Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
I can't see referrals here being anything other than process errors (perhaps stemming from biases). Similar to how the FISA applications were executed so badly.
If you step back a bit - you'd have to believe that the FBI and deep state setup this whole elaborate scheme to entrap Trump during the campaign, but instead of using any of that stuff they just sabotaged Clinton 10 days before the election.
Just as with the other side and Trump, if you're looking for some grand conspiracy or grave act here - I think you're going to be disappointed.
It's likely just run of the mill incompetence or low integrity individuals.
Again - with this whole Flynn situation, I think it's important to remember that he did call Kislyak, He did talk about the Obama sanctions, he did lie about it to Pence (maybe?), he lied to the FBI about this, Pence did go on national TV and cover for Flynn when it was a lie and Flynn was sacked by the Trump administration for this lie.
I don't know if that's criminal behavior, and prosectors can botch things even if they think they have them in the bag.
-
Well, if you want to step back, you can see the FBI notes asking what the goal for Flynn is, "get him fired?" You can ask why the FBI called for the interview bypassing normal channels of going through the White House Counsel's office. You can ask why the FBI discouraged the need for an attorney to be present. If all that doesn't stink, continue reading.
During the interview with Flynn, FBI notes show no evidence of false statements. He came across as "truthful."
Sure he spoke with Kislyak. As incoming National Security Advisor, it would have been surprising if he didn't speak with him. Of course they discussed sanctions. Thats part of the job of Nat Sec and the ambassador.
The 302s covering the interview with Flynn have, ahem, disappeared. What we do know is that Lisa Page was editing them, even though she was not at the interview.
So, why did he admit to the "lie?" Because of an off-the-record and potentially illegal deal to not prosecute his son for non-regisistering as a FARA. It's a subtle difference: the fact that one admits to a lie doesn't mean that one did lie.
-
I'm not saying there wasn't poor conduct on the part of the FBI. The notes that were leaked are not a good look.
But I think it's easy to imagine but hard to actually concretely connect the dots on a broader conspiracy.
That was the exact same situation with Russia-collusion. There were some obviously bad moves on the part of the Trump campaign. It was easy to imagine a conspiracy based on those, but hard to concretely demonstrate one.
What I'm saying is - the Trump administration said Flynn didn't talk to Kislyak about sanctions. The Trump administration did not think that was appropriate at the time. Pence said as much, and Flynn lying about this is what got him fired by the Trump administration.
Now - Barr's argument is that it's completely normal to start signaling foreign policy to counterparts during the transition.
I'm no expert, nor have I looked into whether or not that is true. But the Trump administration didn't act like that was good process and didn't circle the wagons around Flynn. They fired him.
-
On things like missing 302s. I don't even quite know what that means.
But this reminds me of the bad FISA warrants (was it Page or Papadopolous). The IG found that there were shoddy.
That might sound like there's a conspiracy. But when they looked broader and sampled a bunch of unrelated FISA requests - and most showed the same level of sloppiness.
Perhaps the FBI is a sloppy agency.
Just like with the Russia collusion thing. There were kernels of bad and the left-leaning media took that and presumed too much too fast. This Flynn things feels similar and the right-leaning media is taking it too far.
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
On things like missing 302s. I don't even quite know what that means.
But this reminds me of the bad FISA warrants (was it Page or Papadopolous). The IG found that there were shoddy.
That might sound like there's a conspiracy. But when they looked broader and sampled a bunch of unrelated FISA requests - and most showed the same level of sloppiness.
Perhaps the FBI is a sloppy agency.
Sloppy is not a legal defense.
-
Sure.
Release Flynn because of bad process. I can completely accept that.
Guilty people walk everyday because of process errors or bad prosecuting (as they perhaps should).
What I'm saying is - the Trump administration fired this guy. They fired him. For lying to Pence. For lying about his activities during transition. He's no saint.
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
Sure.
Release Flynn because of bad process. I can completely accept that.
Guilty people walk everyday because of process errors or bad prosecuting (as they perhaps should).
What I'm saying is - the Trump administration fired this guy. They fired him. For lying to Pence. For lying about his activities during transition. He's no saint.
He's not pure as the driven snow, but neither is he as guilty as portrayed. Backing up and taking a broader view, nobody should be treated this way. Nobody.
Somebody needs to go to jail. A message needs to be sent that Administrations do not do this to people. They should not try to influence elections by nefarious means.
I find these actions taken by the Obama Administration to be equally as disgusting as those which happened in the Nixon Administration.
-
I don't disagree with you on the bad process part. Any hints of unfairness in the process should void prosecutions.
That said - abuses of power seem to be rampant in law enforcement from the lowest rungs of society to the highest (like these).
The fairness of law will always be limited by the integrity of the individuals administering it.
It's what separates corrupt countries from less corrupt countries. It's a civic value, it's part of culture. It transcends party affiliation.
In the global sense - the U.S. is a relatively low-corruption country. For me the broader question is - are we trending in the right direction here as a nation? How do we get better?
Put another way - I think our institutions depend on an expectation of integrity in individuals. And conspiracies are dangerous because any one minor individual can tear down the whole house of cards. Part of the reason why I'm always wary that a group as large as an "administration" is trying to run conspiracies.
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
I don't disagree with you on the bad process part. Any hints of unfairness in the process should void prosecutions.
You mean like this prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence and lying to the judge?
Click through the thread.
-
So that thread brings up the grey area here.
The first part of the thread asserts the following:
Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation.
Flynn was already under investigation on the whole counterintelligence thing. They were going to close up the investigation, because they found nothing material.
Then this whole Kislyak thing happens and Stzrok comments that it was “serendipitously good” and “our utter incompetence actually helps us.” - because the investigation hadn't been close. McCabe reportedly acted with “surprise and relief"
Now the DOJ's argument is that Flynn can make false statements to the FBI, that's not a crime - but there was no investigative basis for it (I'm assuming that means the original probe). That's why it needs to be thrown out.
Now - let me say. I'm no lawyer. Feels like they should have closed one investigation and maybe opened up another.
But the basic fact remains that Flynn lied to the Trump administration and FBI.
That he deserves to get off for bad process may be 100% the right call. But he is a liar and not a blameless victim.
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
So that thread brings up the grey area here.
The first part of the thread asserts the following:
Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation.
Flynn was already under investigation on the whole counterintelligence thing. They were going to close up the investigation, because they found nothing material.
Then this whole Kislyak thing happens and Stzrok comments that it was “serendipitously good” and “our utter incompetence actually helps us.” - because the investigation hadn't been close. McCabe reportedly acted with “surprise and relief"
Now the DOJ's argument is that Flynn can make false statements to the FBI, that's not a crime - but there was no investigative basis for it (I'm assuming that means the original probe). That's why it needs to be thrown out.
Now - let me say. I'm no lawyer. Feels like they should have closed one investigation and maybe opened up another.
But the basic fact remains that Flynn lied to the Trump administration and FBI.
That he deserves to get off for bad process may be 100% the right call. But he is a liar and not a blameless victim.
And another basic fact is that Pence has said he would like to see Flynn back in government.
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
Now the DOJ's argument is that Flynn can make false statements to the FBI, that's not a crime - but there was no investigative basis for it
That's fundamentally correct. Lying to the FBI about a crime is prosecutable. Lying to the FBI about NO crime is not.
Flynn lied to the Trump administration and FBI.
And the FBI says it can't prove it. Charges dropped.
-
Right, but guys - with all the legal technicalities out of the way (I don't necessarily disagree there).
Pence asked Flynn: did you talk to Kislyak about the sanctions. He presumably said no.
The FBI asked Flynn: did you talk to Kislyak about the sanctions. He presumably said no.
@Jolly - Pence comes across as a pretty amoral political actor if he wants Flynn back.
Flynn lying about the same thing that got him fired as the NSA indicates a pretty low-integrity guy.
So - can it be the case that both of these statements are true:
-
The FBI lacked integrity in its pursuit of Flynn
-
Flynn lacked integrity in his conduct as incoming NSA
-
-
@xenon said in Nunes: Criminal Referrals Coming:
Right, but guys - with all the legal technicalities out of the way (I don't necessarily disagree there).
Pence asked Flynn: did you talk to Kislyak about the sanctions. He presumably said no.
The FBI asked Flynn: did you talk to Kislyak about the sanctions. He presumably said no.
@Jolly - Pence comes across as a pretty amoral political actor if he wants Flynn back.
Flynn lying about the same thing that got him fired as the NSA indicates a pretty low-integrity guy.
So - can it be the case that both of these statements are true:
-
The FBI lacked integrity in its pursuit of Flynn
-
Flynn lacked integrity in his conduct as incoming NSA
I'd put more emphasis on what Pence thinks, than what you do.
-
-
