Travesty
-
Not "fired." Rather "asked to resign."
Dana Boente, a longtime lawyer for the FBI, resigned on Saturday allegedly at the request of the Justice Department, following earlier allegations that he had worked to block the public release of exculpatory evidence in the Michael Flynn case.
Boente had been at the FBI for just under 40 years. Anonymous sources told NBC News on Saturday that the request for his resignation came from "high levels" of the Justice Department.
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Saturday commended Boente for serving in "many critical, high-level roles at the Department."
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn.
What?
Hidden "exculpatory evidence?" Is that like, evidence that he didn't lie?
And the guy who helped hide it "resigned" today.
Nothing to see...move along.
-
-
@George-K your own link caveats it with “allegedly”
An FBI official told The Federalist in April that Boente "led the charge internally against DOJ’s disclosure" against allegedly exculpatory documents of Michael Flynn..
So until that’s confirmed - I won’t comment on it.
-
@George-K my guess would be that he’s ultimately responsible for the sloppy FISA warrants.
He signed off on them - and probably many more.
DOJ is probably pissed with the public loss of trust in FISA.
That’s gotta fall on someone senior.
That’d be my speculation (I’m guessing you can also interpret that as being exculpatory evidence - the Flynn FISA warrants being bad)
-
Mueller's team lied to the court when they say Flynn discussed sanctions:
The Statement of Offense professed that on Dec. 29, 2016, “FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”
According to the Statement of Offense, during questioning by the FBI agents, “FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (‘Russian Ambassador’) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia,” and “also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’S request.”
However, the transcripts released Friday establish that, contrary to the special counsel office’s attestation, Flynn never asked the Russian ambassador to “not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” In fact, Flynn never raised the “U.S. Sanctions” — defined by the special counsel’s office as the sanctions announced by Obama Dec. 28, 2016, in Executive Order 13757 — with the Russian ambassador at all.
In that executive order, as summarized in a White House press release, Obama “sanctioned nine entities and individuals: the GRU and the FSB, two Russian intelligence services; four individual officers of the GRU; and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations.” The press release also detailed a number of additional Obama administration actions, beyond the sanctions, “in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.”
Of relevance to the Flynn case was the State Department “shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes,” and declaring “‘persona non grata’ 35 Russian intelligence operatives.”
While the Obama administration ejected the Russian personnel in response to the Kremlin’s interference with the 2016 election, the expulsions were not part of Executive Order 13757 and thus were not “U.S. Sanctions” as defined in the Flynn Statement of Offense. This distinction matters because the recently released transcripts establish that Flynn did not ask Kislyak to do anything — or refrain from doing anything — in response to the sanctions.
And this isn't splitting hairs, the Mueller team knew the distinction in "sanctions."
First, as detailed above, Mueller’s team explicitly defined “U.S. Sanctions” in the Statement of Offense as the sanctions announced in Executive Order 13757, and the expulsions were not part of that executive order. Second, in its press release, the Obama administration distinguished between sanctions and other “actions” it was taking in response to Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, and the latter included the expulsions.
The special counsel’s report also distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures, stating that Executive Order 13757 “imposed sanctions on nine Russian individuals and entities,” but then noting that “the Obama Administration also expelled 35 Russian government officials and closed two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States.”
Elsewhere, Mueller’s team distinguished between sanctions and other retaliatory measures by, for instance, stating that “on December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration announced that in response to Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election, it was imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities...”
Mueller’s team surely knew that the distinction between sanctions and expulsions mattered when it came to Flynn and his conversation with the FBI agents because shortly after Strzok and Pientka questioned Flynn, Flynn publicly refuted media reports that he had discussed sanctions with Russia. I had “a brief discussion of the 35 Russian diplomats who were being expelled by Obama in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 campaign. ‘It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,’” Flynn stated.
-
So - because of this thread I've actually read the conversation between Kislyak and Flynn.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/05/FlynnTranscripts.pdfI know news guys want to drive their particular narrative, but it's plain as day if you read it that Flynn isn't being precise about parsing sanctions vs. expulsions vs. other actions.
Flynn doesn't even seems completely sure as to the full totality of the Obama admin's actions.
Flynn wants to convey the following [to Moscow]: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.
Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff, where they
are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I
understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask
Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it
reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something
that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?
And Kislyak does respond specifically talking about the actions against GRU and FSB (which are specifically part of the EO)
Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean
that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question. Flynn says, yes.
Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand.
I mean - Flynn never technically says the word "sanction" and Kislyak seems much more knowledge about the specific pieces at play. But Flynn is calling this whole topic "cyber stuff", so he's not exactly well versed with the terms at play here.
Page 10-11 of the linked PDF has the full convo.
-
Weissman.
SOB has withheld evidence before, so innocent men could go to jail.
That's your hero, Xenon.
-
-
Here's the typed 302:
Note the circled part.
The allegation says he "falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassaord...to refrain from escalating the situation."
The 302 says he doesn't remember talking about it.
"I don't recall" worked for Hillary and Comey, didn't it?
-
Which is why Barr wants to walk away from it.
-
This stinks to high heaven.
85 Lies, Contradictions, Oddities, and Unusual Occurrences
For example:
- Who Briefed Obama?
Comey testified to Congress that it was then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who briefed Obama on the Flynn–Kislyak calls (pdf). Clapper, however, denied this to Congress.
- Strzok Intervention
On Jan. 4, the FBI was already in the process of closing Flynn’s case. But the bureau’s counterintelligence operations head at the time, Peter Strzok, scrambled to keep it open, noting that the “7th floor,” meaning the FBI’s top leadership, was involved.
- No Mention of Pence
During the interview, the agents didn’t ask Flynn about what he did or didn’t tell Pence—an unusual approach if the point, as Comey said, was to find out why Flynn hadn’t “been candid” with Pence. The FBI, in fact, had no idea what Flynn did or didn’t tell Pence.
- Threat to Son
According to Flynn’s declaration, the Covington lawyers told him that if he didn’t plead, the prosecutors would charge his son (who had a four-month-old baby at the time) with a FARA violation, because the son worked for Flynn’s firm and was involved in the Turkey project. If he did plead, however, his son “would be left in peace,” Flynn said.
The pressure campaign, it seems, was also reflected in media leaks.
“If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son … it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences,” NBC News reported on Nov. 5, 2017, referring to “sources familiar with the investigation.”
“To twist the father’s arm with regard to his child is a pretty low thing to do,” Ruskin commented.
- Unacceptable Plea
Not only could Sullivan not have accepted Flynn’s plea before determining materiality, there’s evidence he was in fact required to refuse it.
Rule 11 requires the court to “determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).”
In Flynn’s case, there actually was a threat and a promise left out of the deal—the “unofficial understanding” that his son was “unlikely” to be charged if Flynn cooperated.
There's another 80 or so...
-
DOJ Just Disclosed ‘Explosive’ Handwritten Notes From Peter Strzok To Michael Flynn’s Defense Team
According to a letter to the federal court overseeing Flynn’s trial sent on behalf of acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin, the new disclosures include handwritten notes from fired former Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) official Peter Strzok. The notes are believed to have been written in early January of 2017 at the same time that the FBI suddenly re-opened its criminal investigation of Flynn despite the fact that the FBI had filed to find any “derogatory” information against Flynn during the course of its multi-month investigation of him during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.
Because the exculpatory evidence was filed pursuant to a previous protective order from the judge in the case, the handwritten notes themselves have not yet been made publicly available. It is not known when, or if, the judge in the case will ever allow the newly revealed evidence exonerating Flynn to be publicly disclosed.
“What DOJ disclosed today is as explosive as anything that’s come out in Flynn’s case,” a source with direct knowledge of the content of Strzok’s handwritten notes told The Federalist on Tuesday. Earlier this year, DOJ disclosed handwritten documents from Bill Priestap, who previously served as the FBI’s top counterintelligence official, fretting that the FBI investigation against Flynn was designed to “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” Following those and other disclosures exonerating Flynn, DOJ moved to dismiss the charges against him.
-
"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.
