DOJ drops all charges against Michael Flynn!

[JimL]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this notion that it is a miscarriage of justice to drop false charges against an innocent man.

They're not even saying he's an innocent man, he lied to the FBI twice, he hindered the investigation into Russian meddling. They're contending that the case be dismissed on a technicality, which is of course, hogwash!

[rogue06]

The call was made after the decision was made public. Trump was merely letting the boss know what a fine job he is doing in undermining democracy and the rule of law just like he did in the oval office after he fired Comey, telling his handlers, Lavrov and Kislyak "I got rid of Comey, the pressure is off now."

Thanks for that

It is always nice to get a glimpse into the outer limits of the twilight zone in a bizarro universe would be like.

JimL preparing-to-post.gif

[RumTumTugger]

Nope, unlike you I actually look it up, it's not there.

ECREE

Hypocrisy thy name is Jim(I don't need to cite my sources)L

[RumTumTugger]

And People wonder why we don't trust the likes of CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. when they out and out lie about what was said?

sorry taking something out of context and not showing the whole quote and then saying that AG Barr didn't do what he did is Dishonest and not journalism https://twitter.com/i/status/1259549689239818240*

Watch the whole video see what Chuck Todd cut out of the clip, If you try and tell me Chuck Todd wasn't lying when he said Barr said nothing about the rule of Law all call you on not watching the whole video This is why we don't trust the MSM they do this all the time.

Sorry about not having a embedded video Twitter is not a supported video link.

[JimL]

ECREE

Hypocrisy thy name is Jim(I don't need to cite my sources)L

That's not even what the post you're responding to states, RTT. Brush up on the reading comprehension skills.

[RumTumTugger]

That's not even what the post you're responding to states, RTT. Brush up on the reading comprehension skills.

Well until you start citing your sources in the posts how are we to know that you've been looking up sources for your claim you have no proof. sorry JimL I do not believe you have ever looked up the sources for what your Overseers have told you since you never cite any sources. ECREE. And You are still hypocrite for not citing your sources but expecting others to do so.

[DivineOb]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/o...ael-flynn.html

An extended article by the acting AG for national security at the Justice Dept 2016-2017 explaining how her words were twisted and misrepresented to justify dropping charges against Flynn.

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. 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.

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.”

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

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.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

I tried to paste just the highlights but I highly recommend everyone read this. It goes directly the heart of the RWNJ argument that Flynn was "innocent" and "illegally targeted" from someone at the heart of the matter.

[JimL]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/o...ael-flynn.html

An extended article by the acting AG for national security at the Justice Dept 2016-2017 explaining how her words were twisted and misrepresented to justify dropping charges against Flynn.

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. 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.

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.”

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

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.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

I tried to paste just the highlights but I highly recommend everyone read this. It goes directly the heart of the RWNJ argument that Flynn was "innocent" and "illegally targeted" from someone at the heart of the matter.

I also doubt that Flynn actually did lie to Pence, more likely Pence lied to the American people to cover for Flynn. My opinion, though it's neither here nor there at this point.

[seanD]

#Obamagate

Wish I could believe it, but the memes are kind of funny.

[JimL]

Well until you start citing your sources in the posts how are we to know that you've been looking up sources for your claim you have no proof. sorry JimL I do not believe you have ever looked up the sources for what your Overseers have told you since you never cite any sources. ECREE. And You are still hypocrite for not citing your sources but expecting others to do so.

Time to get off that horse RTT, to believe I never provide sources just shows you arn't paying attention. Perhaps you'd like a source for that?

[Mountain Man]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/o...ael-flynn.html

An extended article by the acting AG for national security at the Justice Dept 2016-2017 explaining how her words were twisted and misrepresented to justify dropping charges against Flynn.

That looks like a rather desperate attempt at damage control. I especially like the part where she claims that an on-the-record conversation between a Russian ambassador and a US official acting well within his duties would somehow make him susceptible to blackmail.

[DivineOb]

That looks like a rather desperate attempt at damage control. I especially like the part where she claims that an on-the-record conversation between a Russian ambassador and a US official acting well within his duties would somehow make him susceptible to blackmail.

It's the lie which made him susceptible to blackmail. Just like it isn't a crime to sleep with a woman who isn't your wife but doing so opens one up to blackmail

[JimL]

That looks like a rather desperate attempt at damage control. I especially like the part where she claims that an on-the-record conversation between a Russian ambassador and a US official acting well within his duties would somehow make him susceptible to blackmail.

And it's not only the lie, it's what he lied about which was his effort to undermine the current administrations sanction policies toward Russia due to their efforts to interfere with democratic elections. In other words he was telling them not to retaliate for the sanctions because Trump was going to reward them for their efforts to get him elected once he takes office.

[DivineOb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...were-material/

The list of people who thought Flynn's lies were "material"

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.” White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, according to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, recalled that Trump was angry at Flynn for lying about the conversation he had with the Russian diplomat.

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.” That, as the report further noted, afforded leverage over Flynn such that Russia “could use that derogatory information to compromise [Flynn].”

Federal prosecutors detailed to the Special Counsel’s Office thought Flynn’s lies were material. They signed their names to court documents that outlined the facts that supported his guilty plea, including the material false statements Flynn made. That six-page statement of the offense is part of the public record.

Federal District Judge Rudolph Contreras thought Flynn’s lies were material. Flynn pleaded guilty to the charge of making a material false statement in his courtroom in December 2017. A judge will accept a guilty plea in federal court only if there is a factual basis for it and only if all the elements of the offense are proved. If the judge did not believe the lies were material, he presumably would not have accepted the plea agreement.

Federal District Judge Emmet Sullivan thought Flynn’s lies were material. Flynn restated his guilty plea in front of Sullivan in December 2018, after the case was transferred to his court. Further, in December 2019, Sullivan noted in a written order that Flynn’s false statements to the FBI were clearly material.

Flynn’s two original experienced defense attorneys thought Flynn’s lies were material. They signed their names to a plea document, noting that they “concur in [Flynn’s] desire to adopt and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense as true and accurate.”

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.” Flynn stipulated to a filed “Statement of the Offense” and declared “under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.” That statement — to which Flynn agreed — noted that Flynn “made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the [FBI] on January 24, 2017” and then spelled out, in detail, those false material statements. Flynn pleaded guilty in front of one federal judge, maintained his guilty plea in front of a second federal judge and, while under oath, twice admitted that he lied and that his lies were material.

Reading this and the prior NYT one (who's name we could add to the list above) gives me hope that Judge Sullivan is going to reject this attempt to claw back Flynn's guilty plea. One can only hope...

[Mountain Man]

All of that was before we had proof that the FBI had falsified evidence against the General and coerced him into pleading guilty.