Travesty

[George K]

Comey and McCabe Respond

Former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe slammed the Justice Department’s decision to drop its case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn on charges he lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.

“The DOJ has lost its way. But, career people: please stay because America needs you. The country is hungry for honest, competent leadership,” Comey tweeted.

The DOJ has lost its way. But, career people: please stay because America needs you. The country is hungry for honest, competent leadership.

— James Comey (@Comey) May 7, 2020
McCabe said in a statement Flynn had “high level interactions with Russian officials” whom he “actively tried to influence.” He also said Flynn had lied about the substance of his talks with Russian officials.

“His lies added to our concerns about his relationship with the Russian government,” said McCabe. “Today’s move by the Justice Department has nothing to do with the facts or the law — it is pure politics designed to please the president.”

In a court filing Thursday, the Justice Department said it was moving to drop its case against Flynn and was no longer sure it could make its case.

Justice moves to drop case against Flynn

McCabe and Comey were both ousted from their positions at the FBI by Trump and have had long public feuds with the president.

McCabe was accused of lying to investigators about a leak to the media, but the Justice Department in February decided against bringing charges against him.

Comey was criticized by the Justice Department's inspector general in an August 2019 report over his handling of memos on his conversations with Trump and the FBI.

[kluurs]

Let's hope Comey has a dog. Everyone needs at least some creature to love them.

[kluurs]

[xenon]

I still don’t understand the particulars with respect to Flynn.

Yes - the FBI seems to have acted shady and overzealous (same with the FISA warrants)

But Flynn seems super shady too. He got fired for lying to Pence. He lied to the FBI. He doesn’t seem like a good operator either.

The biggest loser here seems to be the rule of law and American law enforcement institutions.

[George K]

The whole predicate of his prosecution was the phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. That call was tapped. Later, when questioned about it (without an attorney present) he made erroneous comments about the substance of the conversation. Those were later deemed to be "lies."

Obama knew that the call was tapped by the way.

Later, when FBI reviewed the case, after he plead to "making false statements," documentation came out that there was no evidence of him lying, according to FBI documents.

I'm not familiar enough with the reason for his plea deal, but apparently it has something to do with not prosecuting his son. That, in and of itself, is prosecutorial misconduct.

[George K]

The legal ramifications of DOJ withdrawing the case. Read through the thread.

Bottom line: It was "the least bad" case for DOJ.

[George K]

@xenon said in Travesty:

I still don’t understand the particulars with respect to Flynn.

Here’s a nice summary by Andy McCarthy:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/michael-flynns-prosecution-was-a-travesty-of-justice/

[Improviso]

Let's see how many of these come true. My hope is ALL OF THEM.

And throw Shitty Schiff in there too.

[George K]

[Improviso]

[Horace]

This place isn't the same without Jolly.

[George K]

@Horace said in Travesty:

This place isn't the same without Jolly.

Yup.

[George K]

Jonathan Turley comments on Obama's comments about Flynn:

In a "leaked private conversation", Obama said:

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said in a web talk with members of the Obama Alumni Association.

“And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

Turley comments:

[George K]

Snort: Obama Pardons James Cartwright, General Who Lied to F.B.I. in Leak Case

President Obama on Tuesday pardoned James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his discussions with reporters about Iran’s nuclear program, saving him from a possible prison sentence.
General Cartwright, who was a key member of Mr. Obama’s national security team in his first term and earned a reputation as the president’s favorite general, pleaded guilty late last year to misleading investigators looking into the leaking of classified information about cyberattacks against Iran.
He was due to be sentenced this month. His defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years.
Now, the retired general will be spared such punishment.

Both General Cartwright and his lawyer, Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel to Mr. Obama, thanked the president in statements. “The president’s decision is wise and just, and it achieves the right result,” Mr. Craig said. “It allows General Cartwright to continue his life’s work — to serve, protect and defend the nation he loves. It allows the nation to continue to benefit from his vast experience and knowledge.”

If it weren't for the double standard, he'd have no standards at all.

(Yeah, I know, a pardon is not the same as dropping the case from prosecution.)

[Mik]

Bu then we already know about the double standard.

[George K]

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.

[xenon]

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?

[Jolly]

@xenon said in 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?

[xenon]

@Jolly said in Travesty:

@xenon said in 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?

[Larry]

Sometimes I wonder if you're doing some sort of performance art or if you're actually as clueless as you seem.