Michael Flynn Developments

[cosmickid]

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.

Well I posted an article he wrote for the Daily Beast. He also writes for Slate and Just Security. He's the articles editor for the Fordham Law Review- his law degree is from Fordham.

https://www.tjonghsia.com/attorney/david-r-lurie/

He's a member of several Law Firms, including one that bears his name. He's a member of the Blanch Law Firm, which specializes in Criminal Defense and Government Investigations. On their page they describe his memberships...

"Mr. Lurie is a member of the bars of the State of New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."

Again I just referenced him as the author of the article I linked from The Daily Beast. You may disagree with the scope of his analysis, but he's clearly well versed on the subject he's discussing...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

A few things.

The MTD presents facts showing FBI and prosecution misconduct. I’m not so naive to believe that you will see this as proof. It’s an argument and I my view a compelling argument.

What’s your “shill” point? Are you suggesting the DOJ has lied to the court?

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

A few things.

The MTD presents facts showing FBI and prosecution misconduct. I’m not so naive to believe that you will see this as proof. It’s an argument and I my view a compelling argument.

What’s your “shill” point? Are you suggesting the DOJ has lied to the court?

How else could I depict Barr after he misrepresented the conclusions in the Mueller Report? Barr went out of his way to spin it beforehand, in Trump’s favor. For example, Barr told reporters that Mueller’s decision not to charge the president with a crime had nothing to do with long-standing DOJ policy that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Mueller himself testified directly to Congress stating that Attorney General William Barr made a series of false claims. The Mueller Report says it does not exonerate Trump. Mueller did want Congress to decide whether Trump obstructed justice. Barr also indicated that he was not really supposed to be publicly releasing the two-volume report , but, on the other hand, it was “long-standing” practice to share such types of confidential information with the White House. He’s wrong on all those points. A federal judge later criticized Barr for his “lack of candor” and called his official summary of the Mueller report “distorted” and “misleading.”

Flynn has become a martyr in MAGA circles, where he’s seen as proof that Obama, and Biden, and the FBI, and the evil Deep State were out to get Trump, from before he was even elected. Earlier this month, Barr and his Department of Justice decided to recommend to the judge that he drop criminal charges against Flynn — a decision which no career prosecutor at the DOJ would support. The case was over and all that was remaining was Justice determining the sentence.

More than 2,000 former officials of the Justice Department and the FBI, who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, also called on Barr to resign as AG, for “political interference in Flynn’s prosecution” and for having “once again assaulted the rule of law” — the “once again” referring to the fact that Barr’s DOJ also overruled career prosecutors back in February to get a softer sentence for another convicted criminal, and former Trump adviser, Roger Stone.

Republican Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under George Bush Sr., has known Barr for 40 years, says the current attorney general is helping Trump become an autocrat, he’s destroying the Justice Department, and that he should resign.

Take Trump’s tax returns. When the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office tried to get Trump’s tax returns last October, Barr’s Justice Department officially joined the case and asked the judge to block the subpoena. Trump was involved in that case, not as the president but as a private citizen, so why on earth would federal prosecutors get involved on his behalf?

Because Barr understands that it’s his job to play personal lawyer to Trump, not to play lawyer for the American people.

Take the Ukraine whistleblower, whose revelations ultimately led to the impeachment of President Trump. Barr’s DOJ conveniently declined to investigate the whistleblower complaint about the president’s phone call last July with President Zelensky of Ukraine, when it came to them. That DOJ decision led dozens of government inspectors general to warn that Barr’s Justice Department “could seriously undermine the critical role whistle blowers play.”

And by the way, what a shameless conflict of interest that was, given the call transcript shows Trump referred to Barr by name in his chat with the Ukrainian president, and not in a good way, either, saying: “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.” A perfect call, eh?

He was attorney general for 18 months under George Bush Sr., a period in which he helped the elder Bush cover up the Iran-Contra affair — you remember, Iran-Contra, right? When the Reagan/Bush administration secretly traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and then illegally used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

So you ask if I think he is lying? Why in the world would I think that?

It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that the Justice Department is now corrupt because of it's trying to get the case dismissed after the court had already accepted the plea. Is it just a coincidence that the turncoat happening is after the Senate has washed it's collective hands in holding the Executive Branch of the USA to some semblance of following the laws of the land. The Justice Department flip-flop should be looked at very carefully seeing that there are apparent mischaracterizations of the relevant facts and the governing law in its request that Flynn’s case be dropped. You want to know what?

To turn tables if I were that way I could say read all the court documents like the MTD. Then I could say something like...I know you haven't...but that would be snarky now wouldn't it?

But I will say that at least a few US presidents have in some way weaponized the DOJ. We The People should be insisting that they not be that way. That is where the Legislative branch of government should step in and say whoa. Tis a problem...for sure.

Sure is an interesting diversion from the bigger issue. Trump Administration botching the USA response to the pandemic. But, one could say that Trump is not responsible...oh yeah...he said that too. He also said: Russia if you are listening...

From viruses to nuclear weapons and to denial of science, to self aggrandizement, to mental and moral deficiencies, to fostering racial and cultural bias and hate, and to the lack of empathy for others, this president is a national and international threat.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

How else could I depict Barr after he misrepresented the conclusions in the Mueller Report? Barr went out of his way to spin it beforehand, in Trump’s favor. For example, Barr told reporters that Mueller’s decision not to charge the president with a crime had nothing to do with long-standing DOJ policy that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Mueller himself testified directly to Congress stating that Attorney General William Barr made a series of false claims. The Mueller Report says it does not exonerate Trump. Mueller did want Congress to decide whether Trump obstructed justice. Barr also indicated that he was not really supposed to be publicly releasing the two-volume report , but, on the other hand, it was “long-standing” practice to share such types of confidential information with the White House. He’s wrong on all those points. A federal judge later criticized Barr for his “lack of candor” and called his official summary of the Mueller report “distorted” and “misleading.”

Flynn has become a martyr in MAGA circles, where he’s seen as proof that Obama, and Biden, and the FBI, and the evil Deep State were out to get Trump, from before he was even elected. Earlier this month, Barr and his Department of Justice decided to recommend to the judge that he drop criminal charges against Flynn — a decision which no career prosecutor at the DOJ would support. The case was over and all that was remaining was Justice determining the sentence.

More than 2,000 former officials of the Justice Department and the FBI, who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, also called on Barr to resign as AG, for “political interference in Flynn’s prosecution” and for having “once again assaulted the rule of law” — the “once again” referring to the fact that Barr’s DOJ also overruled career prosecutors back in February to get a softer sentence for another convicted criminal, and former Trump adviser, Roger Stone.

Republican Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under George Bush Sr., has known Barr for 40 years, says the current attorney general is helping Trump become an autocrat, he’s destroying the Justice Department, and that he should resign.

Take Trump’s tax returns. When the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office tried to get Trump’s tax returns last October, Barr’s Justice Department officially joined the case and asked the judge to block the subpoena. Trump was involved in that case, not as the president but as a private citizen, so why on earth would federal prosecutors get involved on his behalf?

Because Barr understands that it’s his job to play personal lawyer to Trump, not to play lawyer for the American people.

Take the Ukraine whistleblower, whose revelations ultimately led to the impeachment of President Trump. Barr’s DOJ conveniently declined to investigate the whistleblower complaint about the president’s phone call last July with President Zelensky of Ukraine, when it came to them. That DOJ decision led dozens of government inspectors general to warn that Barr’s Justice Department “could seriously undermine the critical role whistle blowers play.”

And by the way, what a shameless conflict of interest that was, given the call transcript shows Trump referred to Barr by name in his chat with the Ukrainian president, and not in a good way, either, saying: “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.” A perfect call, eh?

He was attorney general for 18 months under George Bush Sr., a period in which he helped the elder Bush cover up the Iran-Contra affair — you remember, Iran-Contra, right? When the Reagan/Bush administration secretly traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and then illegally used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

So you ask if I think he is lying? Why in the world would I think that?

It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that the Justice Department is now corrupt because of it's trying to get the case dismissed after the court had already accepted the plea. Is it just a coincidence that the turncoat happening is after the Senate has washed it's collective hands in holding the Executive Branch of the USA to some semblance of following the laws of the land. The Justice Department flip-flop should be looked at very carefully seeing that there are apparent mischaracterizations of the relevant facts and the governing law in its request that Flynn’s case be dropped. You want to know what?

To turn tables if I were that way I could say read all the court documents like the MTD. Then I could say something like...I know you haven't...but that would be snarky now wouldn't it?

But I will say that at least a few US presidents have in some way weaponized the DOJ. We The People should be insisting that they not be that way. That is where the Legislative branch of government should step in and say whoa. Tis a problem...for sure.

Sure is an interesting diversion from the bigger issue. Trump Administration botching the USA response to the pandemic. But, one could say that Trump is not responsible...oh yeah...he said that too. He also said: Russia if you are listening...

From viruses to nuclear weapons and to denial of science, to self aggrandizement, to mental and moral deficiencies, to fostering racial and cultural bias and hate, and to the lack of empathy for others, this president is a national and international threat.

One of many of Flynn's phone calls had the transcript released. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-confirm-flynns-guilt/?utm_source=mostpopular

Those that support Trump might say that the above is just a transcript. And it doesn't show an agreement between Trump, his transition team, Flynn, and the Russians. Right? Wrong! Read this:

https://www.justsecurity.org/70431/...m-the-chaff-and-the-proper-from-the-improper/ Especially part 4. Part of it reads as follows:
Flynn also carefully coordinated with the transition team his December 29 calls about Obama’s sanctions on Russia. As soon as the press reported the sanctions, the highest-level members of the team staying at the Mara-Lago club in Palm Beach, including McFarland, Steve Bannon, and Priebus, began discussing how they might respond, including possibly by having Flynn discuss the sanctions in a call he was planning to have with Kislyak that day. Flynn, who was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, held off on communicating with Kislyak until he had spoken with the team at Mar-a-Lago, which he did: He had extensive discussions with McFarland and Michael Ledeen about what he should say to Kislyak.

Just after sending an email to transition team members about the sanctions in which she informed the group that Flynn would be talking to Kislyak that evening, McFarland briefed President-Elect Trump about the issue, in the presence of Bannon, Priebus, Sean Spicer, and other Transition Team members. McFarland later recalled to the Mueller investigators that at the end of the meeting someone may have mentioned to President-Elect Trump that Flynn was speaking to the Russian ambassador that evening. Although it’s therefore almost certain Trump knew at least roughly what Flynn planned to say to Kislyak, the Mueller investigation did not find any evidence that Trump directed Flynn to say anything about sanctions. (Mueller asked Trump specifically about these incidents (see Questions V(b)-(e)), but in his written responses the President … simply ignored those questions, as though they hadn’t even been asked.) Several weeks later, then-President Trump said in a press conference that although he didn’t direct Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak, “it certainly would have been okay with me if he did. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it. I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him because that’s his job.” Trump, and the rest of his team, did not appreciate how inappropriate this course of action was—a view now alarmingly blessed by the Department of Justice.

And also: Think about this perverse set of interactions: the incoming national security adviser was essentially telling a foreign adversary that the new president wasn’t concerned about an attack on the United States and, moreover, indicating that Trump didn’t intend to do anything about it. In fact, Flynn was signaling to Putin that once Trump took office, Trump wouldn’t be pursuing the matter and, instead, would be reaching out to Russia as a partner. (A few months later, Trump, in the Oval Office, would tell Kislyak that directly.) . . .

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

You must have been royally pissed at Bobby Kennedy.

What Flynn said was, we know that Russia is going to respond to the Obama sanctions, please do that in a manner that does not further escalate the situation because then we get into a tit for that. That does not sound like an administration that was going to back down, it sounds like one that was ready to meet every escalation on the Russian side with one of their own. It is also the type of realpolitik that goes on every day. Flynn's contacts with them as the incoming DNI and part of the transition team were also ordinary.

The only thing that changed this time around was Obama's administration trying to throw him in jail to overturn election results they did not like.

Heh, yeah, Bobby Kennedy did do things that were quite ah debatable. And that is why he was challenged on them, somewhat.

The other comment given, above, in your post is all very nice. Flynn sure is presented as a nice guy. Really quite a boy scout. Helping Putin cross the street and make it to the point that Trump can overturn Obama's sanctions on Russia for attacking the USA.

From the Just Security article that you didn't read or didn't respond to point by point:

For one thing, the apparent substance of the call on December 29 was, at a minimum, deeply disturbing. Flynn apparently was signaling to Kislyak that the Trump Administration would be more conciliatory to Russia, notwithstanding its election interference, than the Obama Administration had been—up to and including an implication that Trump might well alleviate the sanctions Obama had imposed that very morning. (Putin presumably wouldn’t have done if he didn’t have reason to believe the Trump Administration would be more conciliatory with respect to the election interference matter.)

The question of why Trump, Flynn, et al., were—and continue to be—so in thrall to Vladimir Putin, or at the very least indifferent to Russia’s threat to our electoral system, continues to be perhaps the most consequential question of the Trump Presidency.

Even apart from the merits of what Flynn said, however—that is to say, even if you happen to agree with Trump’s views on Russian sanctions and/or on the U.N. vote regarding Israeli settlements—it’s inappropriate for a member of a presidential transition team to communicate with foreign officials secretly about current U.S. national security or foreign policy matters (i.e., without the knowledge of the State Department or some other process for informing the current Administration), and far worse still to do so in an effort to undermine the national security or foreign policy objectives of the United States as determined by the President then in office.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You must have been royally pissed at Bobby Kennedy.

What Flynn said was, we know that Russia is going to respond to the Obama sanctions, please do that in a manner that does not further escalate the situation because then we get into a tit for tat. That does not sound like an administration that was going to back down, it sounds like one that was ready to meet every escalation on the Russian side with one of their own. It is also the type of realpolitik that goes on every day. Flynn's contacts with them as the incoming DNI and part of the transition team were also ordinary.

The only thing that changed this time around was Obama's administration trying to throw him in jail to overturn election results they did not like.

If the contacts are so ordinary, why does he lie to the FBI and to Pence? Is it just in the DNA of the Trump circle to always lie?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is what I ask. Take everything that the Obama team did and then imagine that it is a Trump team doing it to Biden.

You mean suppose Trump tried to coerce a foreign government to go after Biden? We litigated that, your side won. A president is legally allowed to response the executive branch to go after the opposing party. It is now perfectly legal, I am not about to let you call a take back.

 

[UncleMark]

If the contacts are so ordinary, why does he lie to the FBI and to Pence? Is it just in the DNA of the Trump circle to always lie?

That really is the question, isn't it? Putting aside the FBI, why lie to Pence? Did Pence "trick" Flynn too?

I'm reminded of a teenager or an older pathological liar whose default is to immediately respond with whatever they think is the best response for them in any given situation, where the truth is given no weight in the equation.

In those immediate circumstances, why did Flynn think that his lies would put him in a better light than simply answering honestly?

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

Well, based on what happened to Flynn, if that is the route you want to go...so he it. Looks like you all started it, so perhaps I won't allow you to take it back. And it wasn't a foreign government digging (although that is EXACTLY what Obama did to the Trump team) it also involved domestic law enforcement and the intelligence network.

So here we both are, your side started it, you believe my side retaliated, and I believe that your side did it worse. Appears you want to escalate more. So what part of the country do you want in the divorce after the irreconcilable differences?

I am not clear on what your post is saying. First off, We The People are all of us citizens of the USA. So, actually, we probably are both closer together with main goals than politics and the media pundits would ascribe. We want what is best for the nation and for humanity. We just have different ideas on how to achieve it. So I am for burying the hatchet in the ground...not in each other. We The People are human beings.

I agree with Just Security's article that: 'Flynn’s lies to the FBI in his January 24, 2017 interview were indefensible.' Your post takes the opposite view including that Flynn was set up. But, really, Flynn is unimportant in the big scheme today.

Just Security says: 'In the course of the Flynn “affair,”... several officials—including but hardly limited to Flynn himself—have done far more disturbing and damaging things. Many other actors, by contrast, have acted appropriately and in the national interest. Unfortunately, just as with the public’s anticipation of and reaction to the Mueller investigation, the inordinate focus on whether a particular individual committed one or another offense under the U.S. criminal code is diverting attention from where it ought to be, on much more significant matters of constitutional governance.

AG Barr and the interim prosecutor present a position that... (in Just Security article): '... depends upon the rather shocking view...that Flynn’s underlying conduct in 2016 and 2017 was unobjectionable and that therefore there wasn’t a “legitimate” basis for the FBI to be investigating Flynn’s secret communications with the Russian Ambassador at all, even though Russia had just completed an elaborate effort to manipulate the American electoral process in order to help elect Donald Trump.'

Oh, but, you counter with Flynn was set up. But the big picture thing here is not that. It is that Russia attacked the USA and Trump doesn't care and neither do you.

'That’s what Flynn was doing during his conversations with Kislyak. He was dealing with the Russians as if there had been no attack. He was abandoning his obligation to defend the United States from foreign assault—as Trump has done. No doubt, Trump and his amen chorus will continue to argue about the details of Flynn’s legal case and insist, without evidence, that he was framed by an evil Obama cabal. But in a way, that’s a sideshow. Flynn’s fundamental transgression is much larger and deeper than his lies to the FBI gumshoes. The transcripts, released due to Trump’s bogus Obamagate chase, show a darker reality: Flynn double-crossed American democracy.' MJ blog

 

[cosmickid]

Well, based on what happened to Flynn, if that is the route you want to go...so he it. Looks like you all started it, so perhaps I won't allow you to take it back. And it wasn't a foreign government digging (although that is EXACTLY what Obama did to the Trump team) it also involved domestic law enforcement and the intelligence network.

So here we both are, your side started it, you believe my side retaliated, and I believe that your side did it worse. Appears you want to escalate more. So what part of the country do you want in the divorce after the irreconcilable differences?

What exactly "happened" to Flynn? He was paid over $500,000 to advance the issues of Turkey, including a plot to get a Turkish cleric living in PA extradited/kidnapped and returned to Turkey to face retribution for alleged crimes against Erdogan. He did that without telling anyone (including Team Trump) that he was an agent of Turkey. Mueller discovered emails from Turkish Govt sources complaining to Flynn's "business associates" that they didn't feel like they were getting their money's worth, based on Flynn's "insufficient efforts" to advance Turkish interests within Team Trump...

That little venture also involved his son, so Mueller agreed to let Flynn plead guilty to the lesser charge of lying to the FBI to avoid the more serious accusations of him and his son working to advance Erdogan's interests. It's crystal clear this is why he was allowed to plead to the lesser charge.

His plea hearing was 2 days removed from his "partners" indictment. Judge Sullivan even noted the fact that Flynn's deal was dependant on his testimony against his co-conspirators. In fact, at the Dec 2018 plea hearing, Sullivan told Flynn and his legal team that they would be better off asking for a postponement of sentencing on the plead to charge till AFTER Flynn had demonstrated good faith and carried thru on his part of the deal.

We KNOW all that- it's part of the court record. So why do Trump apologists always skip the whole Erdogan aspect whenever we discuss Flynn? He was picked up on a wiretap of Kislyak's line and lied about the circumstances to both FBI agents and later Pence.
He was allowed to plead guilty to THAT charge, in exchange for testifying against others involved in the Erdogan plot. He belatedly admitted to Sullivan that he had been an agent of Turkey (which Sullivan knew) because as Sullivan said to him, I have never allowed an innocent man to plead guilty...

In fact, Sullivan had Flynn sworn in and then asked him twice, under penalty of perjury, if he was guilty of the charges he was pleading to. He even warned Flynn that if he lied to him in court he would find himself in even worse circumstances. And part of the reason Flynn and his team were so shocked about Sullivan's demeanor at the plea hearing, was they thought Sullivan would be on their side since he had been critical of HRC's use of the email server. But he reality is that Sullivan was critical of HRC for the same reason he was critical of Flynn- he felt Govt employees should be held to a higher standard.

"Sullivan quickly indicated that he was offended by Flynn’s suggestion that he was misled by FBI agents. And he said it appeared that the former national security advisor was trying to have it both ways: to take a generous plea deal even as he telegraphed that he might have been entrapped.

Sullivan said the FBI records -- many of which the judge forced to be publicly disclosed in recent days -- showed Flynn had repeatedly lied to agents, despite knowing it was a crime to do so.

“You understand why” I was concerned, the judge told Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner. “This sounds like a backpedaling on the acceptance of responsibility.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-judge-emmet-sullivan-profile-20181219-story.html

 

[SSB]

There was no Russia hoax. They interfered in our election. The “hoax” you’re referring to is the investigation into coordination between the Trump team and Russians. That was never proven, but there was reasonable cause for that investigation. Flynn did call Kislyak, he did discuss sanctions, and he did lie about it. That certainly put him in a compromising position. The FBI may very well have used improper procedures, but any thought that Flynn is therefore innocent is nonsense. And that action isn’t the first that would cause a reasonable person to question his Flynn’s ethics.

The problem with the second paragraph is that the FBI at this time already knew the Russia Hoax was a... Hoax

 

[cosmickid]

There was no Russia hoax. They interfered in our election. The “hoax” you’re referring to is the investigation into coordination between the Trump team and Russians. That was never proven, but there was reasonable cause for that investigation. Flynn did call Kislyak, he did discuss sanctions, and he did lie about it. That certainly put him in a compromising position. The FBI may very well have used improper procedures, but any thought that Flynn is therefore innocent is nonsense. And that action isn’t the first that would cause a reasonable person to question his Flynn’s ethics.

The latest development may be Fox News having undue influence over Barr and in turn the FBI. Turns out some at Fox have been pushing a narrative and campaigning for the firing of (chief FBI lawyer) Dana Boente, over his role in the Flynn investigation. But reportedly the decision to ax Boente didn't come from FBI superiors, but rather from the DOJ. Probably a coincidence that Fox, particularly Lou Dobbs has been pushing to have Boente fired...

Now Boente is clearly one of Obama's "radical leftists". He's been with DOJ for 38 yrs, which means he joined the DOJ under Reagan.

"After a 38-year career with the Justice Department, the FBI's top lawyer Dana Boente was asked to resign on Friday. Two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss Boente said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray.

His departure comes on the heels of recent criticism by Fox News for his role in the investigation of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbis-top-lawyer-dana-boente-202228889.html

 

[cosmickid]

The latest development may be Fox News having undue influence over Barr and in turn the FBI. Turns out some at Fox have been pushing a narrative and campaigning for the firing of (chief FBI lawyer) Dana Boente, over his role in the Flynn investigation. But reportedly the decision to ax Boente didn't come from FBI superiors, but rather from the DOJ. Probably a coincidence that Fox, particularly Lou Dobbs has been pushing to have Boente fired...

Now Boente is clearly one of Obama's "radical leftists". He's been with DOJ for 38 yrs, which means he joined the DOJ under Reagan.

"After a 38-year career with the Justice Department, the FBI's top lawyer Dana Boente was asked to resign on Friday. Two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss Boente said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray.

His departure comes on the heels of recent criticism by Fox News for his role in the investigation of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbis-top-lawyer-dana-boente-202228889.html

Another bizarre development... Brief filed against Flynn "Business partner" describes Flynn as a "co-conspirator", but does not charge him. And despite all the Foxbots defending Flynn gleefully predicting the amicus brief by Flynn's team would result in "immediate dismissal" the DC Circuit still hasn't ruled and is set to hear oral arguments on Fri.

"The 53-page brief filed with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond makes no mention of the Justice Department’s extraordinary decision to jettison the case special counsel Robert Mueller’s office brought in December 2017 as part of a plea deal with the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief and key foreign policy adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.

While that case focused on Flynn’s statements to the FBI in January 2017 about his dealings with the Russian ambassador, it also included an admission by Flynn that he signed off on inaccurate Foreign Agent Registration Act filings about the project that led to Rafiekian’s prosecution: a $600,000 contract Flynn signed for his Flynn Intel Group at the height of the presidential campaign in 2016 to lobby on behalf of a Dutch firm, Inovo BV.

Prosecutors contend that Inovo was actually a front for the Turkish government and that the lobbying and messaging campaign Flynn and Rafiekian had no real business element, but was aimed at a prominent opponent of the Turkish government, cleric Fetullah Gulen.

When the Justice Department submitted its unusual request last month to dismiss the case against Flynn, it was entirely silent on his Turkey-related admissions. Another federal appeals court, the D.C. Circuit, is set to hear arguments Friday on whether Flynn is entitled to have the case dismissed immediately or a judge can entertain arguments that Flynn’s guilty plea in the case should not be disturbed.

Flynn’s lead attorney, Sidney Powell, blasted the government’s decision to keep prosecuting Rafiekian, a former Trump transition team adviser. Asked by POLITICO about the move, she replied by email: “Wrongful and wasteful use of scarce taxpayer resources.”

One prominent Virginia defense attorney, Edward MacMahon, said Sunday that Rafiekian appears to be the victim of a double standard. “There is a different kind of justice that is offered to people like Gen. Flynn than is offered to this guy. So, Flynn is the darling of Fox News and this guy is discardable?” MacMahon said"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-claims-flynn-involved-conspiracy-141246427.html

Basically Barr seems to want to say that Flynn was part of a conspiracy, but doesn't want to prosecute him for it. I don't think the Flynn matter is over...

 

[cosmickid]

A few things.

The MTD presents facts showing FBI and prosecution misconduct. I’m not so naive to believe that you will see this as proof. It’s an argument and I my view a compelling argument.

What’s your “shill” point? Are you suggesting the DOJ has lied to the court?

Just to keep this thread up to date. Gleeson is alleging "prosecutorial misconduct"...

"A former federal judge appointed to review the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn said there was evidence of a “gross abuse” of prosecutorial power and that the request should be denied.

Former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said in a filing Wednesday that the government “has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.” He urged the judge handling the case to deny the motion and argued that Flynn had committed perjury.

Gleeson was appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in a special role to weigh in on the case, but it will ultimately be up to Sullivan and potentially an appeals court whether to accept the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case.

Flynn pleaded guilty, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, to lying to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential transition period.

In January, Flynn filed court papers to withdraw his guilty plea, saying federal prosecutors had acted in “bad faith” and broken their end of the bargain when they sought prison time for him."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-judge-says-push-dismiss-163751961.html

So it turns out when Flynn initially tried to withdraw his plea, he didn't even mention some of the arguments that have been posted here. Probably because Judge Sullivan had already discredited those as "exculpatory" to Flynn's actual crimes, back at the plea hearing in Dec 2018.

Instead, he argued (falsely) that the DOJ had reneged on their "agreement" by seeking jail time when it was SULLIVAN who discussed jail time, not the DOJ lawyers... In fact, it was only AFTER Flynn tried to withdraw his plea that the DOJ decided to end their part of the agreement and seek to charge him as an accomplice in the trial involving Turkey...

This attempt by Barr and Shea to whitewash Flynn's other crimes by stubbornly trying to focus on the lesser charge he agreed to plead to stinks to high heaven. And both Gleeson and Sullivan, as well as countless others can plainly see that.

Had Flynn not realized that he was in a real pickle over what Mueller discovered regarding Turkey, then what possible reason could Flynn have had for pleading guilty to "lying to Congress"? Where exactly is the incentive for Flynn to strike a bargain and plead guilty on a "lesser charge" if he wasn't aware of how serious the charges in the Turkey matter actually were? Can one of the Flynnistas explain that to us?