Michael Flynn Developments

[CO. Hoosier]

We will never find out officially (probably) since DOJ dropped the case.

Sure we know. It's all here, its all public, and it was submitted to the court under the mandatory rules covering prosecuting attorneys. Flynn's guilty plea was given resulting from a deliberate and material Brady violation by the Mueller prosecutors in a misguided effort to get Flynn to piss on Trump. The government had no responsible choice other than to dismiss the charges.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I have no idea what the DOJ dropping it says. The president sure has no desire to pursue, and Barr has not shown a great deal of independence.

As to Russia, what is your argument? That Russia did not try to interfere? Or that they did, just without help from Trump's team? The latter has always seemed likely to me, the former seems pretty wrong.

Russian Collusion hoax, not Russian interference. I believe Russia interferes in every election.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Russian Collusion hoax, not Russian interference. I believe Russia interferes in every election.

Russian influence in our politics goes back to the days of our civil rights debates. Their interference on the side of anti-fracking advocates is well-documented too. The left and the press always ignore that one.

 

[cosmickid]

Sure we know. It's all here, its all public, and it was submitted to the court under the mandatory rules covering prosecuting attorneys. Flynn's guilty plea was given resulting from a deliberate and material Brady violation by the Mueller prosecutors in a misguided effort to get Flynn to piss on Trump. The government had no responsible choice other than to dismiss the charges.

I'm going to guess that Judge Sullivan is not going to be satisfied with this political ploy. None of the career Prosecutors were willing to sign off on it, and Van Grack resigned hours prior to its submission rather than be associated with it. Shea, the interim Trump political appointee (and Barr crony) was the only one willing to sign off on it - so who defends it in front of Judge Sullivan's scrutiny?

Sullivan has already shown his displeasure with not only Flynn but also with the right-wing talking points his lawyers put forth back in Dec 2018. He called out Flynn for lying to the FBI, and in no certain terms warned his lawyers that he was not in favor of Flynn escaping prison time...

"This is a transparent scam, but we’ve actually been here before. Back in December 2018, I wrote a piece called Michael Flynn’s Very Bad Day in Court. In that article, I took great satisfaction that the judge overseeing Flynn’s case had completely rejected silly right-wing talking points about Flynn being entrapped and delivered a frightening diatribe in Flynn’s direction:

…[U.S. District Judge Emmet] Sullivan tore into Flynn and his lawyers. He almost bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding that he admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points which have recently been repeated by the president himself. He forced Flynn to admit that he knew he was wrong to lie to the FBI and that there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted. He acknowledged that any possible wrongdoing then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok may have committed in other areas had no bearing on his responsibility to be truthful to federal agents.

Judge Sullivan openly questioned whether Flynn could have been charged with treason for operating as an undeclared agent of a foreign power while serving as National Security Advisor, suggested that Flynn had dishonored the flag that was displayed in the courtroom, and said: “arguably you sold your country out.”

He also asked Flynn’s lawyers how their filing was consistent with the client taking responsibility for his actions and advised them that they might want to delay sentencing since he was not inclined to let Flynn avoid incarceration."

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...onvicted-michael-flynn-will-now-have-his-say/

So what are all these folks, as well as Susan Hennessey (a former attorney within the office of General Counsel to the NSA) missing in their analysis which you dispute?

"The brief’s account of the history of the Flynn case is not accurate, its account of the government’s own conduct equally flawed. And it all leads up to a conclusion so obviously wrong that one does not need to know anything about counterintelligence to see through it: that there is no reasonable basis even to interview a senior government official when that person has engaged over sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary government that interfered in an election—and who subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States about the substance of his conversation with an agent of that government. Based on this position, the Justice Department today took an even greater leap: that it is perfectly legal for the official if interviewed under these circumstances, to lie through his teeth repeatedly to the FBI agents who show up to interview him."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

We all know that Trump is likely inevitably going to be forced to pardon Flynn, a situation he and Barr are desperately seeking to avoid. Will play well with the Base, but just another reminder of Barr's mishandling of Mueller and more anti-Trump fuel for the majority of us that do NOT support Trump.

I think it's a desperate ploy, but I think the 2018 midterms showed that Trump inspires as much if not more animosity from anti-Trump voters as the motivation he provides for his base. I don't think the polls reflect how badly he's going to lose, including states like FL and AZ. Every endorsement he's made since 2016 in any race held outside of Trump world has basically been the kiss of death...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm going to guess that Judge Sullivan is not going to be satisfied with this political ploy. None of the career Prosecutors were willing to sign off on it, and Van Grack resigned hours prior to its submission rather than be associated with it. Shea, the interim Trump political appointee (and Barr crony) was the only one willing to sign off on it - so who defends it in front of Judge Sullivan's scrutiny?

Sullivan has already shown his displeasure with not only Flynn but also with the right-wing talking points his lawyers put forth back in Dec 2018. He called out Flynn for lying to the FBI, and in no certain terms warned his lawyers that he was not in favor of Flynn escaping prison time...

"This is a transparent scam, but we’ve actually been here before. Back in December 2018, I wrote a piece called Michael Flynn’s Very Bad Day in Court. In that article, I took great satisfaction that the judge overseeing Flynn’s case had completely rejected silly right-wing talking points about Flynn being entrapped and delivered a frightening diatribe in Flynn’s direction:

…[U.S. District Judge Emmet] Sullivan tore into Flynn and his lawyers. He almost bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding that he admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points which have recently been repeated by the president himself. He forced Flynn to admit that he knew he was wrong to lie to the FBI and that there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted. He acknowledged that any possible wrongdoing then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok may have committed in other areas had no bearing on his responsibility to be truthful to federal agents.

Judge Sullivan openly questioned whether Flynn could have been charged with treason for operating as an undeclared agent of a foreign power while serving as National Security Advisor, suggested that Flynn had dishonored the flag that was displayed in the courtroom, and said: “arguably you sold your country out.”

He also asked Flynn’s lawyers how their filing was consistent with the client taking responsibility for his actions and advised them that they might want to delay sentencing since he was not inclined to let Flynn avoid incarceration."

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...onvicted-michael-flynn-will-now-have-his-say/

So what are all these folks, as well as Susan Hennessey (a former attorney within the office of General Counsel to the NSA) missing in their analysis which you dispute?

"The brief’s account of the history of the Flynn case is not accurate, its account of the government’s own conduct equally flawed. And it all leads up to a conclusion so obviously wrong that one does not need to know anything about counterintelligence to see through it: that there is no reasonable basis even to interview a senior government official when that person has engaged over sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary government that interfered in an election—and who subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States about the substance of his conversation with an agent of that government. Based on this position, the Justice Department today took an even greater leap: that it is perfectly legal for the official if interviewed under these circumstances, to lie through his teeth repeatedly to the FBI agents who show up to interview him."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

We all know that Trump is likely inevitably going to be forced to pardon Flynn, a situation he and Barr are desperately seeking to avoid. Will play well with the Base, but just another reminder of Barr's handling of Mueller and more anti-Trump fuel for the majority of us that do NOT support Trump.

I think it's a desperate ploy, but I think the 2018 midterms showed that Trump inspires as much if not more animosity from anti-Trump voters as the motivation he provides for his base. I don't think the polls reflect how badly he's going to lose, including states like FL and AZ. Every endorsement he's made since 2016 in any race held outside of Trump world has basically been the kiss of death...

The recent disclosures are not right wing talking points. They were in government files. They weren’t made known to Flynn. It’s all documented with citations in the motion to dismiss. They are clear Brady violations.

 

[cosmickid]

The recent disclosures are not right wing talking points. They were in government files. They weren’t made known to Flynn. It’s all documented with citations in the motion to dismiss. They are clear Brady violations.

Did you read the Lawfare article? They feel the DOJ brief that you apparently agree with is nonsense. Since NO ONE (except for Barr and Shea) was willing to sign off on it, I'm maintaining it will be a really tough sell to Judge Sullivan. Sounds like you see it differently...

"To understand how bizarre the government’s theory of the case has become, let’s step back a moment and consider the standards for predication. Under the Attorney General’s Guidelines, the predication standard for a full investigation requires the government to have an “articulable factual basis” to “reasonably indicate” that “an activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.” In other words, to take the view that the FBI had no reasonable investigative predicate for the Flynn case on Jan. 24, 2017, one has to believe that the following fact-pattern, considered in its entirety, provides no reasonably articulable basis for a counterintelligence concern:

• 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.
• He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
• As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he had 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 had asked that Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
• 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.
• The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Did you read the Lawfare article? They feel the DOJ brief that you apparently agree with is nonsense. Since NO ONE (except for Barr and Shea) was willing to sign off on it, I'm maintaining it will be a really tough sell to Judge Sullivan. Sounds like you see it differently...

"To understand how bizarre the government’s theory of the case has become, let’s step back a moment and consider the standards for predication. Under the Attorney General’s Guidelines, the predication standard for a full investigation requires the government to have an “articulable factual basis” to “reasonably indicate” that “an activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.” In other words, to take the view that the FBI had no reasonable investigative predicate for the Flynn case on Jan. 24, 2017, one has to believe that the following fact-pattern, considered in its entirety, provides no reasonably articulable basis for a counterintelligence concern:

• 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.
• He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
• As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he had 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 had asked that Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
• 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.
• The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

Yeah I read it. She wrote an argument. Actually not a bad bit of advocacy. Don't believe for a moment that she objectively reported. I don't find her argument credible beginning with her description of the reason for the January 24 interview and omitting any reference to the specious Logan Act charge as shown by the disclosures. She goes on and on abotu an investigation that was no longer active.

 

[cosmickid]

Yeah I read it. She wrote an argument. Actually not a bad bit of advocacy. Don't believe for a moment that she objectively reported. I don't find her argument credible beginning with her description of the reason for the January 24 interview and omitting any reference to the specious Logan Act charge as shown by the disclosures. She goes on and on abotu an investigation that was no longer active.

Well the point is that she is not the presiding Judge who has already accepted Flynn's guilty plea, and already indicated he felt Flynn should have been tried for Treason. My point is I don't think Barr's little ploy is going to sway Sullivan, and Trump will be forced to use the Pardon he desperately wants to avoid...

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm going to guess that Judge Sullivan is not going to be satisfied with this political ploy. None of the career Prosecutors were willing to sign off on it, and Van Grack resigned hours prior to its submission rather than be associated with it. Shea, the interim Trump political appointee (and Barr crony) was the only one willing to sign off on it - so who defends it in front of Judge Sullivan's scrutiny?

Sullivan has already shown his displeasure with not only Flynn but also with the right-wing talking points his lawyers put forth back in Dec 2018. He called out Flynn for lying to the FBI, and in no certain terms warned his lawyers that he was not in favor of Flynn escaping prison time...

"This is a transparent scam, but we’ve actually been here before. Back in December 2018, I wrote a piece called Michael Flynn’s Very Bad Day in Court. In that article, I took great satisfaction that the judge overseeing Flynn’s case had completely rejected silly right-wing talking points about Flynn being entrapped and delivered a frightening diatribe in Flynn’s direction:

…[U.S. District Judge Emmet] Sullivan tore into Flynn and his lawyers. He almost bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding that he admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points which have recently been repeated by the president himself. He forced Flynn to admit that he knew he was wrong to lie to the FBI and that there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted. He acknowledged that any possible wrongdoing then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and counterintelligence official Peter Strzok may have committed in other areas had no bearing on his responsibility to be truthful to federal agents.

Judge Sullivan openly questioned whether Flynn could have been charged with treason for operating as an undeclared agent of a foreign power while serving as National Security Advisor, suggested that Flynn had dishonored the flag that was displayed in the courtroom, and said: “arguably you sold your country out.”

He also asked Flynn’s lawyers how their filing was consistent with the client taking responsibility for his actions and advised them that they might want to delay sentencing since he was not inclined to let Flynn avoid incarceration."

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...onvicted-michael-flynn-will-now-have-his-say/

So what are all these folks, as well as Susan Hennessey (a former attorney within the office of General Counsel to the NSA) missing in their analysis which you dispute?

"The brief’s account of the history of the Flynn case is not accurate, its account of the government’s own conduct equally flawed. And it all leads up to a conclusion so obviously wrong that one does not need to know anything about counterintelligence to see through it: that there is no reasonable basis even to interview a senior government official when that person has engaged over sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary government that interfered in an election—and who subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States about the substance of his conversation with an agent of that government. Based on this position, the Justice Department today took an even greater leap: that it is perfectly legal for the official if interviewed under these circumstances, to lie through his teeth repeatedly to the FBI agents who show up to interview him."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

We all know that Trump is likely inevitably going to be forced to pardon Flynn, a situation he and Barr are desperately seeking to avoid. Will play well with the Base, but just another reminder of Barr's mishandling of Mueller and more anti-Trump fuel for the majority of us that do NOT support Trump.

I think it's a desperate ploy, but I think the 2018 midterms showed that Trump inspires as much if not more animosity from anti-Trump voters as the motivation he provides for his base. I don't think the polls reflect how badly he's going to lose, including states like FL and AZ. Every endorsement he's made since 2016 in any race held outside of Trump world has basically been the kiss of death...

You live in fantasyland.

Even if Sullivan oversteps and tries to throw Flynn in jail, Trump will not have to pardon him. This shit will get thrown out as soon as he appeals. It will leave the good judge, who went on his rant at Flynn, having to defend his initial sentence in the face of damning evidence of a screw job investigation that was followed by prosecutorial misconduct. Glack did not resign because he disagrees, he resigned because, based on his conduct, he was probably going to be shitcanned (at best).

What happened here was an egregious misapplication of justice for the sake of politics. You cannot defend this. The Obama era holdovers were prosecuting people because they were pissed about the results of an election. Nixon didn't have shit on what these yahoos attempted. The ****ing Logan Act against a member of the President's transition team and presumptive National Security Advisor? GTFOH with that noise. You want to start deploying the Logan Act on folks? Fine. I expect FBI agents to be kicking down some Democrat's doors shortly.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

You live in fantasyland.

Even if Sullivan oversteps and tries to throw Flynn in jail, Trump will not have to pardon him. This shit will get thrown out as soon as he appeals. It will leave the good judge, who went on his rant at Flynn, having to defend his initial sentence in the face of damning evidence of a screw job investigation that was followed by prosecutorial misconduct. Glack did not resign because he disagrees, he resigned because, based on his conduct, he was probably going to be shitcanned (at best).

What happened here was an egregious misapplication of justice for the sake of politics. You cannot defend this. The Obama era holdovers were prosecuting people because they were pissed about the results of an election. Nixon didn't have shit on what these yahoos attempted. The ****ing Logan Act against a member of the President's transition team and presumptive National Security Advisor? GTFOH with that noise. You want to start deploying the Logan Act on folks? Fine. I expect FBI agents to be kicking down some Democrat's doors shortly.

Wrong!
The Russian sanctions by the Obama administration 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.

At first, Trump’s team denied that anything wrong 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. Trump then fired Flynn for lying.


Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they probably have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

Not only that. But it is probable now that Russia knows and has records of Flynn's lies and Trump's...ugh...lies. So now both of those may be targets for blackmail. Flynn would have been at the highest levels in the cabinet. Trump, well, we know what Trump is....and he is presently, likely, getting played and owned by Russia.

 

[cosmickid]

You live in fantasyland.

Even if Sullivan oversteps and tries to throw Flynn in jail, Trump will not have to pardon him. This shit will get thrown out as soon as he appeals. It will leave the good judge, who went on his rant at Flynn, having to defend his initial sentence in the face of damning evidence of a screw job investigation that was followed by prosecutorial misconduct. Glack did not resign because he disagrees, he resigned because, based on his conduct, he was probably going to be shitcanned (at best).

What happened here was an egregious misapplication of justice for the sake of politics. You cannot defend this. The Obama era holdovers were prosecuting people because they were pissed about the results of an election. Nixon didn't have shit on what these yahoos attempted. The ****ing Logan Act against a member of the President's transition team and presumptive National Security Advisor? GTFOH with that noise. You want to start deploying the Logan Act on folks? Fine. I expect FBI agents to be kicking down some Democrat's doors shortly.

I think appealing a sentence you were given as a plea bargain in order for you to testify against co-conspirators in a case involving a plot with Turkey where you were paid over $500,000 might not exactly be a can of worms Flynn wants to open. I think if Sullivan sentences Flynn then Flynn and Trump are going to have to decide if they want to risk delaying a pardon, which may no longer be available after Jan 2021.

It's very unlikely that Flynn's case could work its way through the appellate system by Nov, and I honestly think Trump is toast and it won't even be that close. When even internal GOP polling in states like Ga and NC shows Biden tied and leading respectively, Trump is in deep shit...

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

View embedded media

Yep, 15 Republican AGs signed this. Only 15 are angling for an appointment to a judge position under the Republican leadership in the Senate. As opposed to over 2000 DOJ and FBI officials that signed to stop Barr from shilling for Trump.

Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they probably have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

It is likely that Russia knows and has records of Flynn's lies and Trump's...ugh...lies. So now both of those may be targets for blackmail. And why Republicans don't care about all this is because they are afraid of losing.

What is really sad is that we don't seem to be able to reach a compromise. Listen and respond with empathy...not with the intent to just respond.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

D.C circuit has ordered Judge Sullivan to respond by June 1st.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

D.C circuit has ordered Judge Sullivan to respond by June 1st.

View embedded media

The fast-tracking and request for a response from the judge are fascinating. The question they are asking is the right one.

The question is whether the phrase “leave of court” in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) allows a judge to peel open and investigate the new DOJ flip-flop...the request for dismissal. Can this proceed the way Sullivan wants to do it?

The leading SCOTUS case on the subject suggests that the rule only intends to protect a defendant from prosecutorial harassment – the repeated filing and dismissal of charges where the defendant wants a trial (and a chance for acquittal).

It turns out that SCOTUS may be more broad than that. The history of that rule actually related directly to the risk of corrupt prosecutors doing favors for equally corrupt defendants. That history needs to be briefed so SCOTUS will ultimately have the chance to revisit the rule and correct its own limited interpretation (if they would do such a thing).

This just starts that process. I think Sullivan’s response (with a little help from Gleeson) might just be telling.

And again: Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they probably have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

It is likely that Russia knows and has records of Flynn's lies and Trump's...ugh...lies. So now both of those may be targets for blackmail.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The fast-tracking and request for a response from the judge are fascinating. The question they are asking is the right one.

The question is whether the phrase “leave of court” in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) allows a judge to peel open and investigate the new DOJ flip-flop...the request for dismissal. Can this proceed the way Sullivan wants to do it?

The leading SCOTUS case on the subject suggests that the rule only intends to protect a defendant from prosecutorial harassment – the repeated filing and dismissal of charges where the defendant wants a trial (and a chance for acquittal).

It turns out that SCOTUS may be more broad than that. The history of that rule actually related directly to the risk of corrupt prosecutors doing favors for equally corrupt defendants. That history needs to be briefed so SCOTUS will ultimately have the chance to revisit the rule and correct its own limited interpretation (if they would do such a thing).

This just starts that process. I think Sullivan’s response (with a little help from Gleeson) might just be telling.

And again: Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they probably have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

It is likely that Russia knows and has records of Flynn's lies and Trump's...ugh...lies. So now both of those may be targets for blackmail.

What evidence do you have that Flynn and the Russians may have had a secret deal? The FBI had Flynn under surveillance. They had transcripts of the Flynn/Kislyak call. They knew exactly what was said.

How on earth would Flynn have made a deal without the FBI knowing? And why wouldn’t they have charged him if they did know?

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

What evidence do you have that Flynn and the Russians may have had a secret deal? The FBI had Flynn under surveillance. They had transcripts of the Flynn/Kislyak call. They knew exactly what was said.

How on earth would Flynn have made a deal without the FBI knowing? And why wouldn’t they have charged him if they did know?

The Flynn-Kislyak calls were recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. This is the "evidence" that Barr has suppressed. There is only one reason it is being held from Congress and We The People.

Flynn’s lies and Barr's suppression of the evidence protected Trump and the Trump administration.

Here is what happened:
The sanctions were the catalyst for hurried 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 called Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago to discuss the new sanctions with “a senior official” of the Trump transition team “who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team. On December 29, he spoke multiple times with Kislyak. In the first call, Flynn “requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner,” the plea agreement said. (Hint: Sure looks like evidence.} Kislyak agreed that Russia would “moderate its response to those sanctions” as a result of his request, according to the U.S. special counsel’s office.

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!” More calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

But, when interviewed by the FBI on Jan. 24, Flynn denied making such a request and could not recall if Kislyak agreed to his request.

The former White House aide also acknowledged that he made “false statements and omissions” on documents filed with the Justice Department regarding payments that his company, the Flynn Intel Group Inc., received for lobbying work that principally benefited the government of Turkey, according to the plea agreement. Flynn retroactively filed foreign lobbying reports on March 7 for work that he did during the presidential campaign in 2016.

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.

Early in the Trump presidency, many congressional Republicans still upheld the traditional view: Putin should not be trusted, and the integrity of U.S. elections should be safeguarded.

Today, some of those same Republicans are now pointing to the decision to drop charges against Flynn as vindication. But vindication is exactly what this is not. Barr's attempt to skewer the court case with this last second DOJ flip-flop does not prove that Flynn was innocent of wrongdoing. This thinly veiled political move by Barr does not convert Flynn’s lies into truth. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that back in December 2016, Flynn acted with Trump’s approval. Barr's attempt only strengthens the suspicion that Flynn and Kislyak were furthering a corrupt arrangement between Trump and Putin. It only strengthens the suspicion that the corrupt arrangement continues to this day.

Release the rest of the evidence...SCOTUS.

 

[Jg48]

Are you kidding? They were strategizing how to nail Flynn for a crime they weren't even sure happened. That's not how I expect our criminal justice agencies to act. Maybe you do. But if you are right and this conduct becomes the norm, who will you turn to when they come after you?

I think you are close to the real issue. The FBI notes indicate that their pupose in interviewing Flynn was to entrap him. To create a scenario where it would plausible to charge Flynn with with the crime of lying to the FBI. If they could not accomplish that, at least to get him fired. It was not that he had committed a crime and they were investigating it. It was that the FBI was going to do whatever they could to get him to do something they could charge him with. Documents released indicate the the FBI interviewers themselves did not think Flynn lied to them. Despite that fact, the DOJ still charged him with lying to FBI. Flynn pleading guilty is not a surprise. After incurring a mountain of debt, and being threaten with the prosecution of his son, it was probably the best option he had to end his nightmare. Read the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss, it lays out the FBI's misconduct very clearly.

 

[cosmickid]

I think you are close to the real issue. The FBI notes indicate that their pupose in interviewing Flynn was to entrap him. To create a scenario where it would plausible to charge Flynn with with the crime of lying to the FBI. If they could not accomplish that, at least to get him fired. It was not that he had committed a crime and they were investigating it. It was that the FBI was going to do whatever they could to get him to do something they could charge him with. Documents released indicate the the FBI interviewers themselves did not think Flynn lied to them. Despite that fact, the DOJ still charged him with lying to FBI. Flynn pleading guilty is not a surprise. After incurring a mountain of debt, and being threaten with the prosecution of his son, it was probably the best option he had to end his nightmare. Read the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss, it lays out the FBI's misconduct very clearly.

So you're saying that "lying to the FBI" was the most serious charge that Mueller could bring,and Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to the worst offense so he could escape the lesser charges? Isn't that sort of the reverse of the whole concept of "plea deal"? What exactly would be Flynn's motivation to plead guilty to the worst charge?

Do you think it's a coincidence that Flynn's 2 business partners were indicted related to the illegal lobbying for Turkey in a court in Va 2 days prior to Flynn's plea deal in Judge Sullivan's court? You do recall that part of Flynn's "deal" was to testify in their trials, which would indicate that Mueller felt he had him on the whole Turkey mess and used that as leverage for the plea deal. I mean how could Flynn supply testimony involving Turkey unless he knew exactly what was going on?

Obviously Flynn's team thought he would receive a slap on the wrist, so again evidence that the charge he was allowed to plead to was viewed as a lesser charge. When Sullivan was a lot more concerned about Flynn's other activities than they anticipated, he warned the defense that he was not inclined to exclude jail time. He offered them more time to consider their options, and since they were shell shocked by the situation they took him up on the offer.

But here's the thing I never see Flynn's defenders address. What about Turkey? It was after the Dec 2018 plea hearing that Flynn brought in the Breitbart Brigade,and they decided to try and make it some sort of civil liberties crusade.

But the whole plea deal was always dependent on Flynn being willing to testify against his co-conspirators and thus having all his other offenses discounted. So why do none of Flynn's defenders even appear aware of the Turkey factor? We know it was CENTRAL to being able to plead to the lesser charge, because as soon as Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea, the DOJ immediately announced that they were going to charge Flynn as a co-conspirator, instead of allowing him to testify...

Of course Barr and Shea stepped in and decided no charges against Flynn. But exactly what did the Kislyak call have to do with Flynn's involvement in the plot with Turkey? We know he was paid by Turkey ($500,000 or so), and we also know that the Turks made Flynn aware of the fact that they weren't happy with the insufficient amount of pro-Erdogan lip service coming from Trump. That's all in the Mueller report, including documents and emails.

I don't see why some of you are intent on making Flynn out to be some sort of martyr. He was clearly out to make a quick buck by taking money from Turkey as an unregistered lobbyist. He was aware of the plot to get Gulen extradited since Mueller wanted him to turn on the others. There was no "unmasking"- he showed up on the tape of the FBI wiretap on Kislyak, so of course that is going to raise eyebrows and inspire questions. It's just another attempt to revise history, from the "facts don't matter" crowd...

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The Flynn-Kislyak calls were recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. This is the "evidence" that Barr has suppressed. There is only one reason it is being held from Congress and We The People.

Flynn’s lies and Barr's suppression of the evidence protected Trump and the Trump administration.

Here is what happened:
The sanctions were the catalyst for hurried 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 called Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago to discuss the new sanctions with “a senior official” of the Trump transition team “who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team. On December 29, he spoke multiple times with Kislyak. In the first call, Flynn “requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner,” the plea agreement said. (Hint: Sure looks like evidence.} Kislyak agreed that Russia would “moderate its response to those sanctions” as a result of his request, according to the U.S. special counsel’s office.

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!” More calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

But, when interviewed by the FBI on Jan. 24, Flynn denied making such a request and could not recall if Kislyak agreed to his request.

The former White House aide also acknowledged that he made “false statements and omissions” on documents filed with the Justice Department regarding payments that his company, the Flynn Intel Group Inc., received for lobbying work that principally benefited the government of Turkey, according to the plea agreement. Flynn retroactively filed foreign lobbying reports on March 7 for work that he did during the presidential campaign in 2016.

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.

Early in the Trump presidency, many congressional Republicans still upheld the traditional view: Putin should not be trusted, and the integrity of U.S. elections should be safeguarded.

Today, some of those same Republicans are now pointing to the decision to drop charges against Flynn as vindication. But vindication is exactly what this is not. Barr's attempt to skewer the court case with this last second DOJ flip-flop does not prove that Flynn was innocent of wrongdoing. This thinly veiled political move by Barr does not convert Flynn’s lies into truth. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that back in December 2016, Flynn acted with Trump’s approval. Barr's attempt only strengthens the suspicion that Flynn and Kislyak were furthering a corrupt arrangement between Trump and Putin. It only strengthens the suspicion that the corrupt arrangement continues to this day.

Release the rest of the evidence...SCOTUS.

Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were not illegal. They weren’t even unethical. Again, incoming administrations discussing policy with foreign governments has been going on forever. Remember Obama’s “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” live mic faux pas.

But even if something untoward DID happen, that would mean that the Obama FBI of Comey, Mcabe, and Strzok were in on it too. After all, they conducted the surveillance and the interview. Do you really believe that’s what happened?

That doesn’t make any sense.

I agree that the transcript should be released. I just think it will exonerate Flynn more than hurt him.

 

[Jg48]

So you're saying that "lying to the FBI" was the most serious charge that Mueller could bring,and Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to the worst offense so he could escape the lesser charges? Isn't that sort of the reverse of the whole concept of "plea deal"? What exactly would be Flynn's motivation to plead guilty to the worst charge?

Do you think it's a coincidence that Flynn's 2 business partners were indicted related to the illegal lobbying for Turkey in a court in Va 2 days prior to Flynn's plea deal in Judge Sullivan's court? You do recall that part of Flynn's "deal" was to testify in their trials, which would indicate that Mueller felt he had him on the whole Turkey mess and used that as leverage for the plea deal. I mean how could Flynn supply testimony involving Turkey unless he knew exactly what was going on?

Obviously Flynn's team thought he would receive a slap on the wrist, so again evidence that the charge he was allowed to plead to was viewed as a lesser charge. When Sullivan was a lot more concerned about Flynn's other activities than they anticipated, he warned the defense that he was not inclined to exclude jail time. He offered them more time to consider their options, and since they were shell shocked by the situation they took him up on the offer.

But here's the thing I never see Flynn's defenders address. What about Turkey? It was after the Dec 2018 plea hearing that Flynn brought in the Breitbart Brigade,and they decided to try and make it some sort of civil liberties crusade.

But the whole plea deal was always dependent on Flynn being willing to testify against his co-conspirators and thus having all his other offenses discounted. So why do none of Flynn's defenders even appear aware of the Turkey factor? We know it was CENTRAL to being able to plead to the lesser charge, because as soon as Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea, the DOJ immediately announced that they were going to charge Flynn as a co-conspirator, instead of allowing him to testify...

Of course Barr and Shea stepped in and decided no charges against Flynn. But exactly what did the Kislyak call have to do with Flynn's involvement in the plot with Turkey? We know he was paid by Turkey ($500,000 or so), and we also know that the Turks made Flynn aware of the fact that they weren't happy with the insufficient amount of pro-Erdogan lip service coming from Trump. That's all in the Mueller report, including documents and emails.

I don't see why some of you are intent on making Flynn out to be some sort of martyr. He was clearly out to make a quick buck by taking money from Turkey as an unregistered lobbyist. He was aware of the plot to get Gulen extradited since Mueller wanted him to turn on the others. There was no "unmasking"- he showed up on the tape of the FBI wiretap on Kislyak, so of course that is going to raise eyebrows and inspire questions. It's just another attempt to revise history, from the "facts don't matter" crowd...

What you don't comprehend is that the issue here is that US government set out to destroy a man by any means and very nearly accomplished its objective. The FBI did not have facts to convict Flynn of a crime so they decided to create a crime by entrapment. It is the prosecutorial misconduct by the government, and in particular, the FBI, that should concern every US citizen. When the government bends the rules and disregards the law to obtain an indictment against a citizen, innocent or guilty, it jeopardizes the freedom of all of us. Flynn just happens to be the person they did it to.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you are close to the real issue. The FBI notes indicate that their pupose in interviewing Flynn was to entrap him. To create a scenario where it would plausible to charge Flynn with with the crime of lying to the FBI. If they could not accomplish that, at least to get him fired. It was not that he had committed a crime and they were investigating it. It was that the FBI was going to do whatever they could to get him to do something they could charge him with. Documents released indicate the the FBI interviewers themselves did not think Flynn lied to them. Despite that fact, the DOJ still charged him with lying to FBI. Flynn pleading guilty is not a surprise. After incurring a mountain of debt, and being threaten with the prosecution of his son, it was probably the best option he had to end his nightmare. Read the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss, it lays out the FBI's misconduct very clearly.

Which FBI notes? Could you link them here, so the rest of us could read them? TIA.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

What you don't comprehend is that the issue here is that US government set out to destroy a man by any means and very nearly accomplished its objective. The FBI did not have facts to convict Flynn of a crime so they decided to create a crime by entrapment. It is the prosecutorial misconduct by the government, and in particular, the FBI, that should concern every US citizen. When the government bends the rules and disregards the law to obtain an indictment against a citizen, innocent or guilty, it jeopardizes the freedom of all of us. Flynn just happens to be the person they did it to.

Poor, poor, weak ex-general Flynn! The FBI is sooo very powerful and smart! He didn't have a chance. They made him lie to Vice President Pence! Wow! Those crooked FBI investigators entrapped Flynn as part of a deep-state plot.

Oh, but wait.
The files -- FBI emails and memos -- shed light on how FBI officials carefully prepared to interview Flynn in January 2017. Flynn supporters point to one draft note where an FBI official asks, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Other notes show how the FBI planned to refresh Flynn's memory if he lied to them.
Despite Trump's fans table thumping, the new information is not a clear-cut vindication for Flynn, who is trying to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea, when he admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official. Just read it. It discusses options and asks which way to approach Flynn. Ultimately, they decided to warn Flynn about lying.

But, please continue listening to Limbaugh and Fox and QAnon. Get all of your good stuff there, I suppose. Talk about conspiracy theories. I have one too. All this reject Obama stuff by Trump and his minions is too real to ignore.

Here is one transcript you can't ignore: "Yo, Sergey. Tell Vlad we’re totally cool with knee-capping NATO, giving arms to King Saud against direction from the Senate, pulling out of Syria so you can have it, making Ukraine defenseless, laundering your thuggish oligarchs’ ill-gotten money, fomenting class and race wars here in the US so that the country will collapse, and bankrupting our country with overwhelming debt and deficits. Just don’t release the tapes, OK? I really envy all the dictators. You know that I don't take responsibility at all...for anything. But, I do mail in my absentee ballot..and no, no northeast or far west or rust-belt population centers should use them. And, the Covid-19 was a hoax and will go away like a miracle...and then it was a National Emergency until I learned who was dying. Heh, and the Feds outbid the states and take their health care equipment..so cool. No tests...I hate tests...didn't take any when I was at Wharton. Didn't take an X-ray for my bone spur...you know what I mean? And I still want a July 4th parade in Washington, DC. And it would be really cool to explode a nuclear weapon as a test...where do you think we ought to test it? Peking? Boston? Tijuana?"

Like you I could get all my conspiracy theories from QAnon, Fox or Limbaugh. But, instead, I get them from NPR, BBC, Politico, Political Wire, The Atlantic, and Snopes among others.

 

[Jg48]

Poor, poor, weak ex-general Flynn! The FBI is sooo very powerful and smart! He didn't have a chance. They made him lie to Vice President Pence! Wow! Those crooked FBI investigators entrapped Flynn as part of a deep-state plot.

Oh, but wait.
The files -- FBI emails and memos -- shed light on how FBI officials carefully prepared to interview Flynn in January 2017. Flynn supporters point to one note where an FBI official asks, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Other notes show how the FBI planned to refresh Flynn's memory if he lied to them.
Despite Trump's fans table thumping, the new information is not a clear-cut vindication for Flynn, who is trying to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea, when he admitted lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official. Just read it. It discusses options and asks which way to approach Flynn. Ultimately, they decided to warn Flynn about lying.

Why not take your QAnon unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and be gone?

First of all, the FBI is very powerful and agents for the FBI are very well educated and smart. FBI can ruin anyone's life in a New York Minute. It has unlimited funds and unlimited resources to do it with. It very disturbing to me that people want to view this issue as some sort political game like, Trump v. Obama, and take sides based upon their political views.
If helps you, put a different name on the subject of the investigation so you can focus on the actions of the agency involved. If you do, you should be able to see that agents' goal was to create a crime not to investigate a crime that had already been committed...entrapment. The real question is: Did the FBI commit prosecutorial misconduct in the case? The DOJ, after investigating the agents' actions, believed it did and dismissed the case. If your position is what they did is fine with me, well, you lower the bar for the FBI and all other government police agencies.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

First of all, the FBI is very powerful and agents for the FBI are very well educated and smart. FBI can ruin anyone's life in a New York Minute. It has unlimited funds and unlimited resources to do it with. It very disturbing to me that people want to view this issue as some sort political game like, Trump v. Obama, and take sides based upon their political views.
If helps you, put a different name on the subject of the investigation so you can focus on the actions of the agency involved. If you do, you should be able to see that agents' goal was to create a crime not to investigate a crime that had already been committed...entrapment. The real question is: Did the FBI commit prosecutorial misconduct in the case? The DOJ, after investigating the agents' actions, believed it did and dismissed the case. If your position is what they did is fine with me, well, you lower the bar for the FBI and all other government police agencies.

So show me where they entrapped him. Please. You ignored Goat's request. You ignored my statement about FBI discussing options on how to approach the interview with Flynn. Not just your opinion..which is all I have seen you state.

Show me.

 

[ButHerEmails]

Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were not illegal. They weren’t even unethical. Again, incoming administrations discussing policy with foreign governments has been going on forever. Remember Obama’s “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” live mic faux pas.

But even if something untoward DID happen, that would mean that the Obama FBI of Comey, Mcabe, and Strzok were in on it too. After all, they conducted the surveillance and the interview. Do you really believe that’s what happened?

That doesn’t make any sense.

I agree that the transcript should be released. I just think it will exonerate Flynn more than hurt him.

So you’ve seen a transcript of the conversations? You have a link?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So show me where they entrapped him. Please. You ignored Goat's request. You ignored my statement about FBI discussing options on how to approach the interview with Flynn. Not just your opinion..which is all I have seen you state.

Show me.

Read the government’s MTD. I’ve linked it previously.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

Read the government’s MTD. I’ve linked it previously.

Thanks for not responding directly to my request. I asked for where they entrapped him. The newly prepared DOJ MTD appears to be a politically motivated reversal of the DOJ's previously presented case. You did not show the entrapment fact. You showed a legal motion. That is not what I had asked.

Besides, Barr, who is a shill for Trump, could only find one apparently moral compromising and politically motivated person to sign the document. '... Given the unique circumstances of this case—including the nature of Flynn’s actions, the Justice Department’s remarkable reversal, and the implausible arguments the department has offered to support that reversal—Sullivan’s obligation to conduct a thorough inquiry into the government’s decision is of the utmost importance. ' according to Professor of Law Crespo of Harvard Law School...in Lawfare. By the way, Lawfare is a relatively unbiased source. Barr, Trump, and Fox and QAnon are not.

Still awaiting the specific proof of entrapment. Was wondering, did the FBI entrap Flynn to lie to VP Pence? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador to undercut Obama's Secretary of State and USA foreign policy? Did the FBI get Flynn to become compromised by Russia? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to plan the kidnapping? Where is the line and verse...huh?

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Thanks for not responding directly to my request. I asked for where they entrapped him. The newly prepared DOJ MTD appears to be a politically motivated reversal of the DOJ's previously presented case. You did not show the entrapment fact. You showed a legal motion. That is not what I had asked.

Besides, Barr, who is a shill for Trump, could only find one apparently moral compromising and politically motivated person to sign the document. '... Given the unique circumstances of this case—including the nature of Flynn’s actions, the Justice Department’s remarkable reversal, and the implausible arguments the department has offered to support that reversal—Sullivan’s obligation to conduct a thorough inquiry into the government’s decision is of the utmost importance. ' according to Professor of Law Crespo of Harvard Law School...in Lawfare. By the way, Lawfare is a relatively unbiased source. Barr, Trump, and Fox and QAnon are not.

Still awaiting the specific proof of entrapment. Was wondering, did the FBI entrap Flynn to lie to VP Pence? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador to undercut Obama's Secretary of State and USA foreign policy? Did the FBI get Flynn to become compromised by Russia? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to plan the kidnapping? Where is the line and verse...huh?

Sullivan’s role is to adjudicate the proceedings. And since both the prosecution and the defense have agreed to end the proceedings, he should no longer have any role.

What he’s doing is flat out ridiculous and he’s about to get smacked down hard by the 9th. And rightly so.

 

[Jg48]

So show me where they entrapped him. Please. You ignored Goat's request. You ignored my statement about FBI discussing options on how to approach the interview with Flynn. Not just your opinion..which is all I have seen you state.
Show me.

So show me where they entrapped him. Please. You ignored Goat's request. You ignored my statement about FBI discussing options on how to approach the interview with Flynn. Not just your opinion..which is all I have seen you state.

Show me.

I suggested in a previous post that one should read the Motion to Dismiss filed by the DOJ. I suggest you do so. You can find it on a CNN site. I have also included the definition of entrapment for your review.

Entrapment
The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

 

[cosmickid]

First of all, the FBI is very powerful and agents for the FBI are very well educated and smart. FBI can ruin anyone's life in a New York Minute. It has unlimited funds and unlimited resources to do it with. It very disturbing to me that people want to view this issue as some sort political game like, Trump v. Obama, and take sides based upon their political views.
If helps you, put a different name on the subject of the investigation so you can focus on the actions of the agency involved. If you do, you should be able to see that agents' goal was to create a crime not to investigate a crime that had already been committed...entrapment. The real question is: Did the FBI commit prosecutorial misconduct in the case? The DOJ, after investigating the agents' actions, believed it did and dismissed the case. If your position is what they did is fine with me, well, you lower the bar for the FBI and all other government police agencies.

No the DOJ did NOT feel that way. Barr and Shea- 2 Trump political appointees felt that way. But the CAREER DOJ people rejected that notion, including ALL of the original prosecutors and over 1000+ former Prosecutors from BOTH Dem and GOP Administrations who signed the letter to Judge Sullivan.

Now you can minimize the people who resigned or signed the letter, but you can't turn around and say the "DOJ", as if it was some sort of united entity. The Prosecutors, in this case, had already decided to charge Flynn as a co-conspirator in the Turkey case, because they lost confidence (trust) in him as a witness...

"U.S. prosecutors have cancelled plans to call President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn as a witness in a Virginia trial involving Flynn's former business partner — an abrupt change that raises questions about Flynn's co-operation with the government and its impact on his sentencing.

In court filings unsealed on Tuesday, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., said they now plan to portray Flynn as a "co-conspirator" along with Bijan Rafiekian in a scheme to convince U.S. politicians to support Turkey's bid to extradite cleric Fethullah Gulen, a political dissident who lives in the United States.

Flynn's co-operation in Rafiekian's trial, which starts this month, could have an impact on how he is sentenced in his own case in a federal court in Washington, D.C."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/court-documents-flynn-turkey-1.5205387

The whole reason Sullivan held off on sentencing Flynn originally in Dec 2018, was that he was giving Flynn the oppty to prove his worth in the case as a witness. Again, the defense raised issues like Strzok and the points you're making at Flynn's plea hearing in front of Sullivan in Dec 2018, and Sullivan expressly told Flynn that possible misconduct from the FBI in one case did not absolve him of guilt on other matters. And the fact of the matter is it was not Flynn the FBI was targeting with a wiretap- it was Kislyak. Flynn was just the fish ensnared in the net...

 

[cosmickid]

Sullivan’s role is to adjudicate the proceedings. And since both the prosecution and the defense have agreed to end the proceedings, he should no longer have any role.

What he’s doing is flat out ridiculous and he’s about to get smacked down hard by the 9th. And rightly so.

Actually any dispute between Sullivan and the 9th will boil down to whether "Fokker" applies, in this case, the way Flynn's defense contends that it does. Plenty of law professionals dispute that contention, possibly including Sullivan himself...

“Fokker concerned a trial court’s authority under the Speedy Trial Act to interfere with a proposed deferred prosecution agreement,” Andrew Crespo of Harvard Law School and Kristy Parker of Protect Democracy wrote recently at the blog Lawfare. They said the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in that case “drew a sharp distinction between cases in a pretrial posture—like all deferred prosecution agreements—and cases like Flynn’s in which a defendant has pleaded guilty and the court is called upon to impose a sentence.”

Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said Wednesday on Twitter: “Fokker is so clearly NOT controlling that both sides are citing it in support of their position. If you think a case about a judge meddling with the terms of a DPA is ‘binding precedent’ for a case where there has been a guilty plea, then I and many others disagree.”

https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...brief-dc-circuit-about-power-of-trial-judges/

 

[Jg48]

No the DOJ did NOT feel that way. Barr and Shea- 2 Trump political appointees felt that way. But the CAREER DOJ people rejected that notion, including ALL of the original prosecutors and over 1000+ former Prosecutors from BOTH Dem and GOP Administrations who signed the letter to Judge Sullivan.

Now you can minimize the people who resigned or signed the letter, but you can't turn around and say the "DOJ", as if it was some sort of united entity. The Prosecutors, in this case, had already decided to charge Flynn as a co-conspirator in the Turkey case, because they lost confidence (trust) in him as a witness...

"U.S. prosecutors have cancelled plans to call President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn as a witness in a Virginia trial involving Flynn's former business partner — an abrupt change that raises questions about Flynn's co-operation with the government and its impact on his sentencing.

In court filings unsealed on Tuesday, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., said they now plan to portray Flynn as a "co-conspirator" along with Bijan Rafiekian in a scheme to convince U.S. politicians to support Turkey's bid to extradite cleric Fethullah Gulen, a political dissident who lives in the United States.

Flynn's co-operation in Rafiekian's trial, which starts this month, could have an impact on how he is sentenced in his own case in a federal court in Washington, D.C."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/court-documents-flynn-turkey-1.5205387

The whole reason Sullivan held off on sentencing Flynn originally in Dec 2018, was that he was giving Flynn the oppty to prove his worth in the case as a witness. Again, the defense raised issues like Strzok and the points you're making at Flynn's plea hearing in front of Sullivan in Dec 2018, and Sullivan expressly told Flynn that possible misconduct from the FBI in one case did not absolve him of guilt on other matters. And the fact of the matter is it was not Flynn the FBI was targeting with a wiretap- it was Kislyak. Flynn was just the fish ensnared in the net...

There are more than 100,000 attorneys employed the DOJ. I have no idea how many retired DOJ attorneys there are. Nether the less, your group is less than 1% of the total. As far as the former prosecutors resigning, they should have.

What Flynn did or does in another matter has nothing to do with the issue in this case. if the government can prove Flynn committed a crime in another matter, charge him with that crime.

The only issue that now matters with Judge Sullivan is whether he can appoint his own amicus and permit other non-parties to participate in the case. Can a US District Court prosecute case before his bench or is within the sole purview of the Justice Department? The US Supreme recently ruled on a 9th Circuit case involving very similar facts.

Flynn was not charged with a crime because of his conversation with Kislyak. His conversation with Kislyiak was appropriate. The Crime Flynn was charged with was lying to the FBI in an interview.

 

[cosmickid]

There are more than 100,000 attorneys employed the DOJ. I have no idea how many retired DOJ attorneys there are. Nether the less, your group is less than 1% of the total. As far as the former prosecutors resigning, they should have.

What Flynn did or does in another matter has nothing to do with the issue in this case. if the government can prove Flynn committed a crime in another matter, charge him with that crime.

The only issue that now matters with Judge Sullivan is whether he can appoint his own amicus and permit other non-parties to participate in the case. Can a US District Court prosecute case before his bench or is within the sole purview of the Justice Department? The US Supreme recently ruled on a 9th Circuit case involving very similar facts.

Flynn was not charged with a crime because of his conversation with Kislyak. His conversation with Kislyiak was appropriate. The Crime Flynn was charged with was lying to the FBI in an interview.

I mentioned Fokker (the case you're referring to) in my post without going into detail about the case itself. You're basically just repeating talking points when I already acknowledged that different interpretations of Fokker exist.One of the 3 judges on the Appeals court that has intervened is a Trump appointee who has shown a propensity to uphold Administration positions, so it may well end here. But opposing viewpoints as to how or if Fokker even applies because of key differences exist as well. So it may be that we'll just have to see what goes down on June 1- the deadline for Sullivan to respond...

I would point out that this was NOT a jury trial, it was a plea deal and Sullivan was the presiding judge. From his comments at the Dec 2018 hearing, there was very little doubt that he was ready to impose some amount of jail time. And later when Flynn tried to withdraw his plea, Sullivan felt the need to ask the DOJ to release the transcript of the Kislyak call. And these excerpts from the courtroom scene tells you exactly why Sullivan does not want this case dismissed with prejudice...

"While Mueller’s prosecutors had argued Flynn’s decades of military service warranted a lenient sentence for the three-star general even after he had admitted lying to the FBI, it was Sullivan who, gesturing to the American flag beside him, accused Flynn of selling his country out. Minutes later, he ponderously asked the government’s lawyers whether they had ever considered charging Flynn with treason. (No, they later answered.)

“Arguably,” Sullivan said, describing how Flynn had secretly been working for the Turkish government before he joined the White House, “that undermines everything this flag over here stands for.”

“I am going to be frank with you, this crime is very serious,” the judge said. “I can’t hide my disgust, my disdain, at this criminal offence.”
Even the scene of the crime – the West Wing of the White House – seemed to gnaw at Sullivan, who repeated it several times, all the while emphasizing how unusual it was that the government and Flynn were asking him to bless a plea agreement even though Flynn had not completed his cooperation with the government.
Now this next part may be key...

Sullivan also quickly clamped down on any suggestion that Flynn’s admitted crime – lying to federal investigators – had occurred in part because the retired general had been lulled into thinking his interview with the FBI was simply a chat, and not part of a criminal investigation.

Never in his decades on the bench, Sullivan said, had he accepted a guilty plea from a defendant who was not really guilty. “I don’t intend to start today,” Sullivan said, and then had Flynn sworn in. “Any false answers will get you in more trouble,” he added.

Even then, Sullivan told Flynn he ought to consider a delay in his sentencing because there were no guarantees, the judge said, that he would not be incarcerated. After a brief recess, Flynn, looking subdued and a little stunned, returned with his answer: he would take the delay and thereby possibly avoid a harsher sentence.

Then came more bad news for Flynn on what Sullivan had in mind. He was clearly keen to convince Flynn that jail time was still on the table.

“I didn’t say ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’,” Sullivan declared. “I’m not promising anything.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-michael-flynn-judge-emmet-sullivan-sentencing

 

[Jg48]

I mentioned Fokker (the case you're referring to) in my post without going into detail about the case itself. You're basically just repeating talking points when I already acknowledged that different interpretations of Fokker exist.One of the 3 judges on the Appeals court that has intervened is a Trump appointee who has shown a propensity to uphold Administration positions, so it may well end here. But opposing viewpoints as to how or if Fokker even applies because of key differences exist as well. So it may be that we'll just have to see what goes down on June 1- the deadline for Sullivan to respond...

I would point out that this was NOT a jury trial, it was a plea deal and Sullivan was the presiding judge. From his comments at the Dec 2018 hearing, there was very little doubt that he was ready to impose some amount of jail time. And later when Flynn tried to withdraw his plea, Sullivan felt the need to ask the DOJ to release the transcript of the Kislyak call. And these excerpts from the courtroom scene tells you exactly why Sullivan does not want this case dismissed with prejudice...

"While Mueller’s prosecutors had argued Flynn’s decades of military service warranted a lenient sentence for the three-star general even after he had admitted lying to the FBI, it was Sullivan who, gesturing to the American flag beside him, accused Flynn of selling his country out. Minutes later, he ponderously asked the government’s lawyers whether they had ever considered charging Flynn with treason. (No, they later answered.)

“Arguably,” Sullivan said, describing how Flynn had secretly been working for the Turkish government before he joined the White House, “that undermines everything this flag over here stands for.”

“I am going to be frank with you, this crime is very serious,” the judge said. “I can’t hide my disgust, my disdain, at this criminal offence.”
Even the scene of the crime – the West Wing of the White House – seemed to gnaw at Sullivan, who repeated it several times, all the while emphasizing how unusual it was that the government and Flynn were asking him to bless a plea agreement even though Flynn had not completed his cooperation with the government.
Now this next part may be key...

Sullivan also quickly clamped down on any suggestion that Flynn’s admitted crime – lying to federal investigators – had occurred in part because the retired general had been lulled into thinking his interview with the FBI was simply a chat, and not part of a criminal investigation.

Never in his decades on the bench, Sullivan said, had he accepted a guilty plea from a defendant who was not really guilty. “I don’t intend to start today,” Sullivan said, and then had Flynn sworn in. “Any false answers will get you in more trouble,” he added.

Even then, Sullivan told Flynn he ought to consider a delay in his sentencing because there were no guarantees, the judge said, that he would not be incarcerated. After a brief recess, Flynn, looking subdued and a little stunned, returned with his answer: he would take the delay and thereby possibly avoid a harsher sentence.

Then came more bad news for Flynn on what Sullivan had in mind. He was clearly keen to convince Flynn that jail time was still on the table.

“I didn’t say ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’,” Sullivan declared. “I’m not promising anything.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-michael-flynn-judge-emmet-sullivan-sentencing

The Fokker Case is not a US Supreme Case. Is a D.C. Circuit case. The case I was referring to is a Supreme Court case, Sineneng-Smith. It was decided in April 2020. It involved a case before the 9th Circuit and, as usual, the 9th Circuit completely screwed it up. The Supreme Court decided 9-0 against the 9th. It is the controlling law for all circuits in the United Sates, if I read correctly, it does not bode well for Judge Sullivan. The fact that it is not a jury trial case has no relevance to the issue before the court of appeals.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Thanks for not responding directly to my request. I asked for where they entrapped him. The newly prepared DOJ MTD appears to be a politically motivated reversal of the DOJ's previously presented case. You did not show the entrapment fact. You showed a legal motion. That is not what I had asked.

Besides, Barr, who is a shill for Trump, could only find one apparently moral compromising and politically motivated person to sign the document. '... Given the unique circumstances of this case—including the nature of Flynn’s actions, the Justice Department’s remarkable reversal, and the implausible arguments the department has offered to support that reversal—Sullivan’s obligation to conduct a thorough inquiry into the government’s decision is of the utmost importance. ' according to Professor of Law Crespo of Harvard Law School...in Lawfare. By the way, Lawfare is a relatively unbiased source. Barr, Trump, and Fox and QAnon are not.

Still awaiting the specific proof of entrapment. Was wondering, did the FBI entrap Flynn to lie to VP Pence? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador to undercut Obama's Secretary of State and USA foreign policy? Did the FBI get Flynn to become compromised by Russia? Did the FBI entrap Flynn to plan the kidnapping? Where is the line and verse...huh?

you didn’t read the MTD, did you.

 

[Stuffshot]

A few things. First, the lie has to be material to an investigation. Second, any lie must be accompanied by scienter in order to be actionable. Third, there are documents showing the FBI deliberately engaged in a ruse when they met Flynn. Fourth, Director Comey was personally involved with the ruse and bragged about disregarding protocol in the Flynn interview. Fifth, the Mueller team deliberately withheld important information as it negotiated the Flynn plea deal. Sixth, full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence is a legal and ethical requirement for plea negotiations.

There is no requirement that law enforcement must always be truthful with a suspect during questioning. But prosecutors have such an obligation during a prosecution and plea negotiations.

The judge will here all of this. So we will see.

A few things. First, the lie has to be material to an investigation. Second, any lie must be accompanied by scienter in order to be actionable. Third, there are documents showing the FBI deliberately engaged in a ruse when they met Flynn. Fourth, Director Comey was personally involved with the ruse and bragged about disregarding protocol in the Flynn interview. Fifth, the Mueller team deliberately withheld important information as it negotiated the Flynn plea deal. Sixth, full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence is a legal and ethical requirement for plea negotiations.

There is no requirement that law enforcement must always be truthful with a suspect during questioning. But prosecutors have such an obligation during a prosecution and plea negotiations.

The judge will here all of this. So we will see.

You lost me when you wrote, "The judge will here all of this." If you can't spell better than Trump, or don't care (or don't know), you aren't going to dazzle anybody.

You don't disprove or even deny that the lie was "material to an investigation" or "accompanied by scienter" so it was useless for you to even bring up those things.

Speaking of Trump, he is a witness to the fact that Flynn lied to the FBI and that it was significant.

So, you're apparently saying that the FBI should not have considered Flynn's lie to be material although Trump considered it to be material.

Also, you seem to advocate "full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence" from the Trump administration. Yeah, right. The Trump administration that you support has never provided "full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence" for anything. In this instance, providing "full disclosure of all relevant prosecution evidence" to discredit Mueller is highly likely to discredit both Flynn and Trump. It will never happen.

Your mysterious and conclusory "fourth", "fifth" and "sixth" points don't prove Flynn was mistreated.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

you didn’t read the MTD, did you.

I had skimmed the Motion to Dismiss before. And read parts of it. What is your point?

Did you show me specifically in the MTD where it proves that Flynn was set up? No. Did you read my post? Thanks for not responding directly to my request. I asked for where they entrapped him. You did not say. You referred me to the MTD. A 108 page document filed by a shill for Barr and Trump.

That is like me saying read the Mueller Report. What is your point? Do you even read any of the court documents? Did you read the entire Mueller Report? Did you read the Constitution and it's amendments? Do you watch Fox? Are you a QAnon follower?

All this is diversion from the point. You did not answer me directly with what specifically entrapped Flynn. Still waiting your answer.

Lawfare has some interesting posts that you won't read I speculate. Those are the draft rebuttals to the new flip-flop by the DOJ that is so very obviously politically motivated. This is all about the political right trying to exclude those that are different from you. I just wonder whatever happened to the good Samaritan.

 

[cosmickid]

The Fokker Case is not a US Supreme Case. Is a D.C. Circuit case. The case I was referring to is a Supreme Court case, Sineneng-Smith. It was decided in April 2020. It involved a case before the 9th Circuit and, as usual, the 9th Circuit completely screwed it up. The Supreme Court decided 9-0 against the 9th. It is the controlling law for all circuits in the United Sates, if I read correctly, it does not bode well for Judge Sullivan. The fact that it is not a jury trial case has no relevance to the issue before the court of appeals.

According to David Lurie there is precedent at the appellate level that may deem the writ of mandamus improper at this stage of the proceedings...

"While Rule 48 requires the government to obtain “leave of court” before dismissing a criminal case, there is indeed a very substantial legal question whether a trial judge can ultimately deny a motion to dismiss a criminal case absent an objection from the defendant, even if the government acts in bad faith. That question has yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Team Trump Wants Flynn Back for 2020, Sees Him as Its ‘Nelson Mandela’

But that unanswered legal question is distinct from the issue of whether Sullivan is barred from even making an inquiry into the government’s good faith before ruling on the DOJ’s request for leave to dismiss, particularly where—as here—there is ample basis for concern about the DOJ’s conduct, and even the veracity of its motion papers.

Indeed, a federal circuit court in Philadelphia that was presented with this very issue emphatically ruled that a writ of mandamus is improper in such circumstances, reasoning that mandamus is not the “proper vehicle for challenging a lower court’s refusal to dismiss” under the governing rule, and that an appellate challenge cannot be heard until the trial court conducts any desired inquiry regarding, and issues a ruling on, the dismissal motion.

If the D.C. Circuit agrees with this reasoning, then Trump and Barr will be placed in quite a difficult position. Instead of getting a quick decision rubber-stamping the DOJ’s claim that Flynn, and, derivatively, Trump himself, were the victims of grave unfairness by biased law enforcement officers in Obama’s and Biden’s thrall, the president and Flynn will be forced to endure a potentially lengthy inquiry into Barr’s very flimsy justification for the DOJ’s about-face."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tried-help-michael-072655007.html

I know Flynn is a hot button issue for Conservatives, just like Kavanaugh was. But the fact is Kavanaugh was a galvanizing issue for Trump opponents as well and following the Kavanaugh hearings (which people on the Right viewed as a victory) in Aug, the GOP got thumped at the polls in Nov. They won in Red states, but they uniformly lost statewide races in Blue states, as well as key "purple" states like MI, PA, and WI. I think Barr and Trump are playing with fire here, esp after people are already upset that Barr butted in on the Stone case...

 

[Jg48]

According to David Lurie there is precedent at the appellate level that may deem the writ of mandamus improper at this stage of the proceedings...

"While Rule 48 requires the government to obtain “leave of court” before dismissing a criminal case, there is indeed a very substantial legal question whether a trial judge can ultimately deny a motion to dismiss a criminal case absent an objection from the defendant, even if the government acts in bad faith. That question has yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Team Trump Wants Flynn Back for 2020, Sees Him as Its ‘Nelson Mandela’

But that unanswered legal question is distinct from the issue of whether Sullivan is barred from even making an inquiry into the government’s good faith before ruling on the DOJ’s request for leave to dismiss, particularly where—as here—there is ample basis for concern about the DOJ’s conduct, and even the veracity of its motion papers.

Indeed, a federal circuit court in Philadelphia that was presented with this very issue emphatically ruled that a writ of mandamus is improper in such circumstances, reasoning that mandamus is not the “proper vehicle for challenging a lower court’s refusal to dismiss” under the governing rule, and that an appellate challenge cannot be heard until the trial court conducts any desired inquiry regarding, and issues a ruling on, the dismissal motion.

If the D.C. Circuit agrees with this reasoning, then Trump and Barr will be placed in quite a difficult position. Instead of getting a quick decision rubber-stamping the DOJ’s claim that Flynn, and, derivatively, Trump himself, were the victims of grave unfairness by biased law enforcement officers in Obama’s and Biden’s thrall, the president and Flynn will be forced to endure a potentially lengthy inquiry into Barr’s very flimsy justification for the DOJ’s about-face."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tried-help-michael-072655007.html

I know Flynn is a hot button issue for Conservatives, just like Kavanaugh was. But the fact is Kavanaugh was a galvanizing issue for Trump opponents as well and following the Kavanaugh hearings (which people on the Right viewed as a victory) in Aug, the GOP got thumped at the polls in Nov. They won in Red states, but they uniformly lost statewide races in Blue states, as well as key "purple" states like MI, PA, and WI. I think Barr and Trump are playing with fire here, esp after people are already upset that Barr butted in on the Stone case...

You are the first and only person I ever heard quote a guy named David Lurie on the law. who is he? In my 30 years of practicing law, I've never heard of him.