✌🏼
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many times do you think the staff in and around Trump and pence get tested


Yet the administration doesn't want to test Americans at 50% of the rate they test at in the WH

And those around Trump should get tested often it's a national security issues hes the POTUS ...

But I can't get tested unless I am symptomatic or work some place that does testing like nursing homes or prison or hospital, try to get an antibody test that's even harder..

But some see him as the best thing to happen to America in a long time .. minus examples of how of course LOL

Is this the point at which to praise liberal educational institutions, that you otherwise denigrate?
Really are you that much of a hypocrite?
Is Alan stealing money from you like Liz Warren or is his excessive salary OK because he said something you like?
Quite the hypocrite you are, guess you didn’t listen to the Jesuits you claim to have been educated by.
Maybe you should have gone to summer school
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again, it’s ok for you to rely on opposition opinion when it suits you, but wrong when i do it. I see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

of course there are other plans. there are countries that didn’t destroy their economies, and they are doing ok, like taiwan and sweden.

the alternative plan would have been a strict lockdown on the at risk groups you mention, and let everyone else continue to live their lives. there’s evidence we could have done that.

if the goal is always to reduce deaths, let’s set the speed limit at 5 mph. or do away with cars entirely. that would save lives. but we don’t do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many times do you think the staff in and around Trump and pence get tested


Yet the administration doesn't want to test Americans at 50% of the rate they test at in the WH

And those around Trump should get tested often it's a national security issues hes the POTUS ...

But I can't get tested unless I am symptomatic or work some place that does testing like nursing homes or prison or hospital, try to get an antibody test that's even harder..

But some see him as the best thing to happen to America in a long time .. minus examples of how of course LOL

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good question

My brother got tested yesterday as a heart problem has him going through some procedures. He said the test was agonizing and held at a drive through at St Elizabeth inBoston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good question

My brother got tested yesterday as a heart problem has him going through some procedures. He said the test was agonizing and held at a drive through at St Elizabeth inBoston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hope hes ok.

I don't dispute he lied to the FBI. But there seems to be some question about whether or not the FBI acted appropriately during the investigation. All the libs here are having trouble distinguishing between whether or not Flynn committed a crime, and whether or not the FBI broke the rules in trying to establish that he committed a crime
You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really the point is it.. but again you love comparing thing that aren't remotely the same as the same :claps:

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?
You’re reading fragments of someone’s thoughts as they were deliberating about their objectives and recognizing quite rationally it could have political ramifications. In the end they did the right thing.

I have no problem with doing the right thing.


Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?
You’re getting off topic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.
You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.
What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, the DOJ. The DOJ said there was no investigative reason to interview Flynn. The FBI isn't allowed to set people up out of political spite. If that's what happened. I don't know that happened, you don't know that it didn't. The note from the assistant director, asking if the goal is to "get him to lie, or get him fired", is troubling.

The FBI isn't allowed to set people up out of political spite.
And the judge isn’t allowed to accept a guilty plea unless there is evidence of a crime and the defendant has no reasonable defense.

All the DOJ did was file a motion anyway. For the case to be really dismissed the judge who has a very strong reputation would have to do a serious 180...wait for the court to be the next member of the deep state. You’re being played as a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the judge isn’t allowed to accept a guilty plea unless there is evidence of a crime and the defendant has no reasonable defense.

All the DOJ did was file a motion anyway. For the case to be really dismissed the judge who has a very strong reputation would have to do a serious 180...wait for the court to be the next member of the deep state. You’re being played as a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, but the documents showing possible fishiness at the start, were just released. Flynn's lawyers definitely did not have access to those, maybe the trial judge didn't either.

"You’re being played as a fool."

Oh, thanks for looking out for me.

Apparently I missed that as part of some code or law.
It does sound quite Orwellian.
Never mind the rule of law, we pass judgment based on fishiness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, but the documents showing possible fishiness at the start, were just released. Flynn's lawyers definitely did not have access to those, maybe the trial judge didn't either.
Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1193072]Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
[size=1][i]Posted from my iPhone

Even a conspiracy nut can get one right. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and asking if the goal is to get the guy to lie, or to get him fired, is what you'd say if it was a setup.

Either way, the charges will likely be dropped, and we all get to decide what we think of it. I know what your opinion is, and if the political parties were reversed, your opinion would be the exact opposite.

Have you ever noticed that you always side with the democrat? You ever take note of that, and ask yourself why?

As Jordan Peterson calls it, the pathological possession of ideology. You're are enslaved by it, prevented from thinking anything that doesn't fit. If that's wrong, please tell us the biggest single issue, on which you disagree with liberals.

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what, you mean, like, with a cloth?"

Hardee, har-har. That's so much better than Trump.

here's the deal...when the democrats nominate a snake, personal behavior doesn't matter. When they lose to Republicans who are terrible people, suddenly character means everything.

Just be consistent, and no one would disagree with you. Set some standards, and don't abandon them every single time it's politically convenient. The way the democrats flip-flopped on sexual assault allegations, isn't going un-noticed in swing states.

It's unbelievable to me, that 4 years after the last election, where we elected the least likeable person to ever hold that office, and the best you can do is dust off a moth-ridden Joe Biden. This election was the democrats for the taking, it's stunning to me that it's going to even be close.

Just stand for things that help Americans. Is that so hard?

Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nice conspiracy theory

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what, you mean, like, with a cloth?"

Hardee, har-har. That's so much better than Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iprJLxVEtY

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hea what did I do?...

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

"President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying, "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury...

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent.

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.

How is that for precedent?" Turley asked



I think Obama has some esplainin' to do....

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

"President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying, "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury...

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent.

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.

How is that for precedent?" Turley asked



I think Obama has some esplainin' to do....


Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?

Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?



"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

The investigation was open when the FBI interviewed Flynn. And at the time of the interview, the FBI knew that Flynn had held secret discussions with Russia about national security matters, and then lied about it repeatedly. They had to interview him.

Moreover, the umbrella investigation under which Crossfire Razor was established, Crossfire Hurricane, was also still open. Secret conversations with Russia about sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were potentially highly relevant to the issue of possible coordination with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. At the very least, such dealings would raise the question of possible payback for Russia’s help with the election.

There are at least two likely explanations for Barr’s taking such an bogus position.

The most obvious is that he was—yet again—acting primarily to please Trump, as his consigliere.

Less obvious, but perhaps equally likely, is that Barr doesn’t like the way the FBI conducted the interview. Barr clearly believes that rather than handing Flynn the rope with which he could hang himself, the FBI should have told him in advance that they knew there was a disconnect between the facts and what Flynn had told Spicer and Pence, and steered him onto safe ground. But that wouldn’t provide a legal rationale for dismissing the case, so Barr had to make one up.

At the end of the day, however, it really doesn’t matter what pretext Barr offers for his actions. What matters is that he is subverting justice.

Judge Sullivan should not let him get away with it.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with Flynn's FARA violations, taking over half a million from a foreign country, a plot to kidnap, etc.

"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, notes are notes but the notes never said plant false evidence or pull out his nails or or water board him .. basically get this Russian loving former General ..who lied to us. PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... and the FBI did and caught him in 2 lies.. ps once again law enforcement can not force you to lie..in front of a judge no less...unless torture is involved.

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal? Your crazy if you think this administration is pro rule of law for all
Their action clearly show they are only concerned of what laws or investigation actions benfit them


That's why they keep reinvestgating incidents that have all ready been investigated.. looking for anything they can use to discredit our legal system as a whole .... and they are doing the same with voting fraud again

Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, notes are notes but the notes never said plant false evidence or pull out his nails or or water board him .. hey basically get this Russian loving former General ..who lie to us. PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... and they did and caught him in 2 lies

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal?

"Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, "

How do you know this? What about the things that the DOJ lawyers withheld from the defense and from the judge? id that happen, or am I making that up?

"PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... "

The FBI note didn't say "let's fire him". It said "is the goal to get him fired." They got him fired. So it exactly supports the argument. Exactly.

How do you know they didn't violate his rights? The judge hasn't ruled yet, but somehow you know. Please explain how you know? Or cite a source? Or are you just jumping to the most anti-Trump conclusion possible, which is what you always do?

As I said, I have zero knowledge of what happened (other than the note, and the fact that they withheld documents that should have been shared). Of course it's entirely possible that you happen to know a lot more of what happened than I do. But ware we just supposed to assume you do? Can you support your conclusion that his right weren't trampled?

Barr ally Tim Shea extensively cited testimony from former DOJ official Mary McCord in the filing asking to drop the Flynn case. Well, McCord just disavowed essentially everything that Barr and Shea claimed about her testimony, point by point.

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.

At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

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.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

obama is in BIG trouble....

obama is in BIG trouble....

It doesn't make sense that these people want to run against the incredibly popular Barack Obama... until you remember that Obama is black.

Barr ally Tim Shea extensively cited testimony from former DOJ official Mary McCord in the filing asking to drop the Flynn case. Well, McCord just disavowed essentially everything that Barr and Shea claimed about her testimony, point by point.

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.

At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

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.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

How dare you present facts as the were. And not how this administration wishes they were .. they seem to be experts in revisionist History
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How dare you present facts as the were. And not how this administration wishes they were .. they seem to be experts in revisionist History
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And the base just encourages it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't make sense that these people want to run against the incredibly popular Barack Obama... until you remember that Obama is black.

this will give skinny spot stealing paul a chubby

🎯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the base just encourages it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks :)

this is going to be fun....

this is going to be fun....

I cannot wait for the Durham report. Could well be a nothingburger, could well be a bombshell.

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal?



which war criminal are you referring to?

I cannot wait for the Durham report. Could well be a nothingburger, could well be a bombshell.

if it was a nothingburger obama wouldn't be flapping his yap making a fool of himself and the adorers in the media wouldn't be in full defense mode already....it's pretty bad...not surprising....but pretty bad

So you’re saying that the deep state set up this whole elaborate plot to entrap Trump, but instead of using any of that material, it instead sabotaged Hillary Clinton 10 days before the election?

No, no, you don’t get it. You’ve gotta go back to the Benghazi episode four seasons back. Well, really to Troopergate, but that’s only available on DVD …

I cannot wait for the Durham report. Could well be a nothingburger, could well be a bombshell.
Given what we've seen so far from Barr the report is likely poisoned before it's written. Even if Durham turns up nothing of substance it will be spun and distorted...

Given what we've seen so far from Barr the report is likely poisoned before it's written. Even if Durham turns up nothing of substance it will be spun and distorted...

If it turns up something, will it not also be spun and distorted? By you? The guy who refused to accept that NBC is qualified to determine when they have done something wrong?

If Durham says there was nothing there, I'll accept that, he has that kind of reputation.

If it turns up something, will it not also be spun and distorted? By you? The guy who refused to accept that NBC is qualified to determine when they have done something wrong?

If Durham says there was nothing there, I'll accept that, he has that kind of reputation.

I think Barr said this is a criminal investigation, not an investigation to submit a report. If something criminal is found, there will either be trials or not. In which case the spin and distortion will be tested in court--except, of course, the media spin and distortion--that will be ground out daily with most networks pointing out how awful and unjust and political the DOJ under Barr is and how tainted and twisted the trials are and how the only just and proper trials would have been against Flynn and Trump and Barr himself.

Given what we've seen so far from Barr the report is likely poisoned before it's written. Even if Durham turns up nothing of substance it will be spun and distorted...

this is delusional.....

The federal judge overseeing the case of Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says he'll set a schedule to receive 'amicus curiae briefs' which will allow interested 3rd parties -- outside of Flynn's attorneys and the Justice Department -- to file briefings with the court.
This means folks like the 2000 former DOJ employees, including appointees of both political parties, who demanded Barr's resignation over his unwarranted dismissal of the Flynn case can make arguments to the court. This is a fascinating judge for this situation because his history with DOJ includes public release of misconduct findings against prosecutors in the case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Among other things, this prompted a nationwide reform of discovery practices in US Attys offices & Main Justice components.
Given Judge Sullivan's history of taking institutional integrity seriously & believing the courts have a role to play in insuring proper conduct at DOJ, this is starting to look like game-on. (& before people ask, he has been appointed to judgeships by Reagan, Bush & Clinton)

So is it fair to infer that Judge Sullivan is concerned that the DOJ does not capably represents the interests of the United States ?

you have to work very hard to convince yourself of things...

The “Watergate Prosecutors” who intend to file an amicus brief in the Flynn case include some heavy-hitting lawyers. Larry Robbins represented Marie Yovanovitch during impeachment and Bill Taylor helped secure Greg Craig’s acquittal last year.

Flynn is just as afraid of the truth coming out as Trump* is. They are afraid of lawyers making an argument. Someone’s opposition to friend of the court briefs says more about them than anything else. This case seems a perfect example. And all Americans have a dog in this hunt.

Michael Flynn’s Opposition to and
Motion to Deny Notice of Intent to File
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
On May 11, 2020, a group referring to itself as “Watergate Prosecutors” submitted to the Court by email a Notice of Intent to File Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae.1 However, this Court has consistently—on twenty-four (24) previous occasions—summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case. Exhibit A. The proposed amicus brief has no place in this Court. No rule allows the filing, and the self-proclaimed collection of “Watergate Prosecutors” has no cognizable special interest. Separation of powers forecloses their appearance here. Only the Department of Justice and the defense can be heard. Accordingly, the Watergate Prosecutors’ attempted filing itself should not be registered on the docket, and any attempt by the group or any individual to make a filing in this case must be denied—as all others have been.

1 The Watergate Prosecutors’ Notice also referred to this Court’s Local Criminal Rules, LCrR 57.6, but, as will be seen, applied for no relief other than permission to file an amicus brief. They do not have “a dog in this hunt” any more than do the former “Whitewater” prosecutors or the “Clinton impeachment” prosecutors.

So if you care at all about national security you should be concerned that the foreign intelligence targets the NSA was monitoring can reverse engineer the channels they were using on the dates they were in contact with Flynn that was just released by the DNI and, if they are still using those same channels, stop.

So that’s fun.

Great job by the clueless fools

FLYNN lawyers are asking the U.S. Appeals Court in D.C. to force Judge Sullivan to grant DOJ's motion to dismiss the case:
Translation: “Please save our guilty client from an honest and courageous judge!”
Judge Sullivan is going to require the criminals to turn over evidence of Flynn’s treason, and all the others connected to it. Barr and President Tweety are making in their Depends.
And you wonder why the Hydroxy smokescreen and the rest of the chaff is being thrown.

��

A great interview with Sydney Powell, Flynn's lawyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmUhnsPAg_8

I am trying to think of a reason that these transcripts were allowed out of ODNI, and my only guess is that someone in the White House not only wants to make sure Flynn never comes back into government, but maybe to make Judge Sullivan digs in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device