Below is my column in USA Today on the D.C. Circuit ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. After this column ran, new evidence emerged that further undermined the FBI and the targeting of Flynn, as discussed in another recent column. Notes from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok show that former FBI Director James Comey told President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that Flynn’s call to the Russian diplomat “appear legit.” Nevertheless, Biden (who denied having anything to do with the case) is noted as raising the idea of a charge under the facially unconstitutional Logan Act, a law that has never been used successfully to charge a single person since the beginning of this Republic. Comey of course was the one who later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We now know that, when Comey broke protocols and sent the agents, he thought the calls were legitimate and that agents wanted to dismiss the investigation in December for lack of evidence. They were prevented from doing so as Strzok, Biden, and others discussed other crimes, any crime, to nail Flynn just before the start of the Trump Administration.
If all of that seems “illegitimate” and “irregular,” it pales in comparison to how two judges on the D.C. panel viewed the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Emmet Sullivan. It seems that everyone from the President to the Vice President to the FBI Director to ultimately the federal judge have engaged in a dangerous form of improvisational law when it came to Michael Flynn. That will now hopefully end though many questions still remain.
It is possible for Judge Sullivan to appeal, though the upcoming hearing on Flynn has been removed from the docket.
Here is the column:
The dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn sent shock waves across Washington, including Congress which was hours away from a hearing addressing the case. Any appellate decision taking unprecedented measures to stop “irreparable harms” and “irregular” conduct is newsworthy. However, those admonishments were not describing Flynn’s conduct but that of his trial judge, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. The D.C. Circuit panel took the exceptionally rare step of ordering Sullivan to stop further proceedings and dismiss the case to avoid further damage caused by his prior orders.
The case should have been dismissed
One month ago, I wrote a column criticizing the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Sullivan after the government moved to dismiss its own prosecution.
The law in this case is clear and the case should have been dismissed. Instead, Sullivan took the extraordinary action of appointing a retired judge, John Gleeson, to argue positions that neither of the actual parties supported. Gleeson not only had publicly denounced the administration over its handling of the case but, as a judge, was reversed for “irregular” conduct in usurping the authority of prosecutors. In addition, Sullivan suggested that he might charge Flynn with perjury for alleging that he was wrongly charged despite the support of the Justice Department in finding abuses in his case.
Criticizing Sullivan, who I have appeared before for years as counsel and previously complimented for his demeanor, was not popular. Legal analysts in The Washington Post, CNN and other outlets insisted that his actions were entirely appropriate and justified. Yet, another letter from “former prosecutors” was given unquestioning media coverage to show that Sullivan should deny the motion in the case.
In an opinion piece, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman even explained how Sullivan could “make trouble” for the Trump administration in these hearings. Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” of academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer to make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported.
The wilderness now appears to include at least two other voices from the D.C. Circuit. The panel specifically denounced the “irregular” use of Gleeson and his hyperbolic arguments in the case. Gleeson suggested that the court should actually send Flynn to jail despite prosecutors raising evidence of misconduct and abuse as the basis for dismissal. He also argued that, rather than give Flynn a trial on a new charge from Sullivan of perjury, Flynn should just be sentenced in light of such perjury as part of his prior non-perjury charge.
Even for those of us who believed that Sullivan was operating well outside of the navigational beacons for a court in such case, the decision was breathtaking. Most of us expected that the appellate court would remand the case to allow Sullivan a face-saving hearing with an inevitable order to dismiss. The panel, however, clearly had little trust in the plans for this hearing or any true judicial purpose. Indeed, it may have been convinced that the primary purpose was indeed to “make trouble” for the administration.
As some of us wrote previously, the appellate court was particularly alarmed by the implications of Sullivan’s orders, including noting that the “invitation to members of the general public to appear as amici…” The panel said that such an invitation by Sullivan “suggests anything but a circumscribed review.” Moreover, it noted that the Justice Department had submitted troubling evidence of possible misconduct. And that “each of our three coequal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs.”
Gleeson, wrong appointment
The greatest irony is that Sullivan’s unwise decision to appoint Gleeson to make the case was perhaps too successful. Gleeson ultimately proved not the case against Flynn but against Sullivan. In reviewing Gleeson’s brief, the panel declared “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue; it already has.” The panel noted that Sullivan’s appointed counsel “relied on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.”
The panel was also aware of past concerns raised in the case, including the rather bizarre first sentencing hearing held in December 2018. In that hearing, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason in a case involving comparatively minor charges of false statements to federal investigators. Sullivan dramatically used the flag in the courtroom as a prop and accused Flynn of being “an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” (He later apologized for his comments.)
The irony, however, is that Sullivan proved the best thing that could have happened to Flynn. After that unnerving exchange, Sullivan asked if Flynn still wanted him to sentence him or wait. He indicated that he might go substantially beyond what Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had demanded. Flynn wisely decided to wait. The resulting delay allowed the damaging evidence from his case to be review and released. Had Sullivan simply sentenced Flynn last December, it would have been much more difficult for Flynn to have raised these issues.
Sullivan then handed down his novel orders including appointing his own counsel to argue for prosecution against the actual prosecutors.
This record proved too much for the appellate court. Rather than order Sullivan off the case, it decided to order Sullivan to dismiss the case. Short of an order of actual recusal of a judge, a mandamus order is the most stinging indictment of the handling of a case that can come from an appellate court.
The ruling in this case is unlikely to force any real circumspection by legal analysts or the media in the prior coverage. Nuanced legal questions quickly evaporate in this age of rage. Conflicting case law is dismissed in favor of the clarity demanded by echo journalism. The law however brings its own clarity and the message of this opinion could not be clearer. Sullivan’s actions in the case did not spell “trouble” for the Trump administration, but rather, they spelled trouble for the administration of justice in our court system.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Throghout this whole scheme those legal analysts attacking the DOJ for dropping this case cold only spew 2 arguments and neither one had any legal meit at all.
The first argument was that Flynn was guilty because he pleaded guilty. Period. End of story (eyes closed, fingers in ears, turning head side to side). These are the same legal analysts who would likely say that every single plea deal entered into by black Americans was done so under duress and because of the awesome power of prosecutors and “systematic racism.” In otherwords, everyone is innocent but know that the police and prosecution have the power to frame them. They would demand justice reform.
These people are the destroyers of worlds. The ultimate fascists. With there demand Flynn go to jail just because he plead guilty is dangerous because it basically says the we should remane the Justice Department, The Conviction Department. Justice doesn’t need to be served and convictions at any cost should rule the day. If the Justice Department sees an error, sees exculpatory information, they should just keep their mouth shut and continue to hopefully get the biggest sentence that they can and hope no one notices the exculpatory evidence. Frankly, the whole Flynn prosecution looks like an attempt by Mueller and his team to cover for the FBI. It looks like they knew the FBI had a problem. Instead of coming clean and telling the AG and Congress, the Mueller team put all their focus into getting a plea deal with no jail time so nothing would really see the light of day. Mueller should be forced to testify publicly to what he knew and when. His assertions of “not in my purview” just don’t cut it because it looks like he damn well should have seen all of these issues. There is an ironic but strong suspicion that it may have been Mueller that committed acts that could be described as “Obstruction of Justice.”
The second argument is that the Attorney General is corrupt. The only evidence they have is basically AG Barr was appointed by Trump therefore anything he does is corrupt. Period. The end. Obviously this is quite the dumb argument but nonetheless it is made constantly.
Both are emotional pleas brought about by bias. It shows “educated people,” are not some race of super humans that always make the correct choice and not every opinion they hold is correct. They can be every bit as dumb as the rest of us peasants. In fact, they may be worse because they will continue to invent reasons why they are correct instead of just owning up to their mistakes.
The problem for Flynn here is that he signed a declaration under penalty of perjury that what he stated was true. Even if his case is dismissed his charge of perjury can still be a problem. Because Sullivan made a point that the appeals court ignored. If he didn’t lie then he committed perjury. Why commit perjury if he knew he was not lying? People say he was coerced, but again under penalty of perjury Flynn stated unequivocally that he wasn’t coerced to plead guilty. Sullivan may have grounds for appealing on that issue. He Flynn still has to answer for that discrepancy.
Lying about lying means he is innocent. You want innocent people in jail??? Sheeesh!
I have asked before, if Joe Biden was being investigated for his Ukrainian funny business, and had to sell his house to pay his legal fees, and the Prosecutor said, “Plead guilty and no jail time, or we go after Hunter Biden full bore for drugs and money laundering!” – what do you think Biden would do??? What would most good parents do???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, perjury is perjury. It’s still a crime. The charges being dropped do not address that. If the government is saying he didn’t lie, then he perjured himself. He still needs do answer for that and the government is obligated to explain that discrepancy.
Others here have carefully explained what the crime of perjury is. You should read it before commenting on something you clearly do not understand.
Young, Flynn willingly signed a legal document that he attested under penalty of perjury. He either lied or didn’t. Both can’t be right. That is not difficult to understand.
Flynn willingly signed a legal document that he attested under penalty of perjury. He either lied or didn’t.
_______________________________________________________________
Flynn did not create that document that he swore under oath was true and correct.
The DOJ created that document and Flynn’s lawyers advised Flynn to swear it was true (even though they had seen the evidence that it was not). If Flynn is guilty of perjury then all of lawyers involved in the case were guilty of subornation of perjury. Of course in order for the judge to determine that misconduct by the lawyers occurred, the court has to first establish Flynn was in fact committing perjury when he swore to the court that the statement of offense was true and correct.
Squeeky – I think Creepy Joe would throw Hunter under the bus to stay out of jail. I think you are going to have to pick a “normal” example. 😉
“Even if his case is dismissed his charge of perjury can still be a problem.”
This would only be a problem(a huge one) for whoever brings and whoever allows such a charge to proceed. That would be a beautiful thing to see, but it’s never going to happen.
Your claim that there are only 2 arguments against the Motion to Dismiss is false.
Here’s another common argument:
The DOJ made false claims in the motion to dismiss, for example, in saying “the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how [Flynn’s] false statements are ‘material’” and “the Government does not believe it could prove that Mr. Flynn knowingly and willfully made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt.” Both are contrary to the government’s previous claims about these two issues, and the government gave no explanation for why their view on these matters changed.
There were also other errors in the motion to dismiss.
Frankly, the whole Flynn prosecution looks like an attempt by Mueller and his team to cover for the FBI. It looks like they knew the FBI had a problem.
___________________________________________________________
The FBI said that Flynn was not lying and that there was nothing for which Flynn could be charged. What the Mueller team did was make the FBI look guilty of malfeasance by misrepresenting the evidence record that the FBI had carefully gathered that showed that Flynn was innocent.
_________________________________________________________________
Mueller should be forced to testify publicly to what he knew and when.
____________________________________________________________________
Mueller was forced to testify and it turned out he was old and senile and could not remember anything.
Who hired Mueller ? Answer: The Trump administration.
Great article on the whole Russian-Bounty farce:
———-
As we discussed yesterday, the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you’ve been provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100 percent baseless assertions is nothing short of state propaganda.
The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking western propaganda apparatus has been in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that they have confirmed one another’s “great reporting” on this completely unsubstantiated story.
[]
None of this should be happening. The New York Times has admitted itself that it was wrong for uncritically parroting the unsubstantiated spook claims which led to the Iraq invasion, as has The Washington Post. There is no reason to believe Taliban fighters would require any bounty to attack an illegitimate occupying force. The Russian government has denied these allegations. The Taliban has denied these allegations. The Trump administration has denied that the president or the vice president had any knowledge of the spook report in question, denouncing the central allegation that liberals who are promoting this story have been fixated on.
Yet this story is being magically transmuted into an established fact, despite its being based on literally zero factual evidence.
Outlets like CNN are running the story with the headline “Russia offered bounties to Afghan militants to kill US troops“, deceitfully presenting this as a verified fact. Such dishonest headlines are joined by UK outlets like The Guardian who informs headline-skimmers that “Russia offered bounty to kill UK soldiers“, and the Murdoch-owned Sky News which went with “Russia paid Taliban fighters to attack British troops in Afghanistan” after “confirming” the story with anonymous British spooks.
Western propagandists are turning this completely empty story into the mainstream consensus, not with facts, not with evidence, and certainly not with journalism, but with sheer brute force of narrative control. And now you’ve got Joe Biden once again attacking Trump for being insufficiently warlike, this time because “he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for this egregious violation of international law”.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/06/28/this-russia-afghanistan-story-is-western-propaganda-at-its-most-vile/
————-
Whole big bunches more at the link.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, There are serious problems with the article. “The fact that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice.” This supposed credible article’s statement shows why it is nothing more than poor journalism itself. It makes assumptions with no cited corroborating evidence that proves a “spook” has a known track record of lying about these things. Then it goes to mention the “deep state” which immediately implies this is nothing more than a poor attempt at using unproven conspiracy theories as authoritative fact. The author of the article isn’t a real journalist. She’s an amateur who delves in astrology quite a bit and shows her lack of understanding of what she’s really arguing about. it’s cute that she tries but it doesn’t fly.
I think that it is more that the intelligence agencies lie and lack credibility. Which I tend to agree with on issues like this. I mean, the whole WMD thingy was a farce. Clinton ended up bombing an aspirin factory. The Syrian gas attack wasn’t. Those people who got poisoned in England, appear not to have been a Russian hit job. Then you have the whole Russiagate crap farce with Christopher Steele.
No, I think she is right, astrology nut or not, to insist on more than “somebody said” stuff.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, it is all based on an assumption and shes implying because of past history that this is the case with the Russian bounties. But still has no real proof. If you think intelligence agencies lack credibility then anything trump says about Iran because intelligence agencies says there are problem cannot be taken seriously either, No? He says they say iran is doing so and so, but they cannot be taken at face value because it is the same agencies you say are not credible so trump’s statements cannot be credible as well.
What “proof” does the other side have in this???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
There may not be actual proof, yet. But it is telling that they are not actually denying that the allegations aren’t true.
Since the trump administration lies so much. Their denials cannot be taken at face value either. Given the record of trump reversing itself on previous denials. It wouldn’t be surprising that it is very likely that he was briefed.
Svelaz, you were asked multiple times in the past to produce the 5 most egregious lies of Trump that had to do with his actions as the President. You or someone else that was asked the same question could only bring up one superfical item that wasn’t even a lie.
I’m sure you should be able to find some lies by the President but I don’t know that any would qualify as an intentional lie like the lies Obama made. ‘If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor’, ‘you will save $2,500’. I won’t bring up crooked Biden because I don’t think he can remember his lies or separate lies from the truth.
The NYTs broke the story and the WSJ and WaPO have confirmed it. They all have sources inside the government – including the WH – and do not rush stories they are not confident in. Unlike Trump supporters, they take the truth and reporting accurately seriously.
We might note that no one is denying the Russinas did that – except them – or that the administration knew about if for 3 months now. If Trump didn’t know it, that’s almost as bad his doing nothing except continue to sell the Moscow line on the G7 and troops in Germany. I suppose I’d prefer in this case it revealed his laziness and ignorance coupled with an incompetent national security team rather than his penchant for acting like a Russian asset.
Anon – like the NYT and WaPo have been right all the time with all these “unnamed sources” in the WH. They are wrong more than they are right and Trump is hoping someone will get a Sullivan case to the SC before he is out of office. If it goes his way, he will own the NYT and the WaPo and several other newspapers around the country.
I think that it is more that the intelligence agencies lie and lack credibility.
____________________________________________________________________
They are paid to lie as SoS Pompeo has explained clearly.
Svelaz says about Caitlin Johnstone: “The author of the article isn’t a real journalist. She’s an amateur who delves in astrology quite a bit and shows her lack of understanding of what she’s really arguing about. it’s cute that she tries but it doesn’t fly.”
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/896530223662981123
Caitlin Johnstone said:
“Yes, I wrote an astrology book to feed my kids once. Hurr hurr hurr. Now, do you know what white nationalism is? Give me a definition.”
Meanwhile, in more important news…
The NYT first reported that “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says. … The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said…the White House has yet to authorize any step [in response].”
Kate Brannen (@K8brannen) of Just Security notes that “The @washingtonpost, the @WSJ, and @CNN have matched the original NY Times story with their own reporting. Their sources are described as: a European intelligence official, officials briefed on the matter, US intelligence officials, people familiar with the report.”
Keep in mind that in late May, Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G7.
Statement by DNI Ratcliffe: “I have confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday. The White House statement addressing this issue earlier today, which denied such a briefing occurred, was accurate. The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”
Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck, UT Austin law prof, in response to the ODNI statement:
“(1) Why *weren’t* they briefed??
“(2) Why are they both unable or unwilling to address this incredibly serious claim *now*?
“Note also that @ODNIgov’s statement, even as it denies the accuracy of media reports about whether the President and VP were briefed, does *not* deny the underlying story—that Russia offered bounties to Afghan militants to kill U.S. soldiers.”
Trump tweeted: “Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us. Nobody’s been tougher on Russia than the Trump Administration. With Corrupt Joe Biden & Obama, Russia had a field day, taking over important parts of Ukraine – Where’s Hunter? Probably just another phony Times hit job, just like their failed Russia Hoax. Who is their ‘source’?,”
Some responses:
Vladeck: “At any other moment in American history, this kind of narcissistic, whiny response to the incredibly serious reporting about Russian bounties would’ve been a scandal unto itself. In year four of Trump, it may not even be the most offensive thing he’s tweeted in the past hour.”
Michael McFaul (@McFaul): “I have my doubts that this tweet is true. But if it is, Mr. President, YOUR OWN TWEET is an incredibly damning statement about your performance as our Commander in Chief. If you are so poorly informed, you are not fulfilling your obligations as Commander in Chief to our soldiers.”
Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews): “This raises the obvious and very serious question: The US had intelligence that Russia was paying militants to kill US & allied troops, and officials decided NOT to tell the president or VP about it?”
Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter): “Help me understand. Both the NYT and WaPo have reported the intelligence about Russian bounties prompted internal WH discussions and meetings. So. Why was no action taken? Let’s just forget whether POTUS was ‘briefed’ or not. The WH was aware. WHY NO ACTION TAKEN?”
And in the midst of this, Trump has gone golfing twice this weekend.
He is utterly unfit to be President.
“Their sources are described as: a European intelligence official” — Oh no, Christopher Steele is at it again!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Again: the WH and ODNI only deny that Trump was briefed, and for all I know, they’re basing this in a narrow interpretation of “briefing,” and Trump was informed in some other way. But let’s say he wasn’t — why not?
Neither the WH nor the ODNI have denied that “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops.” Why is Trump going golfing in the middle of this? Whether or not he knew before, he knows about this intelligence now. WTF is he going to do about it?!?
CTHD, given the ample history of trump having the attention span of a goldfish during national security briefings I wouldn’t be surprised if they chose not to discuss it with him. Trump may have been briefed and as he always does decided that it was not a big deal that Russian was putting bounties on U.S. soldiers as incentives to attack them since trump has a real soft spot for Russia and Putin. He wasn’t going to do anything about it because he really doesn’t care. It is the most likely explanation.
If what Trump has done to Russia indicates he has a soft spot for Putin then Biden and Obama must literally be in bed with Putin. Not only did Trump face off militarily but he did a lot to damage Russia’s economy.
Ignorance is not a substitute for knowledge.
How long had the Ukrainian government been asking the U.S. to provide missiles for their defense against Russia and instead received blankets and MRE’s? Was Putin given an advisory role in those foreign policy discussions?
Obama put serious sanctions on Russian for their interference with our election. I was bad enough that they wanted trump to win so he would remove them. Flynn was promising to address the issue and it blew up in their face.
One has to laugh at what you say.
Did Obama help to destruct the Russian economy? No. He did the opposite. Did Obama and Biden oppose Putin in Ukraine and the Crimea? No Obama and Biden did nothing.
Where do you get your information from?
By the way as new information is obtained that information is showing the Putin preferred Obama and Biden.
Allan,
“Did Obama help to destruct the Russian economy? No. He did the opposite. Did Obama and Biden oppose Putin in Ukraine and the Crimea? No Obama and Biden did nothing.”
Actually that is incorrect. The Russian economy is highly dependent on oil sales. When WE started the fracking boom oil prices plummeted. Putin couldn’t finance his military wish list. Obama didn’t help Russia’s economy, He strangled it. Putin didn’t like that and saw trump as the key to removing the sanctions Obama put on Russia. Remember that trump tower meeting with the Russians? It wasn’t about adaptions, It was about ending the sanctions by offering info on Hillary. Obviously that didn’t work.
Obama and Biden did do something. They imposed sanctions that really Hurt Putin. It’s the whole reason why Putin wanted trump to win. So he could get rid of them.
“The Russian economy is highly dependent on oil ”
Svelaz, That is correct and Obama’s policy restricted our oil production which helped the Russian economy. The US supports Germany against Russia spending a lot of money. The pipeline from Russia to Germany boosts the Russian economy and thus the Russian military along with expansionist ideas.
Yes Obama actually supported Russian interests against American interests. …And when the Russians invaded the Ukraine and the Crimea Obama sat on his butt looking pretty while when the Russians expanded in Syria Trump opposed Russia with our military and actually ended up killing Russians.
You talk about sanctions. Sanctions attack the economy and he didn’t do a very good job nor did the sanctions. Trump’s oil power hurt Russia badly. Trump’s attacks on the oligarch’s causes a destabilization of Putin’s government since it makes some of the most powerful men in Russia push against some of Putin’s policy.
You won’t get this information from Media Matters talking points.
Since you have a problem about admitting you are wrong and can’t defend the comments you made I will repeat the last post in total waiting for your reply;
—
“The Russian economy is highly dependent on oil ”
Svelaz, That is correct and Obama’s policy restricted our oil production which helped the Russian economy. The US supports Germany against Russia spending a lot of money. The pipeline from Russia to Germany boosts the Russian economy and thus the Russian military along with expansionist ideas.
Yes Obama actually supported Russian interests against American interests. …And when the Russians invaded the Ukraine and the Crimea Obama sat on his butt looking pretty while when the Russians expanded in Syria Trump opposed Russia with our military and actually ended up killing Russians.
You talk about sanctions. Sanctions attack the economy and he didn’t do a very good job nor did the sanctions. Trump’s oil power hurt Russia badly. Trump’s attacks on the oligarch’s causes a destabilization of Putin’s government since it makes some of the most powerful men in Russia push against some of Putin’s policy.
You won’t get this information from Media Matters talking points.
Neither the WH nor the ODNI have denied that “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops.”
*****************************************************************************************************
If the offers were indeed made “secretly” then it is possible nobody but theRussians and Afghan Militants would know.
The US spent billions of dollars funding and arming Afghan Militants to kill Russians (even non-combatants). And the Russians were there at the invitation of a legal Afghan government. The Russians were not an illegal invading force like the US forces in Afghanistan are.
Needs to be Committed now wants all the President’s thinking out in the open without any security secrets. Of course this duplicitous fellow, CTHD, hates it when Trump’s thinking appears on Twitter. CTHD is an ardent supporter of a double standard. He also can’t make up his mind. Trump, who in the past has directly confronted the Russians instead of permitting them entry into Ukraine and the Crimea like Obama and Biden did, now wants a warrior President who goes to war at the drop of a hat or goes to war based on dubious material released by the MSM much like happened with the Steele Dossier.
This guy is nuts.
“People of good faith must step forward to demand a return to the rule of law and civility in our ongoing discourse over racism and reform.”
I sincerely hope that is all it will take. My concern is that the violence now so embedded in a cause and effect will not abate and will itself meet up against a decisive violence. What begins in violence and is met with violence most always ends in greater violence.
The problem is the rule of law is broken for a subset of out population. Restoring a system that is obviously in need of serious reforms is not going to address the problem. Civility was not observed by police forces during peaceful protests and at times abused their own policies to justify their means. Everyone recognizes that this needs to change and sometimes change doesn’t always involve civility. Our own history in seeking independence and ending slavery shows that. If protests must continue with disruptions and actions that keep driving the point that reform does need to happen before we “return to the rule of law” (status quo).
The violence in the cause of sporadic and not a common theme. The portrayal that it is all violence is only used on right wing media trying to stoke animosity towards the mostly peaceful protesters. This points out that it is not just violence that is the problem it is also racism and ignorance being used to find excuses not to acknowledge the problem by diluting the “black lives matter” slogan with “all lives matter”. The latter only serves to dilute the core of the message which is police brutality and racism in police departments that has never been truly addressed. Poorly trained officers and poor hiring practices are the core issues that need to be addressed besides dissolving police departments and deeper scrutiny of police tactics.
The problem is the rule of law is broken for a subset of out population.
That is a problem and the Flynn case demonstrates quite clearly that it’s victims span many subsets. As far as the rule of law and ideal governance is desired, can you identify any examples of it that would be great models for other city, county and state governments to adopt?
Olly, The Flynn case wasn’t about a victim. I was about discussing sanctions with the Russians without authorization. The phone calls between him and the Russians was cause for concern and they were justified in investigating. After all it WAS a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal one.
What is happening with police departments has more to do with systemic racism that has not been addressed for decades. Your comparison is nowhere near the same.
So you disagree with Comey that the call was legit. And the agents that interviewed Flynn that said he wasn’t lying? Oh, and the fact by Jan. 2017, the FBI already knew the concocted basis for Crossfire Hurricane/Crossfire Razor had been proven to be Russian disinformation.
So pursuing Flynn after all that was known was in your opinion justice? No victim there, but racism is everywhere. Yeah, that’s rational. Bwahahahahaha!
Olly, the call WAS legit since it was actually recorded by intelligence agencies. This being a counterintelligence investigation they were required to find out whether Flynn was being compromised by the Russians when he was discussing the sanctions. A discussion that he told the VP he didn’t have.
OLLY, you claim “Comey [said] that the call was legit,” but you don’t quote Comey saying that. Keep in mind that Strzok wasn’t at the meeting, so whatever discussion his notes are from, they’re not from a 1st person witness and not a quote from Comey.
Re: “the agents that interviewed Flynn that said he wasn’t lying,” there, too, how about you quote what Strzok and Pientka actually said? (Don’t quote Comey or McCabe or someone else, quote Strzok and Pientka.)
As for what others said…
Some of what Comey testified: “The agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”
Some of what McCabe testified: “[The agents] felt like it was not clear to them that he was, you know, lying or dissembling.”
Not seeing physical indications of lying doesn’t mean someone’s not lying. Thinking that someone isn’t lying also doesn’t guarantee the person isn’t lying.
Re: “by Jan. 2017, the FBI already knew the concocted basis for Crossfire Hurricane/Crossfire Razor had been proven to be Russian disinformation,” nope.
Again, the main reason Flynn was interviewed was that Pence and Spicer claimed that Flynn had told them he didn’t discuss sanctions (including expulsions) with Kislyak, and the FBI knew that to be false, and they wanted to know why Flynn was lying to Pence and others about this, as it could mean that Flynn was compromised. You can’t bring yourself to answer this question, but it’s still key: do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?
Re: “the agents that interviewed Flynn that said he wasn’t lying,” there, too, how about you quote what Strzok and Pientka actually said?
______________________________________________________________________________________
It is in the motion to dismiss. Go to the last exhibit at the end of the document.
You have been shown this evidence before – why do you keep pretending it does not exist?
Flynn is now claiming that he was not shown the evidence that the FBI agents were saying they believed he was not lying. Both Flynn’s lawyers and the prosecution had the evidence but Flynn says that both Flynn’s lawyers and the prosecution led him to believe that the FBI agents were saying they believed he was lying. In other words Flynn is now saying that the prosecution and his lawyers conspired to not tell him about the exculpatory evidence that guaranteed he would win in court if he chose to fight the charges.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
and the FBI knew that to be false, and they wanted to know why Flynn was lying to Pence and others about this
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Where is the evidence for that claim that you keep making. Did the FBI ask him about lying to Pence?
jinn, you’re a troll.
You regularly make false claims, and you fail to acknowledge and correct your false claims when evidence is given to you that they’re false (e.g., in the column https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/24/the-d-c-circuit-orders-dismissal-of-the-flynn-case/ — in response to my saying “Judge Sullivan already ruled that [Flynn’s lies] were material,” you falsely asserted “No that is not true,” and when I quoted to you from Sullivan’s 12/16/2019 very long memorandum opinion where he concluded “Mr. Flynn’s multiple false statements were material” and “defendant’s false statements were material,” you were silent about it).
You also regularly promote a bizarre conspiracy theory.
I have absolutely no interest in discussing with YOU a comment that I made to OLLY about what s/he said, especially when I asked him/her to “quote what Strzok and Pientka actually said,” and you don’t quote them.
Troll someone else, or better yet, don’t troll.
Last but not least, you ask me for evidence, and since I’m replying rather than ignoring you altogether, and because I believe evidence is important, I will present some of it even though you’re a troll. But I’m not going to start quoting from multiple sources of evidence even though they’re relevant, because IDGAF whether you believe me and I don’t care to take the time to round all of the sources up.
Me: “the main reason Flynn was interviewed was that Pence and Spicer claimed that Flynn had told them he didn’t discuss sanctions (including expulsions) with Kislyak, and the FBI knew that to be false, and they wanted to know why Flynn was lying to Pence and others about this…”
You: “Where is the evidence for that claim that you keep making.”
Comey, testifying under oath to the HPSCI (quoting from Exhibit 5 of the Motion to Dismiss):
Rep. Turner: “So what was the purpose of the questioning? If it wasn’t to ascertain what happened in the phone conversation, of which the contents you knew, what was the purpose to ask him these questions about what happened in the conversation?”
Mr. Comey: “To find out whether there was something we were missing about his relationship with the Russians and whether he would — because we had this disconnect publicly between what the Vice President was saying and what we knew. And so before we closed an investigation of Flynn, I wanted them to sit before him and say what is the deal?”
Mr. Turner: “By publicly, you mean statements that were made in the press.”
Mr. Comey: “Right. That the Vice President made on TV. … And then when Mr. Flynn has a communication [redacted] with the Russian Ambassador, and that it appears again, from what we can see from the outside — that he for some reason hasn’t been candid with the Vice President about this, my judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what is the deal here. That was the purpose.”
Rep. Swallwell: “And do you agree with Ms. Yates’s evaluation that that made him blackmailable?”
Mr. Comey: “Possible. That struck me as a bit of a reach, though, honestly. [several redacted paragraphs]”
(emphasis added)
And the agents that interviewed Flynn that said he wasn’t lying? Oh, and the fact by Jan. 2017, the FBI already knew the concocted basis for Crossfire Hurricane/Crossfire Razor had been proven to be Russian disinformation.
So pursuing Flynn after all that was known was in your opinion justice?
________________________________________________________________
It was not pursued by the FBI. The FBI said Flynn did nothing for which he could be charged.
Charges against Flynn were pursued by the Trump DOJ and since the FBI has left an evidence record that said Flynn had not lied the only possible way the Trump DOJ could get a conviction was with Flynn’s help.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn
Charges against Flynn were pursued by the Trump DOJ and since the FBI has left an evidence record that said Flynn had not lied the only possible way the Trump DOJ could get a conviction was with Flynn’s help.
Classic jinnism. While the DOJ fell under Trump’s authority, it certainly wasn’t aligned with his administration. And to characterize Flynn as “helping” the DOJ is akin to a hostage helping to negotiate his captors escape.
All one has to dots resolve this issue in their head is to look at the video section at https://duckduckgo.com/?q=woman+in+brooklyn+punched+in+face&t=osx&ia=videos&iax=videos . That is why have police. There are a few rotten apples condemned by almost everyone but statistically killing of unarmed civilians that are black are very low and so called abuses occur with black cops on blacks susptects more often than cross racial.
Some like to neglect the facts and just talk without any significant thought except that generated by their ideology.That doesn’t reflect well on one’s intellect.
And an administration hog-tied by a partisan press no matter what step he may take. This nastiness started back with the partisan press in the late 40’s
I his prologue to his USA Today column , Turley mentions Biden’s complicity in suggesting the discredited “Logan Act” as a pretense for continuing to violate Flynn’s civil rights but makes no mention of Obama then directing Comey to put the “right people” on it. Why?
The “dangerous game of legal improvisation” that Turley describes in his column would likely be more than enough for congressional democrats to bring impeachment proceedings against Judge Emmet Sullivan were he not a favored patron of the Democratic Party.
The Logan act has not been discredited. That is an inaccurate assertion based on pure bias. It is controversial at the very least but has not been discredited. The Logan act was created so that no single U.S. citizen who is not properly authorized can negotiate on behalf of the government with another nation. Flynn was discussing the Russian sanctions well before trump was officially sworn into office without the knowledge of President Obama. Many statements and terms have been abused and portrayed out of context by posters here including Turley to make an argument. Simply stating “Obama then directing Comey to put the ‘right people’ on it” is disingenuous. Putting the words, ‘right people’ in parentheses misleadingly implies there was a malicious or nefarious intent. That is not only true, but it is intended to falsely sow suspicion. Why don’t you produce the entire conversation and provide the proper context instead if you truly are concerned about the truth?
As it was with tump, mere “improvisation” is not grounds for impeachment of a judge. There is no statute that states this is grounds for impeachment, but it you insist then you are exposing the president to another avenue for impeachment given his multiple games of improvisation. Funny how easily bar for impeachment suddenly lowers when it is not a republican being the target. Isn’t it?
Still waiting for John Kerry to be convicted under the Logan Act. Are you waiting too, Svalez? or is it just a subset of people (Republicans) that should be subjected to the Logan Act?
DV, What did John Kerry do that merited the being charged under the act?
Strzok wasn’t in the meeting, so his notes aren’t first person notes, and “P: Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it” doesn’t indicate what “it” refers to. Your assumption that Obama actually said those words and that “it” refers to an investigation of Flynn is evidenceless.
The most important aspect of this situation in my opinion is politization of the FBI and CIA to attack a political opponent. And so far they got away with it. Nixon is the last high ranking official to pay a price for crossing this line. The Trump administration has been overwhelmed and shocked by the depth of deep state extent of treason supported by the opposing party. If Comey, PS, Brennan, Joe and Barack committed treason they need to pay the price. It seems like Barr is being “impeached” by the people who have committed the treason. Just like Police in this country is being taken over by anarchists. This country cannot enforce law and order. Good bye Democracy!
And so far they got away with it. Nixon is the last high ranking official to pay a price for crossing this line.
Nixon tried to buffalo the CIA into obstructing the Watergate investigation. AFAIK, CIA officials did nothing. The interim director of the FBI, one L Patrick Grey, did destroy some incriminating files turned over to him by the White House counsel’s office. I’m not aware of any misconduct by the FBI apart from that, unless you count Mark Felt leaking to the Washington Post. Gray had worked for the Department of Justice for three years and change and for the FBI in particular for less than three months when he destroyed the files. The permanent government wasn’t implicated. NB, when Nixon wanted IRS audits of his political opponents, the commissioner of Internal Revenue and his subordinates were noncompliant (and later leaked Nixon’s tax returns to the media). Lois Lerner and other career officials volunteered to do this sort of dirty work.
DSS, with time details fall away. I believe that for any member of the FBI to have been aware of what Nixon was doing they would have had to spy on Nixon. If so, then by what right did the FBI spy on Nixon, POTUS, in the first place?
The sketchy activity in the administration was the work of Egil Krogh, Gordon Liddy, Howard Hunt, John Dean, and people working for them. You could add Charles Colson and Tom Charles Houston to the list, though in their case it was mostly cooking up plans to do things which were not actually done. Various others were aware of what some or all of these people were doing. Some countenanced it and were implicated (John Mitchell), some just bystanders (Hugh Sloan). Some of the characters mistreated (Morton Halperin, Daniel Ellsburg) bloody well deserved worse than they got.
DSS, all that is true but for the FBI to have the information it had it seems like they must have been spying on the President. If so, then by what right did the FBI spy on Nixon, POTUS, in the first place?
What the FBI did to Flynn is the same MO that they do to other suspects all the time. The only difference is that Flynn has Trump and Barr on his side. If we want to admit that what the FBI did was wrong then fine, let Flynn off, and everyone else in similar situations. But if we don’t let the rest go, then Flynn should rot with the rest of them.
“. If so, then by what right did the FBI spy on Nixon, POTUS, in the first place?”
This was done to a Presidential candidate and a Presidential administration along with Flynn. Can you produce any similar documentation of something similar happening?
lol
Allan’s quoting himself, now.
Yes, I asked a question and I asked again. Did you not recognize it Brainless?
If an invalid investigation should lead to dismissing the charge of providing false info to the FBI, then we should apply that same standard to all cases. The status of the subject of the investigation should not provide special protections.
That wasn’t the question. I repeat. “This was done to a Presidential candidate and a Presidential administration along with Flynn. Can you produce any similar documentation of something similar happening?”
All investigations should be legal and if they aren’t the particular persons involved should be penalized. If their actions were as heinous as what appears to be the actions of some FBI officials and some in the Obama Administration then they should probably go to Jail.
Can’t use the fruit of the poisoness tree. I am sure you have heard of that which I think should satisfy your underlying question .
MollyG – I agree with you that if they have been doing the same thing to others, they must be found and released. We do know of several cases were pushed into penury and forced to take a plea only to have it over turned. The problem is that you get the justice you can afford, not that you deserve.
Irreparable harms? legal improvisation? coming from Turley who backs the most corrupt AG since John Mitchell, Really?
The Democrats weaponization of government is on par with China’s red guards, Venezuela, Cuba, et al. It’s hard to believe it has happenned. I used to believe there were good Democrats, honest Press, and a government by and for the people. Not once the Democrats perverted it all to use against their political rivals. They are zealots in the worst manner of orthodoxy.
Mr. Turley, you don’t read these comments, but you’ve closed your Corrections page, so I’ll note some of your unfounded or erroneous claims here (and I don’t have the patience right now to go through all of them).
Strzok was not at the 1/5 meeting, so his notes have to come from a discussion with someone else about the meeting later. We don’t know who Strzok was talking to, so we don’t even know whether the person he spoke with was at the meeting. We don’t know whether that person was correctly telling Strzok about who said what. The notes don’t have full sentences, and it’s hard to know what some of them mean.
For example, the notes say “VP: ‘Logan Act,'” but they do NOT say that Biden is the one who “raising the idea of a charge under the … Logan Act” (Turley’s claim). For all we know, someone else introduced it and Biden then commented on it. We simply don’t know, and no one who is careful with evidence would jump to your unfounded conclusion.
Your claim that “when Comey broke protocols and sent the agents, he thought the calls were legitimate ant that agents wanted to dismiss the investigation in December for lack of evidence” is false. Strzok’s notes are presumably from the 1/5 meeting memorialized by Rice’s email to herself (based on the attendees and the DOJ’s statement that “While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5”); whereas the agents interviewed Flynn on 1/24, after they all became aware that Pence and Spicer had both insisted that Flynn had told them that he didn’t discuss sanctions (including expulsions) with Kislyak, which we know from the transcripts of the calls is false. Hurricane Razor had already been opened, and it was appropriate for the agents to investigate why Flynn would lie to Pence and others about this and whether Flynn was compromised.
You quote “irreparable harms,” but ignore that Rao’s claim was that use of an amicus and allowing a hearing (would) cause irreparable harms to the DOJ, which is nonsense.
Re: “the upcoming hearing on Flynn has been removed from the docket,” that’s because it was set for 7/16 with other reply dates before then, and it makes no sense for Sullivan to continue on that schedule. Rather, if he appeals or if a judge on the CADC asks for a rehearing sua sponte, it makes more sense for Sullivan to wait for that to be resolved.
RE: the 1/5 meeting, this:
——–
As I explain in the column, there has been some confusion in the commentary about Strzok’s notes, in particular regarding the date of the meeting and whether there was more than one meeting. We already knew that the five just-mentioned officials had met on January 5, 2017. But a submission to the court by Ms. Powell dated Strzok’s notes on January 4, thus suggesting that there had been a meeting on a date earlier than January 5 (presumably January 4), in which the same five participants discussed the same topic. (Obviously, if Strzok’s notes are from January 4, they could not describe a meeting that didn’t happen until January 5.)
To the contrary, I have contended that the Strzok notes are actually about the January 5 meeting, meaning they can’t be from January 4.
Attorney general Bill Barr appears to have confirmed that the notes relate to the January 5 meeting. He appeared on Verdict with Ted Cruz, a podcast the senator hosts along with Michael Knowles. The episode is here, and the relevant discussion begins a little more than 16 minutes in. While the discussion confirms that the notes describe some of what was discussed at the January 5 White House meeting, it left unaddressed whether Strzok was present (I do not believe he was) and, assuming he wasn’t, who might have briefed Strzok about the meeting. (I suspect the notes, which are very sketchy, are third-hand, at best.)
As I explain in the column, the notes could be significant in the sense that they are additional confirmation of an important meeting. They do not, however, tell us anything of significance that we did not already know from other documents already disclosed.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ag-barr-confirms-strzok-notes-are-for-january-5-white-house-meeting/
————-
Sooo, in short, you are hung up over trivia.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
After 4 years of this info dripping out why haven’t any of these American Hating Aholes, Comey, McCabe, etc…. been locked up for at least their personal safety or more so for Sedition & Espionage against the US Govt?
Trump has the Patriot Act & the NDAA at his desposal.
If you think it’s “trivia” whether Strzok was actually at the meeting vs. these notes being from a conversation with someone else about a meeting that Strzok didn’t attend, you have a bizarre definition of “trivia.”
Also LOL that you claim I’m “hung up over trivia” after you present a quote from an article that spends *several paragraphs* on the questions of what meeting the notes refer to, the meeting date, and whether Strzok was there. McCarthy: “I do not believe he was [present]. … I suspect the notes, which are very sketchy, are third-hand, at best.” Do you have reading comprehension problems? Your quote confirms my criticism of Turley’s claims about the notes and also indicates that Flynn’s lawyer lied about the date of the notes (no surprise).
The point being, it is still trivia. The basic info was already out there, and this latest note is just more of the same. You see, the really important part is, “The Flynn calls seem legit.” That is what a normal person, not a shill, would focus on. Because you also have the info that the first 2 agents did not think Flynn was lying to them. These are the important, non-trivial things.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, the failure of the Bad DOJ to turn over this note is a Brady violation. If Strzok was NOT at the meeting, then a defense lawyer could call him in or request thru discovery how he got the info for the notes, which would have led to WHO gave him the info.
These are the important things, which you wish to distract away from with rabbit holes and games of trivial pursuit. You are either intentionally or ignorantly avoiding the forest for the trees. There was zero basis for an investigation. Sane people, even partisan ones, see this. For example, Democrat J H Kunstler –
“Gen. Flynn became an antagonist to Obama & Co. when he objected to the nuclear deal they were cooking up with Iran and when he spoke out against the CIA’s 2013 Timber Sycamore op to arm and give money to Isis terrorists opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Obama canned Gen. Flynn in 2014. What really sealed Gen. Flynn’s fate was when he started publicly complaining about the politicization of John Brennan’s CIA. The New York Times quoted him saying, “They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for. They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States. Frankly, it’s become a very political organization.”
And a few months later, he jumped on Donald Trump’s campaign bandwagon. When he led the cheer “Lock her up” at the Republican convention, you can imagine how that gave the heebie-jeebies to a whole lot of other Deep State denizens besides She-Whose-Turn-Was-Foiled. And then, Lord have mercy, he was appointed to sit at Mr. Trump’s very elbow in the West Wing as National Security Advisor! Well, you can imagine the tremors that provoked. Gen. Flynn had declared his intention to completely reorganize, partially dismantle, and audit the intel community monster that had spread like a slime mold through the government. Mr. Brennan especially feared the audit part of the deal, since his agency regarded the billions of dollars that flowed in and out of it as just another one of its sacred secrets. Flynn had to be stopped.
So, John Brennan concocted the RussiaGate scam to put over the idea that General Flynn was an errand boy of Vladimir Putin —lock him up! — and for good measure, Mr. Trump probably was, too. Once they embarked on that grand misadventure, and enlisted the foolish James Comey and his FBI zealots to assist, the gang found themselves involved in a dangerous game of sedition, poorly thought out and executed desperately. And finally, by all that’s holy, the improbable Mr. Trump actually won the election, ensuring that he would be privy to every dark secret moldering in the vaults of the US government.
Finally, Judge Sullivan was recruited by The Resistance in a last-ditch effort to keep Gen. Flynn silent for a couple months more by ginning up an amicus circus that would invite a zillion bogus filings of briefs to be meticulously examined and argued, a pointless exercise in sound and fury. In doing so, he contradicted 25 of his own previous rulings against amicus filings by the defendant, and also moved in violation of a Supreme Court decision (Sineneng-Smith, 2020) and a DC Circuit case (Fokker Services 2016), as well as federal court rules against the use of amicus filings in criminal proceedings.
Now he has a few days to answer a mandamus motion from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to cut the [crap] and do his bound duty in the case. I won’t rehearse the separation-of-powers argument, except to say that Judge Sullivan doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and will be lucky if he is not reprimanded by the higher court. He’s been played by the Lawfare gang and exposed as a useful idiot. They’ve tossed aside his personal honor like a banana skin. Gawd knows what else prompted him to lawyer-up.
The colossal melodrama of a sedition conspiracy is unspooling swiftly now. Before much longer, US Attorney John Durham will weigh in with something, whether it’s a mere report detailing gross abuses of power, or perhaps a string of hard indictments against the seditionists. With bales of evidence of their misdeeds now in the public domain, the various players must be turning on each other viciously now. There’s probably not enough room under the proverbial bus to throw anybody else. They’ll need a train.”
THAT is the thinking of sane, non-shill people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky– “Gawd knows what else prompted him (Sullivan) to lawyer-up.”
That’s an interesting question I hadn’t considered.
Might guess he’s had a number of ex parte communications with various people. If he’s not senile, he’s been acting like he’s working for someone.
Great comment Squeeky.
The colossal melodrama of a sedition conspiracy is unspooling swiftly now.
My guess is there will be indictments. If it was simply to be a report, there would have been leaks. But Durham is keeping things tight for a reason. The scope of this will be overwhelming. It won’t move the needle for those that have been pretending to care about honesty and justice. But independents and Democrats that still love our country and the rule of law will be moved to reject the Democratic party this November.
Olly, you promised an indictment for McCabe.
“The point being, it is still trivia.”
So you’re saying that Turley chose to focus on trivia in his article, got it.
“‘The Flynn calls seem legit.’ That is what a normal person … would focus on.”
ROFL. McCarthy states that Strzok wasn’t at the meeting, and McCarthy has no idea who Strzok spoke with or whether that person was at the meeting, but somehow you want to focus on Strzok’s notes from his second- or third-hand conversation instead of first-person witnesses to the meeting, all while Flynn supporters have been painting Strzok as untrustworthy. Which is it: is Strzok trustworthy or not?
“you also have the info that the first 2 agents did not think Flynn was lying to them.”
Strzok was one of those 2 agents. Are you going to cherrypick what you believe him about? Do tell why you believe him about this but don’t believe him about the Flynn interview 302. And the fact is: sometimes person A doesn’t think person B is lying, even when person B is lying. Whether the agents thought Flynn was lying isn’t really key. You’re the hypocrite complaining about trivia while grasping at trivia.
“the failure of the Bad DOJ to turn over this note is a Brady violation.”
No, it isn’t. This is not exculpatory evidence about the false statements Flynn plead guilty to from an FBI interview that occurred weeks later.
“If Strzok was NOT at the meeting, then a defense lawyer could call him in or request thru discovery how he got the info for the notes, which would have led to WHO gave him the info.”
ROFL even harder. Flynn chose a plea deal, and no witnesses were called! Nor have you explained in any way how these notes are relevant to a false statements plea for an FBI interview that occurred weeks later.
“There was zero basis for an investigation.”
Bullsh*t. I’ll refer you to my long exchange with OLLY here, where I quote from a bunch of relevant evidence, including Pence’s statements at the time: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/24/the-d-c-circuit-orders-dismissal-of-the-flynn-case/comment-page-3/#comment-1971014
And I’ll ask you the same question that OLLY kept running away from: “do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?”
Are you going to be as cowardly as OLLY, or will you answer that question?
FFS, Trump and Pence both stated that Flynn lied to Pence and both stated that Flynn was fired for lying to Pence. Somehow those lies are reason for Flynn to be fired but not reason for him to be interviewed?!?
And I think your endless stream of insults towards those you disagree with are projection.
No, I am not going to play, “Chase the Squirrel” games with you. If you were an honest person, then you would have already changed your mind on Flynn, and on how wrong Sullivan was. There is plenty of info out there on both issues.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In other words, you can’t admit that your false claims (e.g., “There was zero basis for an investigation”) are false, even when presented with evidence, no matter what the evidence is (in this case, including statements from Pence), and you instead resort to one of your favorite fallacies, ad hom.
It’s striking how many Trump supporters are too cowardly to answer this relevant and straightforward question: “do you seriously think it’s OK for an incoming NSA to be lying to the VP-Elect about national security issues?”
Trump and Pence both stated that Flynn lied to Pence, and both stated that Flynn was fired for lying to Pence. Apparently you think that Flynn lying to Pence is an acceptable reason for Flynn to be fired but not an acceptable reason for him to be interviewed.
“In other words, you can’t admit that your false claims (e.g., “There was zero basis for an investigation”) are false, even when presented with evidence, no matter what the evidence is (in this case, including statements from Pence), and you instead resort to one of your favorite fallacies, ad hom.”
This has already been responded to numerous times including a lengthy rebuttal by I beleive John Say that you never factually responded to. The FBI did not have the right to continue the investigation shortly after it was started if they ever had that right at all.
Don’t tell us it was a counter intelligence investigation, prove it because it wasn’t and couldn’t be shortly after it started. Start quoting the law along with the words proving the investigation was legitimate. You don’t do that because you can’t and are incompetent. Instead you play games and lie.
Allan,
“Don’t tell us it was a counter intelligence investigation, prove it because it wasn’t and couldn’t be shortly after it started. Start quoting the law along with the words proving the investigation was legitimate. You don’t do that because you can’t and are incompetent. Instead you play games and lie.”
He’s proven it multiple times. To keep demanding it and then ignoring it because it is true just makes you look foolish. Nobody has proven that it was a criminal investigation as many claim it was. The proof you’re demanding is public information that you could easily find to satisfy your own demand. Even the DOJ doesn’t classify the investigation as a criminal one.
Thanks. Allan’s a troll and I’m not going to feed him. He follows me around, lying about me and insulting me. I can’t prevent that, but I don’t have to indulge his trolling by responding.
“He’s proven it multiple times. ”
You may have fallen for CTHD’s dancing but most knowledgeable people don’t. In fact when he claimed the FBI report had the words of Flynn that proved Flynn was lying he refused to provide those words. Instead he said that those words were in the FBi report. They weren’t. He lied and sent people on wild goose chases. He has done that with most of his arguments and then relies on lengthy trivial arguments to hide the important questions. He is totally unreliable and not credible.
The proof is in the law and rules as to when the when the FBI is supposed to investigate and when it is supposed to do counter intelligence. The reason the Steele Dossier was so important was that FBI needed support for most of what they were doing and as we now know even the FISA requests were inappropriate, the lawyer for the FBI changed documents, the 302’s were rewritten multiple times and the original was “lost” and of course the Steele Dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign was untrue.
So no, if CTHD wishes to make claims he is going to have to prove them with evidence skipping things like ‘he lied to Pence’ which is not something applicable to the court proceding.
I am sorry you fell for CTHD’s twisting of the truth and lies.
“Thanks. Allan’s a troll and I’m not going to feed him. ”
Needs to be Committed if you don’t like the comments some people make about you stop being a low life liar who wastes everyone’s time. On this blog you act like trash and trash needs to be disposed of. It stinks.
Squeaky, CTHD posed relevant questions. Avoiding them because the answers are as plain the day and running away from the obvious conclusions is a poor excuse. This is a very complicated case and when complex arguments are required most people want it to be simple and as black and white as possible. Critics of the DOJ’s approach have valid and compelling arguments that would be quite relevant in a court of law.
No he didn’t. He is trying to mix up legalities with non-legalities. For example, assuming Flynn did actually lie to Pence, that is not a subject for the FBI to be investigating. That is a matter between Flynn-Pence/Trump. Plus “Lies” are not some sort of presumption when someone says a false thing, or a questionable thing, or a possibly untrue thing. Lies require intent and that is not usually possible to know from the outside. It is not recorded, to my knowledge, what Flynn exactly said to Pence. Plus, even the person themselves may think they lied, when they didn’t. For example, Penelope Dreadful ask me if I have any vodka in the house. I say no. She goes to the liquor store to buy some. While she is gone, I find a full unopened bottle in the bedside cabinet. When she gets back, I say, “I lied to you. I do have a full bottle of vodka.” Have you ever said something similar to someone, “Oh it looks like I lied to you. . .” And remember, the FBI even said originally that they did not think Flynn lied to them. If Flynn lied to Pence, that is between them, and nt the FBI. Period.
Sooo, what CTHD is trying to do is send everybody down a rabbit hole of speculations instead of focusing on the legal issues, which are pretty straightforward. The DOJ dismissed the charge, Sullivan should have signed off on that dismissal, and instead he went bonkers. There was NEVER nothing to investigate period. Flynn was railroaded, and denied the Brady info. Case over.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, “assuming Flynn did actually lie to Pence, that is not a subject for the FBI to be investigating.” it is actually a subject the FBI is obligated to investigate. Remember Flynn WAS the national security advisor to the president. If he lied to pence and the Russians knew he did Flynn exposed himself to blackmail. The FBI understood this to be an very serious issue that they ARE obligated to investigate. There is a reason why they are called the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.
The very fact that Flynn was in a very compromised position and being so close to the president required the FBI to investigate. It’s their purpose. CHTD’s questions are valid. You’re trying to dismiss them because they pose a difficult dilemma for you if you actually answer his questions.
“The very fact that Flynn was in a very compromised position and being so close to the president required the FBI to investigate.”
No it didn’t. That is ridiculous. What was Russia going to do, “Flynn, if you don’t tell us about America’s super bomber, we are going to tell VP Pence you lied to him about a phone call recorded by your intelligence people!!!” Sooo, you had better play along!!!”
Sheeeesh, but you guys will believe anything.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“. The FBI understood this to be an very serious issue that they ARE obligated to investigate. ”
Svelaz, The FBI was obligated to tell Trump about their investigation of Flynn but they didn’t. How do you explain that? If it were a Democrat perhaps notification would have occurred. In fact it did occur with a spy who drove Feinstein around but she was told. How do you explain that?
Apparently, you believe whatever your betters tell you to believe. Was it you pushing a new hoax about Russians being told to kill Americans by Putin? Was that you who brought it up? Did you ever think that could be a hoax perpetrated by Putin in concert with Democrats to destabilize the government? Didn’t your betters tell you that? …And if something like that were true are you ready to get into a nuclear war? Is that how you think we should resolve problems? You actually don’t know and would have to wait for the talking points from your betters. Sometimes things are dealt with quietly to prevent war, but perhaps you are a war monger and that is why you were pushing the President in the direction of war over what looks like a hox. That is plain foolish.
Do you still believe in the Steele Dossier? Have you looked over the testimony and transcripts having to do with Biden’s dealings in the Ukraine? No? Does that mean the talking points are not out so you know nothing about that?
Wow, you sound like a programmed voice from China, Russia and Democrats that have no love for this country and support violent riots, 84 year olds being punched in the mouth and a third rate economy.
“He is trying to mix up legalities with non-legalities.”
“She,” and no, I’m not mixing them up. I’m simply noting that both are relevant.
“assuming Flynn did actually lie to Pence, that is not a subject for the FBI to be investigating”
That’s bullish*t. It’s absolutely a relevant counterintelligence issue for the FBI to find out whether the incoming NSA was compromised. For example, 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.”
“Lies require intent”
I know!
“It is not recorded, to my knowledge, what Flynn exactly said to Pence”
Trump later said “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” Was Trump not telling the truth 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 making false statements about Flynn having lied to Pence?
“the legal issues … are pretty straightforward”
No, they aren’t. Which is why the ruling wasn’t unanimous and why there’s so much debate about it among amici, etc.
That you can’t even bring yourself to admit the complexities is a problem.
” It’s absolutely a relevant counterintelligence issue for the FBI to find out whether the incoming NSA was compromised.”
If that were the case they would have told the incoming President. Stop lying.
Great job Squeeky. Again, go to law school. You think accurately, you are on point and you think out of the box.
Thank you Allan!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Turley own definition of legal improvisation is his own definition of impeachment.
Fishwings, please leave the conversation to the adults in the room. You are embarrassing yourself.
It will be Pence on the top of the ticket.
And Pence all the way. He is younger than Biden and has much more to say.
Mister Pence:. Build up that fence!
A dolphin swam up here to NC from Mar A Lago. His name is Jeb. He can talk English. He was in some CIA program years back. He was at the dock when Trump and his wife were talking about quitting the White House and fully retiring to Mar A Lago. She was pushing it. He agreed.
Somewhere between now and the election i hope and pray that citizens of all strips realize that civil rights are violated to many not just certain segments. I think certain Democrats realize the Durham report will be deeply. That is why they are going after Barr now. A man running for president was spied on with the approval of the current president and VP along with some of his advisors. Even when this was exposed it was not headlines but it continues to be dragged out. . What the glaring thing is is if this can happen to a president and his advisors .what can they do to you and me. .Protesters have more in common.with Trump than either one realize.
The majority of the citzens, white/black/latin/greens along with LEO have had about enough of these American Hating Rioters & their Aid De Camp Old Media…
So far it’s been mostly soft rounds, feels to me these crap is about to go hot by the commie/nazi aholes. I hope they said their goodbyes to their moms.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/not-seattle-not-putting-lawlessness-oklahoma-judge-charges-protesters-terrorism-rioting-assault/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/shooting-louisville-black-lives-matter-protest-captured-video-multiple-people-shot/
This is dangerous game.
Flynn should sue his lawyer for malpractice – for allowing/encouraging? him to plead guilty. Twice.
Sullivan was the latest hate and anti Trump move by the DEM’s, MSM, Washington Elite, Global Elite moves. Sullivan became the errand person or legal stooge, in order to get Trump and anyone associated with Trump. They don’t care about the Constitution or Legal Rights.Its the Washington Elite Mob going after Trump and his associates.
They become insane and inventive. Trump syndrome. they will frame and do anything against any one associated with Trump.
In the end, Trump is going to win reelection, polls are so manipulated, and then watch Washington Elite/DEM’s/MSM they will really go over the deep end
He was “in like flin” . Now he is out like Biden. Pense will be in when Trump gets off the ticket.
Many of us normal folk fear that this “irregular” behavior is more normal that what we thought.
This is exactly why the left fears President Trump. He refuses to participate in the filth that has become the federal government. Worse, he has the courage to confront the sham and call it to answer for the crimes it has committed. That is why they have bet the farm on whatever candidate they can throw at the president; his chances of winning contingent on how much fictional, non-constitutional dirt they can throw at him. He will very likely, despite their efforts, win in the fall. Should that happen, my prayer is that his security detail is up to the challenge of keeping him alive.
“Should that happen, my prayer is that his security detail is up to the challenge of keeping him alive” I hate to think that there could be some merit to that, but it’s not an unrealistic concern considering all of the underhanded things those in power have already tried. And that’s only what we actually know about.
It seems whenever a Special Counsel is appointed to investigate a President and his cronies, the President can simply fire the Special Prosecutor, replace the Attorney General and then just undo everything the Special Prosecutor has done. There are enough attorneys like Barr out there willing to do the President’s bidding. let’s let everyone go and investigate the investigators! That will show everyone to never investigate the President. FoxNews will back us up. So will Turley and Dershowitz.
Interesting points.
Robert S Mueller (special counsel) was NOT fired. He finished his investigation and presented his report.
Jeff B Sessions (Attorney General) was NOT fired. He refused himself of the whole matter and resigned. His resignation did not stop the special counsel.
Had President Trump fired either of those two people, there would have been a different outcome. Obstruction of justice would have been screamed throughout the airwaves.
But it didn’t. They did their jobs and there was no there there.
Precedent, since you’ve put down Fox News, Turley and Dershowitz, who are you getting your “news” from? Who or what is backing you up?
The problem we have as a political society is that the people in it who react with revulsion to this sort of abuse of power don’t vote Democratic anyway, so it has no effect on the Democratic Party’s prospects. Democrats are divided between those who are indifferent to this and those who fancy crime and abuse of power are just their prerogative (a number of them post here). The swing voters do what they do for the random reasons they have (“she reminds me of my first wife”) and do not notice this either.
We need some modicum of honor and respect for rules among the political class. That’s gone. And we know who is to blame for that.
Yes. As sick as I am of the useless Trump, it’s becoming easy to see that the Woke (using the obviously senile Biden as their puppet) could set up a totalitarian police state once in power.