Clapper - what he said, and what he swore are different
-
Another government official admits to lying about collusion
Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows. Farkas testified before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on June 26, 2017, as part of the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...
But Farkas sang a different tone under oath when questioned by lawmakers about what she actually “knew” about collusion.“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”
“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.
“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.
“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.
“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.
“No,” Farkas admitted.
“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.
“Correct,” Farkas responded.
Gowdy didn’t stop there.
“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.
“Correct,” Farkas answered.
“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.
“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.
-
Funny... if Hildibeast had won in 2016, NONE of this would have ever seen the light of day. None of it.
-
Funny... if Hildibeast had won in 2016, NONE of this would have ever seen the light of day. None of it.
@Improviso said in Clapper - what he said, and what he swore are different:
Funny... if Hildibeast had won in 2016, NONE of this would have ever seen the light of day. None of it.
There was a Twitter thread that I posted earlier today that suggested that the reason the department of justice drop the case is because there’s so much other stuff that they didn’t want to get revealed. Pure speculation, of course, still fun to speculate about though.
-
My take was with the revelations contained in the released testimony and documents, there was a very good chance the judge would allow Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea and DOJ knew their chances of actually getting a conviction at trial were slim to nil.
DOJ doesn't like to charge and go to trial unless it's pretty much a slam dunk. They knew it was anything but, considering the recent information that was made public.
-
The notoriously independent-minded federal judge who once said he was disgusted by the conduct of Michael Flynn could block the administration’s bid to drop criminal charges against the former adviser to President Donald Trump, legal experts said.
The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies.
While judges typically sign off on such motions, Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face, said Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor now at the law firm Dickinson Wright.
“If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions,” said Waxman...
While the judge still has to rule on the submission, elated supporters of Flynn said there was no way Sullivan could force the department to prosecute if it did not want to. But the judge could stop Flynn from withdrawing his guilty plea and impose sentence. In that case, Trump could pardon Flynn.
The judge is unlikely to sign off on the request as a pro forma matter, said Channing Phillips, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during the Obama administration, adding that with Sullivan “nothing is pro forma.”
“I can guarantee you, he is going to question the prosecutors,” Phillips said in a phone interview. “He is going to want to understand exactly the basis for this motion ... You have a new attorney general. You have a new U.S. attorney. You have new prosecutors who take a different position. But the facts haven’t changed.”
