Travesty
-
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?
-
-
Xenon, you're just too smart for me. Carry on.
-
-
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.
-
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
The media have been willing participants in quite a few things over the last four years. Makes you wonder how many narratives they drove ten, fifteen, twenty years ago....
-
Unmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place
Was his call with Kislyak recorded by a different agency than the FBI?
Despite Wednesday’s blockbuster news about the dozens of Obama-administration officials who “unmasked” then-incoming Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, there remains a gaping hole in the story: Where is the record showing who unmasked Flynn in connection with his fateful conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak?
There isn’t one.
There is no such evidence in the unmasking list that acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell provided to Senators Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.). I suspect that’s because General Flynn’s identity was not “masked” in the first place. Instead, his December 29 call with Kislyak was likely intercepted under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community...
The implication is that Kislyak was probably subjected to traditional FISA surveillance by the FBI; or, since he lived in Russia and traveled to other places when not in America, perhaps he was also a FISA Section 702 target. In either event (or both), Kislyak was interacting with Americans, who were thus incidentally intercepted.
That, the story goes, is what must have happened to Flynn. Trump’s designated national security advisor was unmasked because, once intelligence agents intercepted the December 29 phone call, they decided it was essential to identify the person with whom the Russian ambassador was discussing sanctions that President Obama had just imposed against Moscow.
I no longer buy this story. If it were true, there would be a record of Flynn’s unmasking. DNI Grenell has represented that the list he provided to Senators Grassley and Johnson includes all requested unmaskings of Flynn from November 8, 2016 (when Donald Trump was elected president) through the end of January 2017 (when the Trump administration had transitioned into power). Yet, it appears that not a single listed unmasking pertains to the December 29 Kislyak call.
Grenell’s list notes an unmasking request for Flynn on December 28, 2016 — weirdly, by the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. There are no unmasking requests on December 29, the date of the Kislyak call. Nor is there one during the week after that. In fact, the next listed unmasking occurred on January 5, 2017. That one is attributed to President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough...
There is another significant fact that has long been highlighted by the blogger known as “Sundance” at the Conservative Treehouse site. It comes from the infamous Strzok–Page text messages. On May 8, 2017, Strzok texted Page while watching Senate testimony by former acting AG Yates and former DNI James Clapper. As Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) questioned the two former Obama officials, Strzok wrote to Page (my italics):
F*CK! Clapper and Yates through Graham questions are all playing into the “there should be an unmasking request/record” for incidental collection incorrect narrative.
If we review the transcript of that Senate testimony, we find that Strzok’s observation related specifically to the December 29 Flynn–Kislyak call:
GRAHAM: So there should be a record somewhere in our system whether or not an unmasking request was made for the conversation between Mr. Flynn and the Russian ambassador. We should be able to determine if it did — if it was made, who made it. Then we can ask, what did they do with the information? Is that a fair statement, Mr. Clapper?
CLAPPER: Yes...
I hypothesize, then, that Flynn was not unmasked in connection with the December 29 Kislyak call. Either the CIA monitored the call directly or a friendly foreign intelligence service — whether subtly tasked by U.S. intelligence or knowing that U.S. intelligence would be very interested — intercepted the call and passed it along, probably to the CIA. At the time, Kislyak was likely outside the United States, where the CIA would not have needed FISA authorization to monitor him. And while Flynn is an American citizen, he was not only outside the country, he was already regarded by the Obama-era intelligence community as a clandestine agent of Russia — i.e., not an innocent American citizen whose surveillance was merely incidental.
"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.
