With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that there was no criminal conduct uncovered and then prosecutors creating a crime (including the use of a clearly unconstitutional law never used to convict anyone since the start of the Republic). Many of these same experts who have been espousing untethered (and ultimately rejected) theories for criminal and impeachment charges for years. Yet, what was most striking is how many also rejected any claim that the undisclosed evidence, at a minimum, violated Brady, the case requiring the government to turn over exculpatory information. Indeed, Ben Wittes, a staunch defender of James Comey, assured readers “while you might not know much about federal law enforcement,” this is all “standard practices.” In fact, this is a clear and flagrant violation of the both Brady and the orders of Judge Emmet Sullivan. The fact that such violations are also dismissed by mainstream media and experts reflects how rage has distorted legal analysis in this Administration.
Brady v. Maryland is a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court that prosecutors must under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment. There are also due process rights requiring the disclosure of any evidence that would allow the defense to attack the reliability, thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation or to impeach the credibility of the state’s witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Courts like Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case issue standard orders under this and other cases requiring disclosure of evidence that are exculpatory or material to issues like impeachment.
Many of us who work on the criminal defense side have long frustrating histories with courts in dealing with violations of Brady and other cases. Often these violations are exposed after sentencing (unlike in Flynn). Courts often cite cases like Strickler v. Greene to decline to order a new trial unless “the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” That is a standard that is difficult to overcome. However, this case exposes a particularly obvious set of violations.
The Background
These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.
It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.
Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”
On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”
Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”
That exchange is not disconcerting as Strzok’s actions. After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law. Thus, faced with a lack of evidence of any crime, Strzok’s response was to order the investigation be kept open and then focused attention on an unconstitutional law never used to convict a single person. Its use against the incoming national security advisor to say it is a crime to discuss foreign relations with a Russian official during the transition would have been utterly absurd.
The same officials then sent two investigators into the White House, knowingly evading the long-standing rules of contacting the White House Counsel’s office in advance — something former FBI Director James Comey later bragged about and said that he “got away with it.”
So what happened then? We know that the investigators did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them about the sanctions discussion and told their superiors that they did not see evidence of a crime. Later Robert Mueller and his staff proceeded to charge Flynn with the single count. They then drained Flynn of millions and threatened to prosecute his son. He proceeded to take the plea.
Brady and the Sullivan Orders
Now back to Brady and the prior orders of Judge Sullivan (who is have practiced in front of for many years).
At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”
In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”
So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.
There are also new questions raised about Van Grack’s representations to the Court.
I have been a long critic of the failure of federal judges to sanction prosecutors for misrepresentations and withholding of evidence. That could prove the case here but that will not alter the fact that this is in open defiance of these orders. I have been counsel in cases where clear violations occurred, including a well-known case in front of Judge Sullivan that led to years of hearings before a Special Master and federal magistrate. This material was clearly within the court orders to be produced.
That brings us back to the reflexive response of these experts to assure the public that there is nothing to see here, or, as Wittes declared, this is all just standard practice. There was a time when media like CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post were outspoken critics of prosecutorial misconduct. Yet, in this age of rage, those principles are now inconvenient obstacles in an overriding narrative in the media. Many of these same experts have spent years advancing ridiculously twisted interpretations of the criminal code to claim “smoking gun” evidence of criminal acts by Trump and his associates. Those claims ranging from treason to bribery have been uniformly rejected by prosecutors as well as the House impeachment proceeding. Yet, it does not matter. Any sweeping legal theory or denial is replicated in the media to fit a carefully maintained narrative.
Yet, as the Supreme Court said in Brady, “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”
Even those saying that this is all “standard” stuff seem to suggest that “what is standard” is abuse. Wittes declared:
“If you’re outraged by the FBI’s tactics with Flynn, keep in mind that they do these things every day against drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists. Except those people are black, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern—not “lock ‘er up” lily white.”
Putting aside the weird rationale of abuse as a victory for racial justice, the statement was widely and favorably cited despite the fact that it is the ultimate rationalization of abuse. This legal relativism is the touchstone of legal analysis in the Trump era.
We have long had echo journalism where networks pander to the desire (and fantasies) of viewers. However, it was only in the last few years that we have seen the systematic misrepresentation of core legal principles by legal experts, including constitutional rights, to fit such a journalistic and political agenda. To suggest that Flynn was abused or that the Mueller staff violated core rights is intolerable in this environment. Yet, Donald Trump will not be our last president. What will these experts and media outlets have when he leaves office other than a Pyrrhic victory based on the abandonment of these core principles? What will be left of legal analysis after years of grotesquely distorted interpretations?
So when are the indictments coming? Never. Because there are few men and women left with your integrity.
I would not be so sure. The crooked FBI official who doctored the CIA email included in the FISA application to justify a warrant to spy on Carter Page may have flipped.
Durham may now be inside the tent. We’ll see.
And Santa Claus is real.
Tony – St. Nicholas is real.
I’m sorry, Jon, but I missed the citation to the case that held the Logan Act unconstitutional. Can you repeat it? No, because this is just your opinion, which as time goes on, means less and less because it is becoming amply clear that you are auditioning for some judgeship before the Republicans get kicked out of the Senate.
More Turley fluff and stuff that does not and cannot change the fundamental fact that Flynn LIED to the FBI, and that is a crime. More red meat to create a distraction while more Americans get sick and die, while more American businesses go under and while the economy sets record losses. Now, Turley’s going after Mueller. Red meat. Red meat. Don’t look at the obituary page– look at Turley’s blog.
no case just logic. Natacha is pretending this is some kind of exceptional viewpoint. it isn’t. This is actually a well known and widely accepted opinion among scholars.
Threatening Tulsi Gabbard under the Logan act went nowhere. That was a Hillary ploy. Oh she hates her Democrat rivals. But it’s a threatening tool, if not a scary one. Not scary until Stroke got ahold of it, of course.
Here’s let’s sample a short essay that explains it in laymen’s language.
https://reason.com/2019/05/14/the-logan-act-is-awful-and-no-its-not-going-to-be-used-against-john-kerry/
“The Logan Act is back in the news, and its invocation is as breathtakingly stupid as it has always been.
This time, President Donald Trump wants to use it against John Kerry, who has been meeting with Iranian officials to apparently attempt to somehow salvage vestiges of the nuclear agreement between them and the United States that Trump has backed out of.
The Logan Act makes it a federal crime for a private American citizen to engage in any communication or correspondence with a foreign government that intervenes in a dispute with the United States and that government in order to “defeat” any measures by the U.S.
The law has been around since 1799, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it (two people have been indicted but never prosecuted). Attempting to enforce the law would demonstrate just how thoroughly it violates the free speech rights of Americans.
Trump has complained about Kerry’s behavior on Twitter and to the press, saying Kerry is violating the Logan Act. On Monday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr asking him to investigate whether Kerry’s behavior is indeed in violation.
Trump raising the specter of the Logan Act follows a very clear trend that goes all the way back to the law’s roots. The person or political party in control of American foreign policy wants to use it to punish a political opponent for openly speaking and attempting to influence foreign governments in ways they don’t like. In this case, the Trump administration is itching for war with Iran. Kerry is trying to prevent it.
This attempt to criminalize speech in the Logan Act was designed for the very purpose of punishing political opponents. In fact, the law was written back in 1799 in a situation much like this one, where a private American citizen, Philadelphia Quaker George Logan, attempted to negotiate with France to stop an undeclared sea war between the two countries. Logan’s actions pissed off the Federalist Party, and they pushed the bill through Congress.
The law’s roots are entirely political and are not based on any actual threat that speech between a citizen and foreign government would somehow undermine America’s foreign policies. The history of the Logan Act has entirely revolved around members of one political party trying to use it against another.
In fact, Trump’s presidential campaign has been on the other end of this nonsense as well. Back in 2017, experts in the Logan Act suggested that Mike Flynn, part of Trump’s post-election transition team, may have violated the law by discussing with a Russian diplomat potential responses to U.S. sanctions and a United Nations vote condemning Israeli settlements.
The invocation of the law was stupid then—particularly since Trump was preparing to take office and take control over the country’s foreign policy—and it’s just as stupid now. As I noted at the time, bringing up the Logan Act was clearly a way to try to get at Trump and those connected to him because proving corruption is hard and people were looking to grab anything they could to try to get him out of office. It didn’t work. Using it against Kerry won’t work, either.”
Natacha – your comments have no validity until we see your BMI, GRE, and LSAT scores.
Poor Natacha can’t read. Turley clearly indicates that it’s his opinion that the Logan Act is unconstitutional…not that the Supreme Court has ruled so. Otherwise, Peter Strock could not have invoked it.
Natacha is dumb as a doorknob.
Turley writes his blog to provide validation to the Trumpsters, who don’t understand that when Turley says a law is “clearly unconstitutional” without any qualifier indicating that this is nothing more than his opinion, he’s talking out of his ass. He then takes this opinion and goes on the offensive against those who use this for law enforcement purposes. Everyone has an opinion. Turley’s is skewed. Still, nothing Turley says mitigates the fact that FLYNN LIED TO THE FBI, AND THAT IS A CRIME. The rest is fluff and stuff. Let’s face it–Flynn has always counted on a pardon, and he’ll likely get it, but that doesn’t change the fact that Flynn lied.
The second point is why is this being dredged up now, in the middle of a mishandled pandemic, with record unemployment, more Americans getting sick and dying every day and the economy in a tailspin? Nothing more than red meat for the Trumpsters to chew on, a distraction against his failures and the damage he’s done to this country.
Do you enjoy being evil? Sure seems you do…
She doesn’t enjoy revealing her BMI scores.
But the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said he did not lie.
When agents re-write 302s everybody is a liar.
You’ll notice the FBI, unlike the police department in Slidell, Louisiana, doesn’t record interviews. There’s a reason for that.
Yes, they do not record interviews the way almost all police departments do. Even the Police Department of Fritters and Grits, Alabama is more advanced.
It is easier to lie when there is no recording.
302s always carefully crafted to say what they want them to say.
Hoover and FBI agents understand the rules of evidence, that much is clear. And how to game them from step one.
So very corrupt now, they make Hoover’s FBI look great if you ask me
“So very corrupt now, they make Hoover’s FBI look great if you ask me”
yep
most people have no idea
Kerry seems to have violated the Logan act many times yet no charges.
Obama And Chris Christie Warned Trump ‘Not’ To Appoint Flynn
Yet Trump Later Claimed ‘No One Warned Him’
On November 10, 2016, President Obama warned President-elect Trump against hiring Flynn. During their meeting in the Oval Office two days after the election, Obama expressed “profound concerns” about hiring Flynn to a sensitive, high-level national security post. In May 2019, Trump tweeted, “It now seems the General Flynn was under investigation long before was common knowledge. It would have been impossible for me to know this but, if that was the case, and with me being one of two people who would become president, why was I not told so that I could make a change?” Shortly after Trump’s election, Flynn himself had advised transition team counsel Don McGahn that he was under federal investigation for secret lobbying work he had done for Turkey during the campaign, and Trump advisor Chris Christie directly advised Trump against hiring Flynn, as did President Barack Obama two days after the election.
Edited From: “Michael Flynn”, Wikipedia
……………………………………………………………..
According to this, and many mainstream articles, Obama and Chistie, two unrelated figures, both advised Trump to steer clear of Flynn.
What’s more, Transition Team Counsel Don McGhan was aware that Flynn was already under investigation before Trump took office since Flynn had actually informed McGhan. One recalls that Trump refused to let McGhan testify before Congress regarding the Mueller Probe.
Yet long after Flynn’s resignation from NSA, Trump sent a tweet claiming he had never been warned about Flynn!
Everything about Michael Flynn suggests that he was a man-on-the-make seeking opportunities. His relationships with the Turks and Russians should have raised many red flags. Therefore to portray Michael Flynn as a doe-eyed innocent is disengenous at best.
Key here is Trump lying again. No one can believe anything he says.
There are reasons from his record of military leadership which suggest that Flynn was not a good choice, but so far Seth & company have not identified any of them. I wont bother to explain. Probably Christie was tuned into those things. Just a guess.
Flynn may not have been a good choice, but that does not mean he wasnt a patriot nor that he was some kind of foreign hireling so far beneath the standards of the Swamp. This is what’s really disingenuous. But the editorial writers are always engaging in doubletalk to the people, whom they believe are unaware of the oppressively unfair double standards by which the DC denizens use to maintain their parasitical bloodsucking of the American people.
Kurtz, his actions demonstrate that he wasn’t a patriot.
Chuckles. You fancy anyone not a Democratic Party bot takes Obama’s opinion seriously?
You mean the guy elected twice by the American people who historians ranked as our 12th best president? That guy?
Normal Americans rate him lower. A lot, LOT lower…
who historians ranked as our 12th best president? That guy?
Which historians? No serious academic participates in such surveys and no prudent academic would ever do so without considerable time passing not only for reflection but also for access to archival collections.
“What will these experts and media outlets have when he leaves office other than a Pyrrhic victory based on the abandonment of these core principles? “
This is where Turley differentiates himself from many on the other side. Many of the people he talks about favorably never had core principles to begin with. I don’t think Turley recognized that. The only reason I believe this was not recognized by Professor Turley earlier was that Turley agreed with their conclusions and has his own leftist slant. Turley is a nice man, and educated with a top notched mind but he is stuck in an institution that rarely sees the light of day when it is reality that is at stake. He should think about what differentiates Thomas Sowell from other academic professors of economics. Thomas Sowell worked in an academic center but also worked in the private sector where incompetence was not rewarded.
Thomas Sowell worked in an academic center but also worked in the private sector where incompetence was not rewarded.
Worked for UCLA, for the Urban Institute, and then for the Hoover Institution. He indubitably had a lot of wage jobs over the period running from 1945 to 1962 and he was in the military for a time, but I don’t think he has any history as a corporation economist.
Sowell was a teacher of economics trained in an economics faculty, but his dissertation was on the history of economic thought, and his most scholarly work has been in the realm of intellectual history, not economics.
DSS, one of his many jobs was working for AT&T as an economic analyst which adds to his knowledge base. It wasn’t that long but for Sowell one year provides him immense amounts of knowledge that would take years for ordinary people to garner if they ever could.
s Ben Witte says this is consistant with practices of totalitarian fascists like himself, Venezuela, China, Cuba et al ( he didn’t mean US law right? because that would show his ignorance! )
I have been counsel in cases where clear violations occurred, including a well-known case in front of Judge Sullivan that led to years of hearings before a Special Master and federal magistrate.
“Years”. There’s a reason people despise the judiciary.
Waal, Professor, what you’re learning is that the proportion of decent people in and among the population of liberals has declined with every cohort. You have some old folks like Jerilyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz who insist the rules be fair and fairly enforced, and then you have the rest (including the characters who comment here). What you’re lamenting is unsurprising.
The question at hand is how we can have a working political society without any fixed procedural norms – when it’s Calvinball all the way down. Because, if that’s the deal, people are going to stop caring about the simulacrum of rules too.
I think we should strongly encourage them to continue to make the case that this kind of behaviour is all standard stuff that they have done many times before. We need to encourage them to give us other examples to prove this defense.
There was no investigation of Hillary. Comey opened up to cover his own behind, probably because he thought the NYPD was about to release the contents of Weiner’s computer and he would lose control of the story.
But think of the Butterfly Effect! Weiner gathers Hillary emails and puts them in a folder labeled ‘insurance’ and then sends lewd pictures to an underage girl practically guaranteeing law local law enforcement’s having a look to investigate a conventional crime and stumbling across Hillary’s crimes. If the feds had full control of the little man’s computer we would have likely been told there was nothing on it.
Trump predicted a year in advance that classified information would end up on Weiner’s computer. That was back when they saying he was stupid. Who looks stupid now?
Curri, the supposed Deep State protected the Trump campaign from public knowledge of it’s investigation while causing Hillary’s EC loss by announcing her’s 2 weeks before the election. Don’t you know how to keep score?
Some facts defense attorney JT omits:
Flynn is a traitor who was caught telling the Russian Ambassador that the sanctions placed on his country by Obama for interfering in our 2016 election in favor of his boss would be removed for services rendered, thus continuing the proven collusion between the campaign and Russia. He then lied about it to the FBI and even VP Pence, though others in the campaign knew about it.
The Logan act is not unconstitutional because JT declares it so, though his incessant Trump defenses might get him on the court yet. In fact it was revised by Congress in 1994, and 2 people have been indicted under it, and both escaped prosecution because of evidence, not constitutionality, it was updated in a larger crime bill Congress considered in 2006 but did not pass for unrelated reasons, and Trump has accused Kerry of violating it.
Flynn is a patriot and his diplomatic contact with the Russians was a legitimate communication from an incoming official. The FBI entrapment scheme was shockingly inappropriate and a gross abuse of law enforcement powers by angry politically motivated agents interfering with things way above their pay grade.
Logan act probably is unconstitutional., and some day will be ruled upon accordingly, even though until then some people will use it as a lame excuse such as Mr Stroke.,
And even if it is literally lawful in the meantime, it can still be applied in an unconstitutional manner, as it was here.
Kurtz, something tells me you do not normally want foreign countries paid off for helping the president win an election. Flynn’s a traitor who should be doing time. So is his boss who still will not take any steps to minimize Russian or other foreign interference in our election.
BTB: “Flynn is a traitor.” Statements like that are why you are so often seen as an idiot.
Also, you are not the NYT. You are not immune to a libel suit.
Citizens have the same rights under Sullivan as do newspapers, not to mention my statement is a fact. Only an idiot or a traitor would think it was OK for public officials to pay off foreign countries for helping win an American election.
Amusing that those supposedly upset about freedom of speech at privately owned companies like Facebook want public figures immune from criticism. due to fear of law suits.
btb:
Kindly detail every vote changed or even affected by the “massive” Russian Facebook buy of $100,000.00 across a whole damn country? Or that is another of your, It just was, DAMNIT!
Manafort passed on polling data for the mid-west to Russia and they targeted Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump won Wisconsin by 10k votes and Michigan by 14k votes.
The Wikileaks Trump requested and Russia produced dominated headlines for weeks in the month before the election, dragging down Hillary’s numbers.
Oh yes the wikileaks that were actually not done by Russia, but by some unkown American, who yes probably was Seth Rich. But whomever, it was the consequence of an internal leak from someone with DNC server access who downloaded onto a memory stick or perhaps a detatchable hard drive, the massive amount of information which it’s impossible that it went over the wires.
this is science and we are supposed to listen to the scientists and technical experts except when we’re not
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Kurtz, that’s false. Russia hacked the DNC.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/
We talked about that before. I still believe Binney.
And like Young refers to below, the investigation by FBI was patently bogus.
It is well known the FBI electronic evidence SOPs that were NOT followed.
The FBI usually grabs a computer box off a desk, a server off the floor, collects the cell phones, etc, checks for degaussing coils in the exits before they walk them out, and then they do walk them out in the arms of people with those blue jackets that say FBI and then off the premises and books them into evidence in strict FBI custody. they do this in minor electronic evidence cases and they do this in major ones too. they do this to computers of people who aren’t even charged with crimes if they want to do it. It is SOP. That means “Standard Operating Procedures.”
But they never did it to the DNC computers. Ones right here in the US not just off in Ukraine or wherever overseas. But they probably could have seized the nodes in Europe too.
They didn’t do that, they took the DNC contractor Crowdstrike’s self serving “analysis” as Holy Writ. Thus, the investigation was tainted and bogus from step one. I will never believe that this failure to follow SOPs was anything other than a fake, phony, figleaf of a bogus whitewash of some skullduggery.
The FBI is so corrupt, it doesn’t need reform. It needs a refoundation.
Chuckles. Look at what Mr. Grennell made Adam Schiff admit.
Kurtz-‘ Interesting that the DNC never allowed actual law enforcement specialists to examine their server for an intrusion. Inside job. No Russians or Macedonians. I wonder if the DNC is a little worried about the Bernie Bros still entwined with their operations? What else might the ‘Macedonians and Russians’ reveal?
Manafort passed on polling data for the mid-west to Russia and they targeted Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump won Wisconsin by 10k votes and Michigan by 14k votes.
You fancy this is a response? There’s masses of public data and the Russians can commission their own polls. (All of the date is unreliable because of the sampling frames).
Kurtz could probably tell you thaat ‘treason’ is narrowly defined and even the thugs out to get Flyyn were not prepared to go that far.
You are though.
I am not convinced that the Sullivan case gives a private person as much clearance to libel others as it does the NYT.
In any event, it can be costly to even win a case like that. Do you have NYT level financial resources to ‘win’ that suit?
When this is over I would be pleased to see Flynn take a few incautious loud mouths to court just as a signal to the rest. Seth, I think, has been more circumspect. You might want to wonder why.
yes citizens have the same theoretical rights as newspapers but not the same power which in the case of corporate mass media like the NYT or better yet the Wapoo owned by the richest man on planet earth jeff Bezos who raised his centibillions from public capital markets.
traitor is a word that means convicted of treason. Flynn was never convicted nor even charged with treason. this is pure defamation. nobody will sue book for it because he like you and me is just another insignificant voice of one person out here in “Murica”
now if the wapoo used that word, Flynn would sue them, because then he could win back some of the milliions in legal fees he’s lost, in a slam dunk case of defamation
Treason has meaning outside it’s legal definition and any judge would throw out a suit by Flynn on this. When I say he’s a traitor, I obviously don’t mean he’s convicted, because he isn’t. It is my firm opinion supported by facts however that he is a traitor who should do time. He put the interests of his boss and therefore himself above the interest of the US for having fair elections not manipulated willfully by a foreign government, and granted reciprocal favors to the government in payment for services rendered.
Book. You made it clear that you were not using ‘treason’ outside its legal definition. You explained that rather well.
You should retract that false accusation now.
Don’t bet that book would never be sued. Insignicant little creeps have been sued for posting nasty and untrue restaurant reviews.
We know Flynn’s lawyer reads some of these postings because she has posted here. Book could already be on a ‘cockroach to squash’ list. Stepping on just one sends the rest scurrying for cover. A prominent religious organization has used the same tactics.
Book really does not have a license to libel.
Flynn is a traitor.
Sleep well.
bythebook is a pedophile.
the internet is a steaming dungheap of lies. now, the Democrats have got the censorship squads on social media to do their bidding, so now their lies have greater thrust.
global capital could easily tip the scales if they wanted to do so. they would simply buy out mass media and run it in a different direction. i often wonder if there isn’t a split among global capitalists where China is concerned. some see them as a real threat and some see them as the best thing since chocolate milk.
if Trump has certain money powers on this side, they’re probably aligned with oil producing interests. China is a net consumer of oil. right now, china has the world over a barrel– a barrel of oil that costs next to nothing. Which they ardently have desired and now have in abundance.
I dont think the covid was a bioweapon. Not made by either side. But I do think it may have been a lab modified gain of function experiment– quite possibly one that had involvement from both Chinese and American virologists– which was accidentally released. But whatever its genesis, the Chicoms have played the outcomes well. They are playing the Democrat political leadership and corporate mass media like a bunch of fiddles.
Their crowning achievement will be if DJT is defeated in the election.
Me, I can live in a future America that’s been colonized apace by China, and reduced to a state where Democrats always win. And always cooperate with the PRC & CCP. But, if that comes to pass I will be ok. I support Trump but if he loses, my ship aint going down. As a people, I love the Chinese 100 old names. I could move to the PRC next month and do just fine. But Im luckier than most people, Amitoufu.
But other Americans, should consider what is the meaning of collective liberty– not individual liberty in the sense of licenses but liberty in the sense of national autonomy– ask yourselves, do you want Comrade Xi to have a veto on any important national policy?
Russia Russia Russia– it’s a joke that they cared too much which side won the election. Russia’s interests are aligned with the USA’s more than people admit, we are both major oil producing nations, and we are both threatened by a rising PRC.
‘
No the PRC is the monster sized economy, and innumerably large population, that could come to completely dominate the world in this century, and forevermore as long as it lasts after that.
The cynical Democrat party leadership has no problem with that. The fastest growing Chinatown in the USA — Flushing, Queens– sent who to Congress? Alexandria Ocasio Cortez!
Well, don’t worry folks, the experience of history shows that nations which pay the vassal tax to China are usually left alone. Vietnam, Korea, were allowed to flourish for many centuries, and one day a Sinified USA toomay enjoy the same prosperity. It will not be “liberty” or “autonomy” but what are things like that worth to Americans, today, anyhow?
With a quarter of working Americans unemployed, probably those ideas will not be worth very much. Come election time i give Donald 2:5 odds at best. Probably its going to be a lot worse come november
Right now the oddsmakers have Trump with a thin advantage at -120, biden at +120, and who’s in third? Cuomo.
yeah i bet his odds shorten up a lot as we go forward.
The odds and polls are not nearly as bad as they were when he won.
And yet Obama put together the TPP which was intended as a counter force to Chinese trade hegemony in the Pacific Rim, and which is functioning nicely for member countries, all of whom signed on but us. Your claims of Chinese selling out by the Dems is no more true than it is for the GOP in general. Trump will roll over for flattery and it’s hard to tell if he cares about anything else. He has won nothing of significance from either NK – still testing missiles – or China, who”s recent agreement is heavy on promise but not much in enforcement.
Obama showed some signs of life vis a vis the Chinese issue. That much I would agree. Yes the TPP was arguably a good idea in that respect. though perhaps not from other perspectives. Obama also declared a “pivot to Asia” which was a strategically sound move. The signal achievement was the symbolically important return of the US Navy to Cam Ranh bay in Vietnam in October 2016. This was a happy day for the United States, strategically.
Obama is under-rated as a President, in my viewpoint, but not for the reasons any pundits praise.
It’s almost a certainty that the Democrats who will eventually follow in his footsteps, will make him look good by comparison.
Now i could start in on why the Democrats seem to be captured by Chicom influence operations but what’s the point. If it wasnt clear enough when Bill Clinton & the DNC was taking money from a PLA officer inside the white house, then it won’t be any clearer to you now.
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/9612/19/justice.expand/
See Jagdish Bhagwati on trade deals: no one actually understands them any more. The lobbyists who seek carve outs understand the specific carve outs they received. Anyone who tells you that trade deals are a ‘good idea’ or a ‘bad idea’ is talking out of their a**.
“We know Flynn’s lawyer reads some of these postings because she has posted here.”
A link?
“Flynn is a traitor who was caught telling the Russian Ambassador that the sanctions placed on his country by Obama for interfering in our 2016 election in favor of his boss would be removed for services rendered, thus continuing the proven collusion between the campaign and Russia.”
***********************
In keeping with his incessant circling of the intellectual drain, btb, now treats us — once again — to his own brand of circular reasoning. “Flynn is traitor,” he declares, to prove what else? Why that Flynn is a traitor, of course. Never mind that the crime of treason requires a real at-war enemy or that it takes two witnesses to prove it or that talking to an official of another country about anything isn’t ever treason absent some nefarious act in furtherance like giving aid and comfort TO A DECLARED ENEMY, it just is DAMNIT!
This guy is too much for one Vaudeville act, he’s a whole show!
Mespo omits the nefarious act Flynn was engaged in.
Talking?
bythebook – “Flynn is a traitor who was caught telling the Russian Ambassador that the sanctions placed on his country by Obama for interfering in our 2016 election in favor of his boss would be removed for services rendered…” Did he really say that? Really? Or did he ask them not to play a “tit for tat” game? According to Politifact, hardly a conservative mouthpiece: “The charging document reveals that on or about Dec. 29, Flynn asked Kislyak to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed on Russia that same day.” The document also reveals that Kislyak told Flynn that Russia “had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.” Not really the same, right? Be better. Use facts. And Flynn, as incoming NSA director, had conversations with many foreign countries. That is not unusual.
Maybe the FBI should have dispensed with all remnant of legal niceties and just killed Gen. Flynn like they did Vicki Weaver and the Branch Davidians. It looks like they were ready to do that to Roger Stone when they conducted that ridiculous military raid (which even included frogmen) on his home.
Any time a deputy is killed in the first raid you can bet they will come back guns blazing. And with regard to the Waco debacle, the FBI recorded no shots fired yet we have a 3 year old stabbed. Do you really think the FBI is more likely to have stabbed a baby than a group of madmen? Roger “prepare to die stoolie Credico” Stone’s arrest was a professionally conducted standard procedure.
What? ck makes a statement about Waco that makes no sense. I’ll break it down into what really happened.
First of all it seems there was a child welfare issue that was a genuine concern. Isnt that usually a local county concern? how did that go into a major armed raid? total pure vindictive incompetence and a horrible ongoing federal operation called “PATCON” targeting right wingers and various patriot types. that’s how.
Hence the needless ATF raid to arrest from a compound a fellow that took a daily jog and could have been snatched alone and unarmed– that’s the first gross incompetence of Waco.
a second one: a heavy handed no knock raid against a group of people that are known to be both a little paranoid and also well armed– super stupid!
then calling the cameras to make it a PR stunt– doubling down on super stupid
Defying all proper police procedure by shooting blindly into the compound through the front door– more incompetence and dangerous harm could have been done to innocents- and probably was– keep in mind the whole thing ended with 75 people dead in the end– but at that first raid, it was all kicked off by dangerous and incompetent ATF agents that did this and then got their fellow cops killed by people who believed they were lawfully defending themselves as a result could have been tried for felony murder. instead, they tried the victims for felony murder! of course the federal courts yielded the proper result in those cases. proper for the government that is!
I ask you, how do you know that it’s the police banging down the door if it’s a no-knock raid?
When and why did the police ever start using no-knock raids? Im old enough to know– it was because of armed drug dealers that’s why! Not a bunch of country yahoos. The no knock procedure was very inappropriate for a dwelling housing multiiple families and numerous children. but knowing how some of these klutzes operate, they probably justified it on the basis of the children inside! It’s incredible how ignorant and incompetent this was. I have this opinion from former prosecutors on the subject told to me face to face in private and not just one. there are numerous former FBI agents themselves who strongly denounced these tactics on the record, too.
oh and how do we know the ATF tactical nutjobs shot blindly through the front doors? 1. it looked like they were doing it on video 2) the survivors said they were doing it and 3. the FBI DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE OF THE FRONT DOOR IE “LOST IT”– spoliation of evidence– to cover up the ATF’s
gross negligence
then you have the incompetent “siege”
followed by the murderous termination the siege by sending in a tank to knock down walls, pump in flammable CS gas into a confined space with people known for a fact to be using open wick lamps since the FBI cut their electricity. This wasnt just incompetence this was a plan that should have been known would lead to a homicidial result. as it did. killing some– 75 people! but not all the people.
did they sue? oh yes and the federal courts rendered a judgment for the federal government, not surprisingly!
this is a well understood phenomenon of government in general:
the bigger the screw up the more likely it is to get whitewashed!
“ What? ck makes a statement about Waco that makes no sense. I’ll break it down into what really happened.
First of all it seems there was a child welfare issue that was a genuine concern. Isnt that usually a local county concern? how did that go into a major armed raid? total pure vindictive ”
The ATF began investigating because of fears they were stockpiling weapons, then the child abuse concerns mounted. They had a lawful warrant based on allegations by a postman that he was concerned he had delivered explosives and another passerby’s report of hearing machine gunfire.
The choice of teargas was due to the child welfare concern. Why did no one think of the flammability issue? Why did no one in the challenger incident spot the O ring concern (well besides that one engineer). Negligence. “Pure vindictiveness” seemed to have little to do with it. They surrounded the compound for months.
If it was only a county concern on child welfare and the stockpiling concern weren’t at issue it’s unlikely the feds would have been involved. The part of my comment on the deputy being shot was related to his comment on Weaver (Ruby Ridge) not Waco, though at Waco several feds and a few of koresh’s people were killed when they came to serve the search warrant and were fired on. Back to the raid months later a panel of arson investigators determined the cultists had started the blaze in 3 locations.
Several of Koresh’s followers have had their appeals cases thrown out because they were found to have fired on ATF agents serving a lawful warrant. You’ve omitted that. You think local child welfare personnel wanted to walk into that after the fact? I’m not here to argue the FBI handled it as best they could, but Waco wasn’t the “vengeance against all conservatives” you’re suggesting it was either
No Waco wasnt aimed at conservatives but it was aimed at “religious wackos” along with “militias” etc. It was just one chapter of Operation PATCON. Look it up. I tire of explaining this to people who believe the feds are so well intentioned.
The Branch Dravidians were actually racially diverse, not that this ever stopped the feds from stomping a target into the dirt if they decide to do so.
The self serving analysis of the feds of their own grossly incompetent and homicidal results at Waco are patently not credible. The fact they “lost” the best evidence which could have proven their own allegations of being “Fired upon first” is textbook “spoliation of evidence. ” The presumption is that they LOST IT ON PURPOSE
back to operation patcon. here the foreign affairs rag now owned by Jeff Bezos the richest man in the world, asks how the feds could have been investigating criminally intentioned white supremacists so closely back then but it missed Tim McVeigh.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/18/patriot-games/
The answer is this. They DIDNT miss Tim McVeigh. They were fully aware that various miscreants around him associated with “Elohim city” were planning to bomb the Murrah Federal building. An ATF informant named Carol Howe told them so about 2 weeks beforehand. This is proven by FOIA document requests which have been published.
Tim McVeigh wanted to take the whole rap out of a twisted sense of pride in his part in the bombing and sabotaged anything his own lawyer did to try and identify the “others unknown” that were involved in packing the ryder truck and recon etc. But as his lawyer wrote in the book by that name, and from some other good books out there, we have a pretty good idea who they may have been. Specifically, a gang of bank robbers named the ARA that were soon thereafter locked up and it turns out 3/6 of the gang were federal informants. McVeigh probably went on some of their bank robberies too. Was McVeigh a federal informant too? Sounds crazy but some people think with good reason that he was and indeed he would not be the first informant run amuck. And McVeigh is not around anymore to tell is he. Executed by who? of course. First federal convict to be executed in decades.
in other words, OPERATION PATCON was one of the most fake, awful, phony investigative contrivances ever imposed on the American population by a rogue federal law enforcement cabal, that is, until the FBI rogues around Peter Sztroke decided to surveil and harass and frame people engaged in a victorious Presidential campaign. And they’re still out there walking around today, quite the contrast to the third rate burglary that was Watergate, which ended in various spooks and FBI Gmen landing in prison.
one of those GMen by the way wrote a book named “Will” and it tells a lot of interesting tales about how the FBI used to operate. Oh, and apparently, they still do.
The FBI has become a “political police” more and more as time goes by; a sort of Praetorian guard that decides how and when to put its finger on the scales. That’s why they get called part of the Deep State and if Waco wasnt a warning then nothing was.
The Mueller investigation was very carefully scoped to focus solely on allegations relating to Trump’s alleged Russian collusion. That would allow Mueller’s team to disregard the FBI’s Flynn-related exculpatory documents. In other words, it gave them the latitude to say, ‘gosh we’re not sure exactly what this is all about, but it’s not our job to dig into it.’ They were ‘beyond our purview,’ as Mueller would say.
As Professor Turley astutely points out, the worm turned when they prosecuted Flynn and became subject to Brady obligations. We are seeing the Mueller team get caught up in the complexity of their own machinations. It would be interesting to know the legal sanctions that apply to prosecutors who disregard their Brady obligations, and the related legal standards.
The ENTIRE WITCH HUNTING, LIEING, TRUMP HATING MULLER TEAM, including Van Grack, Weissman and etc. should all be DISBARRED. They have a long history, especially Weissman, as outlined in Sydney Powell’s book, License to Lie, of Lies, Making up false charges, hiding evidence, which we see in this case and etc.
Better yet, let them spend time in JAIL to see how it feels, like they did in Merrill Lynch, destroying lives, bankrupting people.
In this case Flynn has an excellent case to sue everyone and get back $$$$$$$$$$$ plus extra.
But who does he sue to get his life back? That’s gone forever.
He gave it up when he put himself and Trump ahead of the country and paid off the Russians.
On what is known now the entire Mueller team should lose their law licenses and then their liberty.
It is also a disgrace that judges fail to punish prosecutorial misconduct. Honest prosecutors would not take advantage of this laxity, but there are fewer honest ones at the top than ever I would have expected.
What happens when we who believe in the rule of law no longer trust the people granted prosecutorial and judicial power?
There is a conflict of interest within the law firm defending Flynn, by doing the side deal for the son and not exposing it to the court. This is also something they DoJ does all the time.
Shocking and frightening.
If they will do that to a presidential advisor, imagine what they will do to you or I.
Flynn had a lot of money (comparatively to most Americans) and they drained him financially.
Means that we do not have the resources to fight false charges, and even if we do, the FBI has administered a very severe non-judicial punishment.
There has to be a massive purge to dissuade future law breakers.
After his testimony before congress, Mueller’s name should be removed. It was the Andrew Weismann “team” investigation and the other 13 dwarfs.
Professor Turley, you insinuate that Flynn pled guilty because Mueller was threatening Flynn’s son? Did they give Flynn’s son immunity in exchange for a guilty pleading from his Father? If Fynn’s son was innocent, why not defend him with this high powered law firm? What was Flynn’s son involved in?
A defense is expensive and Flynn knew from his own experience with these legal thugs that his son didn’t have to be involved in anything to be destroyed by a false prosecution.
I love how the piece still manages to spin it against Trump. ‘This Administration’? This all started before there was a ‘this Administration’. I believe the ‘Administration’ the piece is looking for was more correctly, the ‘Obama Administration’. I still can’t for the life of me understand the denial required to insist that personal rage is somehow someone else’s fault. TDS simply defies all logic, someone should seriously study it some day.
He is referring to the era, not the administration itself. Cool down.
You haven’t noticed that the Deep State/Permanent Govt has been at war with Trump for the last four years?
Curri, the supposed Deep State protected the Trump campaign from public knowledge of it’s investigation while causing Hillary’s EC loss by announcing her’s 2 weeks before the election. Don’t you know how to keep score?