In an extraordinarily rare action, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ordered the dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The mandamus order could well be unique and was based on clear disagreement with the actions of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan along many of the lines that I previously discussed in columns (here and here and here and here and here). Short of an order to remove Sullivan, this is the most stinging possible rejection of the prior orders and conduct by the Court. I have a column in USA Today on the decision.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 that the case should be immediately dismissed — cutting off the upcoming hearing planned by the Judge Sullivan. The panel criticized the appointment of former judge John Gleeson to argue for prosecution . . . against the prosecutors. Sullivan’s orders were described as “irregular” and potentially damaging to the system of justice.
Many former prosecutors and academics insisted that Sullivan’s orders were entirely appropriate and that he should reject the motion and refuse to dismiss the case. Indeed, the media published few dissenting views. Indeed, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” in academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported. While some of us gave detailed reasons why Sullivan’s orders contradict governing case law, these objections were dismissed and even recast as nefarious. In the Washington Post, Randall D. Eliason wrote that “the strident opposition by Flynn and his supporters to the court gathering more information suggests that they have something to hide. Let’s hope Judge Sullivan gets to the bottom of it.”
Now it appears that commentators are attacking the fact that two of the three judges (Neomi Rao and Karen L. Henderson) were Republican appointees. It is not relevant that dissenting Judge Robert Wilkins is an Obama appointee. Only the motivations of the majority are placed into question. This is coming from many of the same people who (correctly) criticized President Trump for dismissing opinions as the work of Democratic or Obama judges. That attack however seems entirely permissible when judges rule in favor of the Administration.
Judge Sullivan can seek an en banc review. Some judges would likely feel uncomfortable to ordering the dismissal rather than allowing Sullivan to reach that conclusion on his own. This is a rare and controversial move. I was expecting a remand with stern language on the law governing these decisions. Many judges likely agree with the concerns over Sullivan’s actions and the arguments raised by Gleeson. However, the mandamus issue could be something that other judges want to review. The issue for Judge Sullivan is whether such an appeal advances any substantive legal purpose. The law in this area is very clear on the deference afforded to the government. Despite Gleeson’s filing, it was absurd to argue that Sullivan should send a person to jail when the prosecutors are denying the basis for the crime. Now two judges have expressed such disagreement with his measures that they are ordering a dismissal rather than let Sullivan proceed with a hearing. There comes a time when the judicious course is to end the controversy, particularly when the ultimate conclusion was never in serious doubt. Otherwise, the trial court seems to eager to hold a hearing that will shed more heat than light.
Here is the opinion: Flynn Decision
404 thoughts on “The D.C. Circuit Orders Dismissal of The Flynn Case”
Simple prediction: Judge Sullivan will tuck tail and there will be no en banc review requested by anyone. Such is the comprehensiveness of the ruling written by Rao. This was a massive defeat for the Russia hoaxers and their idiot shills here.
CYA memos Highest level of the administration.
Falsified 302 Multiple alterations
Out to get Flynn. Flynn, a Democrat, told the truth about policy
No evidence of collusion admitted by 70 witness
“Flynn’s attorney takes a swipe at FBI: ‘There’s a criminal conspiracy in there'” __S Powell
Another excellent video from Viva Frei summarizing the majority’s decision(smackdown of all of the arguments raised by the shills) in the Flynn case:
“My dog has no nose.”
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, poster boy for Affirmative Action Privilege, in the eminently ineligible Affirmative Action President (as ensconced by the Deep Deep State) Obama’s Banana Republic.
It’s over a century past that we in the US finally get rid of systemic racism, that means there is only one law for everyone, that means getting rid of the racist practice’s Affirmative Action.
That mean I don’t give a crap about Babba’s latest panic attack about RE Lee’s battle flag, he needs to just shut the hell up, pull up his panties & drive & try to win his Nascar race or get the hell out & go back to Africa a Loser!
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan is an expendable and dispensable chess piece placed as a last resort in the path of the “Great Revelation.” To be sure, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan et al. are acting to protect Obama et al., in so far as that is possible, from exposure, culpability and prosecution for their Obamagate, their Obama Coup D’etat in America.
ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA
“Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
– Barack Obama
“Kislyak calls but appear legit.”
– James Comey
“‘VP’ mentioned the ‘Logan Act’ during the meeting,…”
– Joe Biden
“…the “7th floor [is] involved,”
– Peter Strzok
Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team. The page of notes was taken by Strzok appears to describe a January 5, 2017 meeting of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and national security officials. This meeting occurred amid accusations that incoming Trump administration officials had colluded with Russian operatives. Strzok was not present at the meeting, and it is unclear what record of the meeting he consulted in taking the notes.
Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”
In transcripts of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak released on May 29 of this year, Flynn is recorded asking the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions in response to U.S. sanctions. Those sanctions were implemented by the Obama administration following reports that Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. general election.
Strzok’s notes also indicate that “VP” Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during the meeting,…
While the FBI had monitored Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, the agency moved to close the case on January 4, 2017, indicating it had found “no derogatory information” on Flynn. However, that same day Strzok intervened to keep the case open. Strzok told an unknown individual that day that the “7th floor [is] involved,” apparently referring to senior FBI leadership at the bureau’s headquarters.
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
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.
Here’s another legal column about yesterday’s ruling, from Marty Lederman (Georgetown University law prof, formerly Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel):
that guy’s a goof
Turley: “Short of an order to remove Sullivan, this is the most stinging possible rejection of the prior orders and conduct by the Court”
EMMET SULLIVAN WRONGED FLYNN BADLY–
on top of the witchhunt against incoming advisor Flynn launched by ….. drum roll please…. OUTGOING VP JOE BIDEN
Gee CTHD, why don’t you summarize IN YOUR OWN WORDS what you think the guy in your opinion piece got right. I read it, and I was not impressed by the arguments. But why don’t you give us YOUR take on it? You are just throwing out some contrary party’s opinion and expecting us to analyze it for you. Quit being so lazy.
Another obtuse opinion untethered by law or precedent. This opinion shows the author has limited capacity to reason (despite the obvious preponderance of law and precedent before him), thus lacks the inherent primal requisite of understanding right from wrong. These types of “thinkers” live in an echo chamber (Bubble) along with only those supporting their views. They demonstrate time and again their perverted distrust and fear of those outside of their bubble. They defend their often perverted views by penning Op-eds instead of going forth and proving their narratives.
it seems to me I offered 100:1 odds that the Flynn case would get dismissed. my confidence was not bluster. you Democrats have been lied to in this particular scenario that a dismissal was not going to happen.
Moreover this is like an evidentiary harpoon. the more you guys hang on to it, try and pull the harpoon out, it deepens the wound. The worse you look and the worse the FBI looks and the worse the DOJ looks and the worse the federal judiciary looks and yes the more and more it looks exactly like what Flynn’s lawyer has said, a persecution.
Perhaps you should hesitate. When you run out and repeat these talking points for the Democrat leadership, understand, sometimes they are lying to you and they want you to just repeat their BS and make a big confusion, it’s a delaying tactic, that’s all. If you guys realy believed all this bull from Sullivan and complicated stuff about rule 48, you have been suckered.
Nobody who understands the logic of our adversarial system, seriously believed this case would not end up dismissed.
Now while you are hesitating, white liberals, ask yourselves a different question, in a different arena, but a timely one.
Is it really a good idea, if you have white skin, to add your own voice to the chorus of those complaining about white racism?
Maybe you will end up the next target of the anti-white hatred.
Perhaps it would be wise to think about your own interests and don’t be a sucker on something that is YOUR OWN “immutable characteristic.,”
Remember this: NOBODY KNOWS HOW YOU REALLY WILL VOTE. Only you in total privacy will know. This is our great system of democracy!
You can lie to all your friends and say you voted for Demented Joe if you like. Hate Trump and denounce him if that’s what it takes to “save your relationships.”
but when time comes to punch that ticket, stop, and ask yourself, maybe my one vote may save my very own white skin?
“WHERE DO MY INTERESTS TRULY LIE?”
Dont end up like Reginald Denny– i can never get the first time I saw this video out of my mind:
We can trade law professor etc. all you want.
The law is not what some set of professors say it is.
It is what the law and constitution say.
One of the problems with those on the left is that they seem to think that all branches of govenrment have infinite power – except when they do not control them.
Judges are not prosecutors PERIOD.
Though what should really disturb us about the Flynn cases is why didn’t Sulivan dismiss this earlier ?
It is pretty clear at this point that prior to DOJ’s intervention the SC prosecutors lied to the courts repeatedly.
You keep citing the complaint – it is damning – to the prosecutors. As time progresses we find more and more of the assorted SC filings are just lies.
Flynn did not actually discuss any of the sanctions in the Obama EO with Kislyak.
You are hyperlegalistic and precise about phrases like perjury trap. Why not about the actual complaint ?
If you make a specific allegation that Flynn lied about a specific thing, and later transcripts from the prosecution prove that Flynn did not talk about that specific thing. Then the prosecutors are lying to the court.
We have lots of statements by Flynn and others about the FBI interview. It is hard to tell from those statements what was told to Strzok.
Strzok and others initially reported that Flynn was honest.
But after all of these Mueller did not just say Flynn lied to the FBI.
He said Flynn said he did not discuss the sanctions in these EO’s when in fact he did.
Well we have the transcripts – and in fact he did not.
Sulivan also now knows that the FBI basis for investigating Flynn was gone several weeks before the interview..
It should not require the DOJ to withdrawl.
Sullivan should have done so himself.
It is not Sullivan’s job to prosecute innocent people.
It is his job to assure justice is done.
Sullivan wants to explore holding Flynn in contempt – what about the Mueller team ? They have been lying to him for years.
They have also been lying to you.
And what about you ?
Why is this some monsterously important deal to you ?
McCabe lied repeatedly under oath as well as to Horowitz.
As did Comey.
There is no doubt about this.
Are their lies significant ? I am not sure, they did obstruct justice.
But they are still “process crimes” and we very rarely prosecute those.
But whatever you feel about Comey and McCabe – if Flynn did anything wrong, it was far less significant than Comey and McCabe.
So why aren’t YOU calling for their heads ?
And what about the prosecutors here ?
Court filings are SWORN. These attorney’s swore to the court they turned over all exculpatory evidence
We now know that was a huge lie. They did not come close.
They also failed to tell other courts about the off the record incentives they gave Flynn before they offered to have him testify.
That is misconduct, it is lying.
It would be very serious except that their cases failed.
You want people to think you are a good person, that you have integrity, that you are trustworthy.
Then behave like you do. The first step is not being a flaming hypocrite.
I am not sure what Flynn did or did not tell the FBI – the FBI is not sure.
That is not the standard necescary for a criminal prosecution.
Nit only should charges be dropped against Flynn – but YOU owe him an apology and lots of others owe him his life back.
John Say – actually, the law is what the various Supreme Courts say it is today!
the Supreme Courts is obligated to read the law as it is written.
The more they fail to do so, the more political pressure there is to change the courts.
John Say – would you like to point out that part of the Constitution that obligates the Supreme Courts to read the law as written?
The impediment is called logic.
If the courts do not read the constitution and laws as written, you are lawless.
If as Kurtz claims the law is whatever 5:9 say it is – then the constitution is not even a guide.
The principles of legal interpretation are not constitutional (though they are in some state constitutions)
they are simple logic.
Concoct any scheme you want for reading the laws and constitution.
No other arrangement does not produce logical contradictions.
The fact that we often hit so many contradictions in our courts today just means our means of reading the constitution and law has failed and resulted in an arrangement that is rife with self contradiction.
In other words lawless.
I read another legal column this morning about the CADC ruling, and I’m struck by the difference in comments at Volokh compared to here: https://reason.com/2020/06/25/united-states-v-flynn-as-bush-v-gore/#comments
People there are focusing on the legal questions and are civil, whereas many people here aren’t. I wonder what accounts for the difference.
For a supposed group of lawyers, this crowd is weak on debating skills – which they don’t even seem to enjoy – and retreat to the personal as the 1st option..
And yet you constantly post here. Always in opposition to Turley and always ready to brand him a republican Trump supporter. Strange, isn’t it?
NO. I like to argue and occasionally agree with JT – just yesterday in fact on the GW statue. I prefer the non-personal kind but I can throw an elbow and even enjoy it on occasion. Threatening death squads isn’t my style, though mespo and Kurtz like that.
You sit in the back protected while egging the death squads on.
I don’t threaten them; i just indicate that they are another phase in this kind of “LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT”
rarely does the “occupied population” just roll over and “just sit back and enjoy it”
there are a lot of books on insurgency– that’s what BLM is. A cutout for a planned destabilization campaign aimed at terrorizing, demoralizing, and discouraging a certain targeted native population.
that’s US actually, including you, you just identify with your oppressors.
your identity is that of a COMPRADOR
“a bourgeois comprador allied with imperialists” and your chief is named Geo Soros. he wants to destroy America and rid the world of national borders as such.
he has left a trail of color revolutions and wrecked economies in his historical path and now he’s turned his sights on the nation which he supposedly “Adopted” as his own citizenship. He is a killer virus spewing millions of more viruses. At some point Americans will understand: it’s him or us
Yes it’s personal and it always was., in a way. Dont be surprised if the people you attack get mad about it.
“there are a lot of books on insurgency– that’s what BLM is. A cutout for a planned destabilization campaign aimed at terrorizing, demoralizing, and discouraging a certain targeted native population.”
Well said, Kurtz.
i saw this early on but I see a lot of other people have caught on to this too. it’s really not rocket science. the question is why our supposed “intel community” can’t take action against this subversive actioin destabilizing our nation with crime and chaos
maybe it’s because….. some of the intel community are in on it.
i mean Clapper was only calling for sabotage by federal workers on Twitter, and nothing happened to him.
The hilarious thing is they call trump a tyrant. Trust me, if he was a tyrant, Clapper would have been on a gibbet
Failure to take decisive action against “the Deep State” has left us obviously controlled by it.
Kurtz, here is an article you might like. https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/06/black-lives-are-pretext-david-horowitz . In fact you might like a lot of the people that surround him along with his history. He has helped bring young conservatives into the limelight some of whom have been mentioned on this blog.
Facts and logic are not your style either.
Misrepresentations, fallacies and false accusations are.
Those means of debating – especifally false accusations and ad hominem always lead away from rational discussion and towards personal insult.
John, thanks for condensing your thoughts to a digestible size. I’m on a diet.
1. You’re not a practitioner of rational discussion, though that is your pretense, and hurl plenty of personal insults of your own..
2. Your “hominem” is crazy to the point of being unavoidable and includes a regular announcement of disbelieving information inconvenient to your point of view, including scientists in a disagreement with an infantile ignoramus.
John, thanks for condensing your thoughts to a digestible size. I’m on a diet.
“1. You’re not a practitioner of rational discussion, though that is your pretense, and hurl plenty of personal insults of your own..”
Because you say so ?
Demanding that you provide facts, logic, reason. Is not insult.
Calling your arguments bad, stupid idiotic – is not ad hominem.
Yes I point out that based on past history you have no credibility and not integrity.
That is an insult. It is also a fact.
I did not damage your credibility and integrity – you did.
“2. Your “hominem” is crazy to the point of being unavoidable and includes a regular announcement of disbelieving information inconvenient to your point of view, including scientists in a disagreement with an infantile ignoramus.”
IF true – you should be able to provide clear examples.
I frequently disbeleive you – when you make naked assertions – and I am clear why. You have burned your own integrity and credibiltiy.
Or are you saying that selling the collusion delusion fraud should have no consequences ?
Are you saying that that having made false accusations you should be beleived when you make even more ?
And what is this vague appeal to scientists ?
Scientists told us that C19 could not spread between humans, that masks would not stop it. that millions would die.
When you make false claims repeatedly – you burn your own credibility – even if you are a scientist. ‘
regardless you and I are each personally responsible for our actions and to a lessor extent our opinions.
Scientists are NOT personally responsible for our actions and opinions – only their own.
You are free to chose to act based on the recomendations of scientists – but that does not evade your personal responsibility for your own acts.
Ultimately it would be wise for you to assess the credibility of the scientists as they have no responsibility for your actions.
And of course you constantly assume all scientists are in agreement with the one scientist – that you have not bothered to cite, that you think agrees with you.
BTB I have published scientific papers. I have a STEM degree. I meet the minimal requirements to be a scientist.
I do not self identify as one. But I understand science well enough that I do not grant any scientist infallibility.
I am also aware that the vast majority of “scientists” especially those in soft sciences are mathematially and statistically inept.
“For a supposed group of lawyers, this crowd is weak on debating skills – which they don’t even seem to enjoy – and retreat to the personal as the 1st option..”
Aquila non capit muscas! Buzz off.
As if on cue, my trained pet mespo howls with frustration at his limited repertoire.
HA HA YOU GUYS ARE HILARIOUS
you lost badly now you turn to insults yourself. pathetic!
here’s where you would say “Sorry I was wrong” if you were a normal kind person instead of a 100% dedicated partisan cheerleader
One critical debating skill is confronting the facts and arguing with logic and reason.
It requires avoiding fallacies, misrepresentation, and false accusations.
When those on the left are prepared to do that
discussions here will be more civil.
You are STILL making false accusations about the collusion delusion.
How do you expect to be taken credibly ?
Good questions. Are they overrun with DNC shills there, like we are???
I wonder what accounts for the difference.
You wonder? I wonder why you have failed to answer the question I asked you in response to the following comment you made to me. You see, if you are going to decry the incivility on this blog, then you should at least try living up to the name you chose for yourself. You said to me:
You seem unwilling to accept that someone can have legitimate views about justice that are different from yours.
What is your working definition of justice?
(In)civility and (dis)honesty aren’t linked, so your claim that “if you are going to decry the incivility on this blog, then you should at least try living up to the name you chose for yourself” is illogical. Based on our exchanges to date, I doubt that you’re trying to have a sincere discussion with me about the meaning of justice. If I’m wrong about that, then post your own “working definition of justice,” since you’re the one who implied that I’m not “interested in justice” and need to “learn what justice is.” Go ahead and teach.
(In)civility and (dis)honesty aren’t linked, so your claim that “if you are going to decry the incivility on this blog, then you should at least try living up to the name you chose for yourself” is illogical.
That is your opinion. My opinion is there is a direct link between the two. Not the only reason for incivility of course, but rarely will you find anyone being treated uncivilly that is actually demonstrating an honest commitment to objective truth. The kind of truth supported by facts, evidence and a desire for equal justice under the law.
It’s a fact that someone can be uncivil but honest, or honest but uncivil, and that someone can respond to honesty with incivility, respond to dishonesty civilly, respond to civility with dishonesty, or respond to incivility honestly. That said, I’m happy to modify my original response and note that the two need not be linked, but sometimes are.
I do try to live up to my name: I try to be honest, and when I realize that I’ve made a mistake, I try to correct it. Plenty of people here respond with insults because they dislike my values, despite my being honest.
Plenty of people here respond with insults because they dislike my values, despite my being honest.
The reason I urged you to provide your working definition of Justice was because I suspected you were honestly arguing in favor of what I see as injustice. Now that we have those working definitions, time will tell what values we truly and honestly hold.
“despite my being honest.”
The lady doth protest too much __S
If this helps you out, this is what forms my working definition of Justice. The first is the DoI’s self-evident truth on why any government should exist. The second expands on the first by describing how laws, created by government, are the common force to do only what the individual has a right to do.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Declaration of Independence
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. The Law
And this informs my own views: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/
BS. You refuse to formulate a personal definition of Justice, because you rightly fear it will be thrown back at you, for example, when you defend the Bad DOJ and FBI in the Flynn matter. I think that is what you are taught in Shillery 101 to wit, ” Always attack with smears and talking points, and do not let yourself get caught up in Principles. Principles are the enemy of Narratives and Talking Points. ”
“And this informs my own views: ”
CTHD, Apparently that is a lie as well since you don’t follow the definition of justice based on that site.
One example of many:
“The third aspect of justice to which Justinian’s definition draws our attention is the connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules”
You also make another error when you say,”(In)civility and (dis)honesty aren’t linked.”
Dishonesty is a form of incivility.
I have studied John Rawls and his important works. that is a lot to unpack. but here is one paper that hits at some of the fundamental problems in his theory
in the end it all comes down to the problems explored by Plato in the Republic,
and always we remember Thrasymachus: “justice is the advantage of the strong”
this is a cynical, but evergreen observation
it draws us straight to Nietzsche who explored the “will to power”
That takes us to Heidegger…. and thence to Carl Schmitt
theory of the political — a text i have many times recommended and you can read about it at Standford too
the contemporary political left emerges from this line of thinking which feeds into postmodernism
a great example is Mayor Pete whose father was one of the foremost cataloguers of the work of Gramsci
when the American political right finally grasps the essential meaning of this line of thinking, it will be a whole different situation
now the American political right is still shackled with Enlightenment fantasies about individualism which crippple it in organizing a coherent approach to what’s happening now. but the crucible of persecution is burning away these impurities and a stronger metal will emerge.
I might as well be Cassandra or Jeremiah for all the good it will do me personally to observe this. but i am pointing the way.
generally that is a good blog much like this one. i dont comment there. feel free to go there if you like it. and you will find many good readings in constitutional law
however: prof orin kerr wrote that one and it’s not great. his central premise was comparing it to Bush v Gore. This is NOT an apt comparison. orin kerr is striving to make a point that does not hold from the simple procedural reality that sullivan and apparently he fail to grasp that even a first year lawyer “gets”
the government dropped the case. there is no case. dismiss. it’s over. simple as that
you guys want to troll and gaslight everyone into thinking this is more complicated. it isnt.
The case is in sentencing phase, past the point of the government’s case, and in the judges domain. More importantly, and as Wilkenson notes in his dissent, the leave of the court includes a duty to uphold the fairness, i.e. impartiality, of the law. Further, Rule 48 was written in large part to guard against corrupt prosecutors favoring connected defendants – literally and exactly. The writer of the majority did not address these principles as it did other points Wilkenson raised.
“…. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case.
The case is in sentencing phase, past the point of the government’s case, and in the judges domain.
Why doesn’t it matter to you that the government coerced a crime so they could bring the case in the first place? Your interpretation of justice would have conformed to that of the Holy Inquisitions. That’s not hyperbole. That’s exactly what they did. Falsely accuse. Torture until they repent and then sentence them. If they didn’t repent, they were sentenced anyway, usually to death by burning at the stake.
We don’t agree Olly but I’m happy to have it reviewed and I would think you’d favor that as well.
What don’t we agree on?
We don’t agree that the government coerced a crime.
We do nbot need to.
There was no crime.
There was no legitimate investigation when Flynn was interviewed.
Strzok sat down with Flynn as two govenrment employees chewing the fat.
Not as part of a valid investigation.
So you are done.
Next, Strzok was there to get rid of Flynn as NSA by whatever means necescary – as they could not have Flynn finding out about XFH or the shit was hitting the fan.
No valid investigatory purpose
so you are done.
Next, Strzok was completely aware of the Kislyak conversation – he had the transcripts.
no valid investigatory purpose
Lie not material
No obstruction possible
so you are done.
There still does not exist to this day a 302 made within 5 months of the interview that says Flynn lied
Or says what Flynn actually said
So you are done
The specific crime alleged in the plea was not committed as the transcripts which were not provided to Flynn as required do not refer to Flynn discussing the sanctions listed in the EO
Most of what was discussed is future russian responses to future Obama actions.
So you are done.
The BIG question is why did DOJ have to withdraw this ?
Why didn’t Sulivan ?
well you ignore the context which is that the FBI Director said the kislyak call was “legit”
and moreover the Logan act is likely unconstitutional in the first place
ergo it was patently bogus from the start.
in a way the failure to dismiss this case timely, has only allowed the message of this abuse by the outgoing admin and their stay behind team to be amplified
so we can thank Judge Sullivan for this opportunity to expose abuse of power and corrupt persecution of Gen Flynn
“The case is in sentencing phase, past the point of the government’s case, and in the judges domain. ”
The prosecution can move to drop a case at anytime – even AFTER sentencing, even after incarceration.
The defendant can withdrawl their plea – anytime prior to sentencing with ease, and even after sentencing with dificulty.
I would further note that if you were correct – Sulivant would not have done any of the nonsense he has done.
He would just have moved forward and sentenced Flynn.
But he did not do that. Everything he has done has been to act as the prosecutor.
The judges domain is not defined by the progress of the case. The judge is ALWAYS the judge, ALWAYS impartial, ALWAYS required to follow the law. He is NEVER the prosecutor. No matter what “phase” the case is in.
“a duty to uphold the fairness”
There is no duty to fairness – there is a duty to follow the law.
impartiality is not fairness.
Regardless, when the defense and prosecution agree – there is no question of partiality.
“Rule 48 was written in large part to guard against corrupt prosecutors favoring connected defendants”
Nope, that is more of this left wing nut made up law.
Rule 48 exists to prevent prosecutors from filing charges and then dropping them serially to attempt to harass a defendant.
The concept that rule 48 is about corrupt prosecutors is ludicrously stupid.
A corrupt prosecutor will never bring a case to court. A corrupt prosecutor can throw a case and there is nothing the judge can do.
Rule 48 can not protect against corrupt prosecutors, The judge can not appoint his own prosecutor, and he can not try the case himself.
The rules in our justice system are primarily to protect defendents not prosecutors.
“The writer of the majority did not address these principles”
because they are not principles and they are not found in the law.
Wow! We agree.
I like Orin. But I pretty much never like his reasoning.
It is muddy and forced and he misses principles and gets bogged down in the weeds.
Many of the others at Volohk are much better.
I like Kerr, but his comparison is crap.
The issues in Gore were Novel. I think the decision was crap, but the outcome was actually correct.
The FL court was making up as it went along.
I would have prefered that SCOTUS had ruled properly – that the constitution delegates federal elections to:
Congress and state legislatures. In contrast to other things which it delegates to the states as a whole.
There is no role for state courts in federal elections.
If we do not like that – change the constitution.
State courts have election juridiction over non-federal offices.
In Flynn – Sulivan is way out on a limb. He is relying on a novel interpretation of 48(a), that has no precident.
He was also running afoul of other recent SCOTUS decisions on Amici and he was clearly trampling on separation of powers.
reason tends to be libertarain.
Libertarains make arguments.
Try reading “On liberty”.
That liberals countenance the abuse of this man, and do so almost without exception, is another indication that it’s basically a malevolent dispensation and indicates that its adherents should simply have no discretion over the lives of normal people.
Indeed. And yet the entire premise on which Gleason argues for keeping the case open portends directly from the Supreme Court having ruled (thanks John Roberts) that the reasoning of the executive branch SHOULD come into scrutiny even when their case is sound on fundamental grounds (i.e., the ruling against re-inserting a citizenship question on the U.S. Census. I mean, didn’t this Court of Appeals specifically preclude in this Writ of Mandamus ruling what the Supreme Court did in THAT one?
their malevolent disposition is precisely what enables their discretion ie their power and their control
“conservatives” continue to fail to develop the essential insights in spite of Carl Schmitt pointing the way
Leo Strauss made his work known and a few grasped it, but, somehow he got discredited along with the war-monger neoconservatives that voiced his name
the current socalled “leadership” should dust him off and figure out why he’s worthy of study
but the current socalled leadership is very cynical and shallow. they think Donald is going to lose and they are hedging. they want to keep country club memberships and the past 3 years has been about pretending to support the Trump effort rather than really doing so
the failure to punish errant miscreants like the Lincun t project fools is proof positive there has been, and still is not, any coherent organizational leadership nor development happening in the Republican party. it’s basically Trump does his thing, and we do ours. it’s very pathetic.
develop the malevolent disposition that Democrats have– because they take politics seriously– and then there will be much much more success
If the Bush era “Enhanced Interrogation Program” was restarted in 2020, which agency would prosecute these war crimes, which betray the American Oath of Office? Could the International Criminal Court prosecute Trump attorneys if this hypothetical scenario were happening right now? It’s already a felony crime under US law but no cops on the beat to prosecute it.
The reason I found the dissent to be poorly constructed was because it hinged on the fact that ordering a hearing does not mean Sullivan would not dismiss the case. That argument is ridiculous though because it basically says that Sullivan knows he would have to dismiss the case. He just wants a hearing. Given his outburst at Flynn when he plead guilty, and the fact that Sullivan appointed someone whose anti-Flynn op’ed had just been published shows that the only possible reason to hold a hearing is purely political, how could the court really give him that? If the Appeals Court were to allow such a hearing it damages the court, the justice system, and the accused. It flies directly in the face of Chief Justice Robert’s comments on there being no Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Trump judges. It would not only embarass Sullivan and the DC Circuit, but SCOTUS as well. Of course the anti-Trump crews at most networks and newspapers will assault the two concuring judges and talk about the dissent in glowing terms, but they made the correct choice. I fully expect Judge Sullivan to ask for an en banc review, but eventually the courts will toss the case.
What per diem do you get from the sorosphere outfit employing you?
The left is desperate to keep the gag order against Flynn going. This entire refusal to dismiss is about nothing else. They must be paralyzed with fear about what Flynn knows.
Sullivan is a cynical hack, he can’t apply the law to this most basic procedural posture in the case, ie, there is no case and it must be dismissed. why? he hates trump, he hates flynn, and he is abusing his office to persecute them in spite of the law and not according to it.
and you fools, i mean you “Cady,” have the chutzpah to pretend it is anything more complicated than that.
Kurtz, you have not once stated any reasons for your certainty and have avoided arguments which point out why you are wrong. If you are an accomplished attorney one would expect you to welcome that discussion instead of the abusive declarations you mistakenly seem to think are convincing.
” In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case…”
In Wilkenson’s dissent:
“… federal appellate authority establishing
that an important impetus behind the Supreme Court’s insertion
into Rule 48(a) of the “leave of court” requirement was the
protection of the public interest, not simply the prevention of
abuse of the defendant. See, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773,
786–87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 48(a) . . . also permits courts
faced with dismissal motions to consider the public interest in
the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to
preserve the integrity of the courts.”); United States v. Cowan,
524 F.2d 504, 509–13 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that Rule
48(a)’s “history . . . belies the notion that [the Rule’s] only
scope and purpose is the protection of the defendant. . . . [I]t
[is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe
the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the
public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”). In the same vein, numerous federal appellate courts have
recognized that a court in receipt of an unopposed Rule 48(a) motion may consider the public interest in ruling thereon. See,
e.g., United States v. Romero, 360 F.3d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir.
2004) (“[A] court is generally required to grant a prosecutor’s
Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss unless dismissal is clearly
contrary to manifest public interest.” (quoting United States v.
Carrigan, 778 F.2d 1454, 1463 (10th Cir. 1985)); United States
v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) (same);
United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629 (5th Cir. 1981)
(“[E]ven when the defendant consents to the motion to dismiss,
the trial court, in extremely limited circumstances in
extraordinary cases, may deny the motion when the
prosecutor’s actions clearly indicate a ‘betrayal of the public
interest.’” (quoting Cowan, 524 F.2d at 514)); Ammidown, 497
F.2d at 622 (concluding it is “appropriate” for a trial judge to
consider the “protection of the public interest” “in considering
whether to deny approval  to dismissals of cases”); see also
Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 31–32 (1977) (per
curiam) (in reviewing a district court’s denial of an unopposed
Rule 48(a) motion, “agree[ing] with the Solicitor General that
. . . no societal interest would be vindicated” by continuing the
prosecution (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Young v.
United States, 315 U.S. 257, 259 (1942) (“The public interest
that a result be reached which promotes a well-ordered society
is foremost in every criminal proceeding. That interest is
entrusted to our consideration and protection as well as that of
the enforcing officers.”).
PS The majority order does not address this principle which is certainly applicable in this case given it;s defendant’s personal and professional relationship with the President and the AG inserting himself in the case. It is not disputable that Flynn is connected and that Barr may be corrupt.
You are correct, the majority position does not address a non-principle of non-law.
[I]t [is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”).
Explain how the public’s interest is being protected by permitting the state to coerce an innocent citizen to commit a crime, hide evidence from the court, convict and then when evidence proves the defendant was innocent before being entrapped, still move forward with sentencing, merely because of a rule giving the court broad discretion?
Explain how that is the justice system that protects the public’s interest.
Olly, your description is at best open to question and that would warrant review and the “leave of the court”.
“Kurtz, you have not once stated any reasons for your certainty”
Yes I have. I explained it. You just misunderstood how simple this was
This is like a ball game., There are two teams. The judge is an umpire.
If one team forfeits, the umpire cant keep the other team on the court and question them as much as he likes.
It makes a mockery of the system.
That’s all you need to understand. How the system works in its deep inner logic.
rule 48 is to some degree an aberration from that core inner logic. see i can understand how you got taken in by all this. because what it not obvious, is that there are a lot of “rules” in the practice of law, that are not consistent with the inner logic of the adversarial system
I could go on and on about which ones and what contexts, but those would bore you. and moreover, they would fall outside the criminal sphere anyhow.
The seventh amendment is the bedrock protection every accused person has protecting their rights in this system. the right to trial by jury
but if there is no prosecutor to present the case, then there is no jury to decide. the judge may not ovetake the prosecutorial role. in spite of all that stuff about 48
it’s as simple as that. this is a repeat of earlier comments. perhaps you ignored me then but now you can take me seriously, perhaps
If you want to find a Democrat who can explain it to you, dail up your local “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers” directory. I will not be in it, i promise. They hate Trump too. But they can explain my thinking, though I doubt you will get the explanation for free.
OK, but yet the panel which wrote Rule 48 with written input from the SC – this was in 1942 – specifically addressed 2 type of reasons why under the l”eave of the court” requirement a judge may deny a motion from the government to drop charges. One was as a trick to avoid double jeopardy and maintain an ability to re-indict the defendant and the 2nd reason, and the one emphasized, was specifically cases like this one where a connected defendant might be getting preferential treatment from a corrupt prosecutor. If this is moot as you claim, how did that panel with SC input get it wrong?
Do not tell me your opinion of what the Rule 48 panel wrote.
Cite what they wrote.
I would hope by now that I have made it clear to you, that your past and current false accusations mean you do not have the credibility to get many people to accept that something is as you say, just because you say it.
The notes I can find are from 1944 not 1942 and do not refer to anything you are citing.
But they do refer to protecting defendents from serial prosecutions.
Taking your analogy a bit further. This is the state’s game and they setup Flynn to play a game he never asked to play and that he had no experience playing. The state’s team has unlimited resources to play against any opponent. The state’s team withheld information that would have proven to the umpire that Flynn should never have been forced to play the game. The game was completed unjustly and before the umpire is ready to award “prizes” to the winner and loser, the state told the umpire not just that they want to forfeit the game, they’re telling the umpire the game shouldn’t have been scheduled in the first place. And now the umpire is working the rule book to find anything that would justify making Flynn get his loser’s “prize.”
What rule in the rule book will provide justice for Flynn?
In which of the cases that Wilkenson cites as supporting his claim that Rule 48(a) is to protect against corrupt prosecutors,
did the court find that a judge could block a prosecutor from dropping a case ?
Wilkenson quotes snippets from opinions. But he does not cite decisions that resulted in a judgement against the prosecutor.
The opinions cited and the phrases he extracted from them do NOT support what he claims, unless the JUDGEMENT was against the prosecutor.
In fact the snippets do not even say what he claims they do.
Another legal analyst pointed out that Sullivan has had an uneven career.
It was expected that Sulivan was going to be a problem for Mueller, not Flynn, because Sullivan presided over the Ted Steven’s case and was familiar with FBI hiding evidence.
But what this lawyer said was the quality of Sullivan’s work depended on his law clerks at any time.
That he is not very good himself. But that the clerks for federal judges are often the best graduates of the best law schools in the country.
My wife almost Clerked for a SCOTUS feeder judge and did clerk for another federal judge.
She graduated near the top of her class from UofP law.
The point is sometimes these clerks are very very good. But increasingly they are very very ideological and not very good at the law.
Often federal judges are NOT very good at the law and cases often hinge on the quality of their clerks.
And aparently this is true of Sulivan.
Regardless, the Flynn case should be taught in baby judge school, as the example of how NOT to be a judge.
Ever since Sullivan’s explosion from the bench at Flynn for raising the point that his plea was exacted under duress and Sullivan’s literally wrapping his reproof of Flynn in the Flag, precious little suggests Judge Emmet Sullivan cares about legal purposes. The prosecution agreed with the defense that the interests of justice are best served by a dismissal of what appear to have been defective charges underpinned by threats made to pursue even more such charges against Gen. Flynn’s son. Instead of deferring to prosecutorial discretion (of the sort enjoyed by Hillary Clinton despite a prima facie case against her for disclosing classified information in a highly systematic way), Judge Sullivan solicitied amicus curiae briefs in a bizzare mutation of “forum shopping” for literal “friends of the court” to agree with his discontent with both the defense and the prosecution, and his determination to see Gen. Flynn sentenced for something.
And good luck going from there and Emmet Sullivan’s angry courtroom antics to a successful en banc.The whole world is watching.
Speaking of legal rulings …
Ryan J. Reilly: “A judge has ruled that Rep. Devin Nunes has no right to sue Twitter over statements made by a fake Internet cow.” Fresno Bee story linked:
Turley: “The issue for Judge Sullivan is whether such an appeal advances any substantive legal purpose ”
I suspect Judge Sullivan is more concerned with advancing political purposes than legal purposes. The legal issues were crystal clear long ago.
My own guess is that the DC Circuit won’t wait for Sullivan to appeal, but instead one or more of the CADC judges will ask the court to vote on rehearing the case en banc because *they* will not want Rao’s decision being precedent in the DC Circuit.
Could be. A reasonable thought from you for a change.
Commit– I know your instinct is to disagree with me and you are itching to do it. Go ahead. Convince me your thought wasn’t reasonable.
It will be interesting to see what Sullivan does. He inquired about Treason charges in an open hearing. He then appointed third parties in a criminal matter. And he inquired of the amici as to weather a contempt charge for the non-charge of perjury could be added. Re-assigning the case could very well have occurred here. He is being given a chance to minimize the damage to himself. But so far he has thrown caution to the wind.
Flynn’s legal team asked the appellate court to reassign the case to a different judge. They did not agree to that.
Obviously, if “re-assigning the case could very well have occurred here.” then ipso facto, it did not. Hence, Sullivan “is being given a chance to minimize the damage to himself.”
In addition to failing to realize the F.B.I. are police, and Flynn charges were contained in an indictment, you’re even more off on this particular matter than you usually are. It’s disappointing. A true progressive would not be giving the F.B.I. a pass on this kind of conduct.
“In addition to failing to realize the F.B.I. are police…”
They aren’t. From the FBI: “Is the FBI a type of national police force? No. The FBI is a national security organization …” There are FBI Police Officers (https://fbijobs.gov/sites/default/files/Police-An-Inside-Look.pdf ), but when people refer to the FBI, this generally isn’t what’s meant. Flynn wasn’t interviewed by FBI Police Officers. He was interviewed by FBI Agents, and they’re not police.
“failing to realize the… Flynn charges were contained in an indictment”
Go ahead and link to it. I’ll change my mind if you present actual evidence. You can also consider this waiver of indictment that Flynn signed: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/6/united-states-v-flynn/ It’s certainly possible that I’ve misunderstood something, but I have no reason to take your word for it. Present actual evidence for me to learn from.
“A true progressive would not be giving the F.B.I. a pass on this kind of conduct.”
A pass on *what* conduct?
Well, commit, the F.B.I. is the is the Unites States government’s domestic law enforcement agency. Will that ;make you happy. Or would you like to play more silly pedantic games.
Here is ABC news on the Flynn indictment. You can also play more pedantic games with that if you want to.
The willful blind eye to the inappropriate way the police handled this matter speaks for itself and would be duly noted by a true progressive, who would then point out that countless poor people, disproportionately minorities, do not get justice in the end like Flynn will — if you can call this whole circus justice in the first place. Questioning without foundation followed by an indictment that lists the statements Flynn supposedly “lied” about — statements so innocuous it is embarrassing on its face. Followed by a plea bargain with the undisclosed matter of prosecution against a family member — slimy at the very least.
Other than that, there wasn’t a thing wrong with it.
I don’t know what you expect me to learn from your ABC link. The word “indictment” appears, but there is no document there. Again: if you link to an actual indictment, then I’d be happy to change my mind. Linking to some reporter using the word “indictment” doesn’t do it.
I disagree with you that Flynn was “Question[ed] without foundation.” Frankly, I find it astounding that anyone would think there was no reason to question Flynn. Pence said the following on national TV on 1/15/17:
Pence: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.
John Dickerson: So did they ever have a conversation about sanctions ever on those days or any other day?
Pence: They did not have a discussion contemporaneous with U.S. actions on–
John Dickerson: But what about after–
Pence: –my conversation with General Flynn. Well, look. General Flynn has been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That’s exactly what the incoming national security advisor–
John Dickerson: Absolutely.
Pence: –should do. But what I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.
The FBI knew that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions. So there were two possibilities: Pence was lying to the country, or Flynn had lied to Pence. And if you think there’s no reason to question an NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians, you have a strange view of national security.
I’ll remind you that Trump later said “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” Was Trump lying about why he fired Flynn? Pence said “I knew that he [Flynn] lied to me, and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.” Were Trump and Pence lying about Flynn having lied to Pence?
“statements so innocuous…”
That’s your opinion, and my opinion is that they weren’t innocuous. Can you at least admit that this is a matter of opinion, and people have different opinions about it?
“the undisclosed matter of prosecution against a family member”
I’m not sure what you mean. Undisclosed to whom? Aside from which, if Flynn’s son broke the law, why shouldn’t the FBI file charges against him?
From Stone to Flynn to Trump to Don Jr, their lying about Russian collusion is to be taken as innocent and innocuous and not about …….Russian collusion. Can JT or one of the Trump cult members explain this mystery of the faith to the rest of us? It must be a miracle like the Virgin Birth.
No. Nobody could ever explain anything to you. How can you explain stuff to a parrot???
no, you just keep lying and making a mountain out of a molehill. you repeat the lie often enough and people believe it, that’s mass media and social media and the Democrat strategy in a nutshell.
and that’s advertising and that’s how you operate. im sure you were a successful businessman indeed before you decided to retire and become an internet gadfly
“From Stone to Flynn to Trump to Don Jr, their lying about Russian collusion is to be taken as innocent and innocuous and not about …….Russian collusion. Can JT or one of the Trump cult members explain this mystery of the faith to the rest of us? It must be a miracle like the Virgin Birth.”
It is OK for you that the FBI, the SC, the democrats, the MSM, the left have lied repeatedly.
But unsubstantiated claims that Stone, Flynn, Trump, Don Jr. have lied – those you are outraged over ?
BTB – so long as you are making moral accusations that you can not back up and that now pretty much everyone grasps are false.
you have no integrity.
You do this to yourself.
Read a newspaper John. They all lied about Russian collusion and that’s a fact.
PS Elsewhere John pretends he does not engage in ad hominem attacks.
“PS Elsewhere John pretends he does not engage in ad hominem attacks.”
Eviscerating your argument is nor ad hominem.
Ad hominem means “to the person”.
Calling your argument stupid is not ad hominem.
Calling you stupid or racist is.
Yes, as did you and you have continued to.
And I intend to hold them and you accountable
When you are wrong about the facts that comes at the expense of your credibility.
When you make unproven or worse false accusations. that comes at the expense of your integrity. .
BTW, re: Flynn’s lies being innocuous, I encourage you to think about what the agents would have asked as follow up questions if Flynn hadn’t lied, and how his answers might have influenced what they asked other people they were interviewing. I don’t know if you’ve ever carried out semi-structured interviews, but I have (for qualitative research), and the follow-up questions can vary dramatically based on what people say.
For example, “If Flynn had been truthful with interviewing agents, it would have led to further inquiry. Agents likely would have asked Flynn why he made those statements to the ambassador, and whether anyone else was involved. The truth would have shown the involvement of the Trump Transition Team, and would have helped the FBI to discern whether they were being truthful with investigators. Truthful information would have provided leads to help the FBI assess whether these facts posed a counterintelligence threat. Lies may have indicated a consciousness of guilt for Flynn’s own conduct or that of others. If, in fact, this was all innocuous behavior, then truthful answers could have saved Flynn and the FBI a great deal of time and effort.” (https://www.justsecurity.org/70425/eli-lakes-omissions-and-misleading-facts-in-defense-of-michael-flynn/ ) Gleeson has some similar discussion in his brief ~pp. 41-42.
The problem with that is you have McCabe admitting they didn’t want Flynn knowing what they were doing. They didn’t want him to know this was a real investigation. They wanted him to feel “comfortable,” They ignored suggestions of slipping in that lying was a federal crime.
Flynn himself claims he has always been tight lipped about classified and National Security information, especially when he is not talking with superiors. He was in a meeting where the FBI wanted him comfortable, didn’t really tell him exactly what was going on and he gave ambigious answers. We have seen the transcripts now and there was no reason for any investigation of those calls as Flynn doesn’t even violate the Logan Act even if it were a chargeable offense which most believe it isn’t.
So if McCabe and the gang had leveled with Flynn, and went througth the proper process, Flynn’s answers would probably be different and he probably would have been fully truthful. I would like to think the Justice Department, especially those at the top that pretend to be the paragons of virtue when they are doing their new CNN gigs would fault on the side of the three star General whose they could find no derogatory information on, and saw that the calls themselves hinted no crimes or anything elese afowl…
Your claim that “there was no reason for any investigation of those calls” is false. I already pointed out that Pence claimed in public that Flynn hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak, so either Pence was lying to the public, or Flynn was lying to Pence. If you think there’s no reason to question an incoming NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians, you have a strange view of national security. Multiple people testified about this; see the exhibits attached to the motion to dismiss.
You will not be able to dodge the question, if you’re actually committed to honest discussions.
What is your working definition of justice?
“Pence claimed in public that Flynn hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak, so either Pence was lying to the public, or Flynn was lying to Pence.”
CTHD, Let us unfold that one sentence. Sanctions is interpreted to mean different things. Sanctions are a penalty. If NY gets annoyed at litter dropped in front of the Russian embassy they might decide to place on the street a bunch of ugly trash cans in front of the embassy hoping that would incentivize the Russians not to litter. Is that a sanction? Would a soldier who orchestrates war games pushing armies and nuclear weapons around consider that a sanction? Probably not especially when engaging in normal conversation which is what Flynn was engaging in. Things might be different in an investigation where the reasonable person would ask what they meant by sanctions. But no, the FBI did not act appropriately and did not inform Flynn that he was under investigation.
What may be in the mind of the FBI agent asking a question is not necessarily what is in the mind of the person being questioned. That means the ambiguity is not the fault of the person being questioned rather it is the fault of those asking the questions because they did not make the question clear.
In Flynn’s case his answers were totally accurate and he never discussed sanctions. The word wasn’t even used in his discussion with Kislyak. You are a dishonest person that wishes to convict people because they get in your way. You are a pig.
You raise a very important point which has been addressed by a few analysts.
The charges against Flynn are very specific with respect to what they mean by Sanctions.
The charges refer to Flynn discussing with Kislyak things that were part of two Obama EO’s.
The Flynn transcripts now public reveal that Flynn and Kislyak NEVER discussed anything that was part of those two EOs.
This is important because not only does it mean Flynn did not lie, but it means the Mueller prosecutor lied to the court.
With few exceptions the Flynn Kislyak discussion is about FUTURE actions of Obama.
And none of the exceptions fall under the EO’s nor can be accurately described as “sanctions”.
Several people here want to be incredibly picayune over colloquial terms like “perjury trap” where narrow specificity has no legal meaning.
But fail to be narrowly specific with regard to criminal charges against Flynn where perfect language precision is legally required.
“Several people here want to be incredibly picayune ”
That is because their level of thinking is so dangerously low.
“Your claim that “there was no reason for any investigation of those calls” is false. I already pointed out that Pence claimed in public that Flynn hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak, so either Pence was lying to the public, or Flynn was lying to Pence.”
Even if True – and you have got your time line screwed up.
Regardless, There is no crime involved in what you are saying.
If Flynn is lying to pence that is between Flynn and Pence – it is not a crime.
If the FBI has information exposing that – they should inform Pence.
But they have no crime to investigate.
You also jump to lie.
Every statement you do not like is not a lie.
Every statement that is not perfectly precisely accurate is not a lie.
“If you think there’s no reason to question an incoming NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians, you have a strange view of national security.”
There might well be reason for a discussion between Pence and Flynn.
There is no reason for the FBI to be involved.
You claim there is a national security issue – Well Flynn is the National Security Advisor.
He is at the top of the National Security food chain.
I would further note that there are actually perfectly legitimate reasons for either Pence or Flynn to “lie” publicly about matters of national security
“Truth is so precisious that it should always be protected by a vanguard of lies”
It is not the business of the FBI to investigate whether the President, the Vice President, or the NSA are lying to the public about issues of national security.
You have to follow the whole long set of exchanges from the start.
Those involved in CrossFire Huricane realized that since Flynn was cleared and was about to be NSA, they were going to have to “Read him in”.
Flynn was not some naif, they could control. He was going to realize they were up to no good.
It was therefor essential to find a way to get arround informing Flynn.
That is when the discussion shifted to interviewing him, getting him to lie, getting him fired and getting him charged.
The entire intention of keeping the investigation against Flynn open without basis was to avoid informing Flynn of what they were doing.
The purpose of the interview was not to advance any investigation it was to get rid of Flynn.
And their discussions state that clearly.
But the problem with that analysis is that the agents already had a priori knowledge of the conversation with Kislyak and the questions were designed to elicit a false statement rather than further a valid investigation. They could have brought a transcript of his call with Kislyak if they had questions about their exchange and they just needed a clarification. Of course, they also could have gone through DOJ and White House counsel and they didn’t have to insist that Flynn not have a lawyer present and they could have reminded him of the legal peril from giving a false statement to the FBI but they didn’t. That’s because the interview didn’t have any legitimate purpose. They wanted to take a run at Flynn to either get him fired or get him to lie. And we know that because evidence that Van Grack suppressed for two years finally came out when Jensen did his review. And rather than acknowledge the unethical behavior of FBI HQ and the Mueller team prosecutor for failing to disclose all Brady material instead you cling to the word innocuous. There was NO legitimate investigation to justify the Flynn interview so how we characterize his statements from equivocal to outright lies is irrelevant because the materiality condition necessary for a false statements charge cannot be satisfied.
“the agents already had a priori knowledge of the conversation with Kislyak”
Yup. But they didn’t know why Flynn was lying to Pence about it (or, if Pence was lying, they didn’t know that Pence was the one who was lying). They also didn’t know other things that were identified above, like “why he made those statements to the ambassador, and whether anyone else was involved.”
“The questions were designed to elicit a false statement rather than further a valid investigation.”
That’s your opinion, and there’s zero reason to think it’s true. The testimony under penalty of perjury or false statements from multiple people doesn’t support your claim. Even Flynn didn’t claim this in his testimony under oath, including in his 12 page written declaration in January: https://www.sidneypowell.com/media/media/declaration-of-michael-t-flynn
“they didn’t have to insist that Flynn not have a lawyer present”
They didn’t insist on that. Not sure why you think they did.
“you cling to the word innocuous.”
No, that was SteveJ’s word. I was simply responding to what he said.
“the materiality condition necessary for a false statements charge cannot be satisfied”
The DOJ still has documents they haven’t withdrawn stating that the lies were material (it’s truly bizarre that the DOJ has allowed its conflicting statements to stand), and Judge Sullivan already ruled that they were material.
Yup. But they didn’t know why Flynn was lying to Pence about it (or, if Pence was lying, they didn’t know that Pence was the one who was lying). They also didn’t know other things that were identified above, like “why he made those statements to the ambassador, and whether anyone else was involved.”
There is no evidence that the FBI was interested in answers to those questions so its lame of you to claim that was their purpose. The simple fact is the notes of the interview suggest that hardly anything at all was discussed about the phone calls. Most of the interview was about other matters and Flynn told the agents he was aware that they listened to all of Kislyak’s calls so there wasn’t really any purpose in talking with Flynn about what was said.
The FBI had every right to interview Flynn. And given that the evidence record that the FBI created was not used to prosecute Flynn the question of whether the interview had a legitimate purpose beyond just gathering background facts is not even relevant to the case against Flynn. Lots of other people from the Obama and Trump administration were also interviewed and nobody is complaining about that.
actually this makes a mockery of the system and the system wants to flush this one badly now, the details hardly matter
what matters is how many other people who are big shots like flynn was, should be asking themselves, can i be framed too?
maybe the unparalleled support the Democrats have had from system elites is wearing thin,. watching the Flynn farce, it ought to.
kind of like that DC politician who wants to defund the police saying, “where’s the police when you need them?”
this screw may turn in ways that nobody expected. its 130 days until november and a lot can happen
actually this makes a mockery of the system and the system wants to flush this one badly now, the details hardly matter
That is correct and Sullivan seems to be a lone voice that believes otherwise.
“Yup. But they didn’t know why Flynn was lying to Pence about it (or, if Pence was lying, they didn’t know that Pence was the one who was lying). They also didn’t know other things that were identified above, like “why he made those statements to the ambassador, and whether anyone else was involved.”
And not one of those is a legitimate reason for an FBI investigation.
Further much of it is speculation not truth using a distorted timeline.
Finally. they did not ask “did you tell Pence xxx ?”
They sought to get Flynn to contradict the transcript.
That is textbook entrapment.
>“The questions were designed to elicit a false statement rather than further a valid investigation.”
“That’s your opinion”
No it is a fact – there was a long set of exchanges leading to this interview.
The exchanges started with the realization that as the investigation of Flynn was over they could no longer avoid informing him of XFH
which they desparately did not want to do.
They discussed how to avoid telling Flynn and they settled on getting him fired and one means was getting him to lie.
“and there’s zero reason to think it’s true.”
Their own records.
“The testimony under penalty of perjury or false statements from multiple people doesn’t support your claim.”
But their emails, texts, and other communications prior to the interview do.
>“the materiality condition necessary for a false statements charge cannot be satisfied”
“The DOJ still has documents they haven’t withdrawn stating that the lies were material (it’s truly bizarre that the DOJ has allowed its conflicting statements to stand), and Judge Sullivan already ruled that they were material.”
An all obviously wrong.
There were no legitimate reasons to interview Flynn.
A statement to the FBI that the FBI already knows the answer to is never material.
A statement in an interview were there is no legitimate investigation is never material.
and Judge Sullivan already ruled that they were material.
No that is not true. What Sullivan told the prosecution at the Dec 2018 sentencing hearing was that the the court expected the prosecution to explain the materiality of Flynn’s false statements before the court could determine any penalty. The prosecution has never produced an explanation of why the false statements were material.
I generally ignore you because (a) you have a bizarre conspiracy theory that strikes me as a waste of time to discuss, and (b) you regularly make false claims and give no indication that you’re aiming to be accurate.
I’ll simply point out a couple of your false claims here. I’m not going to take time to disprove all of your false claims on this page (much less this column), and I’m not going to waste my time in a further back and forth with you.
You falsely assert “the notes of the interview suggest that hardly anything at all was discussed about the phone calls.” The notes from the interview are Exhibit 6 in the motion to dismiss (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6883959/Flynn-Govt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf ) and anyone who reads it can see that a great deal of the 302 discusses the phone calls.
In response to my saying “Judge Sullivan already ruled that [Flynn’s lies] were material,” you falsely assert “No that is not true.” You then go on to refer to the ‘Dec 2018 sentencing hearing.” I wasn’t referring to the sentencing hearing. I was referring to Sullivan’s 12/16/2019 written memorandum opinion where he concluded “Mr. Flynn’s multiple false statements were material” and “defendant’s false statements were material.” And despite your false claim that “The prosecution has never produced an explanation of why the false statements were material,” Sullivan refers in that same opinion to filings by the government where they did just that (e.g., “[Mr.] FLYNN’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election”). I don’t think you care, and if you do care, then you can read the opinion and the governments filings for yourself.
You falsely assert “the notes of the interview suggest that hardly anything at all was discussed about the phone calls.”
According to Strzok the interview lasted about hour and half. What you describe as a “great deal” of it describes less than 10 minutes of the interview. A wide range of topics were discussed.
But as usual you evade the big points by trying to argue about irrelevant minutiae. What I was responding to was your claim that the FBI wanted to know about Flynn lying to Pence and involvement of other Trump team members. You have given no evidence the FBI agents were interested in that. And your whole argument that Flynn’s lies were material is stupid because the agents said they believed Flynn was not lying.
Sullivan refers in that same opinion to filings by the government where they did just that (e.g., “[Mr.] FLYNN’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election”).
That is just a repetition of the assertions made in the statement of offense. There is nothing to support that claim other than Flynn swearing under oath that it is true and correct. Without Flynn to back those assertions they have no validity.
Sullivan wanted the prosecution to actually explain in what way was the investigation impacted so that he could determine the seriousness of the act. It is doubtful the DOJ has a satisfactory answer since there was no impact on the investigation.
How do your comments conform to this definition of justice?
This explains why justice is exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
For instance, the procedures that together make up a fair trial are justified on the grounds that for the most part they produce outcomes in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted. Yet even in these cases, we should be wary of assuming that the procedure itself has no independent value. We can ask of a procedure whether it treats the people to whom it is applied justly, for example by giving them adequate opportunities to advance their claims, not requiring them to provide personal information that they find humiliating to reveal, and so forth. Studies by social psychologists have shown that in many cases people care more about being treated fairly by the institutions they have to deal with than about how they fare when the procedure’s final result is known.
I think my comments are quite consistent with those. For example, I regularly seek out reliable information, I’m open to changing my mind / sometimes do change my mind in response to evidence/arguments introduced by others (“gathering reliable information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions”) or new evidence that I come across myself, I try to listen when others advance their ideas, I try not to humiliate people (“giving them adequate opportunities to advance their claims…”), etc.
What about the state’s obligation to justice? Can you honestly argue that the Flynn prosecution was rooted in justice? If so, how so?
Does the evidence recently revealed give you any pause for concern that the state pursued a case against Gen. Flynn, not seeking justice, but instead was unjustly motivated? If not, why not?
Let’s take it one step at a time. Was there a good reason to question Flynn?
I think the answer is “yes.” How about you?
As I pointed out here — https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/24/the-d-c-circuit-orders-dismissal-of-the-flynn-case/comment-page-3/#comment-1970599n — on 1/15/17, VP-Elect Pence stated on TV that Flynn and Kislyak “did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … what I can confirm, having spoken to [Gen. Flynn] about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”
Now, we know from pp. 9-10 of the call transcripts that that’s false. Not only did they discuss sanctions, Flynn is the one who introduced the topic, focusing on the expulsions:
FLYNN: … Listen, uh, a couple of things. Number one, what I would ask you guys to do – and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? – do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay? Um –
KISLYAK: We have conveyed it. And –
KISLYAK: It’s, uh, ifs uh, very very specifically and transparently, openly.
FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that, that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only make it reciprocal [italicized in the original]. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it- don’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?
KISLYAK: I understand what you’re saying- but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.
FLYNN: I know, I – believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth and everybody’s got to be the tough guy here, you know?
FLYNN: We don’t need to, we don’t need that right now, we need to-we need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we’re going to do because we have absolutely a common uh. threat in the Middle East right now
KISLYAK: We agree.
FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.
KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh, does it mean that the United States isn’t willing to work on terrorist threats?
FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.
KISLYAK: Because that’s the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.
FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.
KISLYAK: So that’s something that we have to deal with. But I’ve heard what you say, and I certainly will try-
KISLYAK: – to get the people in Moscow to understand it.
FLYNN: Yeah. And please make sure that its uh – the idea is, be – if you, if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we’ll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we’re not going to escalate this thing, where we, where because if we put out- if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, I mean we have to get this to a – let’s, let’s keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we’re gonna go, uh, regarding uh, regarding our relationship. [end excerpt]
So there were two possibilities: Pence lied to the country in his TV interview, or Flynn had lied to Pence. The FBI knew that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions, and based on other documents (like the exhibits appended to the Motion to Dismiss), several people were concerned that Flynn seemed to have lied to Pence and that the Russians would know this and therefore have compromising info on Flynn. It totally makes sense to question an incoming NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians. It doesn’t require the discussion to be illegal. There was a counterintelligence issue to learn more about.
Do you agree that there was a legit reason to interview Flynn? If not, you have my argument for why I think there was, and I invite you to present an argument to change my mind.
did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision…
I agree with Pence. Flynn did not discuss the Obama administration’s decision to impose sanctions. He didn’t discuss all the factors leading to the decision. He didn’t agree or disagree with the decision. He didn’t state what the incoming administration would do about the sanctions once in office. The entire theme of the conversation was about easing tensions over the sanctions and establishing the understanding that we don’t desire competing responses that escalate to the point that our diplomatic relationship between Russia and the new administration is hobbled before it’s even begun. That point should be clear as Kislyak connected the growing tensions and how our diplomatic relationship might affect our ability to work with Russia on terrorism initiatives.
Do you agree that there was a legit reason to interview Flynn?
No, I don’t. I agree with Director Comey that the call was legit. I agree with the FBI decision that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong.
Re: the Federalist article that you linked to, their claims aren’t warranted by the notes. For ex., they say “The handwritten notes … show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart.” But the notes don’t show any such thing.
The notes aren’t dated, so we don’t know for certain that they’re from the 1/5 meeting that Rice described. But given the participants, that makes sense. In that case, there are two possibilities that come to mind: Strzok was there to take notes for Comey (not as a participant in the discussion), and these are first person notes, or Strzok wasn’t there and these are 2nd person notes from someone filling Strzok in later (the Federalist proposes Comey, but I don’t know where they got that info, as the accompanying DOJ letter doesn’t say that: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.230.1.pdf ). Maybe there’s some other possibility (can you think of one?).
So these likely 1st or 2nd person notes have Obama saying “These are unusual times / Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it / Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?” How on earth Davis and Hemingway fabricate “Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn” is beyond me. There’s nothing in there about an investigation at all, much less Obama directing it. They also fabricate “[Obama] also suggests they withhold information from President Trump …,” as “transition team” isn’t Trump himself. And we know that Davis and Hemingway’s interpretation is contradicted by Rice’s email: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6895859-01-20-2017-Email-From-Susan-Rice.html
Going back to your question about whether those notes make me concerned “that the state pursued a case against Gen. Flynn, not seeking justice, but instead was unjustly motivated?,” I simply don’t see how you’d come to that interpretation from those notes, since they say nothing about an investigation, and especially if they’re considered in the context of what we already know from Rice’s email. Are you going to explain why you asked that question? Do they make *you* concerned “that the state pursued a case against Gen. Flynn, not seeking justice, but instead was unjustly motivated?,” and if so, what text from those notes prompt that?
We have multiple sources for this meeting, not just Strzok’s notes.
Rices BTB memo to self documents the same meeting.
I will agree with you that it is NOT clear whether Obama was directing or being informed.
Though he gives specific directions so that favors directing.
Regardless we already have a conspiracy before this, and this meeting makes Obama and Biden part of the conspiracy
Going back to your question about whether those notes make me concerned “that the state pursued a case against Gen. Flynn, not seeking justice, but instead was unjustly motivated?
That’s not what I asked. I said: Does the evidence recently revealed give you any pause for concern…
If I had just awakened from a 4 year coma, those notes would mean absolutely nothing. I’d have no context to give any other opinion other than, so what? But I didn’t just wake up from a coma. And there is a mountain of documented evidence that does provide context for those notes. At a minimum, it shows Obama/Biden were knowledgeable (to some degree) about the investigation into Flynn. And given the scope of damning evidence of CFH/CFR, an objective and rational observer would want to know what did the President and VP know, when did they know it and how involved were they. That is if one honestly believed this should never have happened and we need to make sure it never happens again to political opponents and future administrations.
Obama was more than just knowledgeable. He gave specific directions.
We can debate whether he is 100% responsible. But he was much more involved than just “informed”.
We can thus far only state that Biden was aware. That he is alteast a passive co-conspirator.
If Obama did not know what was going on within his IC/FBI/DOJ, he would be the most incompetent President in history. I believe he was very competent. Unfortunately he used his skills to the detriment of the country.
I agree with you – though there is lots of evidence of incompetence.
But I do not presume to have proven something just because beleive it is true.
Obama was inarguably involved.
He was inarguably giving direction.
But it is not proven that he was driving the investigation – YET.
You say “I agree with Pence,” and you quote part of what Pence said (in italics in what follows) but ignore the rest of the quote I gave you, which was not limited to the “decision”:
“[Flynn and Kislyak] did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … what I can confirm, having spoken to [Gen. Flynn] about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”
Do you agree with the rest of what Pence claimed, that Flynn’s and Kislyak’s “conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions”?
Pence’s claim is false, as Flynn and Kislyak absolutely discussed the U.S. sanctions, including the “action to expel diplomats.” Why are you silent about it? Either Pence was lying on TV, or Flynn had lied to Pence. According to you, which is it?
Keep in mind that Pence later claimed on TV that Flynn lied to him about this. In December 2017, Margaret Brennan asked Pence “When [Flynn] was fired, did you know he had lied to the FBI?” and Pence replied “What I can tell you is that I knew that he had lied to me — and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.” Trump also said Flynn lied to Pence: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” According to you, what did Flynn lie to Pence about?
You say “No, I don’t [agree that there was a legit reason to interview Flynn]. I agree with Director Comey that the call was legit.” But the reason for interviewing Flynn wasn’t the call per se. It was the inconstancy between the call and what Pence claimed Flynn told Pence about the call. Again: Pence has said that Flynn lied to him.
Do you agree with Pence that Flynn lied to Pence?
Because if you think that Flynn lied to Pence, but you also think there’s no reason to question an incoming NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians, then you have a strange view of national security.
Nothing in that conversation involved the Obama foreign policy that led to the decision to impose sanctions. Nothing in that conversation involved the expected Trump foreign policy regarding the sanctions. The entirety of the call was regarding the response of Russia to the sanctions and the concern that it would escalate and impede the Trump administration from having any cooperative relationship with Russia on the war on terror. I believe that is why the FBI had determined the call was legit.
Now, since the transcript of the call exists and Pence had no objection to the call, then there is no legitimate reason for the FBI to investigate Flynn. Pence believed that Flynn had lied only to him. And Pence and Trump had every right to fire him as a result. Neither Pence or Trump asked the FBI to investigate Flynn? They didn’t need to. If the FBI had some additional information about Flynn’s conduct that neither Pence or Trump was aware of, they had an obligation to brief them and let them know they are going to begin the process of investigating Flynn. Keep in mind, by the time all this was going down, the FBI already knew the entire basis for opening Crossfire Hurricane (CFH) and Crossfire Razor (CFR) was Russian disinformation. So there was no need to keep Trump and Pence in the dark on their interviewing Flynn. Even after that friendly interview, the FBI agents didn’t believe Flynn had lied to them.
Much of the Flynn can was about the Russian response to FUTURE Obama actions
None of the call was about the specific sanctions in the EO’s referenced in the Flynn charges.
AS charged Flynn is innocent. Because the transcripts do not show that Flynn talked about what the charge alleges he talked about.
He can not have lied by denying something that did not happen.
Re: “Does the evidence recently revealed give you any pause for concern?,” no, not particularly, though I’m open to being convinced that it should.
Re: “it shows Obama/Biden were knowledgeable (to some degree) about the investigation into Flynn,” please quote what you think shows that. Because I’m not sure what you’re taking as evidence of Obama and Pence being aware of an “investigation into Flynn,” much less “knowledgeable” about it ~1/5.
I don’t know what “CFH/CFR” stands for, so I can’t say if I agree that there was “damning evidence of CFH/CFR.” Please clarify, thanks.
As for “an objective and rational observer would want to know what did the President and VP know, when did they know it and how involved were they,” I have no problem with Obama and Biden being questioned about it under oath, as long as Trump and Pence are also questioned about it under oath, because I think “an objective and rational observer would want to know” the same things for Trump and Pence. As a simple example, were Trump and Pence being truthful about Flynn having lied to Pence, or were they lying about that, and if so, why?
Again: do you agree with Trump’s and Pence’s claim that Flynn lied to Pence, and if so, what do you think Flynn lied to Pence about?
“Again: do you agree with Trump’s and Pence’s claim that Flynn lied to Pence, and if so, what do you think Flynn lied to Pence about?”
So what did Flynn lie about ? No one seems to be able to state that accurately.
When Trump accepted Flynn’s resignation even Trump said he did not understand what it was that Flynn lied about.
The claim that Flynn lied to Pence was manufactured by Yates – who could not know, unless he was spying on Pence.
I’ll quote you: “That’s not what I asked.”
Again: Do you agree with the rest of what Pence claimed, that Flynn’s and Kislyak’s “conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions”? … Do you agree with Pence that Flynn lied to Pence?? If so, then According to you, what did Flynn lie to Pence about? Please address what I asked, just like I did when you pointed out that I hadn’t responded to *your* actual question.
Your claim that “Nothing in that conversation involved the expected Trump foreign policy regarding the sanctions” is false. Flynn said that if Russia only responds reciprocally, then “we’re not going to escalate this thing.” But again, that’s a side-issue. The main issue is that Flynn lied to Pence (and others on the transition team) about the calls. Do you agree with Pence that Flynn lied to Pence? If so, then according to you, what did Flynn lie to Pence about?
“The entirety of the call was regarding the response of Russia to the sanctions and the concern that it would escalate and impede the Trump administration from having any cooperative relationship with Russia on the war on terror.”
That’s a whopper. Have you actually read the transcripts? If not, you should: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933340/Flynn-Transcripts.pdf There was more than one call, and either you’ve never read the transcripts and so don’t know the rest of what they discussed or you’re forgetting other important topics (e.g., the discussion of the U.N. Security Council vote).
“Since … Pence had no objection to the call, then there is no legitimate reason for the FBI to investigate Flynn.”
Please quote Pence showing that he “had no objection to the call” and include the date, since the question isn’t what Pence says now, but what he said around the time of the interview. I haven’t seen a statement from Pence about that, but maybe I missed it.
Second, of course there was reason to interview Flynn about it. As I said: if you think there’s no reason to question an incoming NSA who may be lying to the VP-Elect about discussions with the Russians, then you have a strange view of national security. You seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues? Really?
“Pence believed that Flynn had lied only to him.”
Please quote him on that. The Mueller Report says that “When Priebus and other incoming Administration officials questioned Flynn internally about the Washington Post column, Flynn maintained that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak.131 Flynn repeated that claim to Vice President-Elect Michael Pence and to incoming press secretary Sean Spicer.132 In subsequent media interviews in mid-January, Pence, Priebus, and Spicer denied that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions, basing those denials on their conversations with Flynn.133” (pp. 29-30 of Vol. 2 if you want to see the data sources for those claims in the footnotes). It would be strange for Pence to be unaware that Flynn also lied to Priebus and Spicer about it.
“by the time all this was going down, the FBI already knew the entire basis for opening Crossfire Hurricane (CFH) and Crossfire Razor (CFR) was Russian disinformation.”
Yet another claim that you provide no evidence for. And we know that it’s false. For example, again from Mueller: “On May 6, 2016, … Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.465” The “representative” was former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who contacted the FBI. The Horowitz Report confirms that “[McCabe] said that when the FBI received the FFG [friendly foreign government] information it was a ‘tipping point’ in terms of opening a counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia’s attempts to influence and interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections because not only was there information that Russia was targeting U.S. political institutions, but now the FBI had received an allegation from a trusted partner that there had been some sort of contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign. McCabe said that he did not recall any discussion about whether the FFG information constituted sufficient predication for opening a Full Investigation, as opposed to a Preliminary Investigation, but said that his belief at the time, based on his experience, was that the FFG information was adequate predication.” We also know that Russia hacked the DNC servers and released info, so Papadopoulos told Downer about something accurate: Russia helping the Trump Campaign by releasing info damaging to Clinton. So the basis for opening the investigation was *not* “Russian disinformation.”
So you’re getting a lot of the details wrong here.
And if you really care about the details and about evidence, you should be providing evidence for your claims, just like I’m providing relevant quotes to back up a lot of my claims.
But the question I most want you to answer: do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?
But the question I most want you to answer: do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?
Of course you do. Unlike you however, I take seriously all allegations of wrong-doing by government officials. I do not discriminate by political party. I’ve read the transcripts. I don’t see anything in them that would put our national security at risk. So did the FBI. They concluded Flynn’s conduct on the call was legitimate for an incoming NSA. I also know that Pence said about Flynn: “I know what Gen. Flynn told me and I’m more inclined to believe it was unintentional than ever before.” Whatever the VP believed at time, he apparently believes nothing Flynn did was harmful to our national security.
Now a question for you. Why, with everything we know about the dossier, FISA applications, FBI reports, text messages, and on and on; why have you never shown any interest in the lying and other abuses by those in the IC/FBI/DOJ that are all public record? Get back to me when you start asking questions about that conduct by government officials. Because short of that, all you’re trying to do is gaslight this blog and it isn’t working.
There is no indication that Obama is a capable administrator. However, the smoking guns have appeared and we know now he was in the loop in regard to the vendetta against Flynn.
“There is no indication that Obama is a capable administrator. However, the smoking guns have appeared and we know now he was in the loop in regard to the vendetta against Flynn.”
DSS, I think what you say is true and important to recognize. Obama had talent but not as an administrator. He would have sunk any company if he were at the helm without others to guide him.
The assumption being he intended to be a good administrator of the executive branch and honor his oath of office. By all constitutional measures, he was a disaster. I don’t believe he ever intended to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,. He warned us what his vision was and that was to fundamentally transform this country. He had a particular set of skills that he used toward that vision. He’s a narcissist however and he wanted to complete that vision before he left office. I doubt Trump would have been elected President had Obama not pushed this country where it was reluctant to go.
Again: “That’s not what I asked.”
I asked you “do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?” That’s a question about Flynn lying to Pence, not about the phone call itself. Please answer my actual question.
Re: “Unlike you however, I take seriously all allegations of wrong-doing by government officials. I do not discriminate by political party,” we’re actually not “unlike” in that. We may differ in our *conclusions* about an allegation, but I take allegations at least as seriously as you do, regardless of party. The only time I don’t take an allegation seriously is if it comes from a pathological liar like Trump; in that case, I wait until there’s an allegation from someone who isn’t a pathological liar. Or perhaps you and I have different interpretations of what it means to take something seriously. For me, it means looking at the evidence in good faith to see whether the allegation is well-substantiated. As a simple example, I looked at the recently-released notes in good faith to see whether they really substantiate the allegations about Obama and Biden.
Your quote from Pence is from April 2020 and so is irrelevant to what the FBI was acting on in 2017. Focus on what Pence and others said in early 2017, because that was the context for the FBI’s decisions in early 2017.
For example, here’s info from McCord’s 302 (Exhibit 3 in the Motion to Dismiss):
“Yates did most of the talking in the meeting [of Yates, McCord, McGahn, and Burnham], and started the conversation by saying there was something she felt they [McGahn and Burnham] needed to know about Flynn; in light of Pence’ s interview on Face the Nation, she wanted them to know that what he’d said about Flynn’s calls with the Russians was not true. McGahn asked how Yates knew this, and she explained that [ long redaction ]. She told them that the conversations made it clear that there were discussions on Russian sanctions in those calls, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on TV. Yates explained to them her concerns were twofold – , the Vice President needed to know he’d been misled, and second, the Russians themselves knew that what the Vice President said was not true. This posed a potential compromise situation for Flynn.”
“[McCabe] learned that Pence wanted to see the Flynn[-Kislyak] transcripts. McCabe did not have the transcripts on him, so he returned to the FBI to retrieve them and returned to the White House Situation Room. There, he met with Pence; Pence’s Chief of Staff; The President’s Chief of Staff, Reince Preibus; and possibly others, and they reviewed the transcripts. Pence, while reviewing, directed his Chief of Staff to get the transcript of his (Pence’s) Face the Nation interview, which he then compared to [redacted] transcripts. At one point in the meeting, Priebus said he’d seen enough and left the room.”
Do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues? Don’t focus on what Pence says now. Focus on what was going on at the time, when Pence was V.P.-Elect and when he was a newly sworn-in V.P.
As for your question, I’ll answer it after you answer the question I asked and that you avoided, re: Flynn lying to Pence about national security issues. I’m not going to play a game where you deflect mine but expect me to answer yours. And I suggest that you don’t ask it as a loaded question where, without presenting any evidence, you assume things about me that aren’t true.
Cut and paste all you want. Ask whatever questions you want. Your hypocrisy is not fooling anyone.
OLLY: In other words, you’re not willing to answer the question.
I think you’re afraid to answer the question, because you recognize that an incoming NSA should not be lying to the V.P.-Elect about national security issues, and you don’t want to admit it. Running away from the question is a sign of weakness.
As for your claim about my “hypocrisy,” I accept that you *believe* that, but that doesn’t make your belief *true*, and you’re unwilling to test your belief by providing evidence.
There’s an easy way to prove me wrong: answer the question that you’re running away from, and provide evidence for your claim. I doubt you will, but maybe I’ll be surprised.
1) I was copying and pasting **evidence**, and I did it because the evidence is what determines whether our claims are *true*. You apparently don’t want to discuss that evidence.
2) You told John that you agree with his claim that “None of the call was about the specific sanctions in the EO’s referenced in the Flynn charges,” but you’re wrong. Flynn’s Statement of Offense defines “U.S. Sanctions” as those in Executive Order 13757, and that EO 13757 amends EO 13694, and the Russian intelligence operatives who were expelled fall within the scope of EO 13694 as amended by 13757. Moreover, Pence and plenty of others talked about the expelled Russians as part of “sanctions” (e.g., Pence: “those conversations that happened to occur [between Flynn and Kislyak] around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions”).
Nope. I’ve answered your questions more than you deserve. From this point moving forward, you will need to prove you’re not a hypocrite by digging into the mountains of evidence that show the IC/FBI/DOJ have abused their power, defrauded courts and lied to the American people. Then start asking your questions about that. By the way, your questions will tell everyone whether you are committed to honesty and justice.
“I’ve answered your questions more than you deserve.”
You’ve repeatedly avoided that question, and I bet if we tallied how many of your questions I answered in this exchange vs. how many of my questions you answered in this exchange, we’d find that I answered more of yours. No way to know unless we tally them, which I suspect you’re not going to want to do, but if you do want to, just say.
Re: being “committed to honesty and justice,” I don’t care what you believe about me, and I bet you don’t care what I believe about you. I don’t have to agree to your standards for that any more than you have to agree to mine.
I don’t have to agree to your standards…
Of course you don’t; which is fortunate for you because it would require things you don’t have: objectivity, integrity, honor and a commitment to equal justice under the law.
SMH at how you dishonestly cut the phrase “your standards for that” off to misrepresent what I said. And since you’re persisting in trying to make your opinions about me the topic of discussion instead of focusing on whether the FBI was justified in interviewing Flynn — whether it’s OK or a matter of concern that an incoming NSA was lying to the V.P.-Elect about national security issues — I guess this exchange has reached its end.
So first we have Bill Priestap’s notes which is more than zero reason to believe the interview was to get him to lie.
Then McCabe called Flynn to suggest he have no lawyer present.
As for materiality we have
and the DOJ memo itself:
It’s ok to disagree with me, but at least be intellectually honest.
James P. Taylor,
You probably aren’t aware, but this web blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment so that it would post. If in the future you would like for the readership to review more than two links, this can be accomplisehd through the use of multiple comments of two or less links each.
I am honest. If you think I haven’t been honest about something, just quote it, and say why you think it isn’t honest.
Re: Priestap’s notes, you don’t say why you interpret them as “more than zero reason to believe the interview was to get him to lie,” and “more than zero” doesn’t mean “likely.” He asks whether that’s a goal (a question), and he also states things like “If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games” (not a question). Moreover, Priestap was interviewed about this in May. I don’t think the interview itself (a transcript or a 302) is public, but the NYT reports that “[Flynn’s] lawyers said Mr. Priestap’s notes … suggested that the F.B.I. was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn… That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to the people familiar with the investigation.”
Your claim that “McCabe called Flynn to suggest he have no lawyer present.” I prefer to go directly to the primary sources when that’s possible. McCabe’s notes (which your link quotes from) are Exhibit 11 in the Motion to Dismiss: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6883959/Flynn-Govt-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
McCabe called Flynn to set up the interview, and he told Flynn that he could have counsel there but it would be quicker if he didn’t; the choice was Flynn’s, and Flynn chose not to:
“On Tuesday, 01/24/2017, as 1235, LTG Michael Flynn called via secure phone from [redacted] to my office number [redacted]. [Redacted], I told LTG Flynn that I had a sensitive matter to discuss. I explained that in light of the significant media coverage and public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives, that Director Corney and I felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down with the General and hear from him the details of those conversations. LTG Flynn asked if I was referring to his contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, and I indicated that I was. …
“I explained to LTG Flynn that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly and discretely as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today. We had some discussion about timing and ultimately agreed to conduct the interview at his office in the White House at 1430 this afternoon. I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between him and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. He stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”
Re: materiality, lots of people have the opinion that the false statements weren’t material, and lots of other people have the opinion that they were material. The DOJ had long asserted the false statements were material and never withdrew the documents with those claims, even though they subsequently changed their claim about it. They never explained what prompted them to change the claim, and they didn’t really go into detail in substantiating the new claim. Sullivan already ruled that the false statements were material, and the recent CADC opinion didn’t address the materiality. You don’t say why they don’t seem material to you; they seem material to me, and we can discuss that if you want.
Commit your comments range from political tedium to DIShonest discussion. You want to out Flynn in prison over your political view and that motivation is transparent. So do you have to keep cluttering up this good web blog under the pretense that you have something insightful to contribute?
Scroll, if you don’t like someone’s comments.
jf, you my disagree with commit but no one here works harder to dig up the facts surrounding an issue.
Then you would be able to provide the actual language of what you claim to be refering to – rather than your own words.
Frankly I do not see much evidence that you work very hard.
But lets say you do.
The value you produce is based on the accuracy of your claims and analysis. Not the effort. The labor theory of value is marx
And that is not high
Thanks, I appreciate your support.
You do not seem to get it.
There was no legal ability to continue an investigation.
It is irrelevant what Flynn said.
Strzok was violating Flynn’s civil rights by interviewing him.
Further – you keep wanting to microparse the interview
Asserting this nonsense that if Flynn had done things perfectly to your satisfaction everything would be fine.
That is double BS.
SCOTUS should have found 18 USC 1001 unconstitutional long ago.
There is no equivalent in state law. You can lie to a police officer. There are consequences – lying to the police attracts their attention to you and your statements can be used against you. But it is not a crime.
Nor should it be. Making it a crime incentives entrapment. It also incentives the federal government to look for the mistakes that all of us make when being interviewed to use as leverage – we have seen that start to end in this mess.
Papadoulis got a few dates wrong on some emails – for which he spent 14 days in jail and has a criminal record.
Yet there is nothing Papadoulis has actually done wrong – except according to the left – work for Trump.
But in your world Papadoulis brought this on himself.
No, he did not. Mueller and the FBI did, and THEY are wrong.
They were conducting an illegal investigation using gestapo tactics and they still got nothing – because there was nothing to get, and in their arrogance and anger they punished the innocent in whatever way they could manufacture.
Why was Strzok, the FBI entitled to ask Flynn at all about the Kislyak call ?
It is clearly in the domain of national security. There was nothing improper about anything Flynn said.
Even Comey had previously noted the call was “legit”.
So why was Strzok asking ?
What right did he have to enquire ?
What right did the FBI ?
We do not live in a police state.
Strzok is NOT the national security advisor of the US.
Absent an actual crime – there is nothing about the call that was Strzok’s business ?
And we have the problem of how did the FBI get the transcript.
For a long time it was presumed that Kislyak was being monitored.
And Flynn would presume that too.
But we now know that is not the case – which means the call was intercepted as part of a FISA warrant.
Almost certainly on Flynn. So lets see the warrant ?
You say Flynn lied – how do you know, and about what ?
We have no recording of the interview,
We have no transcript.
We have no contemporaneous notes.
The earliest writtings of Strzok claim Flynn was not deceptive.
You want to microparse the interview and claim this is all Flynn’s fault because he could have answered better.
Yet we have no idea what questions Strzok asked or what Flynn answered
Certainly not in the micro detail you want to criticise.
John, CTHD has been claiming that the quotes of Flynn’s lies were in the FBI reports. Over and over he was asked to produce them in context. What he produced was the address of the FBI reports and said those quotes were contained in those reports. He did that over and over again over an extended period of time. At the same time he shifted the discussion to those things that were meaningless. Those quotes were never produced because they didn’t exist.
You are nicer than me and I am more blunt. CTHD is nothing more than a liar. Also one has to reckon with the fact that almost everyone is using an alias and some have multiple aliases that post at the same time sometimes to reinforce a statement made by the same person under a different alias.
“You are nicer than me and I am more blunt.”
I have been more focused on making it clear that being wrong, lying and making false accusations
That if you are constantly wrong – you will not be beleived in the future
That is you tell clear lies, and make false accusations – that your integrity will be gone.
There are natural consequences.
Trump makes lots of errors – mostly picayune in his remarks.
They are rarely if ever of consequence.
But he goes to great lengths to keep his promises.
He has a strong understanding of what integrity means.
That does not surprise me at all as a businessperson.
I am not sure of Trumps character.
But I am sure that you can trust that he will move heaven and earth to keep the promises he makes.
But everything he says is not a promise.
As to the media and the left and Committed.
They have burned their own credibility.
Trump’s approval rating is much higher than the press.
“He has a strong understanding of what integrity means.”
John, Early in the game I learned that these characters aren’t interested in the truth. Nicely explaining what one believed was met with nasty sarcasm. None of them deserve the politeness you offer.
Don’t stop. I like it.
“For example, “If Flynn had been truthful with interviewing agents, it would have led to further inquiry. Agents likely would have asked Flynn why he made those statements to the ambassador,”
That is the FBI’s business WHY ?
Flynn was incoming NSA, why he made the statements is not Strzok or the FBI’s business – though it is readily evident from the transcript that Flynn was doing exactly what you would hope and NSA would do and trying to keep Obama was was behaving like an angry loose cannon from torching any ability to work with Russia before he left office.
“and whether anyone else was involved.”
Why is that the FBI’s business ?
The FBI can investigate actual allegations of crimes. They do not exist to investigate no crimes, discredited allegations, thought crimes, or hopey crimes.
As Barr noted – there was no legitimate basis to investigate Flynn. Do you have one no one has found ?
And you do not get to investigate – just because you want to.
“The truth would have shown the involvement of the Trump Transition Team,”
So what ?
” and would have helped the FBI to discern whether they were being truthful with investigators.”
Again so what. There was no basis for the FBI to investigate the Transition team.
“Truthful information would have provided leads to help the FBI assess whether these facts posed a counterintelligence threat.”
You have inverted the law.
It is not Flynn or others job to provide leads for the FBI to concoct a legitimate basis for an investigation.
The FBI investigates actual crimes – not ones that those on the left HOPE might have occurred.
“Lies may have indicated a consciousness of guilt for Flynn’s own conduct or that of others.”
Again you presume the legitimacy of the investigation.
Can the FBI know on your door tomorow and start asking you about the sex life of your neighbor ?
“If, in fact, this was all innocuous behavior, then truthful answers could have saved Flynn and the FBI a great deal of time and effort.”
Nope. The assumption is that whatever the FBI did not know was innocous. The FBI is not entitled to know whatever it wants about whoever it wants.
The willful blind eye to the inappropriate way the police handled this matter
The police did not attempt to prosecute Flynn. The police went on the record saying that Flynn had done nothing for which he could be charged.
Your article states the facts correctly:
” In his dramatic and surprise guilty plea in U.S. District Court on Dec. 1, 2017, early in Mueller’s investigation, Flynn acknowledged that his false statements and omissions in FBI interviews a few days after Trump was sworn in “impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” which the statement of offense he agreed to said.”
The evidence for the crime that Flynn pleaded guilty to did not come from the police. The police said he was not guilty, but Flynn told the court that the police were wrong.
& when a white guy says he is being persecuted by police, we are not to believe him because he’s white- that’s the Democratic scammer’s unspoken premise
system elites who wear the white skin need to ask, has this all gone too far?
will i be next?
& when a white guy says he is being persecuted by police
The police said the white guy had done nothing for which he could be charged. The police said that Flynn was not lying. But Flynn told the court the police got it wrong. Now after years of lying to the court about what happened Flynn wants to blame it on the police.
n. A body of government employees trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community.
The FBI is NOT a national police force.
They are a police force enforcing FEDERAL laws.
They are still engaged in
crime prevention and detection
authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community.
within the scope of the specific body of federal law they enforce.
Now can we quit this stupid micro parsing ?
This is not a court room and we are not debating the precise legal meaning of terms.
We are dealing with the common meaning.
Flynn was subject to a “perjury trap”
and the FBI are police.
Flynn was subject to a “perjury trap”
and the FBI are police.
Well that is the picture you are trying to paint.
The picture that the FBI painted was that Flynn talked to them candidly and honestly and was not lying/
Apparently, somebody forgot to inform the FBI that it was supposed to be a perjury trap…
Both “paintings” are true.
Both “paintings” are true.
That is not possible they contradict each other. The actions of the FBI make it clear the picture you are trying to paint is false. There was no attempt to coerce Flynn into making false statements and the FBI made it quite clear they believed Flynn was not lying. Speculation made before the interview by individuals about how Flynn might respond is evidence of nothing at all. One reason they went to talk to Flynn was to find out if he was an honest person or deceptive. They concluded he was honest and not deceptive.
If the FBI was trying to trap Flynn they could have twisted his words to make it look like he was lying, but that did not happen until later after the FBI was taken off the case.
There were only three people who had personal knowledge of what Flynn said during the Kislyak phone calls AND during the FBI interview. Two of the three with personal knowledge said he was not lying in that FBI interview. The one person that said Flynn was lying provided the information used in court to prosecute Flynn.
It is possible, they do not contradict.
We do not have the contemporaneius FBI 302’s.
Further, trying to get Flynn to lie and twisting his words are also not the same thing.
One does not require the other.
We do not have the contemporaneius FBI 302’s.
We both agree that the FBI acted improperly with respect to the paperwork.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the FBI concluded that Flynn had committed no federal crime for which he could be prosecuted. That means you can’t blame the FBI for Flynn’s prosecution. No matter how hard you try to blame the FBI it falls flat on its face because the FBI may have done a million things wrong but this is not one of them. Pointing to a million other things the FBI got wrong does not prove they got this wrong.
CTHD et. al. convinces himself that he is smart when he quotes legalese. Unfortunately most of the time he doesn’t understand what he is quoting or its relevance because he is only looking for words that may seemingly agree with him forgetting the difference between opinion and fact and the multiple meanings the phrase can have when attached to the rest of the legalese. He is totally shallow.
we understand now that the only true progressives are innocent regular folks who are not sophisticated.
the very kind of people who were surprised when Bernie endorsed the demented fool Biden.
the are no progressives in power., they only exist to provide window dressing and illusions masking the Democrat drive for total tyrannical mob rule and the hidden hand of the billionaires like Soros, Bezos, Zuck, numerous other billionaires who hate Trump, oh add Cuban to that list too, it does on and on
imagine a party of naive innocents lead by cynical hacks paid to do their thing by billionaires which calls itself the working man’s party. that’s the Democrats.
They do not need to. They ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case.
There are only two possible interpretations.
They are trying to give Sullivan the opportunity to save a tiny bit of Face.
Or the majority really beleives they are wrong, and expects Sullivan to demand an en banc review where they expect to lose.
If you beleive option 2 – I have swampland I would like to sell you.
He has only two choices – ask for an en banc review, or follow the order.
But given how this case has gone – I am sure he will manufacture some other option and we will hear all kinds of left wingnut lawyers arguing that Sullivan does not have to follow the order of the Cort.
Comments are closed.