Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?

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?

322 thoughts on “Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?”

  1. “Tell us what Flynn did that was criminal or was against the interests of the United States. Then provide the proof.”
    —-

    Here we go again. The hypocrite in chief…

    —-
    “Flynn did nothing and said nothing wrong.”
    —-

    Provide proof. Showing the FBI interviewers didn’t see any clear “tells” he was lying doesn’t outweigh Yates assessment that calls presented a “serious compromise situation, that the Russians had real leverage.” When asked if Flynn’s actions were illegal, she said there was “certainly a criminal statute that was implicated by his conduct” and that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence.”

    —-
    “I know what the FBI papers said”
    —-

    That’s not proof. You haven’t even provided a quote that led you to believe it. If it was I suppose in response to your query to tell you “what Flynn did against” the US interests “then provide proof” I need only state, “I know what the Mueller report said”?

    —-
    “That is only if you are far left because Turley is center left.”

    Me: “Did he ever state this explicitly?”

    “Yes”
    —-

    That’s not even a quote. I could claim Trump said he’s king of the world. It’s not proof that he said it, and certainly not proof that he is.

    —-

    You repeatedly ask others for proof when you provide none, and what you do provide is often vague and unconvincing. With Flynn how can I prove he committed wrong doing without the transcript in front of me? Even the FBI report you mention is heavily redacted. The evidence of Flynn’s conflict has been referenced repeatedly though, and you might even see it if not for your partisan glasses tint

    He was a paid advocate of Russia and Turkey for years. He was writing Op-Ed’s for the Turkish government the same month Trump picked him as NSA. He convinces Kislyak not to retaliate against the US sanctions, and Russia just complied out of the goodness of its heart in your naive mind?

    Obviously, there is a quid pro quo there. One Flynn never got to execute because he was caught and fired. Mueller let it go because Flynn was able to provide “substantial evidence” of wrong doing by the Russians and others, but clearly if Kislyak and Flynn were discussing the sanctions through backdoor channels, and Flynn got a deal out of it, Kislyak didn’t think he’d walked away with nothing.

    Trump may have fired Flynn, but since then Trump still released classified info to Kislyak in his White House meeting months after (had the Dems done this you would have made the leap that this leak was a result of the quid pro quo Flynn made): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

    And made statements favorable to Putin regularly in spite of CIA intel of the opposite:

    “He said he didn’t meddle. He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that. And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.” “So you look at that and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with them.”

    As he advocates for Russia to be reinstated into the G7 repeatedly. “I think it’s a work in progress. We have a number of people that would like to see Russia back.” You bring up Obama and Crimea, yet the reason Russia was kicked out of the G8 and faced crippling sanctions was Obama’s response to Crimea, yet Trump is desperate to undo those actions.

    —-
    “Obama had reasons to warn Trump because Flynn had the experience in intelligence and was being given a job that would see that the Obama Administration was using the DOJ improperly.”
    —-

    Provide proof that’s why he warned of hiring Flynn or get out of here with your fringe theories. You think they were terrified because Flynn is some legal mastermind who would see they were using the DOJ improperly and help Trump come after them? Where do you get this stuff and how is it every reflective surface you own isn’t plastered with the word HYPOCRITE yet per our earlier discussion? It’s beyond ludicrous. If you have no proof yet think it’s okay to throw out such insinuations then I suppose if BTB claimed “Flynn had reason to pay off the Russians and lie” you wouldn’t have reason to label it libel? If not then you are a hypocrite

    The most logical reason Obama warned Trump is Flynn presented an obvious conflict of interest regarding national security. I’ve presented the evidence to that, the fact that Flynn was a paid advocate for Turkey and Russia, something you can’t dispute because it’s proven. We have proof the Obama administration was very concerned about Russia’s interference in US free elections, evidenced by the sanctions and kicking out 35 diplomats. The story the Trump administration tells is Flynn was fired for lying to Pence about the contact. So in your mind he had nothing to hide but still lied to the FBI and Pence? Or he didn’t lie to them and made it all up because his arm was being twisted? If not then it’s a technicality whatever semantics you want to use to spin it. Flynn is not this choir boy you want to present. As for the evidence Trump would have ignored any warnings Flynn presented a security risk, he has before, just ask Carl Kline or John Kelly… https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jared-kushner-identified-as-senior-white-house-official-whose-security-clearance-was-denied-by-career-officials/2019/04/03/fefa8dbe-5623-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html

    1. CK, we are all waiting for you to “Tell us what Flynn did that was criminal or was against the interests of the United States. Then provide the proof.” You can’t and you don’t. You just repeat the same things over and over again. You never bothered to look at the FBI reports to see what Flynn actually said or what actually happened. You prefer to hide behind a bunch of words repeated over and over again.

      Turley has stated his political position. You want to believe what you want to believe no matter what the truth is and no matter that you haven’t bothered to look.

      “FBI report you mention is heavily redacted”

      There is plenty that is not redacted and the things that concern Flynn directly except for names are mostly there. It is obvious that you can’t stand the fact that you are wrong. It’s in the FBI and House papers but then you say there are redactions. I suppose you believe what is easy to be read must be wrong and the redactions prove it. Ridiculous.

      The Gish Gallop goes on and on never stopping. That is a sure sign of a person who lacks any in depth knowledge on one or two points.

      1. Allen, we’re are all waiting for you to “Provide proof” Obama warned “Trump because Flynn had the experience in intelligence and was being given a job that would see that the Obama Administration was using the DOJ improperly.” I won’t hold my breath for it since I enjoy living.

        Unlike me you don’t provide evidence of your accusations. Worse yet your accusation is completely illogical and baseless. The fact that you can’t see that a man who lied both to the FBI and the Vice President about contact with a foreign government is evidence he’s hiding something only speaks to your lack of common sense and partisanship.

        Go on believing whatever fringe conspiracies about Obama and the Dems most please you, without a shred of evidence, as you demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of your conservative heroes are liars, crooks or idiots. I didn’t come here to prove before a court of law that Flynn committed treason beyond a reasonable doubt, merely that he survived a guilty plea and lying to the FBI on a technicality. Barr is not considering the lies ‘material’ and the DOJ is dropping charges.

        The fact that I called it a technicality enrages you so you demand proof he’s done anything against the US interest. The Russians have the proof you’re looking for, they wouldn’t have agreed not to retaliate without something in return. None of that changes the fact that he lied & got off on a technicality.

        1. “Allen, we’re are all waiting for you to “Provide proof” Obama warned “Trump because Flynn had the experience in intelligence and was being given a job that would see that the Obama Administration was using the DOJ improperly.” I won’t hold my breath for it since I enjoy living.”

          CK, don’t be stupid. That is an opinion. It basically is the opinion best stated by Andrew Mccarthy in National Review and discussed on this blog more than once.

          “Unlike me you don’t provide evidence of your accusations”

          You don’t know the difference between evidence and opinion. You don’t provide evidence while I do all the time. Right above I told you an opinion and then told you who and where to find that opinion stated by a man of prominence but you probably don’t know who he is.

          All the evidence needed is in the released House hearings and the FBI reports. I can’t comment on Pence’s statement because I believe he was not aware of the facts. In fact until the release of the FBi reports most of us weren’t. We could only piece information together that is now proven.

          I never asked you for proof of things Flynn did except where it concerned the accusations against him and through this moment all you can do is regurgitate talking points but you have yet to say anything that has meaning and substance.

          1. “ You don’t provide evidence while I do all the time. Right above I told you an opinion and then told you who and where to find that opinion stated by a man of prominence but you probably don’t know who he is.” Posting the name of a columnist and his opinion piece is not posting evidence. If it is then I’ve posted evidence repeatedly in this thread that Flynn committed wrong doing. Hell, here’s an opinion piece on the list of people “of prominence” who thought Flynn’s lies were material: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/10/long-list-people-who-thought-flynns-lies-were-material/
            Or would you like another opinion piece on why Flynn’s new evidence is lacking?:
            https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show

            As I said before I didn’t come here to prove Flynn is a criminal. Only that he’s not getting off due to his innocence but due to missteps by the FBI. Your opinion is Obama had him railroaded because Flynn is a super sleuth and would have uncovered his criminal misdeeds, because a partisan columnist said it. The same attorney turned columnist who said “it was perfectly appropriate for an American president to pressure Ukraine to assist an American investigation—the fact that this involved a quid pro quo and can be seen as extortionate is unremarkable.” If that’s what you want to believe, fine by me. It’s more of the same from Allan the hypocrite

            1. CK, you are repeating yourself.

              The evidence is on the net and comes from the FBI files. Some of it has even been copied on this blog.

              “Posting the name of a columnist and his opinion piece is not posting evidence. ”

              Develop better reading skills. I told you that was opinion and then I provided you with a source for the OPINION. You get too confused between opinion and fact.

              I don’t care about the opinions of people who thought Flynn lied. I want them to justify their opinions with what they or others said at the House hearings and what the FBI said. We have statements made by Brennan on news media and probably the Washington Post that are contradicted in his statements before the House. Same with Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, James Clapper. Do you choose which one to believe or do you believe the statement taken under oath?

              Skipping a bit you Gish Gallop to quid pro quo which is how governments function. Trump’s discussion was revealed and lawful without financial gain. Biden’s on the other hand was for family gain. When you talk of hypcrisy look in the mirror.

              1. “Gish Gallop”

                Something Allan learned from TIA and he loves, loves, loves the term — even though he doesn’t fully understand it.

                1. Anonymous, I’m glad someone said it. He throws the phrase around so often it’s scary. I’ve had extended discussions with TIA and I don’t think he ever used it. Though with Allan it’s like his main catchphrase every other post

                  1. CK07, I use the term Gish Gallop because that is what you do. A question is asked or a sstatement made and you travel all over the world until you get back to the question never answering it.

                    I think the term is an excellent term to describe your replies. If you prefer another word I could say BS or that you are changing the subject in rapid succession, etc. In any event I decided to limit your Gish Gallop in my last reply keeping the reply limited to very specific items and breaking it up into two pieces (the third is an error).

                    1. 🙂

                      I am hoping I get an answer from CK because I would like to know the crime he thinks Flynn committed.

                    2. Allan, when you cite someone as a credible source don’t be shocked when someone brings into question that sources credibility based on past statements. That’s not a gish gallop, hence why anonymous called you out for it.

                      TIA I have no idea who Diane is.
                      I don’t have time to find out today however…

                    3. “Allan, when you cite someone as a credible source don’t be shocked when someone brings into question that sources credibility based on past statements.”

                      I cited the FBI and House records as credible sources. I sited Andrew McCarthy as a very educated writer who is know for his successful prosecutions and erudite opinions.

                      I don’t know whose credibility you are putting into question this time.

                      You either Gish Gallop, don’t define your terms, use non-specific pronouns all put together in a way that makes much of what you write unintelligable.

                    4. “ I don’t know whose credibility you are putting into question this time.” Allan, you clearly know I’m speaking of McCarthy, the person whose quote on Quid Pro Quo led you to accuse me of the “Gish Gallup”. Instead you feign ignorance in hypocrisy of your other favorite accusation. “Disingenuous!”.

                      Someone with more time than me should make an image of you as Phoenix Wright pointing and shouting all of your favorite catch phrases. “Gish Gallup!” “Disingenuous!”
                      “Provide Proof!” as you proceed hypocritically

                    5. “Allan, you clearly know I’m speaking of McCarthy, the person whose quote on Quid Pro Quo led you to accuse me of the “Gish Gallup”.”

                      Apparently because you are unable to use proper nouns instead of pronouns you get upset when a person wants to know which proper noun to associate with with the vague pronoun. That is your problem CK07. You create it with your Gish Gallop and vague use of words. I think this is totally off topic because his credibility is not in question unless you want to point to facts that he lied about. He writes opinion…understand…. opinion is not evidence.

                      I cited the FBI and House records as credible sources of factual statements of what was recorded or stated verbally. Apparently you haven’t read either and are relying on an outdated welective report thta left out the important details we are discussing at this time.

                      Again we are left with: Tell us the lie by Flynn and why it is material to an investigation.

                    6. Should have said the “Gish Gallup anonymous called you out on”. Welp, there goes lunch…

                    7. “Apparently because you are unable to use proper nouns instead of pronouns you get upset when a person wants to know which proper noun to associate with with the vague pronoun.”


                      Let’s see what was actually said first by you:
                      “Skipping a bit you Gish Gallop to quid pro quo which is how governments function.”
                      —-
                      Then by anonymous:
                      “”Gish Gallop”
                      Something Allan learned from TIA and he loves, loves, loves the term — even though he doesn’t fully understand it.”
                      —-
                      Then by me
                      “That’s not a gish gallop, hence why anonymous called you out for it.”
                      —-
                      “I don’t know whose credibility you are putting into question this time.”

                      You cried.

                      When clearly the reference to anonymous quote would have made it clear to you.
                      —-
                      Disingenuous! You can add that to your Hypocrite! Mirror.

                    8. ”Gish Gallop” Something Allan learned from TIA and he loves, loves, loves the term”

                      CK07, Yes, DSS was the first that I have seen use the term on this blog. I liked the use because it saves a lot of writing and explains exactly what the other person is intentionally or unintentionally trying to do. Additionally, it fit perfectly with your style. I actually learned about the Gish Gallop earlier and never had an opportunity to use it until coming to this blog.

                      I was caught going over the speed limit and instead of taking points on my license I went to driver school for 2 hours taught by a funny young man who was more like entertainment than punishment. His name was Gish and I found out that he was the grandson of the Gish sisters (actresses), but while looking it up I came across the term Gish Gallop totally unrelated to the sisters. When I heard it from DSS who has the largest vocabulary on the list I was reminded of the term that I otherwise never would have used.

                      “Then by me “That’s not a gish gallop, hence why anonymous called you out for it.”

                      If you wish to tie yourself in with the anonymous creatures swarming on this blog along with Anonymous the Stupid, that is your perogative, but in my mind I always separated you from those crazies along with a few other craizies that exist.

                  2. “CK07 – I have only seen Phoenix Wright shout “Objection!””

                    Hey Paul. I believe he also shouts “Take that!” from time to time. If it was Allan in court I’d imagine “Gish Gallop!” etc would be added

                    1. CK07 – Nick Reiketa was playing Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney on his webcast and doing all the voices. He was doing it live, so the comments were hysterical, since he was playing, drinking and commenting. He finally got through the first game and decided to do the other games on his Twitch channel.

                    2. Paul, I would have enjoyed that. I’ve never played the games but saw the images circulate often enough I had my son to watch the anime. I watched season 1 with him a few months back. No idea if he’s continued with it but it was pretty entertaining and not what I was expecting. I’ll need to get a twitch set up.

                    3. CK07 – Go to Reikatalaw and find the ones titled Phoenix Wright and you can play the game with Nick. Otherwise, Nick plays Twitch about midnight Pacific Time.

              2. Allan you stated an opinion posted an opinion piece then cited that opinion piece as an example of how you always provide evidence for your statements.


                “ You don’t provide evidence while I do all the time. Right above I told you an opinion and then told you who and where to find that opinion stated by a man of prominence but you probably don’t know who he is.”

                Then as I ask for evidence your response is

                —-
                “ The evidence is on the net and comes from the FBI files. Some of it has even been copied on this blog.”
                —-

                I’m trying to remember a time you’ve actually posted evidence instead of you just saying “it exists”, “it’s been posted”, “look for it”. You’re always asking for proof of things no one is claiming anything is more than opinion. Here the only fact given is Flynn is being let off because the FBI goofed. Did I say that already? Forgive me if I have to say the same thing 50 more times because you’re so dense you have to hear it over and over again before it sinks in that no one claimed to have proof to satisfy your partisan brain that Flynn committed a crime. I think the evidence that Kislyak cooperated with his request, and that he lied about it to both the FBI and Pence is evidence to anyone reasonable he was hiding something, however you’re very partisan so you need much more when it comes to conservatives. It’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it’s not surprising he plead guilty to lying given those facts.

                “ Skipping a bit you Gish Gallop to quid pro quo which is how governments function. Trump’s discussion was revealed and lawful without financial gain.”

                You cited an opinion piece by a “man of prominence” you thought I should read up on. I posted a quote from the man as evidence of his partisan bias. That’s not irrelevant to the fact that you’re referencing him as a valid source of information on whether Obama is terrified Flynn will expose him, when he is clearly biased.

                “Biden’s on the other hand was for family gain. When you talk of hypcrisy look in the mirror.”
                Are yours covered in the word HYPOCRITE yet? Hopefully spelled correctly, but I digress. Biden’s “quid pro quo” was to remove a corrupt prosecutor the administration and the free world agreed needed to be removed. Besides the fact they were removing him for going too easy on companies like Burisma, the illegal activity he was supposed to investigate Burisma for happened years before Hunter joined the board. The fact that you excuse Trump’s behavior which was clearly in Russia’s interest while targeting Biden’s which was clearly in the US interest (and every other country that wanted the prosecutor removed) while truly reasonable conservatives don’t, is further evidence of partisan hypocrisy, which is what you do best: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-quid-pro-quo-unlike-bidens-was-entirely-rancid

                1. “I’m trying to remember a time you’ve actually posted evidence”

                  CK07, perhaps your problem is that you didn’t specify the criminal act you think Flynn supposedly committed. I have told you and even quoted what Flynn said based on FBI records but you go off on a tangent.

                  Let’s make things clear. What is a false statement?
                  1) a lie
                  2) that is material to a legitimate investigation.

                  Tell us the lie.

                  Do not shift the subject to things that weren’t illegal.

                  Simply tell us the lie and why it is material to an investigation.

                  (Note: Remember, at this time he was designated as the NSA adviser for Trump, recognized by the government and in part funded by the government. With that recognition it is typical for the NSA designate to communicate with foreign leaders.)

                  1. @ Allan, you’ve changed your tune. Originally it was:

                    —-
                    “ Tell us what Flynn did that was criminal or was against the interests of the United States. Then provide the proof.”
                    —-

                    Now it’s just :

                    —-
                    “ Simply tell us the lie and why it is material to an investigation.”
                    —-

                    What you asked for originally was proof enough to convince you, a dabbler in fringe conservative theories, that Flynn was acting against the interest of the United States, or what he did was criminal (besides lying- presumably because everyone admits that he lied, including Pence, who claimed he lied to him about it as well, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt you weren’t simply asking for the lie because it would be illogical at that point).

                    He lied about discussing sanctions with Kislyak. Repeatedly. In the unredacted portions of the transcript of the interview Flynn repeatedly states he did not discuss sanctions, expulsions, etc with Kislyak and claims he wouldn’t have had reason to know about it because he was isolated. He misleads and pretends at first he is just talking about one call in which sanctions weren’t discussed and they remind him there were multiple calls.

                    Let’s suppose the man you remind is already “ designated as the NSA adviser” is telling the truth that he didn’t hear the big news that the US is sanctioning Russia or just kicked out dozens of diplomats in response to election meddling. You mean to tell me that Kislyak, who has been desperate to get in touch with him and speaks to him multiple times that day didn’t once bring it up?

                    Now let’s go to why it’s a material part of a legitimate FBI investigation. The US just issued its strongest response to Russia for interfering in our elections, something our intelligence agencies have repeatedly acknowledged. The US full-on expected the Russians to respond or at least bluster as if there would be repercussions. Instead the day after his Ambassador to the US and Flynn talk, Putin volunteers there will be no response. The US is flabbergasted, and our intelligence agencies, not being as naive as you, are sure he did not decide this out of the kindness of his heart. Questions fly as to what could have brought about this turn of events, and the most likely explanation seems to be that this incoming “NSA adviser” who is not acting, cut a deal in one of the many calls he had with the Ambassador to Russia the day before. The FBI interviews the incoming “NSA adviser” a few weeks later to research what this undisclosed deal he lacked Authority to engage the US in may have been, and he lies about discussing sanctions at all. One of the interviewer’s notes state they were unsure as to whether the strategy should to get him to admit everything, or let him lie so they can get more out of him later. However you have the interview in front of you which seems to be unredacted enough for your liking and at no point did they encourage him to lie. This Super Detective who you think Obama was so fearful of exposing his secrets that he’d stop at nothing to prevent him from becoming NSA (as opposed to being concerned that the US couldn’t trust someone who was a paid active advocate for foreign adversaries last month), just went and lied on his own to the NSA. So either he’s a bumbling idiot, or he had something to hide. And if it’s the latter it’s obviously material to what I’ve already shown is a legitimate investigation.

                    Is that sufficient enough to prove to you and your extremely partisan cohorts that Flynn committed a criminal act? I doubt it. You’ll hang on to whatever conspiracy thread most suits your beliefs with what little evidence you have at your disposal. They treated Flynn like a criminal in a mob enterprise and used his his testimony to provide “substantial assistance to the government” in multiple probes, and because he was caught lying to investigators they could then threaten to fully pursue investigations into his business dealings skirting FARA or reports that he and his son attempted to kidnap a cleric on behalf of the Turkish government https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probes-flynns-role-in-alleged-plan-to-deliver-cleric-to-turkey-1510309982 , legally if he did not fully cooperate. His cooperation was helpful to the US Government and he won’t have to face those charges as part of his plea deal. He’s getting off on a technicality because it seems the FBI couldn’t figure out when to read this super sleuth his Miranda rights among other things. Please provide evidence where someone encouraged him to lie now. Waiting.

                    1. “He lied about discussing sanctions with Kislyak.”

                      CK07, Flynn didn’t lie and that is noted in the FBI reports. You are making the claim that he lied so provide us with the lie Flynn made. Better yet quote the lie. Stop with all the BS that covers up the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about.

                      Like with Natacha I won’t keep reading to get the simple answer you do not have because the Gish Gallop in your responses is never ending. If I missed something below let me know. The simple question is best stated as: “Simply tell us the lie and why it is material to an investigation.”

                    2. “ Flynn didn’t lie and that is noted in the FBI reports”
                      Allan, he clearly lied to any reasonable observer. The FBI interviewers noted they couldn’t spot any clear tells he was lying. That doesn’t mean upon review it wasn’t determined he lied. The only ones saying he didn’t lie about discussing sanctions with Kislyak are you and your hyper partisan buddies. Post the quote where the FBI reports show he did not lie as opposed to initial uncertainty that he lied.

                      I’m not digging through the redacted interview I’ve read multiple times (and come away with the conclusion he lied and misled about something he would have clearly remembered) so I can retype word for word the multiple times he lied or misled. I’ve already referred you to what was being discussed each time and last I looked the entire transcript text is a pdf without selectable text meaning I have to retype it verbatim for your lazy viewing pleasure when you can easily recall or read it for yourself:

                      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf
                      Page 4/10 last paragraph, 5/10 entire page, or 9/10 last paragraph and 10/10 entire page if you prefer.

                      You go ahead and retype every time he told investigators he didn’t discuss sanctions and wouldn’t have had reason to with Kislyak because he didn’t know about them. Then explain to us why it isn’t a lie. I’m not your clerk. The only one engaging in BS is you, pretending a man who clearly states he didn’t know about the sanctions because he wasn’t getting the news in the course of the interview, wasn’t lying if he actually discussed them. My entire post was on topic and again your illiterate self is whining of a ‘Gish Gallop’. Half of it was explaining why the lies are material so go reread it if you need it explained to you why the convo was material.

                      If Barr weren’t determined to keep the call from being released you’d have something to compare it to explicitly to know why the FBI reached the absolute conclusion it was a lie, but alas you’ll have to take his admission of it

                      https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/politics/flynn-kislyak-sullivan-transcript/index.html

                      As for the personal attack I’m the one with who doesn’t know what I’m ”talking about” as you parrot fringe theories in this thread that Obama put the FBI up to it because he was terrified Flynn would find & out his misdeeds?

                    3. “Allan, he clearly lied to any reasonable observer.”

                      CK07, why are you using the Mueller report when it left out the details now released that include the actual FBI transcripts and House transcripts? You are behind the times.

                      I read some of the report “FLYNN could not recall” is a quote from your proof. That is not a lie. “I don’t remember” is not a lie either. Since you can quote the pages you must have seen the lies but you didn’t quote them. I have taken your evidence and quoted two items often confused with lies.

                      It’s amazing that you cannot answer the simple question and that you rely on old data instead of the data that has been kept hidden by Adam schiff.

                      Again we are left with: Tell us the lie by Flynn and why it is material to an investigation.

                    4. @Allan “It’s amazing that you cannot answer the simple question and that you rely on old data instead of the data that has been kept hidden by Adam schiff.”
                      —-

                      Since you seem to suffer from problems with reading comprehension and couldn’t find a quote related to what I explicitly referenced I’ll give you an E for Effort and type the quote for you.
                      “The interviewing agents asked Flynn if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated he did not.”
                      “Flynn notes he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government BlackBerry was not working.”

                      If the former is expresses any uncertainty, the latter clears that right up. You do not dispute that Flynn spoke to Kislyak about the sanctions being imposed. You merely claim he never lied or misled about discussing it. If the first statement isn’t him expressing a flat out lie, the second is him reassuring them that there is no way he could have discussed it since he didn’t know about it. The problem would seem clear. They did discuss it and whether he had a working blackberry or not, Kislyak being aware of it would have undoubtedly referenced it in one of their several calls that day.

                      Getting off because Barr doesn’t think lying about having a conversation concerning sanctions as the government is researching why Russia responded to those sanctions unexpectedly is material is a technicality. Perhaps you should be demanding that Barr allow the recording with Kislyak be released so you can clear your hero’s name instead of getting your panties in a bunch anytime someone says he got off on a technicality.

                      Now perhaps you can provide evidence of why the FBI’s actions were illegal. Where did they force Flynn or mislead him into lying about this? Asking questions is not entrapment. Debating strategy is not entrapment. Having a first impression that someone wasn’t lying because they have a “very sure demeanor” and “did not give any indicators of deception” is not to be taken over someone’s actual words. And Comey thinking it was up to a jury to decide whether Flynn’s words constitute lying in no way outweighs the man actually lying &misleading

                    5. “Since you seem to suffer from problems with reading comprehension ”

                      CK07, The question is did Flynn lie. Getting rid of the fact that it has to be material for it to be illegal we are left to look at the words of the individual in question. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty. I assume you agree with that. If you do then one has to prove the lie and that is your duty.

                      To date you haven’t proven anything. You provided some quotes from the Mueller report which are meaningless as they are an interpretation of what transpired and the Mueller report wasn’t actually non-biased. In fact it is very doubtful that Mueller had much to do with the report.

                      If you remember when Mueller testified it was a personal embarrassment as he didn’t know or recognize a lot of the details in the report. Who wrote it, rather who controlled the report? Probably Andrew Weissmann who is known to be quite biased and has put people in jail that later had to be freed. He has also used some heinous tactics. Therefore little credence can be given to the conclusion based on only a partial investigation without releasing the actual transcripts of what Flynn actually said.

                      Dismissing those quotations we should consider the fact that the FBI doesn’t keep tapes rather the agents themselves write up the 302’s. We can go further but I think the hanky-panky at the FBI was reasonably documented. For example Priestap asked: “What is our goal?” “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired? Those are pretty damning words. How about when Stzrok tells Page about his editing of a 302 by Pientka saying he is “trying not to completely re-write” Therefore even the 302’s are in question. But le’ts forget about that as well and proceed to the lie.

                      How do you know when the spoken word is a lie? First you determine the context and that is where the behavior of the FBI becomes very troubling (“or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”) Do you have the context behind the statements made by Flynn? The answer is no. The next step is to look at what Flynn actually said. Do you have those statements? No you don’t and you have never produced them. But I won’t force you to produce them because we can all spend some time and look them up (whatever is available in the 302’s).

                      Essentially what Flynn said was ‘I don’t remember’. Let’s make a statement into a mistake, an inability to recall or a misunderstanding of context. ‘I didn’t recall the statement and now that you provide the tape (by the way I know you tape the Russians so you have the conversation on tape) I recall the conversation but not well. I talk to so many people.’ Alternatively ‘I didn’t think you were asking me about the Kislyak discussion when you asked, but yes it happened now that you remind me, but why would you ask when you already have the tape?’.

                      CK, you can propose any other similar generalized statements and let’s see if you can prove he lied. You can’t so you run in circles trying to prove Flynn lied through indirect means. Unfortunately for you argument using all those indirect means doesn’t really count and can be countered with excellent explanations. In the end you can have your opinion that Flynn lied but you don’t have the proof and in this country a man is innocent until proven guilty.

                  2. @Allan “ the end you can have your opinion that Flynn lied but you don’t have the proof and in this country a man is innocent until proven guilty.”
                    —-

                    Or admits guilt. Here Flynn admitted guilt and got off on a technicality. Nothing you’ve said has proven otherwise.

                    —-
                    “For example Priestap asked: “What is our goal?” “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired? Those are pretty damning words.”

                    An investigator talking about the best strategy to use to get the most information out of someone under investigation before investigating them is not damning. I’ve already discussed that quote and it’s not what I asked you for. Provide it or drop it and let it rest that he got off on a technicality.

                    Show me where they actually tricked him to lie. What did they say that misled him so that he lied. You’re claiming he never lied when I’ve quoted the FBI documents showing he clearly lied and misled claiming he didn’t know about the sanctions and couldn’t have discussed them, when discussing them with Kislyak is what he admitted to lying about. You claim because his answers are vague and he tried to be evasive when asked direct questions he couldn’t have lied. That’s like me saying Clinton didn’t lie because he was confused by the meaning of ‘sexual relations’.

                    1. “Or admits guilt. Here Flynn admitted guilt”

                      CK07, Now he says he wasn’t guilty but was under duress. He states now he has evidence of Hanky-panky which clearly exists. What are we left with? A he-said she-said argument. Where does that lead? Nowhere. Where do we live? America, where a man is innocent until proven guilty.

                      “drop it and let it rest that he got off on a technicality.”

                      You can say what you want and perhaps if the left takes over the country everything you say will suddenly be true and due process will disappear, but as long as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution stand as real documents, not shells, Flynn will be innocent and you can have whatever opinion you desire.

                      “You’re claiming he never lied when I’ve quoted the FBI documents showing he clearly lied “

                      You never produced one bit of direct evidence that proves he lied. I am not saying he lied or not. I don’t think he lied though he may have forgotten, didn’t understand, etc., but even what I think doesn’t count. Proof is your missing factor and through all of these responses you never provided the context at the time of any supposed lie nor the actual questions and responses. There was a reason the initial FBI agents said it appeared truthful, because in substance Flynn was.

                    2. @Allan “CK07 Now he says he wasn’t guilty but was under duress.“
                      —-

                      That may be his defense now that he has new more aggressive legal representation but his earlier plea is not automatically waived because he claims duress. He still has to prove duress which he has not, and you cannot, at least not with the facts we have before us. Essentially his best case scenario short of the technicality of the judge accepting Barr dropping the whole thing is duress actually caused him to lie and he can prove it, and he’s in the same situation as all the poor souls the innocence project is trying to free now who either copped forced guilty pleas or were convicted on contrived evidence like faked bite marks when none existed. Worst case scenario he lied without duress and his lawyers grasping at straws if the DOJ’s newfound position that it was immaterial is insufficient for the judge. But he’s no longer in the position of innocent until proven guilty when he admitted guilt. The burden’s still on him to overturn his guilty plea

                      —-
                      “ I am not saying he lied or not. I don’t think he lied though he may have forgotten, didn’t understand, etc., but even what I think doesn’t count.”

                      We both know what counts is the truth. A. He either discussed sanctions with Kislyak or he didn’t. B. He either lied about it or he didn’t.

                      If he didn’t discuss it in A. then he can’t have lied about it in B. You aren’t arguing he didn’t discuss sanctions, even he isn’t arguing that.
                      If he did in A then the record indicates he lied and misled about it in B. The FBI record in B shows he discussed how he couldn’t have discussed it in A because he didn’t know about it, which unless the FBI fabricated this section would be a lie. You can claim it’s not direct evidence because it’s not a verbatim tape recording of what he said but that doesn’t mean it’s not evidence and for all the constitutional rights you claim were trampled, thousands are convicted regularly based on circumstantial evidence absent an admission. And most don’t have the option of turning on their criminal friends like Flynn did to get the prosecutor to request of no jail time
                      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/us/politics/bijan-kian-guilty-flynn.html

                      The difference between us is you don’t believe the FBI record because they have notes debating whether it was best to 1 tell him everything they already knew so he’d come clean with what he did and failed to disclose, or 2 allow him to make a false statement so they’d have leverage to find out any additional information vital to national security, and also debating whether he appeared innocent based on his physical tells, as opposed to the content of what he actually said.

                      —-
                      “ There was a reason the initial FBI agents said it appeared truthful, because in substance Flynn was.”
                      —-

                      That reason had nothing to do with what Flynn said and everything to do with how he looked:
                      “The interviewing agents’ assessment was that Flynn showed no ‘tells’ of lying”

                      A “tell” of lying is not the same as actual lying. If you play someone in poker and they have no tells it doesn’t mean when you get bear by their royal flush that they were too dumb to know how the game was played.

                      Here’s the definition of the noun “tell” straight from Webster’s if you can’t take my word for it
                      “ 1 : an inadvertent behavior or mannerism that betrays a poker player’s true thoughts, intentions, or emotions

                      2 : a revealing gesture, expression, etc., that is likened to a poker player’s tell
                      But his eyes darted fractionally to one side as he said it …; the classic liar’s tell.
                      — Stephen King”

                      And now I must tell you we are at an impasse. You don’t believe what’s in the record. What you’ve asked for I’ve provided. Evidence he lied and told investigators he didn’t know about the expulsions and sanctions and therefore didn’t discuss it with Kislyak. You claim it was fabricated and you won’t trust it hinting it’s because it was part of the Mueller investigation. However the special counsel investigation began in May of 2017, and that exhibit, which is part of the Mueller report and Flynn’s current trial was written entered February 15, 2017 (though we both acknowledge it was originally drafted January 2017). I’m out of time. Will let you have the last word as usual. I’d suggest some quotes of what Flynn “actually said” when he was interviewed if you have them and if they are favorable to your attempt to clear his name, but as you say, “that’s your perogative”

                    3. “That may be his defense now that he has new more aggressive legal representation…”

                      CK07, you travel from one issue to the next on a quest to jail Flynn for whatever reason you can conjure up. Right now the defense and the DOJ agree that the decision should be vacated. There are many reasons behind this opinion whether written in the DOJ argument or not and there are many reasons to question the FBI’s actions and to consider duress. However, at this point the ball is in another court and it is up to you to prove the DOJ actions invalid.

                      ” he’s in the same situation as all the poor souls the innocence project is trying to free now “

                      This is a unique case but it is comparable to malicious prosecutions that have placed people in jail. In this case the DOJ has reviewed the details and acted asking the judge to vacate the decision.

                      “But he’s no longer in the position of innocent until proven guilty when he admitted guilt. The burden’s still on him to overturn his guilty plea”

                      When the case is finally vacated he is innocent and doesn’t have to prove anything. He is innocent until proven guilty in America. In a different America espoused by some he would already be in jail with a lot of political prisoners.

                      “He either discussed sanctions with Kislyak or he didn’t. He either lied about it or he didn’t.”

                      The tape of the Kislyak discussion exists and yet he was not tried based on that tape because the discussion was proper. The fact that he may not have remembered it word for word or misunderstood any questions provided doesn’t make him guilty. There is also the question of materiality, but that is not needed because Flynn did nothing wrong regarding the Kislyak discussion.

                      “If he didn’t discuss it in A. then he can’t have lied about it in B. “

                      It is up to you to provide the link between A and B along with whatever was said at the time. Remember, it is your job to prove Flynn guilty. He doesn’t have to prove innocence. I’m not sure of the exact nature of your claim but if he didn’t remember or misstated something that is not material. You have to remember the FBI has the tapes.

                      This is a never ending attempt to find Flynn guilty no matter what. You are supposed to provide upfront the best case not a continuous list of potential cases that are meaningless like might be done in a banana republic. No wonder Mike Flynn was under duress. This is the game the FBI played. First bankrupt Flynn and then threaten to go after the son. Now you provide a NYTimes article to prove Flynn’s guilt by association and by using innuendo. “Associate of Michael Flynn Is Found Guilty of Secretly Lobbying for Turkey” The charge that needs to be vacated was lying. What you are doing is done all too commonly by despotic regimes. Think like the American you are. Such games are not generally played and when they are they are considered low and not American in nature. That is where the Innocence Project might enter the picture.

                      “The difference between us is you don’t believe the FBI record.

                      I believe the record, but I don’t believe the conclusions and the way things were handled. I also believe in human nature and when Stzrok admits to almost rewriting a 302 one has to doubt that the 302 says the same thing as the one that wrote it initially. This is your problem. No matter what the facts and what the law says you wish to squeeze something in that doesn’t fit just to prove your team is right. That is a bad way of dealing with problems of this nature. Politics should be put aside but as we have seen that is a desire og domr and will not be realized.

                      As a final thought, when you build your bridge across the water remember all the parts have to fit so you can drive a car across the river. What you trying to do is build portions of a bridge in different locations and your car is ending up under water.

                2. “the only fact given is Flynn is being let off because the FBI goofed. “

                  Goofed is a mistake. What was the mistake the FBI made?

                  Was that when they restarted the investigation after the initial agents stated that they felt Flynn’s testimony was honest?

                  1. Was that when they restarted the investigation after the initial agents stated that they felt Flynn’s testimony was honest?
                    ____________________________________________
                    Yes as far as the FBI was concerned it was concluded and they believed Flynn had violated no laws.

                    The Mueller investigation restarted the investigation after
                    Trump administration hired Mueller and shut down the FBI investigations into Russian election interference and related matters. From that point on the FBI had no say in the matter.

                    The FBI did not decide to withhold exculpatory information in the Flynn case. It was the Trump DOJ and Flynn himself that kept the court in the dark about the true facts of the phone calls that Flynn had with Kislyak.

                    1. Truth: “Yes as far as the FBI was concerned it was concluded and they believed Flynn had violated no laws.”

                      Fiction: “The Mueller investigation…”

                    2. Fiction: “The Mueller investigation…”
                      _____________________________________
                      Now all of a sudden Allan wants to pretend the Mueller investigation never happened and thus Allan refuses to look at what Mueller did.

                      The fact is Turley and his good buddy Barr are trying to frame the FBI and Obama administration in a lame attempt to try to make it look like they had something to do with the decision to prosecute Flynn.

                      The fact is the FBI, Obama, Yates, Strzok all had no authority and no influence at all in regard to the decision to create the Flynn flam prosecution. They are all being used in an attempt to divert attention away from the simple fact that the Trump DOJ shut down the FBI’s Russia election interference investigation and took it over and turned it into a comic soap opera designed to make it look like Trump was engaged in mortal combat with the deep state and winning that battle.
                      The senile Mueller was obviously never a serious prosecutor but it was necessary for the Trump DOJ to come up with phony vignettes that made it look like Mueller was a real threat to make it look like Trump was not just fighting an empty suit. The prosecution of Flynn and Popadopolous and Stone are all examples of phony prosecutions designed to make it look like the Mueller investigation was real. The prosecution of the Russian trolls was another phony prosecution that fell apart when the Russians challenged it in court.

                    3. “Now all of a sudden Allan wants to pretend the Mueller investigation never happened and thus Allan refuses to look at what Mueller did.”

                      All fiction. Like I do with Natacha I only look at the beginning and skip the rest once it is confirmed to be a word salad.

                  2. See the message above for the goof. It involves their uncertainty of when to read him his rights. And uncertainty over strategy in general. You have yet to provide evidence of anything they did that was truly illegal though.

                    1. I’ll accept that as a mistake of the FBI whether intentional or not, but it doesn’t pertain to the underlying question.

                      It is Flynn who was being sentenced to jail.

                      Tell us the lie by Flynn and why it is material to an investigation.

                    2. see the message above for the goof. It involves their uncertainty of when to read him his rights.
                      _____________________________________

                      What drooling nonsense!
                      The FBI had no reason to read Flynn his rights. They
                      did not believe he had done anything that was in violation of law.

                      The con that Barr and Turley are trying to pull here is that because the FBI discussed how they would respond if Flynn broke the law that is some kind of evidence that the FBI falsely prosecuted Flynn of breaking the law. What a steaming pile of BS.

                      The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn had no say in the decision to prosecute Flynn. The FBI investigators made it clear that had they been given a say in the matter Flynn would not have been prosecuted

                    3. “What drooling …”

                      Another big talker who likely is related to another frequent poster hasn’t read the significant parts of the House investigation and FBi reports recently released.

                    4. Another big talker who likely is related to another frequent poster hasn’t read the significant parts of the House investigation and FBi reports recently released.
                      ________________________________________
                      There are no significant parts of anything that show the FBI had any say in the November 2017 decision by Mueller and Flynn to agree to plea deal.

                      The evidence shows that the FBI concluded that Flynn had not been deceptive in his responses to the FBI on Jan 24 2017, but in May of 2017 the investigation was taken out of the hands of the FBI and given to Mueller by the Trump DOJ. After the FBI was taken out of the picture it was Mueller and Flynn that invented the false story that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

                    5. “There are no significant parts of anything that show the FBI ”

                      Another that hasn’t read enough of the reports recently released. Read more report less.

                    6. Another that hasn’t read enough of the reports recently released. Read more report less.
                      _________________________________________
                      If you read the reports you will find that the FBI believed Flynn had committed no crime. They believed Flynn had committed no crime before the interview with Flynn and they believed Flynn had committed no crime after the interview.

                      The notion that Flynn had violated any law that he could be charged for did not materialize until after the investigation was taken away from the FBI and put under the direct control of the Trump DOJ. After the Trump DOJ took over the conclusions that the FBI had reached were dumped and a new phony story was created that said Flynn had lied to the FBI.

                3. “the only fact given is Flynn is being let off because the FBI goofed. “

                  CK07, Goofed is a mistake. What was the mistake the FBI made? Was that when they restarted the investigation after the initial agents stated that they felt Flynn was honest?

                  1. Was that when they restarted the investigation after the initial agents stated that they felt Flynn was honest?
                    _________________________________________

                    Stop the lying. The FBI did not restart the investigation. In May 2017 The Russia investigation was taken from the FBI and put under the direct control of the DOJ.

                    1. Even Stzrok didn’t know whether or not the FBI investigation was still open and was pleasantly surprised that it hadn’t yet closed. The investigation was over just not closed. It was restarted and then they looked for ways to get Flynn. See the handwritten document and the typed document of the handwritten one.

                      You are just like your twin. You accuse others of lying before anyone can rightfully call you a liar.

                    2. It was restarted and then they looked for ways to get Flynn.
                      __________________________________
                      There ya go, lying again.
                      Strzok was a private citizen when Flynn was charged with a crime. Strzok had absolutely no say in the matter and neither did any of the other FBI investigators that were working on the Russia election interference case.

                      The Flynn case was restarted by the Trump DOJ and now the liars in the Trump DOJ are trying to pin what they did on the FBI. The FBI investigators had no involvement in the decision to charge Flynn with a crime.
                      As far as the FBI investigators were concerned Flynn had committed no crime. But then the Trump administration appointed a Special Counsel and the Russia investigation was removed from the control of the FBI and put under the direct control of the Trump DOJ

                4. It’s Allan’s game. He does it all the time thinking it’s new and no one will notice.

                  1. “He does it all the time ”

                    Does what anonymous? Can you guys actually write a complete thought?

                    It was CK07’s mistake. I provided apotential motive which is an opinion. Then I provided an op-ed by an expert and the site where it was written. That is known as being transparent. You continued CK07’s mistake as I clearly did not present that op-ed as physical evidence.

                    The quality of your analysis that you bring to the table is atrocious.

                    1. “This is part of your game, too.”

                      Pointing out that attackers are too cowardly to use a singular alias? Once again you are unable to put into English what your complaint is or even reply to the comment.

                      You are free to comment as you wish since comments are open to everyone even the stupid.

  2. “They then drained Flynn of millions and threatened to prosecute his son. He proceeded to take the plea.” Is the whole family corrupt? They could threaten to prosecute my son and wouldn’t get them anywhere because he is not a criminal. Flynn must have thought they had some pretty good evidence o his son. Also, where is the proof that this occurred?

    “Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law” A lot of biased hyperbole in this article. The Logan act has never been found to be unconstitutional even though it has been debated that some of the language in the law is too vague.

    1. So easy to say as you sit without any duch concern. As Flynn learned, the government can/does manufacture “evidence” to make someone appear guilty, they have all the advantages in court, a 95+% prosecution rate and bottomless funds.

      Flynn didn’t do anything, but was presented with false information that he misremembered had a material effect on a case, and the government withheld that there was no such case to have an effect on. And his corrupt swamp attorneys from Holder’s firm were not really working for Flynn, just taking his money.

      The FBI has a long string of malfeasance, including Jewell, Boston bombers, Anthrax, Whitey Bulger to name a few. So let’s be honest about what you would and wouldn’t do, tough guy.

    2. Read enough. You’re a hack. Not worthy of a response. BUT, get the bone out of your nose and see that these crooks BROKE Flynn… I’m sure you would have let them financially destroy your children wouldn’t you now? After all you are so squeaky clean and your sone as well. Wake up!!!!

  3. So many good men persecuted because of Obama’s creating the biggest RACE WAR that ever existed in this country or any other—no such thing existed UNTIL Obama…even on his first election he started it! I am old and the current situation presented by the FAKE media and the biased film makers who seem to HAVE to make EVERY film/series/advertisement a black&white….never do we see white couples anymore…ALL advertisements are black…this is NOT my World nor many other White Americans—and yet WE are ignored and called “racist” because we object to being denigrated. Are ALL acting jobs reserved for blacks? or just for whites willing to become black “mates”? I am NOT racist…I grew up in a time when what is now called “racist” was just a natural cultural “grouping” and yet NOW I am villainized by trouble-makers trying to create a black/white war that never existed UNTIL Obama!!! I have a black sister that I LOVE and she feels the same as I do—troublemakers cause this unnecessary grief and WHY??? They are so disrespectful and uncouth as to CONTINUE to PERSECUTE the best President we have ever had—the BRAVEST and SMARTEST President we have ever had…they WASTE taxpayer money and STIR racial UNREST and VILLAINIZE our President and Villainize White People. I am 70 years old and yet while I am doing nothing but waiting for my number to be called to be a new driver’s licence, a black woman assaulted me and “called me out” for a “fight”—like I said, I am 70 and disabled and use a cane…and yet I am subjected to this ABUSE just because I am White. I am a teacher and I have beautiful students—many of them black..but “we” don’t look at it that way–I LOVE my good students and want the best for them and I do NOT look at them as black/white…but STILL I am villainized. God bless President Trump! And I PRAY that he is kept SAFE and his family SAFE and that we have the privilege of his Leadership for yet another term—President Trump is the first HONEST man with COURAGE that our country has had in many, many years…Obama was NOTHING and yet he started a STUPID and unnecessary “race war” like we have NEVER seen before. ‘Don’t CARE what you think and will not respond to hate remarks…this is the TR”UTH!

  4. The Constitution is all decisive on wrong doing. These scoundrels will soon face the scales and the buck will stop with Obama.

    1. B. S. No one will be held accountable. Two justice systems. One for us and one for them. Drain the swamp.

  5. The prosecutor should be jailed for contempt. What is more likely to happen is the judge will rule that the extraordinary threat presented by the election of Trump justified the Deep State in doing things that would be normally illegal in the effort to take down Trump.

  6. If all evidence in my case had been presented it would have definetly produced a different out come. Not only evidence withheld but jurrors questions deliberatly avoided and redirected to whole other line of questioning, thus avoiding jurors questions in totality.

  7. To most of us, violating a law is something that subjects us to punishment. We have a constitution and violating the Brady decision is unconstitutional. Yet there seems to be no punishment assessed for such violation of rights of citizens. And this is not something new. Recall that Scooter Libby and his attorneys were never informed that the leak which inspired the case against him was known by the FBI and by his prosecutor, Fitzgerald, to have come from the State Department and Libby had no knowledge of or connection with that leak and nothing to hide nor any motive to hide anything, Surely that would have affected his defense against lying to the FBI. Was there any punishment for Fitzgerald (and the man who appointed him- it was Mueller or Comey).
    There should be punishment for such behavior. Disbarment and forfiture of pension would be suitable punishment. Or violating Brady should be defined as a criminal act with scheduled punishments, like other federal crimes.
    If you let people get away with trashing the constitution they soon consider it their right to do so, and that is what happened to Mr. Comey.

    1. Exactly, and if the get away with this, the ‘line in the sand’ will be drawn further into the ‘dark side’ allowing them to up their game. SILENCE IS CONSENT!

    2. I fully support your overall comments that relate to the apparent misconduct by prosecutors. My comment relates to taking of pension benefits for single act of misconduct. Under ERISA that applies to most civilian pension plans, earned benefits are considered earned at the point they are earned on a year by year basis. An employer might prevent years of future earnings due to changes in the pension plan or even termination, but no act of misconduct can take away an already earned benefit once those benefits are vested.

      The Government has long maintained the ability to take away pension benefits based on perceived or proven misconduct. While this might serve as an incentive to not engage in misconduct it totally negates what could be a forty year career of good and valuable service for a single act of misconduct, no matter how minor, or serious. In fact this thought of permanent loss of income for someone’s in their seniors years could result in even more misconduct to cover up their misconduct.

      Most employers in Corporate America have dropped their defined benefit pension plans in favor of defined contribution plans similar to 401k plans. Government employees have versions of 401k plans, and to the best of my knowledge the assets of those plans is never subject to forfeiture due to misconduct.

      In time State and Federal plans will move more toward defined contribution plans. This will be forced by unions as more an more states default or reduce promised benefits that were never funded in the same way as civilian plans were required to do. As these plans start to be phased out and frozen in place for those that have ‘earned’ benefits a decision needs to be made about this practice of taking away these benefits due to some future misconduct that in some cases could occur 20 or 30 years later.

      1. The portion of their pension which consists of a payment stream which would be actuarially sound given the contributions delineated in each paycheck should be considered property to which they have a right. The portion which consists of a cross-subsidy financed by general revenues can properly be denied them.

        1. The forfeiture of the “property to which they have a right” should be considered justly punitive. Extremely so since it’s a direct response to their own willingness to deny the rights of their target.

          Risking the forfeiture of pension would go a long way in curtailing these abuses. It’s a proper remedy.

        2. DSS, I can see that happening with bankruptcy of a state, but I am not clear on your opinion with regard to the federal government based on misconduct though there may be something in their contracts or government law I am not aware of. can you fill in the rest of your argument?

      2. I agree with most of your argument, but do not fill misconduct should hold no punishment, many of the these politicians and or government workers work are supposed to be civil servants and most times takes an act of god to fire them……we need accountability!

  8. “The end justifies the means” has always been the legal and moral base of the liberal; no laws are important enough to uphold in the quest of political power or gain. Mr. Turley cannot be surprised by the turn of events described; what should surprise him is the fact that he is lockstep with the political ideas of these culprits, apparently without awareness that liberalism and bending/breaking the law are the same thing.

      1. David, learn the difference between the classical liberal and today’s Liberal (L capitalized) or progressive. Understanding the difference is like understanding the difference between smart and dumb.

          1. “Allan, you are completely confused.”

            David, I am confused. How did they ever let you become a professor? Who did you know?

    1. You’re confusing liberalism with Democratic Party partisans. Prof. Turley is a liberal. So am I. It was liberals who stood against Joe McCarthy, a Republican who believed that the end of finding Communist agents/sympathizers in positions of influence in Americna society justified the means of destroying innocent people in show hearings. The Democrats in D.C. are using exactly the same methods against the Trump administration today. Lliberals like Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz are sticking by their principles and opposing these authoritarian abuses of power by the Democrats, just as earlier generations of liberals opposed the authoritarian abuses of power by Joe McCarthy.

      There are many other examples of “ends justify the means” abuses by Republicans, including, most infamously, the Iraq war. Almost 20 years ago, Republicans (and neocon Democrats like Hillary Clinton) believed the end of removing Saddam Hussein justified the means of launching an illegal war in Iraq, based on disinformation. Liberals stood against that, just as they/we have stood against numerous other abuses of state power over the decades, by both Democrats and Republicans.

      I’ve previously supported Democrats, in part because of the illegal Iraq war, but I voted third-party in 2016 and will vote Republican this time. The Democratic Party still has a liberal wing, which I belong to, but it’s been suppressed and marginalized by the corrupt centrist authoritarian Clinton/Obama faction and the far-left authoritarian Sanders/AOC faction. Some liberals still manage to convince themselves that the Democratic Party is the lesser evil, despite the fact that it’s now dominated by authoritarians. I think they’re just trying to justify tribal loyalties that no longer make sense. I can understand how a liberal late in life, who has supported Democrats for decade after decade, may find it difficult to accept the reality that Trump and the Republicans are the better choice for liberals today. I think they’re wrong, but I can understand why it’s difficult for them to accept reality.

  9. Democrats follow the Costanza corollary (“It’s not a lie if you believe it.”) to the Red Queen’s theorem:

    Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

  10. Oh my God. Finally, a voice of reason in a world of complete insanity. Thank you, Jonathan Hurley.

  11. “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.”

    I suppose using Obvious Racism to justify ones actions is fine —- as long as it’s a “Lily White” getting the hot poker.
    BUT– The actions taken against Flynn CLEARLY demonstrate a complete lack of Moral Integrity by the Obama administration.

  12. Benjamin wittes……🙄
    I’d laugh but he ain’t funny.

    Back when the Russia hoax first started, he wrote on his blog that unelected swamprats had some sort of secret duty to defy the voters whenever they thought the voters were being “stupid”.

    Comey even gave him a jr. G-man badge and let him roam fbi headquarters like he owned the place.

    Wittes and his ilk are traitors, and should be punished as such.

  13. I find it odd Obama is misrepresenting this case against Flynn. Why would he say purjery when it was lying to the FBI? Send purposefully done to gaslight people, where are the rest of the documents to tie schiff, and Obama to these operations. Reading the transcripts it seems schiff knew way too much information to have been on the outside looking in. What I am afraid of his schiff was working with the DOJ lockstep until trump became president, when he lost the ability to do so. Seems almost as if schiff was receiving everything he wanted as a minority party, something smells fishy is all.

    1. He hasn’t practiced law in 24 years, and he never had a criminal practice. It’s kind of a ‘Marine Corpse’ / ’57states’ error.

  14. In your sentence “That is when Strzok intervened.”, “Strzok” should be replaced with “Obama.”

Leave a Reply