Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 16, 2020

In the short term, the Justice Department has harmed not only its own reputation for integrity through filing the motion to dismiss but also public confidence that the law applies equally to everyone, including the president's friends. It is telling that prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, who worked on the case for more than two years, withdrew on the day the motion was filed and that no career prosecutor signed the filing.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The FBI learned that Flynn had spoken to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. According to the Justice Department's motion, the FBI had transcripts of the relevant calls, likely obtained through surveillance of Kislyak authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. By this time, Flynn had been named as Trump's national security adviser.

In those calls, Flynn had asked Russia not to retaliate for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration as punishment for election interference. Flynn had also asked Russia to vote against a United Nations resolution regarding Israeli settlements. On their face, these calls potentially undermined the foreign policy of the United States. What's more, on Jan. 15, 2017, Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect, made public statements that contradicted the transcripts of Flynn's calls" a fact that, as documented in the Mueller report, "alarmed senior DOJ [Department of Justice] officials." And so, the FBI decided to keep the investigation open. FBI agents interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, four days after Trump took office. During that interview, Flynn falsely denied his statements regarding sanctions and the U.N. vote. He later pleaded guilty to one count of false statements for telling these lies.

Comments

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

but but I was told there was egregious malfeasance.

#1 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-16 02:40 PM | Reply

Please don't post anything from lawfare. Look up who started it and why and who runs it.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-05-16 07:59 PM | Reply

#2

Yeah, gawd forbid you read something written by a professional who has worked in the area of national security.

Barbara McQuade is a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School. From 2010 to 2017, she served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. She also served as vice chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee and co-chaired the Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee. McQuade previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit for 12 years.

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2020-05-16 08:48 PM | Reply

#3 I'm just not interested what the Neo-Cons have to say. Do we really want to invade Iran for instance? Nobody on its staff are even reporters. It's a think tank.

"Lawfare is the misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory.[1][2] The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare. " - en.wikipedia.org

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-05-16 09:48 PM | Reply

Rather than attempt to slaughter the source, why not comment on the evidence that Flynn was investigated for good reason. Which means Barr is corrupting the DoJ to serve a Russian agent.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-16 10:40 PM | Reply

It's a think tank.

No, it's a blog. Most of the contributors are lawyers who have spent their careers working in national security. Like the article author who spent nineteen years prosecuting the likes of Flynn.

Also, you should have read the rest of the wiki you cited. You would have learned a little about what the term means to the three founders of Lawfare Blog.

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employed the word in the name of the Lawfare Blog, which focuses on national security law and which has explored the term and the debate over what lawfare means and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative. (See: Welcome to Lawfare, By Benjamin Wittes. Wednesday, September 1, 2010; also see: About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site, at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-lawfare-brief-history-term-and-site.)

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has argued that lawfare should not have only a negative connotation, but that it also refers to the sharply contested legal debates in the U.S. surrounding national security, and national security law. Wittes writes, "The name Lawfare refers both to the use of law as a weapon of conflict and, perhaps more importantly, to the depressing reality that America remains at war with itself over the law governing its warfare with others."[8]

Now, explain how the author is wrong to conclude the interview of Flynn was predicated.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2020-05-16 11:30 PM | Reply

They based something on a direction and outcome they wanted and pressured with questioning for such an outcome, and even threatened family members to get to outcome.

You as a lawyer should see this clearly, but afraid partisanship makes you close your mind. SAD!

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employed the word in the name of the Lawfare Blog, which focuses on national security law and which has explored the term and the debate over what lawfare means and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative. (See: Welcome to Lawfare, By Benjamin Wittes. Wednesday, September 1, 2010; also see: About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site, at: www.lawfareblog.com)

So this doesn't mean crap, it says nothing but a bunch of what you think law speak, it's garbage.

There is no explaining, the Obama administration wire tapped and made it difficult for the incoming administration to perform, it is that simple, and as a lawyer it is amazing you are sitting partisan lines, you should be disbarred.

#7 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-16 11:46 PM | Reply

#7 Disbarred for an opinion on a blog post? Lighten up, Francis.

So Obamagate is now defined as making it difficult for the incoming administration to perform? Do you remember what Bush handed to the incoming Obama administration?

Why is the right always making excuses for terrible performance while simultaneously claiming complete success?

#8 | Posted by micd at 2020-05-17 11:34 PM | Reply

"So Obamagate is now defined as making it difficult for the incoming administration to perform?"

There's literally a pill for that; it's called Viagra.

Trump should ask his doctor if his heart is ready for sex, though.
Also gonna want to ask his lawyers if his pocketbook is ready.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-18 12:27 AM | Reply

Crassus arguing law with et_al, hilarious!

Crassus, did you graduate from high school? Is English your second language?
Did your mom drink a lot when she was pregnant with you?

#10 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-18 12:40 AM | Reply

They based something on a direction and outcome they wanted and pressured with questioning for such an outcome, and even threatened family members to get to outcome.

Common, well known police tactics. Query, were those tactics at play when Flynn sat in the comfort of his lawyer's office and signed plea documents where he admitted the factual allegations of his crime and pleaded guilty? Were those tactics in play when he stood in open court and pleaded guilty not once but twice?

There is no explaining, the Obama administration wire tapped and made it difficult for the incoming administration to perform, it is that simple, and as a lawyer it is amazing you are sitting partisan lines, you should be disbarred.

Again, it is common and well known that calls of all foreign diplomats are recorded. When the recording becomes of national security interest, the American participant can be "unmasked." You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that. Why would Flynn, a high ranking military and intelligence official, not know that? BTW, what's making the Buffoon's administration have "difficulty performing" after it came in office, up to and including today? The Obama Administration or the fact the Buffoon's administration is incompetent, like the "hero," Flynn, the Buffoon fired for incompetence and lying?

Oh, and the partisan jab, thanks for that. I've been accused of being a partisan by the rabid left and right on this site. Makes me figure I'm in about the right place.

Disbarred? Knock yourself out. https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/ProblemswithanAttorney/
GrievanceEthicsInfo1/File_a_Grievance.htm

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2020-05-18 12:59 AM | 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