charges dropped against Flynn

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[Pete F.]

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.

[scottw]

obama is in BIG trouble....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Sea Dangles]

🎯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

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

[scottw]

this is going to be fun....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is going to be fun....

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

which war criminal are you referring to?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Pete F.]

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 …

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.....

[Pete F.]

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 ?

[scottw]

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

[Pete F.]

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Pete F.]

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.

[Sea Dangles]

��

[detbuch]

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

[Pete F.]

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