Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, May 10, 2020

Chuck Rosenberg,former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration: Michael Flynn made false statements to FBI agents interviewing him about his December 2016 telephone conversation with a Russian diplomat. Flynn had previously traveled to Russia; received payments from Russia-related companies, including more than $40,000 from a Russian state-backed entity; dined with the Russian president; intervened in sanctions levied by the outgoing Obama administration punishing Russia for its 2016 election interference; and then lied to the incoming vice president -- among other senior White House officials -- about his intervention.

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.

Had Flynn been asked his favorite ice cream flavor by FBI agents and told them it was vanilla when he preferred chocolate, that would be immaterial. But lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Russian diplomat, given his financial and other ties to Russia, in the wake of massive Russian interference in our 2016 election, and during an FBI counterintelligence investigation concerning Russia? That is material " plain and simple.

Now, in a stunningly dishonest intervention orchestrated by Attorney General William P. Barr, the Justice Department posits that Flynn's false statements were not material and that the charge to which he pleaded guilty should be dismissed.

So, it might be helpful to make a partial list of those who seemingly thought Flynn's lies were material just, as they say, for the record:

President Trump thought Flynn's lies were material. He fired Flynn in 2017 for lying to Vice President Pence and tweeted that year that he "had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI."

Vice President Pence thought Flynn's lies were material, stating he knew at the time Flynn was fired that Flynn "lied to me" and that "the president made the right decision [to fire] him." It seems that Flynn's lies were material to Trump and Pence.

Senior Justice Department officials, including acting attorney general Sally Yates and National Security Division Chief Mary McCord, thought Flynn's lies were material, because, as the Mueller report noted, they were concerned it "[created] a compromise situation for Flynn because ... the Russian government could prove Flynn lied."

Federal prosecutors detailed to the Special Counsel's Office thought Flynn's lies were material. ... Federal District Judge Rudolph Contreras thought Flynn's lies were material. ... Federal District Judge Emmet Sullivan thought Flynn's lies were material. Flynn's two original experienced defense attorneys thought Flynn's lies were material.

Michael Flynn thought his lies were material. He signed his name to a plea agreement "knowingly and voluntarily and because [he was] in fact, guilty of the crime charged."


#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-10 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One thought I've had about this is we get lots of whataboutisim to Clinton with Trump.

Clinton lies about personal relationships were material enough for impeachment but Flynn's lies about meetings with foreign powers are not material enough to prosecute?

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-05-10 04:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here's the Truth.

Mary B. McCord -Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.

In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.'s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a "302," is an interesting read. But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn " which led to the false-statements charge " was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, "would not serve the interests of justice."

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn't help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia " which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election " might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department's preferred approach.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not "tethered" to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-10 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

This is getting really interesting.

#4 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-05-10 06:22 PM | Reply

LOL.

"I merely meant to say, Your Majesty" justifications three years after the fact are rarely a good look for anyone in politics.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-05-10 06:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

This is getting really interesting.

Only if one hasn't already figured out that Barr is an unchecked criminal running the US Department of Justice to serve the political interests of Donald Trump.

Judge Sullivan almost certainly will haul the DOJ attorneys into court for hearings - both the current and former crews - to question them on the DOJ's unprecedented change of heart. The acting DC USA submitted this new filing under the former attorney's ID number which technically invalidates the filing.

At minimum it gives Sullivan somewhat carte blanche to investigate the procedural error in advance of ruling on the filing itself once it's properly re-presented.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-10 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

LOL.
"I merely meant to say, Your Majesty" justifications three years after the fact are rarely a good look for anyone in politics.

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Do you even have anything of value to add to this place?

I just read your thread on Biden and the H1N1 response.

It's as interesting at the above post.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-11 12:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So why did Comey say even though it wasn't proper he just sent a couple agents over to interview Flynn and then tell Flynn he didn't need an attorney and then they changed and held back the 302 and then in notes asked if the goal was to get him to lie. Flynn screwed up but the FBI did no better. And ultimately even Clapper admitted there was no collusion in the latest documents.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-05-11 08:23 AM | Reply

#8

You have been given the answer over and over again. Reread post 3. The FBI needed to interview Flynn not in an attempt to get him to lie. They needed to interview Flynn because:

Flynn had previously traveled to Russia; received payments from Russia-related companies, including more than $40,000 from a Russian state-backed entity; dined with the Russian president; intervened in sanctions levied by the outgoing Obama administration punishing Russia for its 2016 election interference; and then lied to the incoming vice president -- among other senior White House officials -- about his intervention.

But lying to the FBI about his conversation with a Russian diplomat, given his financial and other ties to Russia, in the wake of massive Russian interference in our 2016 election, and during an FBI counterintelligence investigation concerning Russia? That is material - plain and simple.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-11 08:37 AM | Reply

And ultimately even Clapper admitted there was no collusion in the latest documents.

#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

After this long, anybody who still uses the word collusion is being obviously disingenuous.

Try harder, fishpaw.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-11 02:34 PM | Reply

The standard for a statement being material is very very very low.

Let's not pretend otherwise.

But even if we used a very high threshold for a statement being material, Flynn's statement was still material.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-11 03:36 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