Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 07, 2020

The Justice Department is dropping its case against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, the AP reported Thursday.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Something about the lie Flynn made to the FBI being unrelated to the investigation? Or something along those lines, if I understood the talking heads correctly.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 02:49 PM | Reply

I'm not a litigator but my understanding is that it had to do with the fact that the main Prosecutor, Van Grack, withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's defense and withdrew from the case today to avoid getting sanctioned by the Judge.

#2 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-05-07 02:51 PM | Reply

Surprised?

Not at all.

Barr was brought in to fix it.

The right has no justification to comment about any Democratic DOJ ever.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-05-07 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

General Flynn: I'm guilty

Prosecuting Attorney: No you're not.

Only in Trumplandia.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Trump's Justice Department is dropping its case against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn...

Obviously Barr pulled the necessary strings.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-07 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The right has no justification to comment about any Democratic DOJ ever.
#3 | POSTED BY NIXON

Won't stop them.

The only reason this thread isn't full of deflections about something a Democrat did 50+ years ago is, thankfully, RCade put his foot down and the Trumpublicans ran away crying.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-07 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Trumpublicans ran away crying.
#6 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Makes me wonder if it was really just one guy with numerous conservative personalities. The mass migration of conservatives away from the DR is eerie.

#7 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 03:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Only in Trumplandia.

#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2020-05-07 02:55 PM

If you actually knew anything about the case you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with such an ignorant comment.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-07 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

RCade put his foot down and the Trumpublicans ran away crying.

#6 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2020-05-07 03:18 PM

Didn't happen, but a poor sad little man like yourself can dream, amirite?

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#9 -- I find it strange you and Jeff both had been gone since Wed 4/29 and show back up to comment today 5/7...

#10 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-05-07 03:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#9 -- I find it strange you and Jeff both had been gone since Wed 4/29 and show back up to comment today 5/7...
#10 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

They had to celebrate the good news! ;)

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 03:50 PM | Reply

Looks like the Friday night news dump got off to an early start this week.

#12 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-05-07 03:53 PM | Reply

Makes me wonder if it was really just one guy with numerous conservative personalities. The mass migration of conservatives away from the DR is eerie.
#7 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2020-05-07 03:20 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1

Holy crap! I just may be on to something!


If you actually knew anything about the case you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with such an ignorant comment.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-05-07 03:22 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

Didn't happen, but a poor sad little man like yourself can dream, amirite?
#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2020-05-07 03:26 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 03:53 PM | Reply

General Flynn, again, in court: I'm guilty.

Prosecuting Attorney: That's innocent enough for me!

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 03:55 PM | Reply

#13 You're out of your league on this one, Danforth.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-07 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you actually knew anything about the case..."

The National Security Advisor lied to the Vice President about his contacts with Russians, and the FBI, wiretapping Kislyak, knew about the contacts. You know...something you'd demand be investigated thoroughly if the perps had a (D) after their name. Instead, it's Chapter 11 of You Had No Right to Discover My Wrongs.

Tell us Jeff...is it okay for Russians to have Kompromat on the President's NSA? Yes or no? When the NSA tells the Vice President a lie about foreign contacts, is that something to be investigated, or shrugged off?

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You're out of your league on this one"

So...once again you're going to waste a thread over process, while not exerting one keystroke holding liars responsible for the acts themselves.

Chapter 11...since it's so morally and intellectually bankrupt.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 04:05 PM | Reply

The only "wrong" committed by Flynn was talking to the FBI.

#18 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 04:36 PM | Reply

"The only "wrong" committed by Flynn was talking to the FBI."

So...there's one vote for the NSA lying to the Vice President of the United States about foreign policy.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 04:38 PM | Reply

Alex, I'll things that are not crimes for 200$.

What is lying to your boss?

Correct.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 04:57 PM | Reply

Trump is planning to appoint Flynn to head the FBI for the express purpose of investigating John Kerry and other Democrats for Logan act violations.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So far Jeff is only here to tell people they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm reluctant to tell him to explain it to the class because it's usually pretty embarrassing to watch him pretend to understand legal topics and even more difficult to get him to admit he's full of ----.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-07 05:13 PM | Reply

He plead guilty.
The government dropped the case.

How is this not corrupt?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:14 PM | Reply

Joe's purpose here remains a mystery even to Joe.


#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 05:25 PM | Reply

Trump is planning to appoint Flynn to head the FBI for the express purpose of investigating John Kerry and other Democrats for Logan act violations.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 05:00 P

He can send gun drawn agents to Kerry's house, in the event of an arrest, of course, and notify CNN ahead of time. That is a precedent that has been set, so why not?

#25 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-07 05:27 PM | Reply

A garbage decision by a garbage administration. No surprise.

#26 | Posted by cbob at 2020-05-07 05:28 PM | Reply

How is this not corrupt?
#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The precedent was set long ago. It's happened before: defendant pleads guilty and the case is later dropped.

#27 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Barr needs to spend the rest of his days in federal prison.

#28 | Posted by a_monson at 2020-05-07 05:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's a link to the actual filing, and I think the first couple pages pretty much explain the DOJ's new stance.

In this uneducated laymen's view, the DOJ is claiming that the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of Trump's campaign's contacts with Russians wasn't "justifiably predicated," ergo, the questions asked to Flynn were not "'materially' false with respect to a matter under investigation."

I read this as the culmination of Barr's invention that the FBI investigation(s) wasn't legally predicated. No wonder DOJ attorney Van Grack resigned from the case. Of course, the Trumpists are implying that Van Grack tried to wrongly prosecute Flynn - because now Barr's DOJ is claiming that the investigation his lie was a part of shouldn't have been conducted in the first place.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 05:31 PM | Reply

Obviously Barr pulled the necessary strings.

No defendant unconnected to Trump would get this kind of special treatment.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-07 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Trump is planning to appoint Flynn to head the FBI for the express purpose of investigating John Kerry and other Democrats for Logan act violations.

#20 | Posted by visitor

Syphilis is a terrible disease.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:34 PM | Reply

It was entrapment.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-07 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Prosecutorial misconduct to the nth degree.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-07 05:38 PM | Reply

It was entrapment.
#32 | POSTED BYJEFFJ

No it wasn't.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:39 PM | Reply

How is this not corrupt?
#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The precedent was set long ago. It's happened before: defendant pleads guilty and the case is later dropped.
#27 | POSTED BYRSTYBEACH11

Oh great.
So it's adequately predicated corruption.
So much winning!
#MAGA

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:40 PM | Reply

"It was entrapment."

Too bad Flynn didn't thwart their efforts and tell the truth.

Why didn't he do that, Jeff? Who told Flynn to lie to the FBI about lying to Pence?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Sorry to hear that ZED, did you wait too long to get treated?

#37 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-05-07 05:41 PM | Reply

Instead, it's Chapter 11 of You Had No Right to Discover My Wrongs.

With the attendant legal cover created by the ex post facto, unilaterally declared, non-court tested procedural execution of the underlying investigation - making the very questioning of Flynn legally unnecessary and his lies irrelevant and non-prosecutable.

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 05:41 PM | Reply

If you actually knew anything about the case you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with such an ignorant comment.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

He literally pled guilty. He did so in front of TWO judges at separate times.

The decision is so corrupt that even the prosecutors that had nothing to do with the FBI questioning refused to sign the filing and withdrew from the case in protest.

Flynn had ZERO chance of withdrawing his plea. ZERO.

Even the DOJ itself after reviewing the information filed in the request to withdraw his plea agreed it was garbage. The only disagreement was whether he go to jail or get probation. And that's not the prosecutors on the case. That's the upper Trump appointees as well.

Only when Trump said he will be exonerated on April 30 did the DOJ suddenly change it's position.

JeffJ, you are a pathetic Trump apologist.

#39 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-07 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Prosecutorial misconduct to the nth degree.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020

Poor, poor persecuted Trump.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:42 PM | Reply

Prosecutorial misconduct to the nth degree.
#33 | POSTED BYJEFFJ

If we could see the alleged exculpatory evidence, you might have cause to claim that...

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:42 PM | Reply

Fixer Barr is the bestest Fixer EVER!

.
Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff

1h
Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his illicit Russian contacts.

His lies do not now become truths.

This dismissal does not exonerate him.

But it does incriminate Bill Barr.

In the worst politicization of the Justice Department in its history.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-07 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Somebody ask JEFF why he likes Trump. I'm tired of asking.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:43 PM | Reply

If you actually knew anything about the case you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with such an ignorant comment.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-05-07 03:22 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

How do you explain the outburst of Bush appointee Judge Sullivan accusing Flynn of not yet enough cooperation, suggesting that the plea deal was too lenient and that Flynn took part in crimes approaching treason? Does the judge not know the law, or the case? Or was the fix always in? This smacks of the Cover-up General's grimy fingers. Barr doing exactly what he has always done, making GOP crimes go away.

#44 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-05-07 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ, you are a pathetic Trump apologist.
#39 | POSTED BYSYCOPHANT

He's always been that way.
I wonder if he hopes his kids are gonna grow up different.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:44 PM | Reply

Flynn took part in crimes approaching treason

#44 | Posted by _Gunslinger

And now he is being rewarded.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"On April 30, Trump suggested that Flynn would be exonerated and referred to the FBI agents as "dirty, filthy cops."

"It looks like to me that Michael Flynn would be exonerated based on everything that I see," Trump said. "I'm not the judge, but I have a different type of power."

Thursday, Trump said Flynn is "innocent."
"I'm very happy for General Flynn, he was a great . Now in my book is an even greater warrior," Trump said."

www.cnn.com

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-07 05:46 PM | Reply

Sorry to hear that ZED, did you wait too long to get treated?

#37 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020

I was actually alluding for Donald but thanks, my own treatments stopped progression well short of Tertiary.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:47 PM | Reply

The real question to ask is what is Trump getting out of this?

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:48 PM | Reply

"a different type of power."

Fixer B Power!

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-07 05:48 PM | Reply

JeffJ's victory lap is complete and he won't be discussing the topic any more.

Thanks for attending JeffJ's TED talk.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 05:48 PM | Reply

Myself, I think that Trump gets very little at all objectively. In terms of marking one more item off of his revenge list, though----An awful lot.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:49 PM | Reply

Flynn took part in crimes approaching treason

Which makes me wonder if the judge can recommend prosecution on the other charges which were dropped in Flynn's guilty plea?

And did Flynn do anything that can be prosecuted in state court instead of federal?

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 05:50 PM | Reply

JeffJ's victory lap is complete and he won't be discussing the topic any more.

#51 | Posted by snoofy

When Barr is fired 01/20/21, some salt tears will be wept.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:50 PM | Reply

"It was entrapment."

Too bad Flynn didn't thwart their efforts and tell the truth.

Why didn't he do that, Jeff?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at

JEFF is a Trumpite, and by definition corrupt. But, like any Trumpite, he's trying real hard to change that definition.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Flynn told a federal judge multiple times that he was guilty of lying to the FBI.

Imagine Hillary Clinton doing that and JeffJ taking her side over DOJ prosecutors.

It doesn't even enter into the realm of possibility.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-07 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I think we're all missing the huge importance contained in today's DOJ filing.

Barr has gone into federal court and declared that as a matter of law the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was illegally conducted.

This doesn't just apply to Flynn, this applies to EVERYBODY that's been prosecuted for anything that came out of the initial investigation.

This is an effing neutron bomb and to me signals that unless the federal judiciary disagrees, Barr is going to drag every single FBI/IC person on the President's hit list into a legal firefight - right in the middle of a presidential election campaign.

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Barr is going to drag every single FBI/IC person on the President's hit list into a legal firefight - right in the middle of a presidential election campaign.

#57 | Posted by tonyroma

In other words, Trump has found a new way to cheat his way to re-election.

Think it will overcome 200,000 dead and 30,000,000 unemployed?

Oh, that's right. Trump will say those people never happened.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 06:01 PM | Reply

In other words, Trump has found a new way to cheat his way to re-election.

He's already doing it. He's calling it the "Obama Justice Department" which will morph into the Obama-Biden DOJ - and he's calling those responsible for Flynn's prosecution as being guilty of "treason."

You can see where this is going. Trump projection 101: claim that others are guilty of what he's doing himself. This is his Crooked Hillary, and now it's Traitor Joe, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan,... on and on.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 06:09 PM | Reply

James Comey
@Comey

2h
The DOJ has lost its way. But, career people: please stay because America needs you. The country is hungry for honest, competent leadership.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-07 06:09 PM | Reply

Drain The Swamp of Democrats and stock it with Russian assets.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why Michael Flynn Is Walking Free
The former national security adviser figured out that loyalty to Trump is now a better bet than loyalty to the rule of law.

4:29 PM ET

"Michael Flynn was an early, instinctive Trumpist.

The retired general was an enthusiastic backer of Donald Trump's candidacy, leading chants of "Lock her up!" at the 2016 Republican National Convention. And his less public work bore the hallmarks of Trumpism too: brazen lying, shameless profiteering, conspiracy-mongering, and bigoted tweeting.

Nonetheless, Flynn didn't immediately grasp how much the rules of the game changed when Trump won the 2016 election. When Flynn, the newly minted national security adviser, got in trouble with the law, he quickly took up the standard playbook of white-collar criminals in pre-Trump America. When the FBI caught him lying, Flynn copped a plea and agreed to cooperate with the government in exchange for a lesser sentence.

Only after that December 2017 plea deal did Flynn grasp the new reality: Cooperating with authorities might get you off easy, but staying loyal to the president will get you off entirely. So even though he'd already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, Flynn changed his mind, tried to withdraw his plea, and began fighting the prosecutors he'd promised to help tooth and nail.

It was a bold move, the sort of unorthodox strategy for which he'd become famous as an intelligence officer. And today it paid off, as the government moved to drop all charges against Flynn. The reversal, from confessed felon to scot-free, is a microcosm of how dramatically the rule of law has weakened during the Trump administration......

.... Cooperation deals are supposed to show criminals that returning to the fold and honoring rule of law has its benefits. But the Flynn case shows that those benefits pale in comparison to honoring loyalty to Trump."

www.theatlantic.com

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-07 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Flynn was railroaded. Dems don't care about the law. End of story.

#63 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-07 06:14 PM | Reply

"Dems don't care about the law."

Republicans don't care about America.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 06:17 PM | Reply

You can see where this is going. Trump projection 101: claim that others are guilty of what he's doing himself. This is his Crooked Hillary, and now it's Traitor Joe, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan,... on and on.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at

Cut to the chase-

What do you think the chances of Trump-inspired violence going forward?

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 06:17 PM | Reply

End of story.

#63 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-07 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag

Cut to the chase-

What do you think the chances of Trump-inspired violence going forward?

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think there will be shots fired on the Fourth of July, by people angry there aren't enough fireworks displays.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What do you think the chances of Trump-inspired violence going forward?

Almost guaranteed.

#68 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ wants a Banana Republic.

The GOP is a death cult.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 06:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ wants a Banana Republic.

#69 | Posted by snoofy

What JEFF wants is what Trump wants.

Pretty scary stuff.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 06:30 PM | Reply

Flynn was railroaded. Dems don't care about the law. End of story.

#63 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Flynn was not railroaded. Flynn choose to violate the law.

And Flynn plead guilty. So Flynn is guilty in the eyes of the law.

Flynn freely admitted to breaking the law.

So Barr has chosen not to prosecute a criminal who was guilty of violating the law.

Obviously Republicans don't care about the law.

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-07 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And if you want proof that the Trump apologists are nothing more than partisan pieces of human garbage that will let the President do anything, ask them to explain how the FBI illegally coerced Flynn into lying.

They can't. Flynn isn't even saying that.

1. Flynn lied about speaking with the Russian Ambassador about economic sanctions.

2. Flynn is not claiming he didn't lie.

3. Flynn isn't even arguing that he didn't break the law.

This was all predicted on the LawFareBlog on May 1.
"The third possibility is that Barr will step in again...Suffice it for now to say that there's reason to worry the Justice Department will not pursue the matter aggressively under Barr's leadership, particularly if a plea withdrawal happens and the question of actually prosecuting the original case comes back on the table."

JeffJ, I respected your opinion on here. But you've stuck your nose so far up the president's ass that you are no different from Humtake or Sniper now. You've become a wailing whiny lying crybaby tossing around allegations without any factual backing.

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-07 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unless Trump is defeated November will be the last free election this country will see in a while.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-07 06:54 PM | Reply

Sure, all you Russia collision believers, you've been verified as liars or more realistically ( I'm giving you credit) believers of false info because you wanted to believe it. It's over, you were wrong and now it's been proven. Don't comment any more because it will make you look even more stupid

#74 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-07 07:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Even Clapper verified today you were idiots.

#75 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-07 07:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hey, is it OK if I drop trou in here for a while? I'm starting to stink.

--DJT

#76 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-05-07 07:32 PM | Reply

"Imagine Hillary Clinton doing that and JeffJ taking her side over DOJ prosecutors."

They'd still be finding bits of his exploded brain in the U.P.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-07 07:43 PM | Reply

Tip of the iceberg. Comey was dirty and who was he dirty for? Predicted this a year ago.

#78 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-07 08:17 PM | Reply

[B. Hussein] Obama knew details of wiretapped Flynn phone calls, surprising top DOJ official in meeting with Biden, declassified docs show

At that point, the documents showed, "Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act. ..."

The Logan Act, an obscure statute, has never been used successfully in a criminal prosecution; enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones, it was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad. In its motion to dismiss Flynn's case on Thursday, the DOJ noted that the law was an unserious dead letter.

Also released as an exhibit Thursday was a head-turning two-page document outlining why the FBI opened its counterintelligence probe into Flynn in August 2016. The FBI offered only three reasons: that Flynn was "cited as an adviser to the Trump team on foreign policy issues February 2016; he has ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open-source information; and he traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open-source information."


www.foxnews.com

Well that's good to know.

#79 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 08:20 PM | Reply

Even Clapper verified today you were idiots.
#75 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

HAHA! How about providing a bit of context regarding what you're alleging:

'Never saw any direct evidence': Clapper admission torpedoes Democrat push to revive Trump-Russia conspiracy with transcript dump

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example, told the committee he "never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/ conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."

www.rt.com

The investigation was warranted. There's nothing coming from Clapper suggesting otherwise.

Don't think so? Look up the definition of "direct empirical evidence."

#80 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 08:32 PM | Reply

One important overview that has nothing to do with any legal interpretation is this:

Michael Flynn lied to the Vice President and then to FBI agents about the already known FACT that he had a conversation with the Russian Ambassador about US sanctions.
While this may not be against any specific law, it immediately calls into question the loyalty of Flynn for two very stark reasons: 1) Why is he lying; and 2) The Russians have kompromat on Flynn since they know he's lying to his own government, which is all the "predicate" the FBI needs for asking Flynn questions about the incident.

Even though the agents involved may have thought it was a simple matter of Flynn potentially being charged with lying to federal agents, his actions HAD TO BE investigated on national security grounds: The incoming NSA lied to the Vice President and the Russians fully knew that Flynn lied when questioned about the substance of their mutual phone call.

This is what all the partisans on the right fail to realize. Flynn's lying made him a national security risk of which the Russians KNEW! How in the hell could Barr not see that? Flynn openly lying HAD to force his own removal. How do Trump/Flynn supporters square that circle? I'm all ears. Why did Flynn lie knowing the repercussions of doing so?

The only other plausible alternative is that Flynn was lying to provide cover for Trump and Pence, who totally knew the substance of the conversation but could not be publicly tied to such foreknowledge. Seeing as how both Trump and Pence are re-embracing Flynn, what does that tell one about their out-in-the-open culpability?

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 08:46 PM | Reply

In Flynn's Feb. 13, 2017, resignation letter, he admitted that he had made misleading statements to Vice President Pence about the Kislyak call. Here's how he put it: "Because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding phone calls with the Russian ambassador." That's not the FBI talking, it's Flynn. And the question, again, is why he misstated the facts.

There was always a deeper problem, one that still isn't resolved. Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election? In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary. The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation.

On the day he resigned, Flynn offered a more revealing account in an interview with the Daily Caller. He explained that the talk with Kislyak "was about the 35 guys who were thrown out. ... It was basically, Look, I know this happened. We'll review everything.'"

Why does this matter? Because the issue Flynn was discussing with Kislyak was so serious. Russia had secretly subverted our democratic elections. Obama, who had delayed sanctions far too long, finally took action with the Dec. 29 expulsions. He did so on behalf of the nation, whose election system had been attacked.

But none of that addresses the fundamental question that got this story rolling in the first place: Why was the incoming national security adviser telling the Kremlin's man in Washington not to worry about the expulsion of 35 of his spies, because when the new administration took office, "we'll review everything"?

David Ignatius

That last question is all the "predicate" the FBI needed to question Flynn about an undeniable national security issue.

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People on both sides have been trying to spin this as how it reflects on Barr or Mueller. I don't think it does either of those things.

#83 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-05-07 09:02 PM | Reply

That last question is all the "predicate" the FBI needed to question Flynn about an undeniable national security issue.
#82 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I'd say that's more convincing than anything else I've read.

#84 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-07 09:11 PM | Reply

Can we also be realistic that Trump would have pardoned Flynn?

But this helps Trump's other co-conspirators take over the government.

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that's okay with the majority of Republicans.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 09:16 PM | Reply

I'd say that's more convincing than anything else I've read.

That is why I hope this whole thing is turned on Trump and the GOP once and for all. Forget Trump, Flynn's call was about Flynn. He told the Russians one thing and the VP something else. The FBI didn't make him lie, and they didn't set up the phone call that he later lied about.

But it's undeniable, Flynn lied to the VP and FBI agents about HIM. They weren't asking him anything about Trump or the campaign, they asked him about what he said on a conversation they had recorded. Just not seeing any conspiracy to get Trump in here anywhere. Anybody else?

Why'd Flynn lie when Trump says that what Flynn said was perfectly alright? Didn't Trump ask him before he was fired?

I think Flynn lied because he couldn't tell the truth about having been told in advance to generally say what he did. And Trump knew this and probably Pence too. If Flynn lied for any other reason then his actions would have been treasonous if not in service of the nation's interests.

How was there a conspiracy against Trump connected to asking Flynn simple questions about what he himself said during a phone conversation with the Russian Ambassador - in which Flynn opened himself up to possible blackmail from the Russians by lying about it to American authorities?

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-07 09:23 PM | Reply

I'm surprised Eberly hasn't dropped by to mock our faux outrage.

After all this isn't really a big deal.

It's just one of Trump's National Security Advisers with multiple strong connections to Russia pleading guilty to lying to Federal investigators about one of those connections, and then Trump's government refusing to prosecute him.

Business as usual for a Banana Republic.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 09:33 PM | Reply

Party of Law and Order, Party of Personal Responsibility, take a bow, because the final curtain has fallen on the Party of Lincoln.

The party whose criminal President famously said "We are a nation of laws" awaits you in the Republican afterlife.

Congratulations, you built this!

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 09:36 PM | Reply

Flynn was railroaded. Dems don't care about the law.

Lying to the FBI is against the law. It has resulted in numerous prosecutions and convictions before Flynn. It will result in more after Flynn.

Only a Trumper would pretend Flynn didn't break the laws he admitted under oath to breaking. I guess after three and a half years of pretending lies are truth, you just can't be bothered to have any standards at all.

If Dear Leader pooped his pants and called it pudding you'd grab a spoon.

#89 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-07 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It will be interesting to see how DOJ reconciles the several guilty pleas Flynn already submitted.

#90 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-07 10:36 PM | Reply

At the start of it all, Flynn lied on some very important government forms. That should have been the end of the ballgame from the first move.

#91 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-07 10:37 PM | Reply

Oh great, GoNoles is here to pretend he's no longer a Trumper.

So desperate to take a place on Eberly's faux outrage list.

It's kinda sad to watch you chopping off your own balls at us.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 10:46 PM | Reply

GoNoles isn't pretending. He's said many critical things about Trump here.

#93 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-07 10:48 PM | Reply

Then I retract my first sentence, and double down on the next two.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-07 10:50 PM | Reply

GoNo is right as Flynn should have lost his clearance and been fired for falsifying government documents in order to get hired at the White House.

And he lied to the FBI and then plead guilty.

There is no law while trump is still president.

#95 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-07 11:45 PM | Reply

Lying to the FBI is against the law.

[...]

You know what else is against the law? Entrapment, especially when you have an opportunity to allow the alleged perp the ability to tell the truth. That didn't happen here, as evidenced by Bill Priestap's notes:

"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Priestap wrote. "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Notes showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House

Here is another thing that is not only against the law but can get a Prosecutor suspended if not disbarred: deliberately withholding exculpatory Brady evidence, which might have been what Brandon Van Grack was worried about when he withdrew today.

Prosecutor of ex-Trump aide Michael Flynn withdraws from case amid controversy over documents

I don't know how it works in the DC Circuit, but here in the 9th Circuit, if a Judge finds that a Prosecutor has deliberately withheld Brady evidence, that finding is per se prosecutorial misconduct, which in turn is automatically referred to the State Bar for disciplinary action. If, however, you are no longer prosecutor of record, no such finding can be made against you, which is likely why Van Grack withdrew.

Entrapment + Prosecutorial Misconduct will get every criminal case thrown out, and I guarantee that even Eric Holder would have had no option but to drop these charges.

Sorry to destroy your rant with these pesky facts, but I am sure you all will find some other thing to scream about as the truth continues to come out.

#96 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Notes showing how FBI official approached key interview in White House

#96 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:03 AM | Reply | Fl

Along these same lines on how the official approached the interview, one illuminating event is the interview with Nicole Wallace where Comey openly admitted on tape, and then laughed, how he was able to get 2 agents into the white house and did,in fact get to Flynn,by way of bypassing proper White House protocol. One would think if everything was above board and beyond reproach that a stunt like that wasn't necessary.

One would think.

#97 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 12:32 AM | Reply

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag

Well,I don't know about that because this truly is "my first rodeo" here, but it seems to me that everyone has a stake in making sure that the full force and weight of the government does actually have some checks on it. The drop of charges was mainly precipitated by the evidence that was found to have been hidden, if I read that correctly. That's enough "technicality" to get a murder conviction removed or perhaps not even prosecuted, if I'm remembering my "Matlock" and " The Good Wife" episodes correctly. lol So why would that fact not carry even more weight on a charge such as this ?

#99 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 12:44 AM | Reply

#99

Since the FBI, by their own (belated) admission knew that Flynn had talked to Kislyak, they had an affirmative obligation to tell him that, by not doing that and by "get[ting] him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired", they broke the law before he did, which is classic entrapment.

Because Van Grack withheld those notes from the defense, that is a clear violation of the Brady Statutes, which could get him suspended or disbarred. Either way, Van Grack's time at the DOJ is over, but I hear MSNBC/CNN is hiring disgraced FBI/DOJ officials so he will probably have a soft landing.

#100 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#100

Flynn lied. Problem is, if law enforcement doesn't play by the rules, then it doesn't matter who lies. It just matters who they prefer to let get away with it. That is corrupt, and worse than Flynn lying. Entrapment is corruption. Shouldn't be a partisan issue; corrupt, abusive law enforcement is always wrong.

#101 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2020-05-08 01:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You know what else is against the law? Entrapment, especially when you have an opportunity to allow the alleged perp the ability to tell the truth.

The FBI and police try to catch people in lies all the time. Flynn was never denied the opportunity to tell the truth. We all have the opportunity to tell the truth every time we're asked a question. He was asked questions and he made the choice to lie.

Then he made the choice to twice go before a judge and admit under oath that he lied.

You're inventing a new standard for Flynn that's never applied to anyone else. And Flynn, unlike the average jihad-wannabe who lies to the FBI, had massive legal resources at his disposal and a 40-year career in military and government that made the consequences of lying crystal clear. He knew what he was doing when he took a plea that admitted his crime.

You can pretend there's some objective standard at work here that's getting DOJ to drop the case. But we all know it's happening because Barr is undercutting the DOJ to get the outcome he wanted.

The next time someone lies to the FBI who Trump doesn't favor, it'll be treated as a crime again.

#102 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-08 01:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Entrapment is corruption.

It isn't entrapment for the FBI or the cops to try to catch someone in a lie. It happens every time they know the truth before they ask someone a question.

It just matters who they prefer to let get away with it.

You just described exactly what happened today. Barr preferred that Flynn get away with a crime.

#104 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-08 01:55 AM | Reply

It isn't entrapment for the FBI or the cops to try to catch someone in a lie. It happens every time they know the truth before they ask someone a question.
#104 | POSTED BY RCADE

Exactly right. Even in situations involving a simple drug issue after a CHP pulled someone over with a driver and passenger. Separate the two, get one story of whose drugs they are and then get the other. Clearly, the officer is going to use one individual's words against the other. And they do this PRIOR to acknowledging the individuals rights to remaining silent until they have enough probable cause for arrest.

Ignorance leads to prosecution. At all levels.

#105 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-08 03:16 AM | Reply

At all levels.
#105 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Meh.

That was stupid to suggest regarding Flynn.

The guy is clearly a savvy SOB. Maybe sloppy enough to get busted, but not worthy of the comparison I made.

#106 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-08 03:36 AM | Reply

You know what else is against the law? Entrapment

Every step of this case was reviewed and approved by Mueller. Then reviewed and approved by Rosenstein. Then looked at by George Bush appointee Judge Sullivan. None of them thought it was entrapment. Are you smarter than they are?

I'm curious how youd establish the inducement element of an entrapment defense in light of the fact that it requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion; pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties."

How does not telling Flynn they already knew the answer to their question about Kislyak rise to the level of coercion that blinded Flynn to his legal duties?

Are you suggesting that the only time a lie to the FBI can be prosecuted is when the FBI finds out afterwards that it was a lie?

Additionally, Flynn vastly undercut an entrapment defense at his own sentencing hearing:

Sullivan asked Flynn whether he wanted to challenge the circumstances under which he was interviewed by the FBI.

"No, your honor," Flynn replied.

Sullivan later gave Flynn another chance to withdraw his guilty plea if he felt he had been unfairly coaxed into it.

"I would like to proceed," Flynn said.

Asked whether he wished to proceed because he was guilty, Flynn said, "Yes, your honor."

Flynn also acknowledged that he "was aware" lying to the FBI was a crime at the time of his interview.

At one point, Sullivan asked one of Flynn's attorneys, Stephen Anthony, if the former national security adviser was "entrapped by the FBI."

"No, your honor," Anthony replied.

I'm also wondering how you'd get around the predisposition element. Was Flynn "an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime?" Your answer to that question will probably be laughable.

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 06:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We opened the Russia investigation to determine if the Russian government coordinated with the Trump campaign. Mr. Flynn had prominent, high level interactions with Russian officials, so we investigated whether he might be that point of coordination. We received incontrovertible evidence that Mr. Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador on more than one occasion, that he actively tried to influence the actions of Russian officials, and that those officials acceded to his requests. The FBI was obligated to interview him to better understand why he was talking to Russian officials. During the interview, he lied about the substance of his conversations with those officials. His lies added to our concerns about his relationship with the Russian government. Later, under oath in Federal Court, he twice admitted to lying to the FBI.

The Department's position that the FBI had no reason to interview Mr. Flynn pursuant to its counterintelligence investigation is patently false, and ignores the considerable national security risk his contacts raised. Moreover, the Department's position contradicts the findings by both the Special Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General.

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.

Andrew McCabe

#108 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 07:08 AM | Reply

"It's obvious that President Obama had to know all about "Crossfire Razor" as well as the umbrella investigation "Crossfire Hurricane", and was in fact, quite aware of the Flynn take down."

James Gagliano, 25 year FBI , adjunct professor of national security and criminal justice, St.John's University and current law enforcement analyst. (but not for long)

tic-toc tic-toc

#109 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 07:17 AM | Reply

Bears repeating:

The Department's position that the FBI had no reason to interview Mr. Flynn pursuant to its counterintelligence investigation is patently false, and ignores the considerable national security risk his contacts raised. Moreover, the Department's position contradicts the findings by both the Special Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General.
Barr has unilaterally rewritten a heretofore unambiguous and unchallenged tenet of law. He has replaced the universal interpretation of the illegality of lying to federal agents into a sophist's exercise of counterintuitive gymnastics built upon the lie that Flynn's conduct wasn't a germane and pressing national security issue since Flynn lied to the Vice President of the United States and Russia was aware that he'd lied.

#110 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 07:18 AM | Reply

analyst for CNN ( but not for long)

#111 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 07:19 AM | Reply

"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

^
In what way is this Brady evidence?
How does the fact that this question was asked bolster Flynn's defense?
From what charge does this piece of alleged evidence defend Flynn?

Thanks.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-08 07:27 AM | Reply

And of course Trump had to react to this like a dumbass. He goes on a smear campaign and says the Libs are scum but yet he turns around and does exactly what they do...brings up more bogus charges against every Dem that comes near him. Neither side can just accept a win gracefully and move on. It's all about who they can point fingers at without any actual evidence. And even when there is evidence, it turns in to some deep type of corruption at the highest levels that makes the person get off on technicalities. It just keeps happening on both sides. Why does anyone even bother to spend energy on Executive or Legislative court cases anymore? It's not going to change with the corrupt Dem and Rep leaders we have.

#113 | Posted by humtake at 2020-05-08 07:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why does anyone even bother to spend energy on Executive or Legislative court cases anymore? It's not going to change with the corrupt Dem and Rep leaders we have."

Sounds like you have no faith in government.
Hoping for a military coup, then?
What do you want to change?

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-08 07:44 AM | Reply

Here is the essence of what Flinn was confronted with, lie and be charged with a crime that had not been enforced sense before the Civil War, or watch us put your son in prison. The investigators initially found nothing. They were ordered to go back by the trolls on the seventh floor and create something. I would love to see the original 302s of those interviews, the ones that were not changed by those trolls. That act was a felony, if you didn't know. Fabrication of evidence is a serious charge.

#115 | Posted by docnjo at 2020-05-08 09:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The investigators initially found nothing. They were ordered to go back by the trolls on the seventh floor and create something.

Link?

Fabrication of evidence is a serious charge.

Since you're the one making it, provide a link to back that up as well.

#116 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 10:13 AM | Reply

It just keeps happening on both sides.

This isn't a both sides situation. No major party candidate before Trump ran a campaign encouraging chants to lock up their opponent. If you run a campaign on "Lock Her Up!" and some of your own people are sent to prison, you're going to have that fact thrown in your face every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

#117 | Posted by rcade at 2020-05-08 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There is nothing to hide."

- Donald Trump, December 2, 2017

#118 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is the essence of what Flinn was confronted with, lie and be charged with a crime that had not been enforced sense before the Civil War, or watch us put your son in prison.

#115 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Liar.

Lying to the FBI is the crime he was charged with.

Not a violation of the Logan Act.

This is why people are Republican: They are too stupid to understand basic facts.

#119 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm reluctant to tell him to explain it to the class because it's usually pretty embarrassing to watch him pretend to understand legal topics and even more difficult to get him to admit he's full of ----.

#22 | POSTED BY JOE

I think he should.

I'm always keen to hear the opinions of "experts".

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 10:54 AM | Reply

#99
Since the FBI, by their own (belated) admission knew that Flynn had talked to Kislyak, they had an affirmative obligation to tell him that, by not doing that and by "get[ting] him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired", they broke the law before he did, which is classic entrapment.
Because Van Grack withheld those notes from the defense, that is a clear violation of the Brady Statutes, which could get him suspended or disbarred. Either way, Van Grack's time at the DOJ is over, but I hear MSNBC/CNN is hiring disgraced FBI/DOJ officials so he will probably have a soft landing.

#100 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Wrong. Are you even a lawyer? Seriously please NEVER do defense work if you are. You have no clue how anything works.

The FBI had no legal affirmative obligation to tell Flynn they knew he had talked to Kislyak. This is a damn lie that even a first year public defender knows.

And I'd love to her how the FBI could "get him to lie."

First, the notes actually said, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" and "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it." and "protect our institution by not playing games." I get why you wouldn't use the actual quote because then you can't lie about it. There is NOTHING in the notes saying they were trying to get Flynn to lie.

Second, there is no evidence that the FBI even pressured him or tricked him into lying. And Flynn never corrected the lie until after the FBI indicated it knew.

And no, it's not a violation of the "Brady Statutes". First, there is no such thing as Brady Statutes. It's the Brady Rule from Brady v. Maryland. Second the evidence must be EXCULPATORY to lying, the only crime he was charged with. And none of it is. A judge already ruled on it with a 92 page decision.

So once again, kindly STFU with your lies.

#121 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

1. The FBI had no predicate to even investigate Flynn. They were using the Steele Dossier as their predicate and we now know (Thank you, Horowitz) they knew it was pure garbage. His testimony was immaterial to their investigation, thus any misinformation (lies, in FBI speak) didn't matter.

2. The agents working the investigation were about to close the case until Strzok threw a Hail Mary to keep it open. Also, after the interview the agents concluded that Flynn wasn't lying - he got some details wrong but it wasn't deliberate. That was the conclusion at the time. however, after the fact Strzok edited over a peiod of weeks Priestrap's 302.

3. Standard protocols were deliberately violated with how the interrogation of Flynn was conducted. They didn't inform him he was under investigation. They deliberately deceived him as to why they were talking to him. They had the fricking transcript of the calls with the Russian ambassador in their possession when they interviewed him. Their pretense was a Logan act violation, which is pure bull. They weren't trying to better understand the conversations Flynn had with the ambassador, they were trying to get him to slip up so they could either get him fired or prosecuted (we only VERY recently learned this as Jensen got additional documents introduced into the case).

4. His original counsel, Covington, in advising him to plead guilty, likely had a conflict of interest.

5. They leveraged Flynn's son against him. By itself, this isn't illegal or unethical, but the prosecution deliberately hid this from the judge, which is a violation of law.

6. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, also a violation of law. Even with Powell being a bulldog it wasn't until Jensen stepped in that Preistrap's written notes - "get Flynn to lie so we can get him fired or prosecuted?" was introduced.

The investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct in this case is astounding. When the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton in a criminal investigation, she was fed softball questions with an army of personal lawyers present, a couple of whom were actually witnesses (Mills and Abedein). Hell, gangbangers are at least informed of their rights and advised to have counsel present when this type of interview is conducted. Flynn is a decorated 33 year veteran who was afforded the highest levels of clearance vis a vis a rigorous process and this is how he was treated. He's been bankrupted and even had to sell his house defending himself from Team Mueller. This is a travesty and the people who perpetrated this fraud need to be held to account.

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 11:01 AM | Reply

So once again, kindly STFU with your lies.

#121 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You are hyper partisan and also full of ----.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#121

LOL, I gave you the full quote as it pertains to the entrapment, and you completely ignore the "Truth/Admission" part of it, which underscores the entrapment.

While you are correct on the origin of the Brady Rule many States have enacted statutes that codify it.

As for the exculpatory part, it doesn't really matter what it pertains to, if it shows wrongdoing or a potential defense, it must be disclosed.

"There is NOTHING in the notes saying they were trying to get Flynn to lie."

Except for this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."

Now run along and wipe away your tears of unfathomable sadness.

#124 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

His testimony was immaterial to their investigation, thus any misinformation (lies, in FBI speak) didn't matter.

This is like saying there can't be obstruction if there is no crime.

Crimes uncovered in the investigation of another crime are still crimes and are still prosecuted.

Also, after the interview the agents concluded that Flynn wasn't lying - he got some details wrong but it wasn't deliberate.

Then why the guilty plea that was only changed after the political climate improved?

They didn't inform him he was under investigation. They deliberately deceived him as to why they were talking to him. They had the fricking transcript of the calls with the Russian ambassador in their possession when they interviewed him.

So what. Much like the Horowitz report your issue here seems to be the shattering of your naive expectations for how the sausage gets made. None of those are uncommon practices for law enforcement.

The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence,

No, they didn't. You clearly don't understand what that phrase means.

The investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct in this case is astounding.

LOL nice analysis, Jeffy J esquire.

#125 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, they didn't. You clearly don't understand what that phrase means.

Yes, they did. Had it not been for Jensen, this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired." never would have seen the light of day.

Quit defending the indefensible. I expect this ---- from Danforth, but not from you.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 11:45 AM | Reply

None of those are uncommon practices for law enforcement.

So, that makes it OK then?

Please explain why Flynn was under investigation in the first place.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 11:46 AM | Reply

"Quit defending the indefensible."

My irony meter just exploded. Once again, Jeff never gets upset at Republicans' bad behavior, but boy howdy, is he upset it got discovered!

Do us a favor, Jeff, and at least admit if it were HRC you wouldn't be making a peep. Then tell us again how you're NOT a hack, but everyone else is....

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 11:52 AM | Reply

Ah, here comes Danforth rushing in to do his best Snoofy impression.

I'll respond to your drivel when you can admit that Carter Page was unlawfully surveilled.

Until then, STFU you hyper-partisan hack.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Please explain why Flynn was under investigation in the first place."

He made the VP lie on national television, and the FBI had the tapes to prove it.

Why won't you answer the direct questions, Senator Flake? Is it okay for the Russians to have Kompromat on the NSA, or not? Should that be investigated by the FBI, or shrugged off?

As Rcade pointed out upthread, no one believes your reaction would be the same if the letters after the names were reversed.

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 11:55 AM | Reply

"I'll respond to your drivel when you can admit that Carter Page was unlawfully surveilled."

If Page was unlawfully surveilled, anyone breaking the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Now...please explain why the NSA being able to be controlled by Russians is a good thing. You know...get past all your smoke and mirrors, and ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE LIES YOU WERE TOLD.

"Until then, STFU you hyper-partisan hack."

Projection from Senator Flake? How positively Trumpian!

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 11:58 AM | Reply

Do us a favor, Jeff, just type it out once:

If Hillary Clinton had won a close election after lying regarding contacts with Russia, and Huma Abedin had lied about meetings the FBI had surveilled, and Tim Kaine had lied on national TV about the contacts, and the campaign ignored FBI warnings to let them know if Russians approached them...

...I would have been okay if the FBI hadn't investigated.

Just type that out once, hack. Just once.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 12:04 PM | Reply

Yes, they did. Had it not been for Jensen, this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired." never would have seen the light of day.
Quit defending the indefensible. I expect this ---- from Danforth, but not from you.

#126 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I was the one who posted the thread with the documents. You don't need to present me the cherry picked bits that the right predictably cherry picked.

A single line from an unknown agent in handwritten notes is hardly the "exculpatory evidence" you claim it to be. You're just regurgitating what you've been told to regurgitate from whatever deplorable infotainment outlet you prefer.

Please explain why Flynn was under investigation in the first place.

#127 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

As part of the Trump Russia probe. He had contacts with Russian officials that he didn't disclose, even to the VP.

IIRC it was one of those anonymously sourced stores that was poo pooed by righties as anonymous but ignored when it was confirmed.

#133 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 12:08 PM | Reply

So, that makes it OK then?

LOL how many years have you sneered at liberal "snowflakes" for protesting law enforcement abuses only now to find the offensive because for some reason you're a Flynn fanboy?

#134 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 12:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. The FBI had no predicate to even investigate Flynn.

(T)to take the view that the FBI had no reasonable investigative predicate for the Flynn case on Jan. 24, 2017, one has to believe that the following fact-pattern, considered in its entirety, provides no reasonably articulable basis for a counterintelligence concern:

*A senior official with a TS/SCI clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities;

*He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit;

*As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he had phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he had asked that Russia to respond only in a measured fashion;

*He subsequently lied to the Vice President of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public;

*The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

Recall that predication is cumulative. While the FBI had previously examined Flynn's ties with Russia and found no derogatory information based solely on those ties, his call with Kislyak and subsequent behavior raised new questions about whether something had been missed. It potentially cast the earlier interactions in a very different light.

The Justice Department is arguing here nothing less than that it is okay for a counterintelligence subject to lie to the FBI about interactions with foreign governments under certain circumstances. The argument fails for the same reason the earlier argument fails: The investigation had proper predication, so the lies were material.

www.lawfareblog.com

#135 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 12:09 PM | Reply

I'll respond to your drivel when you can admit that Carter Page was unlawfully surveilled.

Funny how you take a handful of improprieties and gloss over that with the above.

time.com

Not surprisingly your views are completely in line with Barr's. Shocking.

Until then, STFU you hyper-partisan hack.

#129 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Irony just threw in the towel after that beating.

#136 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 12:12 PM | Reply

As Rcade pointed out upthread, no one believes your reaction would be the same if the letters after the names were reversed.

#130 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2020-05-08 11:55 AM

*Holds up Mirror*

#137 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:41 PM | Reply

A single line from an unknown agent in handwritten notes is hardly the "exculpatory evidence" you claim it to be.

It doesn't matter how exculpatory you think it might be, under Brady it must be disclosed. It wasn't, and Van Grack has withdrawn because of it.

#138 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:57 PM | Reply

Not surprisingly your views are completely in line with Barr's.

As I said up thread, even Holder or Lynch would have to make the same call, from an ethical and legal basis, under these circumstances.

#139 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 12:58 PM | Reply

"*Holds up Mirror*"

I've repeatedly stated those breaking the law should be prosecuted, your pretense notwithstanding.

It's also worthwhile to point out the hypocrisy of those who aren't bothered by the 100+ lies, but are really upset they were discovered.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 01:08 PM | Reply

#122 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
1. The FBI had no predicate to even investigate Flynn. They were using the Steele Dossier as their predicate and we now know (Thank you, Horowitz) they knew it was pure garbage. His testimony was immaterial to their investigation, thus any misinformation (lies, in FBI speak) didn't matter."

Wrong. Because Flynn voluntarily interviewed with the FBI, the part about Predicate makes no difference. I won't waste time explaining why you are wrong about their justification for interviewing him.

His testimony is also not immaterial. Section 1001 criminalizes "knowingly and willfully ... mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to federal investigators, where "material" means "predictably capable of affecting ... [an] official decision." He lied literally about a core element of the investigation: a possible deal between Trump and the Russians over sanctions. You can't get more material.

2. The agents working the investigation were about to close the case until Strzok threw a Hail Mary to keep it open. Also, after the interview the agents concluded that Flynn wasn't lying - he got some details wrong but it wasn't deliberate. That was the conclusion at the time. however, after the fact Strzok edited over a peiod of weeks Priestrap's 302."

This is a lie. The Agents never concluded Flynn was being inaccurate. Flynn lied about conversations regarding the sanctions. He never corrected his lie. He pled guilty to lying and admitted he lied.

3. Standard protocols were deliberately violated with how the interrogation of Flynn was conducted. They didn't inform him he was under investigation. They deliberately deceived him as to why they were talking to him. They had the fricking transcript of the calls with the Russian ambassador in their possession when they interviewed him. Their pretense was a Logan act violation, which is pure bull. They weren't trying to better understand the conversations Flynn had with the ambassador, they were trying to get him to slip up so they could either get him fired or prosecuted (we only VERY recently learned this as Jensen got additional documents introduced into the case)."

This is also a lie. News broke that Flynn was under investigation on January 22, 2017 by the New York Times. Flynn interviewed with the FBI on January 24, 2017.
Why he was interviewed makes no difference to him lying. Having the transcripts makes no difference.
Flynn did not correct his statements after the interview.

4. His original counsel, Covington, in advising him to plead guilty, likely had a conflict of interest.

This would actually make no difference. Unless Flynn proved the potential conflict of interest caused ineffective assistance of counsel. That would not be possible here and the Court already ruled on it.
Even if it were possible, it would only effect whether his plea could be withdrawn, not whether he is guilty of lying to the FBI.

5. They leveraged Flynn's son against him. By itself, this isn't illegal or unethical, but the prosecution deliberately hid this from the judge, which is a violation of law.
In a word: No. It would not effect the plea.

6. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, also a violation of law. Even with Powell being a bulldog it wasn't until Jensen stepped in that Preistrap's written notes - "get Flynn to lie so we can get him fired or prosecuted?" was introduced.

This is also wrong. Because the only charge was Lying to the FBI, there is no evidence that is Exculpatory. This has already been ruled on actually.

Literally everything you said is not the law or would not allow Flynn to withdraw his plea. Most of it has already been denied by a Judge in fact.

#141 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:17 PM | Reply

#121
LOL, I gave you the full quote as it pertains to the entrapment, and you completely ignore the "Truth/Admission" part of it, which underscores the entrapment.
While you are correct on the origin of the Brady Rule many States have enacted statutes that codify it.
As for the exculpatory part, it doesn't really matter what it pertains to, if it shows wrongdoing or a potential defense, it must be disclosed.
"There is NOTHING in the notes saying they were trying to get Flynn to lie."
Except for this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Now run along and wipe away your tears of unfathomable sadness.

#124 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

LOL, I gave you the full quote as it pertains to the entrapment, and you completely ignore the "Truth/Admission" part of it, which underscores the entrapment."

Show me they entrapped him. Flynn himself can't even say how they convinced him to Lie to the FBI.

As for the exculpatory part, it doesn't really matter what it pertains to, if it shows wrongdoing or a potential defense, it must be disclosed.

No. It must be exculpatory. None of the evidence is exculpatory to the single charge of lying to the FBI. This has already been ruled on.

Except for this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."

And again you lie.

"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" That's the quote.

Now go give up your law license, you hack. You don't know anything about criminal law.

#142 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:25 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter how exculpatory you think it might be, under Brady it must be disclosed. It wasn't, and Van Grack has withdrawn because of it.

#138 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No. Van Grack withdrew in protest. He did it only yesterday.

#143 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:26 PM | Reply

Section 1001 criminalizes "knowingly and willfully ... mak[ing] any materially false

After the interview the agents agreed that he didn't intend, i.e. Knowingly and willfully made any materially false statements.

In a word: No. It would not effect the plea.

In a word: yes. The prosecution was required to disclose that agreement to the judge. They didn't.

#144 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:28 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter how exculpatory you think it might be, under Brady it must be disclosed. It wasn't, and Van Grack has withdrawn because of it.

#138 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

But it has to be exculpatory. And it isn't.

Worse, that would ONLY mean Flynn could withdraw his plea MAYBE. Not that he shouldn't be charged and the case dropped.

Amazing to me that you keep ignoring that part so you can defend Trump. Well...not actually that amazing.

#145 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:29 PM | Reply

"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" That's the quote.

Yes, it is, and it speaks to the rationale behind conducting the interview.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:30 PM | Reply

#145 This is about Flynn, not Trump.

What is it with you lefties and your desire to make everything about Trump?

#147 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:30 PM | Reply

No. Van Grack withdrew in protest. He did it only yesterday.

#143 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

His withdrawal was done with a single sentence. Unless he's expounded since then declaring his motive is pure speculation.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:31 PM | Reply

So once again, kindly STFU with your lies.
#121 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
You are hyper partisan and also full of ----.
#123 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

JeffJ, you can cry like a baby all you want but the law is on the side of prosecuting Flynn.

A Federal Judge already ruled on the claims you are making. Flynn lost.

#149 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:33 PM | Reply

#145 This is about Flynn, not Trump.
What is it with you lefties and your desire to make everything about Trump?

#147 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

This is ALL about Trump.

Flynn LIED to protect Trump.

Trump is protecting Flynn even though he is guilty and the Court wouldn't let him withdraw his guilty plea.

How the ---- do you not get it?

It's useless to argue with you. You don't know the law. You don't care what is says.

#150 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 01:36 PM | Reply

A Federal Judge already ruled on the claims you are making. Flynn lost.

#149 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

The judge was set to issue another ruling 4 days from now.

#151 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:37 PM | Reply

Flynn LIED to protect Trump.

Protect Trump from what?

#152 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 01:38 PM | Reply

You are hyper partisan and also full of ----.
#123 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I can't believe hyper partisan, and Trump shilling, Jeff.

Could call anyone else a hyper partisan.

Very amusing.

#153 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-08 01:40 PM | Reply

Nice to see the party of law and order defending lying to the FBI about selling our foreign policy to the Russians.

You guys are so ------ in the head, it really is sick.

#154 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I guess they didn't cover this when you were studying for your Paralegal certificate, so let me help you a little more:

No. It must be exculpatory. None of the evidence is exculpatory to the single charge of lying to the FBI.

Nope, and screaming in bold only makes you look stupider.

Brady v. Maryland was very clear: Evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose includes any evidence favorable to the accused -- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

A Federal Judge already ruled on the claims you are making.

That ruling was prior to the disclosure of the Brady material, and since the prosecution has a Constitutional duty to disclose this evidence, and didn't, I have a feeling that the Judge will not be kind to Flynn's prosecutors on his next ruling. See Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1955); United States. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).

#155 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-08 01:50 PM | Reply

Nice to see the party of law and order defending lying to the FBI about selling our foreign policy to the Russians.

You guys are so ------ in the head, it really is sick.

#154 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2020-05-08 01:45 PM |

Wow! That was quite the contribution, Joe.

Nice to see the party of civil liberties gladly sell out and abuse them because orange man bad. That you defend this ---- speaks volumes about you, Joe.

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 02:07 PM | Reply

Next.

From transcript of interview with house intel during the Russia probe.

" I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting / conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."

James Clapper, former DNI director.

My question is how can anyone possibly think that this man is lying. We were lectured us for years on just what an honest and upstanding government servant of the people he is and he would never lie under oath as was charged. And now suddenly he's either lying or non existent to those same voices.

Please explain.

#157 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 02:12 PM | Reply

A Federal Judge already ruled on the claims you are making. Flynn lost.
#149 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

The judge was set to issue another ruling 4 days from now.
#151 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

They already ruled on Flynn's same claims in December.

Flynn's new attorneys simply filed basically the same motion and arguments in this new motion with a bit more of a stretch.

Here is a Federal Judge explaining in a Court Order on Flynn's same motion in December why you and Rightocenter are wrong.
int.nyt.com

Literally EVERYTHING you are arguing was already dismissed by a Federal Judge after a motion was filed by his new legal team.

1. Flynn had the notes you are whining about the entire time regarding "Truth/Admission". He admits this in his original motion and doesn't ask for those.
2. He could show no entrapment or pressure to lie.
3. The Conflict of Interest was waived by Flynn himself even though its not a real conflict.
4. His statements were material.
5. Flynn didn't even argue ineffective assistance of counsel.

So let me explain what's really going on:

Flynn is filing the same motion because the DOJ at Trump's request has agreed not to oppose it and the Judge can't deny the motion without the DOJ responding. Trump is letting Flynn go after he clearly violated the law to protect Trump.

You idiots drank the damn Kool-Aid and are citing Conservative press briefers rather than the actual case. There isn't a damn bit of evidence here that would get Flynn off.

Get the ---- over it.

#158 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 02:19 PM | Reply

#158 clearly you are wrong.

BTW - Using excessive bold doesn't strengthen your argument.

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 02:23 PM | Reply

Flynn's same motion in December

Exculpatory documents have been introduced to the court since December.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 02:25 PM | Reply

8 more months of this criminal enterprise.
It's what we voted for.

#161 | Posted by fresno500 at 2020-05-08 02:30 PM | Reply

One of these days I'm hoping to see some information on the backstory. How they threatened his son and told him that they would bankrupt him. The

other part of the story usually missing is the cold stone fact that Comey told agents to get into the White House without going through the proper

protocol. As I said this morning. One would think that an investigation above board and beyond reproach would not have to rely on those stunts to do

their job.

one would think.

#162 | Posted by rhet at 2020-05-08 02:32 PM | Reply

8 more months of this criminal enterprise.

These next 8 months are going to feel like another four years.

Which. Trump has a good chance of securing.

There are too many ffffking stupid people in this country who will vote for Trump, the criminal rapist. They don't care he's destroying America locally and nationally.

They actually don't care about America. They believe they are doing so well independently, that this nation is what's holding them back.

Thank God Trump is here to destroy America.

#163 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-08 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

under Brady it must be disclosed. It wasn't, and Van Grack has withdrawn because of it.
#138 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Link?

#164 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-08 02:49 PM | Reply

Unless he's expounded since then declaring his motive is pure speculation.
#148 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You should aim that comment at ROC.

But you're not, how come?

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-08 02:54 PM | Reply

Except for this: "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Now run along and wipe away your tears of unfathomable sadness.
#124 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

^
In what way is this Brady evidence?
How does the fact that this question was asked bolster Flynn's defense?
From what charge does this piece of alleged evidence defend Flynn?
Thanks.
#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Aaaaand still no answer.
Can maybe someone on the left explain the rationale here, because nobody on the right has even tried.
Bonus points if you can cite case law.
Thanks!

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-08 02:55 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter how exculpatory you think it might be, under Brady it must be disclosed. It wasn't, and Van Grack has withdrawn because of it.

#138 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

It MUST be disclosed. In all investigations, all paperwork, even internal notes, from investigators MUST be turned over to the defense?

#167 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 02:59 PM | Reply

To Justify Dismissing Mike Flynn's Prosecution, Timothy Shea Claims Information DOJ Has Always Had Is "New"

www.emptywheel.net

Judge Sullivan Has Already Rejected Most of Timothy Shea's DOJ Flynn Pardon

www.emptywheel.net

#168 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-08 03:01 PM | Reply

What is it with you lefties and your desire to make everything about Trump?

#147 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You're playing the goatuse card if you think this isn't at all connected to Trump.

#169 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 03:05 PM | Reply

The judge was set to issue another ruling 4 days from now.

#151 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which is probably why Barr made them drop the case...

#170 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 03:06 PM | Reply

Brady v. Maryland was very clear: Evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose includes any evidence favorable to the accused -- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

How does any of that pertain to internal documents for strategy in an investigation?

#171 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-08 03:07 PM | Reply

"It doesn't matter how exculpatory you think it might be, under Brady it must be disclosed."

This is patently false.
I'm somewhat surprised the California Bar Association tolerates members in good standing to publicly lie about the law.
Then again, lawyers are often stereotyped as being very unethical, so maybe the stereotype has a grain of truth in it.

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-08 03:08 PM | Reply

"Evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose includes any evidence favorable to the accused -- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness."

The quote "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired." is none of those things.
The way I can tell it's not is nobody can explain how the quote is any of those things.
Especially the lawyer who keeps insisting it is.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-08 03:12 PM | Reply

Wow! That was quite the contribution, Joe.

My substantive contribution was in #107 and none of you --------- attempted to respond. As usual you jump in later with nothing.

At the end of the day Barr is engaging in a highly questionable form of legal pretzeling all to do something Trump could have done with a pardon anyways. Nobody, not even Flynn, thought he was entrapped. But suddenly you and Barr think so? Excuse me for not being convinced.

#174 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 03:24 PM | Reply

Exculpatory documents have been introduced to the court since December.

#160 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, JeffJ.

These aren't new documents. The Court already reviewed these for the previous order. They were reviewed on camera.

You fell for the Conservative press releases and just defended Trump getting one of his cronies off who broke the law to protect Trump.

Deal with it.

#175 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ, you want more proof?

Criminal Charges are NEVER dismissed with Prejudice. That means they can be re-charged if the evidence warrants now or at a later.

The DOJ is asking the Court to dismiss the charges with prejudice though.

Why? To protect Flynn.

#176 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

These aren't new documents.

Newly disclosed to the court and the defense.

#177 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 03:49 PM | Reply

These aren't new documents.
Newly disclosed to the court and the defense.

#177 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, JeffJ.

The Court reviewed these previously. And Defense counsel had almost everything or was not entitled to it after the Judge reviewed it. I'm actually unable to find anything they didn't know about previously.

I'm sorry. But you are wrong and defending corrupt people.

Trump is letting Flynn go because Flynn tried to protect him.

#178 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 03:54 PM | Reply

What's really happening is Barr is shielding Trump from the scrutiny that would follow his pardoning of someone who lied to FBI agents.

In other words, Barr is doing political work for Trump.

#179 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 04:21 PM | Reply

Seems to be a lot of talk about evidence being withheld, but is that Barr's reason for wanting the DOJ to drop the case? It doesn't seem like it to me............

Let's see what the judge who will be given the motion has to say about this case going forward.

#180 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-05-08 05:32 PM | Reply

pdated April 30, 2020 5:22 pm ET
PRINT
TEXT
626
A federal judge on Wednesday unsealed new documents in former national security adviser Mike Flynn's criminal case that his lawyers say are evidence the government tried to set him up in a 2017 interview that led to his departure from the Trump administration and subsequent indictment on a charge of lying.

www.wsj.com

Here's another source:

Lawyers for Flynn over the last two days released a series of internal correspondence obtained through a Justice Department review of the handling of the case.

news4sanantonio.com

We need to establish the facts before we can have any kind of meaningful discussion.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 05:43 PM | Reply

- his lawyers say

Well, that definitely makes it a fact.

Oh, and...

drudge.com

#182 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-08 05:47 PM | Reply

The Justice Department's lawless reversal on Michael Flynn

#183 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 05:56 PM | Reply

Tony,

Your link is hidden behind a paywall.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 06:01 PM | Reply

"We need to establish the facts before we can have any kind of meaningful discussion."

Okay: why did Flynn lie to Pence, and then lie to the FBI? And is it a FACT the FBI should investigate if they have reason to believe a foreign government has Kompromat on the NSA?

Let's be meaningful, shall we?

#185 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-05-08 06:02 PM | Reply

- behind a paywall.

just use an incognito window

"The government's motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn is like nothing I've ever seen. It's a political screed dressed up as legal analysis, promoting the "deep state" conspiracy fantasies of President Trump. It epitomizes the politicization of the Justice Department under Attorney General William P. Barr. It is, in the truest sense of the word, lawless."

"Let's be clear about what the Justice Department is saying here: If you're investigating the Trump campaign's Russia contacts, and learn new information about a former campaign official (and now member of the administration) who recently had Russia contacts, there's no good reason to talk to him. That claim is absurd on its face."

excerpts

#186 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-08 06:20 PM | Reply

Jeff, expurgated version:

The government's motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn is like nothing I've ever seen. It's a political screed dressed up as legal analysis, promoting the "deep state" conspiracy fantasies of President Trump. It epitomizes the politicization of the Justice Department under Attorney General William P. Barr. It is, in the truest sense of the word, lawless.

Let's be clear about what the Justice Department is saying here: If you're investigating the Trump campaign's Russia contacts, and learn new information about a former campaign official (and now member of the administration) who recently had Russia contacts, there's no good reason to talk to him. That claim is absurd on its face.

The government repeats the conservative canard that there was no need to interview Flynn because the FBI already had a transcript of his conversation with the ambassador. But the issue was never the exact words they exchanged " it was why the conversation took place and who directed Flynn to have the discussion. Was the incoming Trump administration potentially promising to ease sanctions on Russia as a quid pro quo for Russian assistance during the election? The Russia investigation was in its infancy, and agents didn't know what they would learn, but they had an obligation to follow that lead. The fact that Flynn then chose to lie about his Russia contacts only heightens the suspicions that still surround them.

But the most remarkable thing about the government's new claim that Flynn's lies were not material is that the judge in this case has already ruled that they were. In an earlier motion to dismiss, Flynn's attorneys made essentially this same argument: that his lies were not material because the FBI had no good reason to interview him. Agreeing with the prosecutors at the time and rejecting this argument, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that Flynn "has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of materiality."

So to sum up: The government claims it cannot prove materiality when the judge has already ruled the lies were material, and the government says it cannot prove Flynn lied when he has already admitted twice that he lied. Such a bizarre argument could be put forward only in a Trumpian world where facts truly don't matter.
www.washingtonpost.com

So a new DOJ AUSA swoops in and IGNORES the judge's own ruling and signs-on to a filing which basically gives the judge the middle finger, saying that the DOJ interprets the law better, not him. Not to mention Flynn was also going to be charged with lying about his Turkey contacts - again something he admitted under oath to lying about.

Anyone claiming that Flynn has been wrongly investigated and prosecuted does so without a shred of settled law nor common sense supporting their already dismissed arguments.

#187 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 06:27 PM | Reply

"Unless Trump is defeated November will be the last free election this country will see in a while.

#73 | POSTED BY ZED "

Would you like to make a wager on that, CraZed?

#188 | Posted by goatman at 2020-05-08 06:33 PM | Reply

Tony - I don't even understand Barr's/DOJ's reasoning?

And is it mentioned anywhere about evidence withheld? Again, many on here are talking about it (and I assume it's the FBI notes).

#189 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-05-08 06:38 PM | Reply

#189

That's the point, there is no reasoning behind the DOJ's stance. The evidence (FBI notes/docs created prior to the actual questioning of Flynn) turned over by the DOJ to Flynn's attorneys were already reviewed in camera by the judge, who then rejected the same argument the DOJ filing is making now. Before, the DOJ lawyers were the ones making the case for materiality. Now after Barr's ascendancy, it's the prosecution making the the opposite case, contradicting the orders already ruled upon the subject by the judge.

#190 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 06:47 PM | Reply

People lie to law enforcement all the time. Innocent and guilty. Lawyers argue confessions are coerced often, don't they?

Where is moder8? Doesn't he make arguments like that and defend folks who lied to the police?

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2020-05-08 06:49 PM | Reply

People lie to law enforcement all the time.

Flynn wasn't being questioned because he lied. Flynn was being questioned because of the subject matter upon which he was caught lying, including who he lied to - and the logical security ramifications of his conversation with the Russian ambassador which includes the fact that his lying put him into a position of possibly being blackmailed by Russia since they too knew that he lied.

In addition, Flynn has also admitted to lying about his contacts with Turkish interests, including still being paid by them while he was already working for Trump's campaign. All of these things gave the FBI ample reasons for questioning Flynn over his conversation that seemed to imply a possible quid pro quo with the Russians over the sanctions and expulsions just instituted by Obama - which precipitated the conversations in the first place. Russia called him to see how Trump was going to deal with them once he was inaugurated.

So this is not about Flynn's lie and whether he should have been questioned at all. This is what the DOJ's filing completely ignores.

#192 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 06:59 PM | Reply

pdated April 30, 2020 5:22 pm ET
PRINT
TEXT
626
A federal judge on Wednesday unsealed new documents in former national security adviser Mike Flynn's criminal case that his lawyers say are evidence the government tried to set him up in a 2017 interview that led to his departure from the Trump administration and subsequent indictment on a charge of lying.

www.wsj.com
Here's another source:
Lawyers for Flynn over the last two days released a series of internal correspondence obtained through a Justice Department review of the handling of the case.

news4sanantonio.com
We need to establish the facts before we can have any kind of meaningful discussion.

#181 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jesus Christ, I don't know if I have enough crayons to explain this in a way you can understand.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE NEWLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. THEY ARE NOT NEWLY RELEASED TO THE COURT. THE COURT ALREADY REVIEWED THEM UNDER CAMERA MONTHS AGO BEFORE THE DECEMBER ORDER WAS ISSUED.

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to draw a damn picture like we do for Trump?

#193 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-08 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Jesus Christ, I don't know if I have enough crayons...

POSTED BY SYCOPHANT "

Then leave the discussion to those of us who use fountain pens and have mastered calligraphy.

#195 | Posted by goatman at 2020-05-08 07:17 PM | Reply

"A federal judge on Wednesday unsealed new documents in former national security adviser Mike Flynn's criminal case that his lawyers say are evidence the government tried to set him up in a 2017 interview that led to his departure from the Trump administration and subsequent indictment on a charge of lying."

What are the new documents specifically?

#196 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-08 07:21 PM | Reply

#187 Thanks for that, Tony.

#197 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 07:31 PM | Reply

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to draw a damn picture like we do for Trump?

#193 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2020-05-08 07:14 PM

The materials were released Wednesday as part of a Justice Department review of the Flynn case. They were turned over under seal last week to his lawyers, who have repeatedly accused prosecutors of withholding evidence, claims a judge has previously rejected.

www.nytimes.com

God, the NYT is insufferable. The amount of editorializing in the first 3 paragraphs alone of a supposed straight-up news piece is embarrassing.

Here's what I put in bold:

"they were turned over under seal last week to his lawyers.

You better take your crayons back, dude.

#198 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 07:37 PM | Reply

#196 See my NYT link.

#199 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 07:38 PM | Reply

Here's what I put in bold:
"they were turned over under seal last week to his lawyers.

New to who? was going to be my next question.

"All of which is to say that the entire premise of this filing--that there is information that is new to DOJ (as opposed to newly in Flynn's possession)--has no basis in fact and is demonstrably false with respect to a number of things Shea points to."

www.emptywheel.net

#200 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-08 07:58 PM | Reply

#200 New to the defense.

#201 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 08:00 PM | Reply

#200 New to the defense.

And already rejected by the judge.

But the most remarkable thing about the government's new claim that Flynn's lies were not material is that the judge in this case has already ruled that they were. In an earlier motion to dismiss, Flynn's attorneys made essentially this same argument: that his lies were not material because the FBI had no good reason to interview him. Agreeing with the prosecutors at the time and rejecting this argument, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that Flynn "has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of materiality."
And so do Shea and Barr.

#202 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 08:06 PM | Reply

Effectively, then, Bill Barr appointed Jeffrey Jensen to "review" Flynn's prosecution for one purpose: to override Judge Sullivan's Brady decision last December.

As I keep repeating, it's never a good idea to predict what Judge Sullivan will do. I expect he'll review these exhibits closely and see whether they change his mind about DOJ's representations that none of them were helpful to Flynn. He might find the Bill Priestap notes troubling, but that document is not only deliberative (and therefore always excluded from Brady), but it states clearly that, "our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth about his relationship w/Russians," a goal Sullivan has already deemed proper.

It's possible, however, that Sullivan will view these documents and recognize that they don't change the order he already issued, finding Flynn's lies material and his prior guilty pleas still valid. If he does, he may well be peeved that DOJ tried to overturn a judge's ruling by bureaucratic fiat.


www.emptywheel.net

#203 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-08 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#203

Gal for the win!

#204 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-08 08:28 PM | Reply

Sycophant has been -------- all over Jeff in this thread, but Jeff is too stupid to even know that.

Me, i'm just too lazy to even deal with Jeff anymore. Have fun everyone!

#205 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-08 09:35 PM | Reply

Zero viable defense of this
Administration. Most corrupt in
History. Period.

#206 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-05-08 09:49 PM | Reply

Then leave the discussion to those of us who use fountain pens and have mastered calligraphy.

#195 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Not until you master reality, too.

#207 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-05-08 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sycophant has been -------- all over Jeff in this thread, but Jeff is too stupid to even know that.

Not really, but you are free to delude yourself as much as you want, Joe.

He was making a factually false statement and I proved him wrong.

Anyhow, enjoy your weekend. Hopefully the weather gets warmer soon and you can find an opportunity to get to your vacation home for a long weekend.

#208 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-08 10:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

JeffJ is a partisan hack and everything he posts is based on that fact. Flynn committed treason but partisan hacks like Jeff think that is Ok. Sad day in America when people like that govern. I remember when Jeff first joined us here, he has devolved from that time into an apologist for Republican crimes, stolen elections, bribes from Russians, is there no depth to which he will object?

#209 | Posted by danni at 2020-05-09 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The word from Billy K:

Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
So Trump doesn't need to pardon Flynn; Barr dropped the charge to which Flynn had pled guilty. This is a foretaste of what a second Trump term would be like"the entire executive branch weaponized to help Trump's friends, punish his enemies, and undermine the rule of law.

source

#210 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-05-09 01:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort