Travesty
-
Flynn's lawyer writes to Obama:
Highlights:
First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.
McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.
Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.
Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes....
Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.
Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes.
Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.
Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.
@xenon, read the last paragraph. Presumably, Powell has evidence that the FBI altered the 302s to indicate that Flynn lied, whereas, in point of fact, she says, he did not.
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
-
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
The biggest concern is the weaponization of elements of the government in a coordinated effort to interfere in a presidential election and to engage in massive subversion against a duly elected President.
Is that a big enough concern or do you wish to equivocate that?
-
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
The biggest concern is the weaponization of elements of the government in a coordinated effort to interfere in a presidential election and to engage in massive subversion against a duly elected President.
Is that a big enough concern or do you wish to equivocate that?
Let's say that there was a Republican in office at the time and the Comey / Clinton thing 10 days before the election happened.
In that case those two dots would have been connected and the other side would have made the same statement as you, Jolly.
My question here is - did Obama instigate this investigation? Was it politically motivated? Where's the evidence of that?
Remember these agencies under scrutiny (namely the FBI) are the same ones that drove the single biggest sentiment shift against Clinton in the final days of the campaign. So how do you explain that in the grand conspiracy?
-
-
I don't ascribe to conspiracies as a matter of course. Individual bad actors and bad decision are orders of magnitude more likely
Even with Trump - Russia collusion. In my mind there was likely nothing there - was an overzealous mistake through incompetence and inexperience.
I think people who are smart enough to conceive a workable conspiracy would be very foolhardy to actually try it.
-
Rephrasing that a bit :
In my mind there was likely nothing there - if there was it would be an overzealous mistake through incompetence and inexperience.
I think the record bears out pretty clearly that his campaign did plenty of stupid things, that didn't rise to the level of a crime - still stupid things.
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
The biggest concern is the weaponization of elements of the government in a coordinated effort to interfere in a presidential election and to engage in massive subversion against a duly elected President.
Is that a big enough concern or do you wish to equivocate that?
Let's say that there was a Republican in office at the time and the Comey / Clinton thing 10 days before the election happened.
In that case those two dots would have been connected and the other side would have made the same statement as you, Jolly.
My question here is - did Obama instigate this investigation? Was it politically motivated? Where's the evidence of that?
Remember these agencies under scrutiny (namely the FBI) are the same ones that drove the single biggest sentiment shift against Clinton in the final days of the campaign. So how do you explain that in the grand conspiracy?
Have you been paying any attention to this thread at all?
-
-
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
The biggest concern is the weaponization of elements of the government in a coordinated effort to interfere in a presidential election and to engage in massive subversion against a duly elected President.
Is that a big enough concern or do you wish to equivocate that?
Let's say that there was a Republican in office at the time and the Comey / Clinton thing 10 days before the election happened.
In that case those two dots would have been connected and the other side would have made the same statement as you, Jolly.
My question here is - did Obama instigate this investigation? Was it politically motivated? Where's the evidence of that?
Remember these agencies under scrutiny (namely the FBI) are the same ones that drove the single biggest sentiment shift against Clinton in the final days of the campaign. So how do you explain that in the grand conspiracy?
Have you been paying any attention to this thread at all?
Yes. And the thread of the title is based on this exchange:
LAURA: The president is very frustrated, I think you obviously know that – about Andrew McCabe, and he believes that people like McCabe and others were able to basically flout laws and so far with impunity.
BARR: I think the president has every right to be frustrated, because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history. Without any basis they started this investigation of his campaign, and even more concerning, actually is what happened after the campaign, a whole pattern of events while he was president. So I -- to sabotage the presidency, and I think that – or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency.
INGRAHAM: Will FISA abuses really be prevented going forward given what happened here, where FISA judges are not given critical pieces of information, material facts about evidence that inform the government’s OK-ing the surveillance of American citizens?
BARR: You know, I think it’s possible to put in a regime that would make it very hard either to willfully circumvent FISA, or to do so sloppily without due regard for the rights of the American person involved. And also to make it very clear that any misconduct will be discovered and discovered fairly promptly. So I do think we can put in safeguards that will enable us to go forward with this important tool. I think it’s very sad -- and the people who abused FISA have a lot to answer for, because this was an important tool to protect the American people. They abused it, they undercut public confidence in FISA but also the FBI as an institution, and we have to rebuild that
It's in the context of McCabe and the FBI. Did McCabe want Hillary elected - how did telegraphing Clinton Foundation probe help that cause?
The FBI is playing fast and loose with process (both sides hate Comey) and more than just the Steele FISA warrants are sloppy.
Maybe this is an issue of FBI sloppiness and power trips.
What I'm asking is - where's the direct Obama connection here? That's the nefarious thing being hinted at.
Trump-Russia collusion stories were mostly nefarious hinting as well.
Maybe the big lesson here is not political. Maybe it's just the FBI as an institution of law enforcement sucks.
-
-
Is Flynn's testimony public record? Was it a "I do not recall" sorta deal? Or did he say he didn't talk with the Russian ambassador, or didn't talk about sanctions.
There's so much legal detail here that I would never be able to filter through the fact and editorialization.
The broader issues at play here seem to be:
-
How rotten was the cause behind the FBI's shoddy work? (routine overzealousness, political pressure, etc.)
-
If Obama was trying to do something here - what was it? There's a lot of insinuation of involvement, but little direct allegations.
-
Flynn is a bad actor regardless of any of the above, no? Lies to the Trump admin, at the very least not very forthcoming with the FBI, he did enter a guilty plea - which should raise alarms; I can't imagine that powerful, innocent people are pleading guilty to things as a matter of routine
Stepping back even further. There's a lot of insinuation in this story and coverage - but little in terms of direct allegations. What is the biggest concern here?
The biggest concern is the weaponization of elements of the government in a coordinated effort to interfere in a presidential election and to engage in massive subversion against a duly elected President.
Is that a big enough concern or do you wish to equivocate that?
Let's say that there was a Republican in office at the time and the Comey / Clinton thing 10 days before the election happened.
In that case those two dots would have been connected and the other side would have made the same statement as you, Jolly.
My question here is - did Obama instigate this investigation? Was it politically motivated? Where's the evidence of that?
Remember these agencies under scrutiny (namely the FBI) are the same ones that drove the single biggest sentiment shift against Clinton in the final days of the campaign. So how do you explain that in the grand conspiracy?
Have you been paying any attention to this thread at all?
Yes. And the thread of the title is based on this exchange:
LAURA: The president is very frustrated, I think you obviously know that – about Andrew McCabe, and he believes that people like McCabe and others were able to basically flout laws and so far with impunity.
BARR: I think the president has every right to be frustrated, because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history. Without any basis they started this investigation of his campaign, and even more concerning, actually is what happened after the campaign, a whole pattern of events while he was president. So I -- to sabotage the presidency, and I think that – or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency.
INGRAHAM: Will FISA abuses really be prevented going forward given what happened here, where FISA judges are not given critical pieces of information, material facts about evidence that inform the government’s OK-ing the surveillance of American citizens?
BARR: You know, I think it’s possible to put in a regime that would make it very hard either to willfully circumvent FISA, or to do so sloppily without due regard for the rights of the American person involved. And also to make it very clear that any misconduct will be discovered and discovered fairly promptly. So I do think we can put in safeguards that will enable us to go forward with this important tool. I think it’s very sad -- and the people who abused FISA have a lot to answer for, because this was an important tool to protect the American people. They abused it, they undercut public confidence in FISA but also the FBI as an institution, and we have to rebuild that
It's in the context of McCabe and the FBI. Did McCabe want Hillary elected - how did telegraphing Clinton Foundation probe help that cause?
The FBI is playing fast and loose with process (both sides hate Comey) and more than just the Steele FISA warrants are sloppy.
Maybe this is an issue of FBI sloppiness and power trips.
What I'm asking is - where's the direct Obama connection here? That's the nefarious thing being hinted at.
Trump-Russia collusion stories were mostly nefarious hinting as well.
Maybe the big lesson here is not political. Maybe it's just the FBI as an institution of law enforcement sucks.
Remind me again...How were things manipulated, so that a special counsel was appointed to look into Ms. Clinton?
-
-
-
Read this thread about Flynn's testimony and the 302. Apparently the original was eaten by Strzok's dog, and Page edited the revised one.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1261447227127599106.html
Flynn’s original FD-302 is so important, the Special Counsel had to leak a prosecution threat against Flynn’s son just to avoid turning it over to his original lawyers Covington
THREAD
Wed Nov 1, 2017: Flynn’s original lawyers Covington ask for a copy of his FD-302: “We don’t think he has committed a felony offense”
Fri Nov 3, 2017: Covington ask for the FD-302 AGAIN: “We don’t think there’s a FARA violation. We don’t think he made false statements”
The Special Counsel refused to turn over Flynn’s original FD-302 both those times. Instead, they schedule a follow up conference call with Covington for the following week and subtly threaten Covington that they might be a fact witness against Flynn for preparing his FARA filings
Flynn hasnt pled guilty to anything at this point. His lawyers are adamant he’s innocent. And the SCO won’t even turn over the edited FD-302, never mind the original one, for them to look at
The SCO claimed they couldn’t turn over the FD-302 because it would “reveal” parts of their overall Russia interference investigation. But even the edited version of the Jan 24, 2017 interview shows Flynn wasn’t asked about Russian interference or anything remotely like Collusion
And we now know that the FBI itself wanted to close its Crossfire Razor investigation of Flynn for potential links to Russian interference long before that Jan 24, 2017 interview
And that investigation of Flynn should never have been opened in the first place, given its laughably weak predicate lacking any articulable factual basis for believing he could have been colluding or conspiring with Russia
We also now know that the Dec 29 Flynn-Kislyak call changed nothing with regards to any Collusion. And the FBI never opened a Logan Act criminal probe (which would also have been ridiculous)
And in the Mueller report, the SCO itself admits Flynn merely asked Russia not to “escalate” in response to Obama’s sanctions or only respond “reciprocally”. There’s nothing wrong with that. What should he have said, go ahead nuclear armed Russia, please escalate?
So the SCO wouldn’t be “revealing” anything legitimate about its Russian interference investigation by turning over Flynn’s FD-302 - any of them, even the heavily edited versions filed weeks after the interview
Of course, what turning over the 302 would have really revealed is likely a document stating that the agents didn’t believe Flynn was lying, and metadata proving that it went through weeks of editing and polishing in violation of FBI policies
If even Covington (never mind @SidneyPowell1) got their hands on any version of the 302, given their adamant position that Flynn was “innocent”, Flynn almost certainly would have fought the charges vigorously
And if the SCO tried to indict Flynn anyway, that would have meant discovery, pre-trial depositions etc. Given what we now know 2.5 years later, that would have blown a gaping hole in the SCO’s case
So back to Fri Nov 3, 2017. The SCO has been asked for the 302, twice. White shoe Covington say their guy is “innocent” of all charges. How do the SCO change the dynamic? They leak to the press that they’re going to charge his son with a felony unless he gives in and plead guilty
Sun Nov 5, 2017: “Three sources” close to the Flynn investigation leak this to NBC news:
“If the elder Flynn is willing to co-operate with investigators in order to help his son, two of sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences”
In case @GenFlynn didn’t get this “message”, look at the photo ABC news use to highlight the story. Flynn with his son. “Three” sources “close to the investigation” leaked this, to Collusion/Fusion GPS friendly reporters. An investigation that at the time almost nobody knew about
By the time Covington follow up with the SCO after this weekend of light reading of veiled threats for the Flynn family, they’ve already agreed to bring Flynn in for a “proffer” - a prelude to pleading guilty to the false statements offense
This is despite Covington circulating in internal memos at the time talking points that “We are firmly of the view that he did not commit any felony offenses. There are no circumstances under which he would plea to a felony offense”
Remember: Covington - not @SidneyPowell1 - are on record here REPEATEDLY saying their guy is innocent. They are “firmly” of this belief. And they’ve been representing him for months. This isn’t something they dreamed up after 5 minutes talking to the General
The SCO turned over zero documents to Covington that would make them change their assessment of Flynn’s innocence. In fact, had the SCO turned anything over, it would have strengthened the view that Flynn could mount a strong defense against any false statement charge
Examples:
—Comey’s testimony that both agents didn’t think Flynn lied
—302 - likely says the same thing
—Closing EC for “Razor”, showing the FBI wanted to close its own case
—Kislyak transcript
—That no Logan Act EC existed opening a new case
—Strzok/Page texts showing bias
Any or all of those would blow a hole in both mandatory elements of the 1001 false statements charge - that any lie was “knowing” and “willful” (Flynn lied, deliberately) and “material” - i.e. could influence a genuine predicated FBI investigation
The only thing that changed - the only thing - is that the SCO leaked to the press that they were deadly serious about going after Flynn’s son. And after the elder Flynn had racked up millions in legal bills himself, who can blame him for wanting to avoid that for his family too?
So Flynn ended up pleading guilty, and he’s been on the hook ever since
And the media once again played a crucial role in making it happen.
That’s why much of the media can’t cover the Flynn case properly. They were willing and eager participants in his prosecution
/ENDS
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
