The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain . . . Starting With A Crime

440px-Michael_T_FlynnBelow is my column in The Hill newspaper on the new disclosures in the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.  Yesterday, the attorney hired by Judge Emmet Sullivan responded on his behalf to defend his controversial orders in the case to invite third parties to argue the merits of the motion to dismiss as well as raising his option to substitute his own criminal charge of perjury against Flynn.  The Justice Department responded with a 45-page filing to a three-judge appeals court panel.

The attention will now focus on the appearance tomorrow of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the Senate.  For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.

Here is the column:

“Remember … Ambassador, you’re not talking to a diplomat, you’re talking to a soldier.” When President Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, said those words to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he also spoke to American intelligence agents listening in on the call. For three years, congressional Democrats have assured us Flynn’s calls to Kislyak were so disturbing that they set off alarms in the closing days of the Obama administration.

Rod_Rosenstein_US_AttorneyThey were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn’s calls are deeply disturbing — not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence. The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice Department and by Congress, starting with next week’s Senate testimony by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It turns out Flynn’s calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn asked the Russian to focus on “common enemies” in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East. The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions.

What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal, commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.

The calls, and Flynn’s identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama administration left office — a serious federal crime, given their classified status. The most chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, “l am a very practical guy, and it’s about solutions. It’s about very practical solutions that we’re — that we need to come up with here.” Flynn said he understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.

Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn’s later denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions. However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials.

The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as “cutting off” another high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.

Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn regarding his calls.

Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents “just casually slip” in a reference to the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_IIIFlynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied, he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too.

The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge. Courts have held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked to the particular “subject of the investigation.” The Justice Department found that the false statement in February 2017 was not material “to any viable counterintelligence investigation — or any investigation, for that matter — initiated by the FBI.” In other words, by that time, these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime. The question is: Why?

So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal investigation to speak of when Comey sent “a couple guys over” to entrap Flynn; they already had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, facing the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) bizarrely maintained that “Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk” because he could be blackmailed over his false statement.

Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have information that others did not have.

Ironically, in his calls with Kislyak, Flynn expressly sought a more frank, honest relationship with Russia. He told Kislyak “we have to stop talking past each other on — so that means that we have to understand exactly what it is that we want to try to achieve, okay?” That is a question that should now be directed at the FBI, to understand what it was trying to achieve by continuing an investigation long after it ran out of crimes to investigate.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

239 thoughts on “The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain . . . Starting With A Crime”

  1. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
    Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
    Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
    Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
    Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
    James E. Boasberg et al.

      1. Shakidi, Trump cut taxes to billionaires and he wants ‘more’ tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile Trump refuses to show his own tax returns.

        So when Trump rails against the ‘establishment’, it’s ridiculous! Trump has nothing in common with common people and no capacity to display empathy of any kind.

        1. Trump has nothing in common with you, but his base is filled with ‘common people’ even though you refer to the as deplorables.

    1. How many victims of the Gestapo, the KGB and ISIS “confessed?”

      How many of Andrew Weissmann’s malicious convictions against Enron targets and victims were overturned?

      I’ll say one thing.

      You are absolutely unimpeachably brilliant.

  2. More Turley TDS. Today’s post is focusing on somehow exonerating Flynn, who: 1. lied to the FBI; 2. admitted he lied to the FBI, in writing, and orally, before Judge Sullivan; 3. Pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in exchange for the government dropping the felonies related to failing to register as a foreign agent for Turkey; and 4. who was convicted of perjury. What else do you need to know? Why is so much time and paper being wasted on this traitor?

    All of this hoopla over this crook, when the US is literally burning at night, while we are still suffering form a pandemic made worse by a fat, incompetent fake POTUS who shows up at churches for photo ops. He parades out in public, protected by dozens of men armed with assault rifles, trying to look macho, after cowering in a bunker like the fat sissy he really is. Of course, peaceful protesters had to be tear gassed first to clear the way for Cpt. Bone Spurs to get his campaign photos taken, posing with a Bible.

    Ironically, after all of the laws he has violated, beginning with cheating his way into our White House, refusing to cooperate with the Mueller and House investigations and trying to leverage aid to an ally for assistance with his campaign, this blasphemous hypocrite has the unmitigated call to call himself “your law and order president.” This obese fraud lost the popular vote, and has never even captured 50% approval of the American people. He is “our” embarrassment. It takes a deep degree of narcissism to do the things he does, and a similar deep degree of TDS not to call out this behavior.

    1. Gawd. What can you say? This is just so wrong all ways round. Most idiotic comment I have yet seen on this site, and it is a high bar. Logically wrong, factually wrong…it is indeed everything it purports to be against. A mea culpa of epic proportions. Idiocy embodied. A mixture of emotion, unreason and idiocy blended to nothing more than an infantile cry, striking out and missing every target. An amoeba sulking.

  3. Had Trump Acknowledged Russian Interference, Events Might Have Played Out Differently

    Almost as soon as the 2016 Election was over, news of Russian interference became a major story. Yet Trump steadfastly refused to acknowledge foreign meddling. This refusal created a bizarre situation that theoretically should have prevented Trump from taking office. Here was the President-Elect refusing to acknowledge a major security threat that was widely discussed by everyone in Washington.

    Trump’s avoidance of the subject continued after he took office in late January. By then the Russian interference story was more than 2 months old. Even most Republicans were acknowledging interference. Yet Trump kept calling the story ‘fake news’ which appeared to be an absolute denial. All key players in Trump’s new cabinet were acknowledging the interference. It was was surreal that Trump kept denying what everyone else acknowledged.

    In the context of Trump’s denials, Michael Flynn may have looked more suspicious than he actually was. Perhaps if Trump had acknowledged the interference upfront, Flynn might have been spared prosecution.

    1. We know it’s all a lie, we knew then we know now. Nothing at all, that’s the entire extent of it.

        1. More name calling or characterization, whatever, it’s all a lie. We all know it. Same as always, a nothingburger.

    2. Brennan may be headed to prison over it, too.
      Just a heads up since you pretend to be clueless.

    3. cute remarks Seth. put the POTUS in a double bind and then blame him for turning one way instead of another.

      guy can’t win even when he did. man you guys think you are clever. and you are. just hope that cleverness doesnt catch up with you

      1. Kurtz, you’re arguing that presidents should have the right to ignore major news developments and not be judged harshly for their denials.

        Makes sense to me. ..Not..!

      2. Did you see Obama’s head of cyber security testified Obama told them to stand down ?
        Congressional testimony.
        LAUGHING.
        That’s how serious it was. “Just forget it.”

    4. Had the Obama Administration not engaged in such illegal actions none of this would have occurred. Paint Chips doesn’t recognize the corruption of the Obama Administration that started long before Trump ever announced running for President.

      In the future when historians write books on American history one of the Parts of the book will rightfully be designated as… The Obama Years: The Years of Corruption.

      1. Alan, Millennials will write the history of this era. And if you think they will be hostile to Obama while kind to Trump, you are absolutely delusional.

        1. When millennials grow up they will see what they did to their own futures.

          Take a look at a lot of the 60’s group. Some that were radicals in the 60’s and even killed people are radicals today and have gained status from Obama and the left even thought they are violent, Anti-American and stupid.

          Look at those that worked for a living in regular jobs unaccustomed to the violence shown during the 60’s. Aside from the very rich and vocal they don’t necessarily remember the 60’s as a blessing. Ask those black owners whose businesses were destroyed by the violent protesters the past few days. They must love what you promote and would probably knock your teeth out if you came near them with your attitude.

          1. Alan, I dont know any boomers who now think Nixon or George Wallace ‘weren’t so bad after all’.

            So I doubt if any Millennials will come around to Trump later in life and think, “That old SOB was greater than we imagined”.

            In fact the chaos of this year will be remembered as a serious low point for America.

            1. Alan, I dont know any boomers who now think Nixon or George Wallace ‘weren’t so bad after all’.

              Sixty-something bachelors in WeHo. Ain’t that America!

              1. Absurd, you’re a closet queen. So just shut up with that crap. It’s ‘you’, not ‘me’.

            2. ” I dont know any boomers who now think Nixon ”

              Apparently you don’t know much of anything.

        2. Alan, Millennials will write the history of this era.

          They’ll have to take their noses out of their phones first.

          While we’re at it, the characters you run into on the daddyhunt in West Hollywood aren’t exactly a representative sample of the young adult population.

          1. Absurd, you have abandoned any pretense of being a serious debater and have opted instead to bring me down to your closet queen level. Which goes to show misery loves company.

        3. Well they’re eating Tide Pods and already writing their version of history in spray paint as they riot and loot our country. That is their contribution to the Obama legacy.

    5. You may recall what he denied was collusion between him and/or his campaign with the Russians, or anyone else. That was conflated with Russian interference with the election, generally. Please keep in mind the United States routinely attempts to influence electoral politics in foreign countries.

      1. Mistress Adams, all you have here is a cynical What About equating the U.S. with Russia. It ‘s exactly the rationale we would hear from a Russian troll.

        1. Awesome evidence and specifics on election theft and collusion Seth, and quite the conspiracy theory.

      2. Obama regime’s women overthrew Ukraine against Russia, and biden boy made bills.

        Obama lost Crimea to Russia, because Obama failed.

        Obama, a criminal nation thief and a pushover, tried to kill 2 birds with one stone on the way out the door.

        He would retaliate against Russia for humiliating him by taking Crimea, and explain away Trump’s victory in a politicized lying election and coup attempt.

        The loser criminal brat – lies about the election and attacks Russia and blames them like a foolish child and screams and stomps Trump was in on it. All of it lies.

        LAUGHING.

    6. Actually not widely discussed. Just smeared in vague generalizations and innuendo.

      The meat of the matter is zero. A big fat zero.

    7. Yet Trump kept calling the story ‘fake news’ which appeared to be an absolute denial.

      I’m not surprised you left out the key fact that what President Trump was calling ‘fake news’ and denying was the allegation that he or anyone in his campaign was colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. Right now, anyone with a functioning left half of their brain knows this to be true. Which explains why you have been wrong for nearly 3+ years, will be wrong today and that future prospects of you ever being correct on anything requiring reason and logic are undetectable.

  4. The facts are clear that Bill Barr has been acting as Trump’s personal lawyer and not the AG of the USA. Now is the time to ask Turley if he is acting in any way on behalf on the POTUS. Has Turley been paid or promised anything from the Trump campaign or a super-pac working for the reelection of Trump? How far did the obligation go after Turley was hired by the House Republicans to be witness for Trump.

    1. @Fish Wings. No, whathas to be asked here is to what level of stupid you will seek to stoop in order to get your silly ass remarks on this page.

      1. And ‘who’ are ‘you’, Canuck Sailor?? Your credibility has never been established.

    2. If Trump fires him in the future for blowing the obamagate investigation will you scream again to impeach Trump ? Will you tear up and wail Nixon’s ghost is white with fear and racism and Trump is equally guilty ?

      I know you will. It’s the same stupid wind blowing plan every time. Most of the time the wind is blowing from the hot air issuing forth from other seditious idiots.

  5. CTHD* Goes to Starbucks
    A Short Analogy by Squeeky Fromm.

    It was a cold day, and CTHD wanted a hot drink. So he trotted to the nearest Starbucks and ordered Raspberry White Chocolate Iced Mocha with Whipped Cream. He sat down at a table with a copy of the WaPo paper and started read and sip. A man sat down across from him, and asked if that was okay, because there were no other chairs available. CTDH nodded that was fine.

    The stranger noticed the paper and asked if CTHD was a Trump supporter, because had just been elected. CTHD shrunk in horror and said he was not. That he would never vote for a fascist, racist billionaire who was the inspiration for the Hostel series of horror flicks. The other man said he thought Trump would work for better relations with Russia, and finished his drink, and left, saying “Das vandanya!”

    Unbeknownst to CTHD, the Stranger was actually the Russian ambassador, and the whole conversation had been recorded by the FBI. The FBI investigated to see who CTHD was, and discovered he was a Professional Internet Troll who worked for the DNC. At the same office where the servers had allegedly been hacked!

    After a few months, the FBI sent two men to interview CTHD. CTHD said that he had ordered a Chai Latte and did not remember what he had talked about with the Stranger, and in fact did not think he said anything at all, and merely nodded. He was indicted for lying to the FBI, and forced into selling his home to pay his legal bills. The FBI also threatened to prosecute his son for crossing state lines to have sex with a sex prostitute.

    CTHD plead guilty, more than once. Before sentencing, a new attorney general was sworn in and he moved to dismiss the indictment, as never having a criminal basis, and no materiality to any investigation at all.

    This is where Flynn is. Do you think CTHD thinks he needs to be prosecuted for perjury? Do you think he does?

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    *CTHD=Committohonestdiscussion

  6. It is unusual to see near universal agreement among the commenters here but CommitToHonestDiscussion has succeeded in that there is near universal agreement that CTHD is a complete idiot.

    1. It is more of a universal understanding that most comments have not actually refuted any of CTHD’s points. All have been met by silly ad hominem and poorly reasoned excuses. What I do see is a lot commenters have huge inability to really understand the issue.

      It’s obvious most don’t bother to actually read the evidence. JT and most folks here are trying hard to find a narrative that is well into conspiracy territory rather than basic rational observation.

      1. Svelaz, then you quote the in context words of Flynn that made him criminally guilty so that he would go to jail. CTHD said he had the evidence and all anyone had to do was look. Then he danced around thinking he was Liberace and told the world how Honest he was.

        I am sure you can find the quote in context and give it to us. Don’t dance around. Your legs aren’t as nice as CTHD’s.

        1. Allan, The words that made him criminally guilty as you say were the very words he spoke directly to the judge where he admits to lying to the FBI. Twice he made an admission being guilty of lying to the FBI. The crime here is the lying to the FBI which is a felony. Furthermore Flynn attested under THE PENALTY OF PERJURY that he was not coerced or threatened. The judge gave Flynn multiple opportunities to back out of that admission. Flynn unequivocally stated he was certain of his plea and again, under penalty of perjury he stated he was not going to change his guilty plea.

          CHTD actually provided the link to the actual record of Flynn stating his guilty plea to the judge. All the context you want is there.

          1. I’m waiting for the in context quotes of what he said that was a lie justifying a conviction and jail sentence. Not remembering is not a lie. Making an error is not a lie. The dishonest CHTD never quoted the lie because there wasn’t one. The lie was created by people like you, the Media, the FBI etc.

            I’ll leave it up to you to provide the quotes. Don’t say it’s in the FBI reports because one can’t find something that never happened.

            Skip what you call lies that were due to coercion. Go right to the meat, what they wanted to convict him for.

          2. It’s all void dummy. A corrupt kangaroo court of lies and extortion and threats and strong arming, a judge who screams treason for common acts of government officials, doesn’t stand. It’s all void.
            Now the same corrupt idiot who never threw out the prosecution as he should have, wants more wasted time playing stupid.
            The judge is a criminal idiot, so is the prosecution and those others behind.
            None of them have anything to do but shut their stupid lying criminal mouths and go to prison.

      2. Right Svelaz we are done looking at every little tree and now see the forest

        you can go gaze at bark and lichen and leaves all day if you like.

        we know the forest when we see it.

  7. DV– I think President Obama knew that most liberals are racists at heart but because he looked like a black man they lived in such fear of being labeled a racist he knew he would get a pass. Of course some might not agree with my premise but it seems to be that a supporter of programs like affirmative action must think black people are inferior because they are based on the assumption that black people are unable to lift themselves up and can improve their lot only if white people help them. (Excuse the diversion).

    What Obama authorized his people to do to Flynn should have galvanized the press and caused a massive backlash against that administration. But the liberal press has no discernible moral compass. Had it been popular among their viewers, they would have attacked Obama.

    President Obama was popular and these “reporters” knew that if they held him to account for his many misdeeds, their competitors would call them racist (a favorite trick of the Obama people) and so he did get a pass on all of it. But as Fox News’ audience has grown and theirs has shrunk, maybe they will change. To me, Fox’s approach was simple but brilliant. Highly intelligent people were recruited. And unlike other cable shows, Fox News kept separate its opinion shows like Hannity and Ingraham, and its news shows like Bret Baier and Shannon Bream. Also unlike others, Fox News kept its stable clean. When its most popular person, Bill O’Reilly, engaged in improper sexual conduct, Fox cut him loose. Compare that with MSNBC. Rachael Maddow was supposed to be this super smart (PhD) person who would talk straight with the American people. But what did she do? She consciously lied several times about big things which seriously misled her audience. Fox would have fired her after her first major blunder but MSNBC kept her on and still does to this day.

    I don’t look for change anytime soon. Maybe if MSNBC or CNN goes bankrupt, people will sit up and listen but I doubt it because it was these people’s unprofessional conduct that has all but destroyed the American news media. The current crop has passed the point of no return. They are too invested in hating President Trump to the point of covering for an obviously impaired corrupt man like Biden. As a result, every story is crafted so that it includes some kind of attack on the President. Chinese Wuhan Virus? Attack Trump for using the word Chinese. Riots and mayhem? Attack Trump for wanting to do what is necessary to stop the looting, burning and killing. I think this is why the story of General Flynn is such a hot potato for them. It would require them to be critical of Obama and admit that President Trump was right and this they simply cannot do.

    1. Can someone be a good lawyer if s/he chooses to ignore evidence that undermines his/her claims?

      If so, how?
      If not, why do you do it?

      1. More tail chasing discourse from someone trolling people here to think about breadcrumbs when the big loaves are all on the table up for grabs.

        1. Professor Turley, after all that has transpired with Strzok, Page and Schiff, do you really have to write these words: “In other words, by that time, these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime. The question is: Why?” Can you spell “sedition” or “conspiracy?” Sure you can. You should be asking WHY these people are not behind bars today. TODAY!!!!

      2. Can someone be a good lawyer if s/he chooses to ignore evidence that undermines his/her claims?
        ________________________________________________________________________

        The objective is to get others to ignore the evidence.

  8. More fake news being spread by the evil Hillary Clinton and others. It is mindboggling. Intentionally so.

    https://twitter.com/emilyelarsen/status/1267815877254066176

    The viral photo of lights-out/blackout White House shared by Hillary Clinton, Instagrammers & countless others was 1. not taken during the Trump administration, let alone over the weekend, and 2. edited to darken lights that were on in the original

    Per AP fact check, the original photo was uploaded to a Getty Images iStock in December 2015. In that pic, more of the outside lights are on. Here it is again in a March 2017 think tank blog post.

    As CNN’s @kaitlancollins and others have noted, the WH routinely turns off lights late at night but leaves some on. Per the AP, other photos taken on Sunday night showed a few exterior lights on, not all of them dark like in the old, edited viral pic.

    https://washingtonexaminer.com/news/viral-white-house-blackout-image-shared-by-hillary-clinton-democrats-edited-and-from-at-least-2015

  9. Mass media are complicit with the rioters, looters and arsonists. They should be deterred with harsh yet effective measures.

    America’s crumbling fast. time for a shot of atropine to neutralize the poison gas spread by the mass media every day,. and a shot of epinephrine to restart the heart. This dying patient needs emergency measures, fast

  10. With all that has been going on…this case still disturbs me. The injustice of things these days is wide spread. They went after his family by creating a crime (that is called entrapment) and backed General Flynn into a corner. He would have agreed to anything to save his son. The only thing I can continue to do is contribute to his defense fund. We all should fund any cause to defeat injustice.

  11. The Senate talking shop will be as useless as usual. All hyperbole, grandstanding and self protection. The US v Flynn should be more concrete, even as Judge Sullivan seeks to replace the US as prosecutor in a play for time…

    1. Sullivan is not “seek[ing] to replace the US as prosecutor.” He’s doing his job as a judge, which includes determining whether to grant the DOJ’s motion — especially when the DOJ has not moved to withdraw earlier motions that conflict with the most recent one — and whether to consider contempt charges (a normal part of judicial power).

          1. The endless repetition of minute details obscuring the overall picture is pointing to the trees so folks dont see the forest

            Agent Sztroke was a rogue who along with his co conspirators, abused his office as an FBI agent to sabotage an incoming adminstration, engaged in the lawful execution of duties, and to harass and entrap its officials

            The real criminal is Sztroke.

            1. Agent Sztroke was a rogue who along with his co conspirators, abused his office as an FBI agent to sabotage an incoming adminstration, engaged in the lawful execution of duties, and to harass and entrap its officials
              ____________________________________________________________
              Strzok said he did not believe Flynn was lying.

          2. I have asked you before if you are a lawyer or work in the legal field. That is because I will not tease you about your lack of knowledge about the law, for stuff like “withdrawing the motions.”

            Are you under the false impressions the Good DOJ somehow needs to withdraw the Bad DOJ’s previous Motions???

            That is the only thing I can take from your statements, and if you are a non-legal person I will point out that you are in error. But if you are in the legal field, then I will add plenty of very bad names to my response, including but not limited to: nimrod, dunce, dingleberry, silly maroon, and quack.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Re: “Are you under the false impressions the Good DOJ somehow needs to withdraw the Bad DOJ’s previous Motions???,” this is known as a loaded question, a common kind of fallacy. One does not have to be a lawyer to recognize common fallacies that people use in their arguments.

              There is no “good DOJ” and “bad DOJ” before the court. There is a single DOJ, and it has represented to the court both that Flynn’s lies are material and also that Flynn’s lies are not material, and it has not sought to withdraw the former representations.

              I have told you before that I am not a lawyer. If “motion” is the wrong word, then my mistake. Why don’t we use wording from a couple of lawyers: “the government has not withdrawn its past filings, including those asserting Flynn’s lies were material,” and “the government has not moved to withdraw any of its prior pleadings in the case, including its sentencing memoranda, or any of the representations it previously made in open court regarding the purported materiality of Mr. Flynn’s false statements.”

              1. OK, so whoever wrote what you quoted is either a stupid lawyer, a lying lawyer, or NOT a lawyer at all. Once Motions have been ruled on, and a little time gone by, not much, then what you do is file a new Motion – unless the precise subject matter of the previous motion is still at play, such as a “Do Not Harrass the Other Litigant” Motion.

                Here, the DOJ filed a new Motion, the substance of which covers all the others. There is no need to withdraw the old motions, and depending on the motion, maybe not even possible. It is possible to make a motion to modify a motion. But simply moving to dismiss period is all the DOJ needs to do.

                There are things called Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure, and even Appellate Court Rules of procedure, and they are difficult for even lawyers sometimes.

                Whoever you are relying on is misleading you.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                PS: I never did get an answer to what you think should happen to you after the DOJ moved to dismiss charges against you in the Starbucks Spy Case.

                1. I have no reason to assume anything you say is accurate, as I’ve seen you make multiple false statements during my few weeks here, and I haven’t seen you demonstrate any particular legal expertise or commitment to being accurate. If you provide evidence to support your claims, I’ll be happy to look at it. But evidenceless claims from you are only that.

                  You say “unless the precise subject matter of the previous motion is still at play,” somehow ignoring that the question of the materiality of Flynn’s lies to the FBI is very much “at play.” The DOJ has stated more than once that Flynn’s lies were material, and Judge Sullivan already ruled that they were material, but the DOJ is now asserting that they’re *not* material and has made no attempt to account for or reconcile its own conflicting claims (e.g., are they now suggesting that previous DOJ attorneys were lying to the court?).

                  It’s certainly possible that “Whoever [I am] relying on is misleading [me].” It’s also possible — and I think more likely — that you don’t understand any of this as well as the lawyers I quoted (and I should correct my earlier statement, only the second quote comes from lawyers).

      1. Sullivan is an incompetent fraud disrespecting the clear law that requires him to dismiss.

        He should be impeached before he does more damage with his abuse of lifetime tenure

        Article III should be amended to remove lifetime tenure for federal judges. Sullivan is case in point.

        1. You can file a complaint with the courts and see whether people who actually understand our laws agree with you.

          Or you can write your Senators and suggest he be impeached and then see what people say under oath in the Senate testimony.

          But I doubt that you’ll do either one.

          I think you just want to complain, despite not knowing what you’re talking about.

          1. “I think you just want to complain, despite not knowing what you’re talking about.”

            Kurtz, Liberace has increased his repetoire. He can now dance and be insulting at the same time.

            1. Allan and Kurtz – last time I saw Liberace, all he could do was play the piano, spin around in his fur coats and show off his rings. He was a very pleasant and funny person.

                1. Squeeky – I do not know from experience, however, according to his bf, Liberace was gay. 😉

          2. ha ha fool i don’t waste my breath on what WILL CERTAINLY HAPPEN

            wait and see then come apologize when this done, over, case gets the BOOT

      2. Committ – he does not have the right to have amicus curie in criminal cases. There is a DC Circuit rule and a SC case that say NO NO NO.

        1. I’ll wait for you to link to the evidence you’re citing (just like you asked me for a link earlier).

          FWIW, here are a bunch of former judges arguing that “District courts have authority to appoint amici curiae in criminal cases”: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933363/Former-Judges-Sullivan.pdf (see section D starting on p. 12).

          Bottom line: the DC Circuit court will presumably rule on whether Sullivan can hear from amici, but since they didn’t ask Judge Sullivan to respond to that part of the request for a Writ, my guess is that the find it unproblematic.

  12. “For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.”

    Mr. Turley, if you don’t understand that this was **part of** “the investigation of … collusion with Russia,” you’re not paying attention.

    “Flynn … gave a false statement.”

    He stated under oath that he made multiple false statements.

    “The Justice Department found that the false statement in February 2017 was not material ‘to any viable counterintelligence investigation — or any investigation, for that matter — initiated by the FBI.’”

    That’s what the DOJ claimed in their Motion to Dismiss. But the DOJ claimed multiple times in previous documents — documents that the DOJ has *not* moved to withdraw — that Flynn’s false statements *were* material, and Judge Sullivan twice agreed that the false statements were material. Here’s a helpful discussion: emptywheel.net/2020/06/01/in-opposing-mandamus-judge-sullivan-notes-schrodingers-materiality/

    Moreover, it’s patent nonsense to claim Flynn’s ostensible lies to VP Pence — which Pence himself declared in public — were not material to a counterintelligence investigation of whether Flynn was compromised, given that Flynn’s ostensible lies to Pence were contrary to what Russia knew of Flynn’s discussion with Kislyak. (FWIW, it now looks increasingly likely that Pence claimed in public that Flynn had lied to him but that Pence himself was lying about this, in order to cover up Pence’s false claims to the public about the sanctions discussions during the transition.)

    “The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have information that others did not have.”

    No, the key to blackmail is to have info that Flynn and others wanted to *hide* from the public and conflicted with public statements by the VP-Elect, including the fact that Flynn had conferred with senior transition officials prior to talking with Kislyak.

    Mr. Turley, are you unaware of these relevant facts, or do you know them but choose to ignore them? SMH.

    1. Why am I not surprised that you pretend to not get the fact that there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME.

      Earlier, you posted that “Domestic Terrorism” is not a criminal charge. How about you commit to honest discussion and admit that “Russian Collusion” is not a charge?

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Apparently you don’t understand that this started off as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation, and that the former do not require there to be a crime because (wait for it) it’s not a criminal investigation. Do you seriously think that intelligence is only gathered on Russians when they commit crimes?

        They were investigating whether the incoming NSA was *compromised*, in part because Pence claimed Flynn had lied to him.

        If you don’t understand the difference between criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations, you should learn.

        LOL that you ask “How about you commit to honest discussion and admit that “Russian Collusion” is not a charge?,” when I’ve never asserted anything to the contrary. In fact, as Mr. Mueller pointed out, “collusion” isn’t the term used in our laws, which is why the SCO was instead investigating things like conspiracy.

        But don’t let my actual statements and views get in the way of the garbage that you’d like to project onto me.

        1. Apparently you don’t understand, that using an intelligence operation as a ruse to gain information and set up a criminal investigation is old hat FBI 101. and Turley surely knows that. duh.

          the difference is this time they werent using these stratagems on foreign spies or mafia dons they were using the stunt on a patriot and lawful incoming official engaged in proper diplomatic conversations

          Sztroke is a rogue and should be arrested. Given due process trial and if found guilty punished for his crimes.

          it’s time to stop playing pattycake. i know mr barr is trying to restore confidence in the system but with Sztroke running around and the FBI protecting its alumni nobody is feeling very much confidence. Not the rioters who dont fear the police nor the schemers like Sztroke who abuse government offices, who dont fear them either.

          1. LOL that you don’t understand that the initial surveillance was of Kislyak, not Flynn.

            1. that’s right i dont understand that. russians russsian russians is all a pretext, a ruse, and a lie.,

              the mask is off. it wasnt about russians. that was pretextual. it was about harassing, annoying, and entrapping the incoming elected team. you can repeat the lies all you want but the evidence is clear.

              1. “that’s right i dont understand that.”

                Why don’t you understand that basic fact about what you’re trying to discuss?

                Flynn himself said as much, as the DOJ noted in the Motion to Dismiss: “Mr. Flynn, himself a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated that he readily expected that the FBI already knew the contents of his conversations with the ambassador, stating: ‘you listen to everything they say.’”

                Did you bother to read the Motion to Dismiss?

                1. it wasnt about russians. that was pretextual. it was about harassing, annoying, and entrapping the incoming elected
                  ____________________________________________________________
                  If that is what they were doing why did the FBI agents say that Flynn had not lied in the Flynn-FBI interview?

                2. You pretend to be well informed. you are just another bit cheerleader for the Democratic leadership scheme to illegally sabotage the Trump adminstration from day one. Which makes you a saboteur of a valid election yourself.

                  Endless trolling into nonsensical conversation that distracts people from the terror your people have unleashed on the streets today

                  Talking time should be over now, and the organized restoration of order by lawful executive leaderip commence and not stop until it’s done and not only the street rioters but the saboteurs of this government are all extirpated from their bureaucratic posts, arrested detained and awaiting charges without bail.

                  Or if it’s civil war time, fine, casts the die and let it roll

                  1. Liberals are convinced that they can bully us into believing their lies by repeating them endlessly. They pass the tainted Narratives out like stale Hors d’oeuvres to every single member of their tribe, and then demand repetition as the cost of admittance to the “cool” party.

                    These people are sick.

                    1. “They pass the tainted Narratives out like stale Hors d’oeuvres to every single member of their tribe, and then demand repetition as the cost of admittance to the “cool” party.”

                      You are describing both American political parties.

          2. CTHD is right. JT is conflating two different types of investigations as one. The FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation which as he correctly stated doesn’t require a crime be committed. It was never a criminal investigation. The crime here is Flynn lying and admitting to it to TWO judges.

            JT only mentions “A” false statement, but doesn’t mention which. It was one of many false statements.

            The relevant question before the court still is, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he perjure himself. He stated under oath that he was not coerced in front of the judge. The judge has the right to have that explanation before he makes a decision. Turley is pushing an obfuscation.

            1. duh, turley is not conflating anything. you people are doing the confusing. turley knows more about FBI procedure than you do. the bottom line is that it was a pretextual setup and perjury trap for Flynn.

              these stratagems should not be used on lawful decent elected officials executing their duties. by a rogue agent abusing his office, and his co conpsirators

              if the system can’t right itself, then it’s time that the system gets a brick thrown at it. Trump can end this sabotage with summary measures and he would have my full support and gracious thanks if he did.

              if it’s time to take direct action now, as all the liberal pundits are suggesting, ok. let’s take direct action. let it rip

              1. It was not a “perjury trap.”

                Pence said that Flynn lied to him about his discussions with Kislyak.
                Trump said he fired Flynn in part because Flynn lied to Pence about Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak.

                Do you think Pence and Trump were lying about Flynn?

                1. It was a perjury trap

                  and yes I think pence and trump lied for PR and tactical purposes.

                  they hung flynn out to dry, for a while. it was a tactical retreat in the face of an illegal coup attempt by the FBI rogues. they made a tough call on flynn.,

                  flynn will end up free in the end. flynn is tough. he’s a team player and he will not be left behind in the end

                  1. Glad that you’re willing to say that you think Pence and Trump lied to the American public and fired Flynn without believing that he’d done anything wrong, simply because they thought it served their personal tactics. It would be great to interview Pence and Trump about it under oath.

                    Re: your false claim that “It was a perjury trap,” no, it wasn’t: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1756-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-perjury-trap

                    ” it was a tactical retreat in the face of an illegal coup attempt”

                    ROFL that you think the most powerful person in the U.S. had to make a “tactical retreat,” when he simply could have said he didn’t believe the FBI, could have stated that Flynn didn’t lie to Pence (and Pence was lying when he claimed that Flynn had lied to him) and wasn’t going to fire Flynn. And there was no “coup attempt.”

                    1. it was a coup, it was a perjury trap, obviously

                      and Trump is weak or his enemies would now be taking dirt naps instead of mocking him.

                      This is actually very simple. America is ruled by plutocrats, that is to say, very rich oligarchs.

                      Occasionally they go astray like Ross Perot, or Trump.

                      Trump got lucky and won the Republican primary, even after the Republicans tried their best, on behalf of their financial masters, to ace him out. But it’s ok for billionaires, as the people were fooled into thinking he could do something!

                      but our elections mostly just serve to delude Americans in every generation into thinking that a small number of billionaires don’t actually call the shots, when they obviously do. hey, look at how the Federal Reserve just propped them up in the markets, while bozos like me got a measly $1,200 for our part of it. Trump had to go along with that too, not like he had any choice. Any president would have done the same.

                      Only a dictator could have done what’s really needed. And that’s to take the scalps of the plutocrats, first.

                      Trump is the least farthest thing from a dictator and the weak, tepid, ineffective response from him to the current disorder is proof positive of it.

                      Jack Dorsey, a bearded hipster billionaire, can shut Trump up if he wants

                      some tyrant that Trump! I was hoping he was as bad as you creeps have been promising me that he was. he’s not even close! he’s waving a bible yesterday, what? wow.

                      we’re going to find somebody else with a bigger pair than Trump, eventually.

                      Faith in the American system isnt just failing in the urban community. It’s failing in flyover too. This is all very much closer to disintegration that you people afflicted with “normalcy bias” might believe.

                    2. In his delusional torpor – “the horror ”….. – Kurtz thinks that the guy who pushed a huge tax cut for his billionaire friends and relatives which the deplorable’s kids will still be paying for in a decade, is not a plutocrat and somehow on the “little guys” side.

                      What a clown.

                    3. ha ha yeah it seems unlikely but just as ross perot was, trump is

                      unfortunately, the POTUS office is weaker than it seems

                      hemmed in by a thousand layers of bureaucratic saboteurs

                      and in a society where people are often intellectual zombies under the control of tv and “social media” propaganda directed by those billionaires like jack dorsey, and the rest of silicon valley, which obviously hates trump, such that silicon valley is out there with npr and cnn and the usual coterie of liars telling people that the riots are caused by racism, that riots are legit grievance, that arson and looting and assault and mayhem are ok.

                      because why should jack dorsey care? he has a security team and a fence and a gate at his mansion. he won’t be harmed. jack dorsey is safe, jeff besos is safe, whomever’s running google now is safe, they are all ensconsced in secure locations, where they can encourage these riots as a strategem to further bedevil their hated critic, trump.

                      so yeah, he is, or was, or maybe he tried to be. because if he doesnt quell these riots, then he is done

                      this is the moment of truth. so far it’s not looking good for Orange Man. he’s loosing his nerve

                    4. Allow me to note there was no way either the President or Vice President could have known, at the time, the substance of the FBI report, or have any idea what Comey et al. were up to.

                  2. It was a perjury trap
                    _______________________________________________________
                    Trump says Flynn lied to the FBI.
                    The FBI agents said Flynn did not lie to them, but somehow you claim its the FBI’s fault he got prosecuted.

              2. Me. Kurtz, Turkey obviously is being intellectually dishonest here. If he knows more about the FBI than me why is he claiming that the FBI “is looking for a crime” when the investigation was a counterintelligence one. To initiate one doesn’t require a crime be committed.

                He’s conflating two different issues in order to support his outlandish claim that the FBI was looking for a crime. The only crime provable is Flynn’s lying about his conversations and giving multiple false statements to the FBI which is a felony.

                Flynn who is himself a former director of national intelligence is either incompetent or just not actually that smart if he supposedly knew he was being recorded. Why lie to the FBI? Or why did he perjure himself? Those two questions are what the judge needs answered in order for him to decide whether to grant the DOJ request. The DOJ seem quite intent on not going to there by seeking to circumvent this judge. Why? If he is truly innocent the DOJ shouldn’t have an issue with this.

                1. Svelz, what you refer to is no secret to lawyers and people who understand FBI operations. I promise you Turley knows the difference.

                  Actually not Turley but you are being disingenuous.

                  The case just needs to be dismissed now that its dropped. The umpire has no job to do anymore. IT’s done. Sullivan needs to follow the law and procedures that everybody knows as criminal procedure 101

                  or he will be commaned to do so by the appellate judges and removed if he does not. this farce will only be allowed to continue for so long and not much longer.

            2. The relevant question before the court still is, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he perjure himself.
              __________________________________________________________________

              You are definitely asking the right question.

              the answer was because the whole Mueller investigation was a charade that was designed to make it look like Trump was doing mortal combat with a deep state that was out to get him. But it was all phony. It was all designed so that the controversies that so many fools believed would lead to the end of trump were designed to turn into nothing burgers. The Flynn prosecution would have been just another nothing burger today except judge Sullivan had the courage to say ‘wait a minute, something stinks in this case’

            3. What has been established is that the initial FBI investigators reported there was no there, there. Everything cooked up after that was possible because the report was surpressed. It is disingenuous to call ‘lies’ those thing Mr. Flynn ‘admitted’ to having said or done as a function of accepting a plea deal, which he says he did to protect his son. What he did was to accept the characterizations of his statements and recollections (or lack thereof) put forth by the FBI et al. The failure to register is an administrative offense (since, clearly, nothing he did in his capacity as an advisor to the Government of Turkey compromised national security – or was a blip on that radar. Had the rest of this nonsense not happened, Mr. Flynn would likely have been assessed a fine – in the same way, for example, campaigns are assessed fines for minor violations of campaign finance regulations.

              1. What has been established is that the initial FBI investigators reported there was no there, there. Everything cooked up after that was possible because the report was surpressed.
                ______________________________________________________________
                The report was not suppressed it was given to the defense as required by the Brady rule as exculpatory evidence. The defense had the evidence that said the FBI agents believed Flynn was telling the truth.

                The FBI also made it known to the public that they believed Flynn had not lied in the interview.

                https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

              2. He actually did register FARA, but it was the same lousy firm that blew his defense initially that screwed up the paperwork on it and is somehow directly related to Obama’s AG Holder. Remember Flynn worked for Obama too.
                So he was okay with a lib democrap firm under Holder’s influence. He won’t make that mistake again.
                He knows whom is gold now, and who is garbage. Sidney named at least 5 things Holder’s buddies failed to do for Flynn’s defense.

                It’s not her first rodeo and she has fried the lying con artists before.

                So as bad as everything has been in this whole kangaroo show trial, a major component wasn’t missing – defense legal counsel that was working for the prosecution – and charged reportedly 5 million bucks for it.

                1. So as bad as everything has been in this whole kangaroo show trial, a major component wasn’t missing – defense legal counsel that was working for the prosecution – and charged reportedly 5 million bucks for it.
                  __________________________________________________________

                  And you are asking us to believe that Flynn was too stupid to see that his defense team and the prosecution were working together?
                  You want is to believe Flynn was too stupid to figure out that what got him trouble with FARA was following the advise of his high priced lawyers?

                  You got the facts right but the conclusion you have drawn from those facts is absurd.

          3. Apparently you don’t understand, that using an intelligence operation as a ruse to gain information and set up a criminal investigation is old hat FBI 101
            ________________________________________________________________
            The problem with your logic is that the FBI investigators said Flynn had done nothing for which he could be charged.

            The phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI was created after the FBI was taken off the case and it was put under the control of the DOJ that was headed by the man Trump appointed.

        2. I do not have to “project” garbage onto because you positively wallow in it. My goodness, but I bet you have to hang a couple of Fly Strips off yourself. For example, this piece of trash that fell off you, from above:

          “They were investigating whether the incoming NSA was *compromised*, in part because Pence claimed Flynn had lied to him. ”

          BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You are as bizarre as Schiff!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        3. They were investigating whether the incoming NSA was *compromised*, in part because Pence claimed Flynn had lied to him.
          ____________________________________________________________________

          The FBI certainly had a right and a duty to investigate. They interviewed a whole bunch of people besides Flynn.

          And when it was all said and done the FBI said they found nothing that would be a chargeable offense.

          But then the FBI was removed from the case and the Trump DOJ took over.
          You can be sure of one thing, tomorrow in the Senate Rosenstein will not be asked why he authorized the prosecution of Flynn given that there was no evidence that Flynn committed a crime. He will get nothing but softball questions from Senators that reveal nothing.

        4. CTHD you are putting the wrong foot in front of the right foot so your timing is off. That is why you are landing flat on your face.

      2. Why am I not surprised that you pretend to not get the fact that there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME.
        ____________________________________________________________________

        You seem to also be not getting that fact.

        How does Flynn get convicted when there is clearly no underlying crime???
        The answer is pretty simple. Flynn helped the prosecution create the false impression that there was a crime despite the total lack of evidence for a crime.

        Without Flynn’s assistance it would be clear to most everybody that there was no underlying crime.

          1. That was the work of Eric Holder’s buddies at the firm for the defense.
            _________________________________________________________________

            The phony statement of offense was the work of the DOJ Special Counsel that was under the direct control the Acting AG that was appointed by Trump.

            There is no doubt that all the attorneys involved in this case participated in and were aware that the story that was presented to the court was phony. But to claim that Flynn was oblivious to what was going on is just too incredible to be believed. Flynn would have to have severe mental deficiency to not see what was going on.

    2. Commit to honest discussion? That’s your handle? Your comment was a smoke screen to cover the truth. Mr. Turley is honest in his column. If there is one thing I can say is when he uncovers the truth he commits to it even if it uncovers bad actors of his own political party.

      1. If you think I said something false, simply quote it and provide evidence that it’s false. If you’re correct, I’d like to correct my error. But your evidenceless claim about my comment being a “smokescreen” isn’t convincing.

        1. doesnt convince you, who cares

          your handle is a joke. there’s nothing honest about pretending this bogus investigation into Flynn was anything more than an abuse of power by Sztroke and his co conspirators, abusing their positions in the FBI

          you’re just another power lusting partisan Democrat cheerleader who relentlessly befuddles people with words.

          words are powerful, and the Democrats siezed power via universities and mass media of the clever wordsmiths long ago. Republicans have been hopelessly outnumbered by a bunch of English majors. It’s a pathetic situation America finds itself in, one only wonders how it could have limped along as long as it did.

            1. if its one of our usual partners in discussion i would say that one is peter.
              book lacks the patience to form such lofty, cutesy sounding phrases

              1. The problem is that he has been right most of the time. He knows a lot more about Gainesville than you do and might know more about you than you think.

                    1. Are you upset because what you said was Stupid? Don’t worry. No big deal. You do and say Stupid things all the time.

            2. Nope, this is the only name I’ve commented under. Goodness knows I don’t have time to post more comments here than I do already.

              It’s so bizarre that you can’t imagine more than one person disagreeing with you.

              1. Jan F led to Anon and present day btb but has had several other aliases at the same time and one has to be highly suspicious that he has more than one right now.

                I listed many of the names Shill went under but not the total list. He and Anon are two different folk.

                I do not believe CTHD has made his first and only appearance on this list. I have my suspicions but right now will hold off.

                By the way some of us know more than textual letters about Anon.

          1. there’s nothing honest about pretending this bogus investigation into Flynn was anything more than an abuse of power by Sztroke and his co conspirators, abusing their positions in the FBI

            ________________________________________________________________

            How is it an abuse of power by Strzok?
            That makes no sense at all.

            Trump says Flynn lied to the FBI but the FBI
            says they believe Flynn was telling the truth in the interview.

            The FBI made it known a few days after Flynn was fired that they found nothing for which Flynn could be charged.

            https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn

          2. there’s nothing honest about pretending this bogus investigation into Flynn was anything more than an abuse of power by Sztroke and his co conspirators
            _________________________________________________________________

            If you are going to make allegations that there was an abuse of power then don’t run away like sniveling coward when you are asked “what abuse of power”

            Strzok has said all along that he did not believe that Flynn lied to the FBI.

            The evidence is pretty clear that the FBI and Strzok were not the ones that pushed for a prosecution of Flynn. They are the ones that supplied the evidence that Flynn did not lie to the FBI.

        2. ” If you’re correct, I’d like to correct my error. ”

          CTHD has proven that comment to be BS.

      1. Are you asking what Flynn stated under oath that he’d lied about?

        Here’s a good overview: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/23/in-truth-i-never-lied-mike-flynns-materially-conflicting-sworn-statements/
        I’m not going to copy all of that for you.

        There are also links there to the primary documents (e.g., the plea agreement that Flynn signed, his testimony in the sentencing proceedings), if you prefer to read the exact words.

        1. Who cares, the government kangaroo court is totally invalid. They cornered their innocent man then extorted testimony/swearing under threat. A literal fist beating of those involved against Flynn is the beginning of justice.

          You’re lunatics and need the Arkham Asylum, for criminal lunatics. A show trial, and you expect us to honor the literal crud that it was and is.

          Never going to happen. Totally dishonorable and invalid. Now it’s all pretense and pretend to try to save face. Saving face is long gone – it was a criminal exercise from start to finish, it is all 100% invalid.

            1. Mr Kurtz – HP Lovecraft is the only writer I turn all the lights in the house on when I read one of his stories. 🙂

                1. Mr Kurtz – do you follow The Umbrella Guy? He does a Lovecraftian comic book with his 6 y/o daughter Little Umbrella Girl.

        2. Are you asking what Flynn stated under oath that he’d lied about?
          ____________________________________________________________

          I think he wants to know what the actual lies were. Where is the evidence that Flynn made a false statement to the FBI?

          We all know what the phony lies are that the DOJ created with Flynn’s help.

        3. The link is, indeed, to the list of things to which Flynn ‘admitted’ as a function of the plea bargain. It is a simple fact that people admit to acts of which they are not guilty as a function of the latter. So, yes, what he said wasn’t true. His stated reason for doing so was to protect his son from prosecution. THAT’s never happened in the history of the world.

          1. His stated reason for doing so was to protect his son from prosecution.
            _______________________________________________________________
            Flynn swore that the facts the DOJ presented are true and correct.

            If the DOJ presented false facts to the court is that not something the judge has the authority to explore as possible misconduct in his courtroom?

          2. “The link is, indeed, to the list of things to which Flynn ‘admitted’ as a function of the plea bargain”

            Actually, it’s more than that, as Flynn has said more under penalty of perjury than just what’s part of the plea, including his statements to the EDVA grand jury and the personal declaration his lawyer submitted for him in January 2020. Have you read all of his public statements under penalty of perjury?

            “His stated reason for doing so was to protect his son from prosecution”

            AFAIK, he hasn’t presented any evidence that the DOJ promised this. And if Flynn were really concerned about his son’s well-being, he shouldn’t have involved his son in his work for Turkey.

            1. “he shouldn’t have involved his son in his work for Turkey.”

              Why don’t you tell us exactly what Flynn’s son did that was wrong? You are a serial libeler. One has to remember Turkey along with being a major power in a hot area is also an ally of the US. Obama has been almost a total failure in foreign policy and was quite annoyed at Flynn because the two had diametrically opposed opinions. One can argue either side but you failed to show the quotes in context and now you want to bring in his son.

              There is no limit to how low you go.

    3. He stated under oath that he made multiple false statements.
      _______________________________________________________________

      Yeah and that is the only evidence they had to get a conviction.
      Without that evidence the case would have never been prosecuted.

      it would have been impossible to prosecute Flynn for making false statements when the FBI agents had said they believed he was telling the truth.

      1. Flynn lied to the court to save his kid from a side prosecution. So sure. Flynn’s a liar one way or another.,

        But because of an unethical fake investigation by rogue FBI and DOJ officials abusing their offices.

      2. On the contrary, the case would have been prosecuted without a plea agreement.

        “it would have been impossible to prosecute Flynn for making false statements when the FBI agents had said they believed he was telling the truth”

        That’s false. Because there’s evidence such as the call transcripts to draw on. It’s actually pretty funny that so many people rely on the 302 re: the agents saying they didn’t see physical indications of lying, but then reject the parts of the 302 that capture testimonial evidence of lying.

        And since you have your bizarre conspiracy theory that you’re not going to let go of, I won’t respond further.

        1. good because there is no honest discussion here,. the issue of the day is if and when riots will be quelled or has the government failed in its essential purpose.

          you people want to keep the light on Trump’s supposed wrongs and explain away the chaos that you’ve unleashed on the streets with your nonstop bs and undermining of law and order

          that’s all your gibberish is about. just distraction

        2. “it would have been impossible to prosecute Flynn for making false statements when the FBI agents had said they believed he was telling the truth”

          That’s false. Because there’s evidence such as the call transcripts to draw on. It’s actually pretty funny that so many people rely on the 302 re: the agents saying they didn’t see physical indications of lying, but then reject the parts of the 302 that capture testimonial evidence of lying.
          ________________________________________________________________

          Where is the evidence for your claim?

          What statement did Flynn make to the FBI that was false? And where can that evidence be found?
          The evidence shows he did not deny discussing sanctions with Kislyak

          The fact is that Mueller team interviewed the agents involved and none of them said that they had concluded that Flynn was lying. Without Flynn providing the sole evidence the case against Flynn would go nowhere.

            1. “Where is the evidence for your claim?”

              The evidence is in the exhibits attached to the Motion to Dismiss
              _______________________________________________________________

              The motion to dismiss is more than 100 pages. I read it and saw no evidence of a false statement (beyond the phony statement of offense). The FBI reports never claimed any false statements occurred.

              The conclusive evidence you can find if you drop down to the very end where you will find the record of the Strzok interview by the Special Counsel in Aug 2017 (4 months before Flynn was prosecuted):

              “Strzok and [redacted] both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying”

              With both of the agents that talked to Flynn saying he was not lying and nobody else at the FBI disputing that assessment, there is no case against Flynn.

              1. “I read it and saw no evidence of a false statement”

                Focus on what the FBI 302 of the 1/24/17 interview claims Flynn said (IIRR, that’s exhibit 6), and how that’s contradicted by other evidence, including the call transcripts and text messages / emails.

                Or are you rejecting the 302 as FBI evidence?

                1. Or are you rejecting the 302 as FBI evidence?
                  __________________________________________________________
                  I have reject the 302 or the FBI’s version of what happened the DOJ and Flynn rejected that evidence produced by the FBI.

                  The 302 of the interview is evidence produced by the FBI. It was given to the defense as part of the court’s Brady order that required the prosecution to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The 302 was not presented to the court in support of the charge against Flynn because it undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court. The exculpatory evidence was introduced to the court only after the defense started to challenge the narrative presented in the criminal statement created by the DOJ.

                  What you continue to ignore is that the evidence record shows that both of the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and the rest of the investigative team were united in their belief that Flynn was not lying. That evidence alone makes the case for Flynn lying to the FBI impossible.

                    1. “There you go making claims [‘Your claim that “The 302 … undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court” is false’] you can’t (and don’t) support with evidence.”

                      I *didn’t* support it with evidence in that comment, just as you don’t support many of your claims with evidence in your comments. But of course I *can* support it with evidence, nor is it prudent for you to assert otherwise without simply asking me to do so.

                      Here is some of the evidence — quotes from the 302 — for my claim that the 302 supports that Flynn made false statements, as charged:
                      “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not. FLYNN reiterated his conversation was about the PUTIN/TRUMP VTC and the “Astana thing” (the Kazakhstan conference described earlier). FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news …”
                      “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a “tit-for-tat.” FLYNN responded, ‘Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything.” The U.S. Government’s response was a total surprise to FLYNN. FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media.”
                      “FLYNN … stated he did not think he would have had a conversation with KISLYAK about the matter, as he did not know the expulsions were coming.”

                      But there’s evidence that Flynn’s claims summarized as “FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions. … FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media. … he did not know the expulsions were coming” are false. He did know about the upcoming actions because he’d texted and spoken with senior Transition Team members about the sanctions prior to speaking with Kislyak. There’s testimony about this and also copies of text messages, such as Flynn texting “Tit for tat w Russia not good. Russian AMBO reaching out to me today.”

                      Similarly, the 302 says “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any request of KISLYAK to vote in a particular way [re: the U.N. Security Council vote on Israeli settlements] or take any action. FLYNN stated he did not. … The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he made any comment to KISLYAK about voting in a certain manner, or slowing down the vote, or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN. FLYNN answered, ‘No,'” but that is contradicted by the call transcripts.

                      “The two FBI agents that talked to Flynn are on the record as saying “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying” (in your link to the motion to dismiss).”

                      Yes, but your claim was “both of the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and the rest of the investigative team were united in their belief that Flynn was not lying,” which means that if even a single member of the investigative team didn’t agree, your claim is false. So first let’s sort out who else was on that team. Please list all of the people you’re claiming are on the Flynn “investigative team,” so you and I can see whether we’re even talking about the same people.

                      You now say “none of the other investigators disagreed with the agents who interviewed Flynn.” Again, **list** the other investigators and provide evidence for your claim.

                      “That alone is fatal to the case against Flynn”

                      No, for the reason I already pointed out: person A can believe that person B is telling the truth even if person B is lying. Person A’s beliefs are not determinative for whether person B was lying.

                    2. Yes, but your claim was “both of the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and the rest of the investigative team were united in their belief that Flynn was not lying,” which means that if even a single member of the investigative team didn’t agree, your claim is false.
                      _____________________________________________________________
                      And yet you have not named single member of the investigative team who didn’t agree. You are always trying to quibble about details that don’t matter.

                      As I have said several times the case against Flynn lying to the FBI is dead as a door nail with both agents who talked to Flynn saying they did not believe he was lying. You can argue all you want about Flynn saying this or that which you believe amounted to a false statement but with FBI agents saying they believe Flynn was not lying when he made those statements you don’t have a case. The FBI agents know the context for both the questions and answers while you do not. The FBI agents determined Flynn was not lying.

                      The FBI did their job. The FBI investigated. They made an assessment based on their investigation that Flynn was not lying to them or did anything for which he could be charged. Now you are trying to argue that what the FBI determined was something other than what the FBI said it was.

                    3. In other words, you can’t bring yourself to admit that your claim “The 302 … undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court” is false, even when presented with evidence — quotes — from the 302 itself, and you’re unwilling to even name the rest of the investigative team after making a claim about them.

                      “you have not named single member of the investigative team who didn’t agree.”

                      I don’t know who YOU are counting as part of the investigative team. I include McCabe, but perhaps you don’t. I’ll quote McCabe right after you name everyone on the team and give evidence for your own claim. But if you won’t, then I won’t waste any more time on this exchange.

                      Neither of our personal opinions matter legally. The case will play out in the courts, and we’ll learn the outcome just by being patient.

                    4. In other words, you can’t bring yourself to admit that your claim “The 302 … undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court” is false, even when presented with evidence — quotes — from the 302 itself
                      ____________________________________________________________

                      Your quotes did not show that Flynn lied.
                      They are open to interpretation. I defer to the agents who had all the information and believed that Flynn was not being deceptive. In other words, if the FBI believed he honestly did not recall certain details then there is nothing to argue. With the FBI agents saying that they believe Flynn was not lying there is no way this case could ever succeed in court based only on the evidence that the FBI gathered. You are trying to whip a dead horse back to life.

                      The only way this case has any legs in court is if Flynn assists the prosecution and contradicts the assessment made by the FBI/

                  1. Your claim that “The 302 … undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court” is false.

                    Your claim “both of the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and the rest of the investigative team were united in their belief that Flynn was not lying” is also false (others on the FBI team did think he was lying). Moreover, whether they personally believed him to be lying at the time doesn’t tell us whether he was lying. What tells us whether he was lying is whether his statements in the FBI interview are contradicted by other evidence (e.g., the transcripts of the conversations with Kislyak, emails and text messages with the Trump transition team).

                    1. Your claim that “The 302 … undermines and contradicts the criminal statement presented to the court” is false.
                      __________________________________________________

                      There you go making claims you can’t (and don’t) support with evidence. There is nothing in the 302 that confirms the claim that Flynn denied asking Kislyak to not escalate the situation and there is much that contradicts it.
                      There is information in the 302 where Flynn tries to explain the purpose of the call which was not about telling the Russians to do something (or not do something) in response to the sanctions. In Flynn’s mind the call was about communicating to the Russians that the incoming administration was interested in working with the Russians against a common enemy (ME terrorists)

                      _____________________________________________________________
                      Your claim “both of the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and the rest of the investigative team were united in their belief that Flynn was not lying” is also false (others on the FBI team did think he was lying).
                      ________________________________________________________
                      You keep making claims that the evidence does not support. And you keep ignoring the evidence that destroys your claim.

                      The two FBI agents that talked to Flynn are on the record as saying “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying” (in your link to the motion to dismiss). That alone is fatal to the case against Flynn but there is further evidence that none of the other investigators disagreed with the agents who interviewed Flynn.

                    2. CTHD, why don’t you learn all of the fact. Where are the original 302’s? Who rewrote the 302’s? What was the comment made in an email discussion about the rewritten 302’s? You lie by omission in virutally every response.

    4. The blackmail idea is so ridiculous you guys need brain transplants.
      You’re just big fibby liars.
      No respect on point.
      No way.

      1. The blackmail idea is so ridiculous you guys need brain transplants.
        ___________________________________________________________

        It was not the FBI’s idea. Even Comey testified it was goofy idea. The idea came from the acting AG. There is nothing wrong with the FBI talking with Flynn for whatever reason. Flynn invited the FBI agents to come and talk in his office. He gave them a tour of the WH. The FBI agents went back and immediately after told their superiors that Flynn had not lied.

        This did not become a crime or even a criminal investigation until the FBI was thrown off the case and the Trump DOJ took over. And even then the FBI agents told the Mueller team that Flynn had not lied. But the DOJ did not need evidence from the FBI. They had their own evidence which they produced with the help of Flynn.

        1. The idea came from the acting AG.
          got the quote ? got the name ?

          There is nothing wrong with the FBI talking with Flynn for whatever reason.
          Wrong. Comey proved it.

          Flynn invited the FBI agents to come and talk in his office.
          WRONG see above

          ” The FBI agents went back and immediately after told their superiors that Flynn had not lied.”
          That 302 is still missing. In Comey’s testimony he claims they wrote it up immediately, as I suspected since he scrambled down to his fbi vehicle and pulled out his fbi digital book and wrote up his post threaten Trump thoughts, as directed by the day prior White House Obama meeting, with all the other criminals.

          “This did not become a crime or even a criminal investigation..” The guise of a counter intel fraudulent investigation is criminal, it was a criminal investigation and remained one, and is to this day, as we see.

          “FBI agents told the Mueller..blah blah blah” Strok and Page were busy rewriting the 302, so the crime could be claimed

  13. Obama won’t get pardoned for all the crimes he has done. Pence will be our next guy, who is pounding on the drums.
    Lord get me out of this!

    1. Paul
      Indictments are possible, but only for a few select low-hanging fruit, and convictions are something else entirely. It all depends upon the November vote.

  14. Great article! That is the whole point of the Good DOJ dismissing the charges – there wasn’t a good basis for the investigation in the first place.

    I hope the DC Court of Appeals mandates Sullivan to process the dismissal immediately.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Great article! That is the whole point of the Good DOJ dismissing the charges – there wasn’t a good basis for the investigation in the first place.
      _________________________________________________________________________
      The basis for the investigation was to gather information.
      After the information was gathered the FBI said they found nothing for which Flynn could be charged.

  15. It is deeply unsettling how corrupt the Obama administration was, and yet continues to get a pass from most media.

Leave a Reply