DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (1 Viewer)

[BobE]

 

[FullMonte]

So get him to lie or get him fired isn’t true? Ok.

Ok...here is the statement that I said was false: "Their mission from the start was to “get him to lie” or “get him fired”.

Please point out where that document says "our goal is to get him to lie."

Again, that's a handwritten not that ASKS what their goal of the interview is. It does not state that their goal is to get him to lie.

To make it more clear....you said: "So get him to lie or get him fired isn’t true?" So, you agree that the statement isn't true, right? After all, you asked if it wasn't true...that must mean you are saying that it isn't true.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

This detachment from reality is giving me a lot of 2018 vibes.

When a lot of people claimed up and down and front and back that the libs were going to be subject to a bloodbath. All the rights culture wars, all the lefts investigations were going to bring out the Trumpkins en masse and turn moderates against them, crush the Dems for a generation. All the polls were fake news, all the disapproval of the president just manipulation by the liberal media.

I get it, some people live in a bubble, where Obama was the mistake as Trump’s incompetence and mismanagement is helping kill 100,000 Americans. My faith in the American system is such that it wouldn’t shock me to see Trump win again, not the popular vote because at no point has a majority of the country liked him, but victory could happen. I’d give it 50/50 which is scary. But it won’t change how history will judge this period. It will either be a one term blight or a decade long one. But there is no future save a fascistic decline where history writes favorably about this mans presidency.

Good I’m glad to hear it You guys have held onto the victim culture for 50+ years. Well the entire country was the victim of Obama’s failures. He was the only president to beat Carter as the worse president in our history and Carter had the misery index. Trump will go down as one of if not the best president in our history for many reasons. [Mod edit - Seek a higher level of disourse]

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Good I’m glad to hear it You guys have held onto the victim culture for 50+ years. Well the entire country was the victim of Obama’s failures. He was the only president to beat Carter as the worse president in our history and Carter had the misery index. Trump will go down as one of if not the best president in our history for many reasons. [Mod edit - Seek a higher level of disourse]

I’m sure James Buchanan would like to have a word with your list, but based on the rest of your post about enjoying my tears and calling me a latchkey of victim culture(which I presume is some sort of additional dig), it doesn’t seem you are here for that type of discussion.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

I’m sure James Buchanan would like to have a word with your list, but based on the rest of your post about enjoying my tears and calling me a latchkey of victim culture(which I presume is some sort of additional dig), it doesn’t seem you are here for that type of discussion.

I love a good debate and when I was younger a good fight every now and then. I was in my teens durin the Carter administration and saw the state the country was in. Obama was no different with one exception. Carter didn’t go around apologizing to half baked dictators like Obama did. Remember what Obama said about manufacturing jobs never coming back and when Trump said he would bring them back Obama questioned ”how with magic stick”? Well those nods did come back and even more will be here over the next 4 years.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump will go down as one of if not the best president in our history

If by "our" you mean the 42% of the country that trump represents then undoubtedly, he will go down as the best president in your history. That's the same people who believe that Mexico was going to pay for a wall, that trump never lied about anything and that the virus will magically disappear. Trump even told them that what they are seeing and reading is not really happening. They are the same people out protesting the stay at home orders put in place to help save their lives. They are the same people who throw their full support behind repealing Obamacare because they don't have anything to worry about because they are covered by the ACA. They are living breathing proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

 

[Lapaz]

I love a good debate and when I was younger a good fight every now and then. I was in my teens durin the Carter administration and saw the state the country was in. Obama was no different with one exception. Carter didn’t go around apologizing to half baked dictators like Obama did. Remember what Obama said about manufacturing jobs never coming back and when Trump said he would bring them back Obama questioned ”how with magic stick”? Well those nods did come back and even more will be here over the next 4 years.

On what basis was Obama a failure, because I believe he was a great president, so I'm looking forward to your explanation.

 

[Saintamaniac]

On what basis was Obama a failure, because I believe he was one a great president, so I'm looking forward to your explanation.

Don't hold your breath waiting. Any response will be filled with inaccuracies or outright lies repeated from trump tv. Remember, Obamagate is the worst crime ever committed in US history. Unfortunately, no one can tell you what Obamagate is without lying.

 

[not2rich]

I love a good debate and when I was younger a good fight every now and then. I was in my teens durin the Carter administration and saw the state the country was in. Obama was no different with one exception. Carter didn’t go around apologizing to half baked dictators like Obama did. Remember what Obama said about manufacturing jobs never coming back and when Trump said he would bring them back Obama questioned ”how with magic stick”? Well those nods did come back and even more will be here over the next 4 years.

Trump brought manufacturing jobs back, huh? Care to provide proof of that?

 

[not2rich]

Good I’m glad to hear it You guys have held onto the victim culture for 50+ years. Well the entire country was the victim of Obama’s failures. He was the only president to beat Carter as the worse president in our history and Carter had the misery index. Trump will go down as one of if not the best president in our history for many reasons. I will be here enjoying your tears.

I'm not sure by which metric you judge Obama. Trump. after all, simply presided over the upward economic trend Obama put in motion despite a Republican Congress trying to sabotage him.

I'm afraid history won't be as kind to Trump as you are - for many reasons. But first and foremost, Trump is totally incapable of dealing with a real crisis he can't make go away with reality TV bullshirt and gaslighting. It's working with his base right now, but in let's say two years that shirt ain't going to work - especially if he gets re-elected. You're going to see, sooner or later, one way or another.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

Trump brought manufacturing jobs back, huh? Care to provide proof of that?

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

The federal government released its first jobs report of 2019, showing that nonfarm payroll grew by 304,000 in January, far above economists’ consensus estimate of 170,000... Trump’s deregulatory and tax policies have confounded his critics and benefited the American worker.

www.forbes.com

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

I'm not sure by which metric you judge Obama. Trump. after all, simply presided over the upward economic trend Obama put in motion despite a Republican Congress trying to sabotage him.

I'm afraid history won't be as kind to Trump as you are - for many reasons. But first and foremost, Trump is totally incapable of dealing with a real crisis he can't make go away with reality TV bullshirt and gaslighting. It's working with his base right now, but in let's say two years that shirt ain't going to work - especially if he gets re-elected. You're going to see, sooner or later, one way or another.

No he hasn’t. Obama said the manufacturing jobs were gone and not coming back. In fact his policies were driving business away not trying to bring it back.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

Trump's Numbers January 2020 Update - FactCheck.org

Statistical measures of how things have changed during Trump's first three years.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Lapaz]

No he hasn’t. Obama said the manufacturing jobs were gone and not coming back. In fact his policies were driving business away not trying to bring it back.

Trump has borrowed his way into boosting the economy at a time when the economy was already doing very well. It was irresponsible, and has left us with no way to cope with the recession created by Covid. Even with that artificial boost, Obama's last 3 years resulted in more jobs overall than Trump's first 3 years. At least the first couple of years are thanks to Obama's economy.

Obama’s Last Three Years Of Job Growth All Beat Trump’s Best Year

President Trump continues to gaslight that this is the “Best economy ever”. When you compare the three years he has been in office to Obama’s last three, Trump’s yearly job growth didn’t exceed any of Obama's. Over that timeframe, Trump has created 1.5 million fewer jobs than Obama.

www.forbes.com

Also, if you just focus on manufacturing, Trump's record is still mixed if you count his first 3 years, despite cutting regulations that protect us. Once the sugar boost of deficit spending waned, manufacturing was poor in his third year.

Has Trump fulfilled his pledge to turbocharge job growth, revive manufacturing? Many say no.

Trump has a mixed record on job creation with tax cuts and new spending adding jobs and trade fights with China forcing layoffs or crimping hiring.

www.usatoday.com

Now, job growth is one measure of a quality president. Destruction of checks and balances and reputation around the world is Trump's legacy. His leadership is the worst in modern history. Obama's executive branch ran well. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in with Covid under his administration. We probably would've been among the best countries handling the virus, instead of among the worst.

 

[dtc]

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

The federal government released its first jobs report of 2019, showing that nonfarm payroll grew by 304,000 in January, far above economists’ consensus estimate of 170,000... Trump’s deregulatory and tax policies have confounded his critics and benefited the American worker.

www.forbes.com

You do realize we just put the final nail in our economy's role as international currency with the 5 Trillion and counting we printed to help cover the now 20% unemployment rate that's come as a direct result of Trump's bungling of the CV pandemic, right?

In another month when there are MAGA hats lined up in soup lines with tyvek suits on, you're going to change your mind or go down with the orange ship.

 

[TaylorB]

I'll respond in detail to your post when I have more to research some of your claims.

Since you won't identify specific evidence, I had to compile your loosely connected theories as to why Flynn is "exonerated" into a list of things you've asked myself and others to address, which include:

(1) DOJ prosecutor Van Grack lied to Judge Sullivan for 3 years about material that "totally contradicted the prosecution's case," "may have committed other crimes," "lied to [Sullivan] multiple times," Van Grack led Sullivan to conclude the Flynn investigation was about Trump/Russia when it wasn't;
(2) any false statements did not meet the "materiality" requirement of 18 USC 1001;
(3) the justifications for opening an investigation into Flynn are "BS";
(4) FBI was about to close the case on Flynn;
(5) FBI/DOJ conspired to use the "unconstitutional" Logan Act to prosecute him;
(6) the FBI agents interviewing Flynn discussed setting up a perjury trap;
(7) the FBI agents didn't think Flynn was lying;
(8) Flynn asking Russia not to escalate sanctions wasn't illegal;
(9) Flynn did questionable things, but "none of the [questionable things he did] were related to Russia or the election";
(10) Obama / leaks;
(11) there's no proof that the GRU stole "the emails";
(12) Obama's officials "admitting under oath they never saw any evidence of collusion";
(13) Sullivan's appointment of amicus is an attempt to give the "Resistance one last chance to relitigate the discredited Russia investigation";
(14) Innocent people sometimes plead guilty.

First, my point about Flynn using US foreign policy to benefit himself personally has always been more dependent on what he did, as opposed to whether he lied to the FBI about what he did. You seem willing to acknowledge that some of what Flynn did was "questionable," but never specify what you mean by that except to say it doesn't relate to Russia or the election. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to respond to the above points, in no particular order, with the hope that you will respond to my points about what Flynn was doing.

"Innocent people sometimes plead guilty" (#14)
I agree that this is true. I do not think Flynn's guilty pleas themselves are proof-positive that he lied to the FBI and I think FBI agents are not perfect, and I have to think at least some of them are corrupt.

But guilty people also plead guilty. Flynn admitted to more than just the lie about sanctions -- he also admitted to lying about his conversations with the Russians about the Egypt resolution, and to lying on his late FARA filing about his work for Turkey. If Flynn chose not to cooperate and instead planned to make the case about Strzok and FBI bias, I have to think the DOJ would have added charges under FARA and others that were withheld in exchange for his cooperation. So the discussion about whether he's guilty for lying about sanctions specifically still leaves open the question of his guilt for other things beyond the sanctions.

Van Grack, issues raised in Motion to Dismiss (roughly, #1 - 6)
I grouped these together because they are partially dependent on each other and generally relate to the DOJ's motion to dismiss, which you claim raises "new huge developments" that must be addressed. Of course, the fact that these issues are being raised at Bill Barr's behest supports the point of my initial post.

When you talk about Van Grack "lying" on "multiple occasions" and "for three years" to Judge Sullivan, I think you're referring to (1) the question of materiality, (2) the FBI's draft memo about closing the case on Flynn, (3) the FBI memo about the Logan Act, and (4) the Priestap notes about how to handle the Flynn interview. None of these has any bearing on whether Flynn actually lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions with the Russians, but rather only deal with whether he can / should be charged for it. And again, I do not have a specific "Van Grack lie" to assess because you won't name one.

Materiality / draft FBI memo closing file. Your theory here, I think, is that Van Grack led Judge Sullivan to believe the Flynn interview was based on "Trump / Russia" when it was actually based on the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn which the FBI had considered closing. I have not seen a document that shows that Van Grack lied to Sullivan about this. The FBI had not closed its counterintelligence investigation on Flynn, and the Kislyak call was clearly relevant to the CI into him, thus, there was no need to mislead Sullivan about the predicate for the interview in order to establish that the lies was "material." Judge Sullivan in his order accepting Flynn's plea cited plenty of case law showing how low the threshold is for "materiality":

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.144.0_3.pdf (around p. 51)

The DOJ is essentially turning the "materiality" threshold into something it's not in order to protect Flynn. I think of the CI investigation into Flynn as pertinent to, and part of, the broader Trump/Russia investigation, and that his lies would have been material to both. If there's something specific Van Grack said to Sullivan about the status of the investigation(s) that wasn't true, I haven't seen it, and you haven't pointed it out. Moreover, Sullivan has, in the past, come after the DOJ for similar conduct to what you're claiming about Van Grack:

Judge in Flynn Case Renowned for His Independent Streak (Published 2020)

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan will hear a challenge to the Justice Department’s surprise move to drop charges against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn.

www.nytimes.com

If he thinks Van Grack lied about the investigation to secure the conviction, we can be sure that Sullivan will come after him in the weeks and months to come for misconduct. Is that what you're predicting Judge Sullivan does?

Logan Act. You claimed Strzok and the FBI/DOJ "conspired" to use the "unconstitutional" Logan Act as a last resort against Flynn because there wasn't any other evidence of illegal activity. You said "some accused [John] Kerry of violating it" but that it was never used to prosecute an American citizen.

The FBI assessed whether Flynn was violating the Logan Act because Flynn was violating the Logan Act. It wasn't Strzok's job to decide whether to charge him with violating it, or whether it was constitutional, it was the DOJ's. And the DOJ chose not to prosecute him, which undercuts the theory that there was some conspiracy to do so. It is true that it's rarely if ever used / charged. One person that accused Kerry of violating it, and who said Kerry should be prosecuted for it, was Trump himself. Weird that Trump did not assess the constitutionality of the Logan Act when he was accusing Kerry of violating it.

Either way, the FBI's deliberations about the applicability of certain charges to a person's conduct is not exculpatory evidence.

Priestap notes. The theory here, I think, is that Priestap's notes about the goal in Flynn's interview were exculpatory, and therefore should have been produced under Brady. We will see whether Sullivan agrees. I do not think deliberative notes strategizing over an interview are proof of "entrapment"; that's not how entrapment works. Nobody forced Flynn to negotiate with the Russians and lie about it. The notes detail that the goal of the interview was to determine whether Flynn would tell the truth about his relationship with the Russians, which was a stated purpose of the CI investigation (which undercuts the theory that the FBI needed to gin up Logan Act charges to interview Flynn). The DOJ interviewed Priestap about these notes, and Priestap apparently contradicted the theory the notes Barr used them for, but the DOJ didn't mention the Priestap interview in its motion to dismiss.

For what it's worth, the Priestap notes are the piece of evidence I'm most curious about when it comes to Sullivan's review of them and the circumstances surrounding the prosecution. I do not think the Priestap notes are, by themselves, proof of a Brady violation, but I'd be far overstepping my knowledge and expertise if I tried to predict what Sullivan does with the info.

"Sullivan helping the Resistance" (#13)
There's no evidence Sullivan has any particular political bias that is motivating his actions in this case. If there was legitimate prosecutorial misconduct that led to Flynn's wrongful prosecution and conviction then I would hope Sullivan would dismiss the charges, notwithstanding my belief that Flynn is otherwise a criminal and someone who sold out his country.

"No proof the GRU stole the emails" (#11)
First, this is not relevant to Flynn's guilt or innocence for lying to the FBI. Second, it's what our intelligence community has concluded, it's all over Mueller's report and the bipartisan Senate Intel report, etc., and you've already expressed supreme confidence in "official government documents" with respect to Barr's motion. Third, it's not just the GRU that interfered on Russia's behalf in 2016. I don't understand your fixation on disproving Russia's involvement in 2016.

The FBI agents didn't think Flynn was lying (#7)
I addressed this in my response to the McCarthy article.

Flynn asking Russia not to escalate sanctions wasn't illegal (#8)
I addressed this in multiple posts last week. Regardless of the legality of the negotiations, lying about them was illegal. And whether or not illegal, what he was doing was wrong.

One more point -- your argument here assumes Flynn was directed by Trump to discuss sanctions with Kislyak as part of the incoming admin's foreign policy. Trump's administration denies that Flynn was directed by Trump to do this. Did Trump direct him, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Flynn did questionable things, but "none of the [questionable things he did] were related to Russia or the election" (#9)
SFL, please elaborate on this.

Obama / leaks / transcripts about collusion (#10 & 11)
These are catch-all arguments for "the whole thing was BS" and are impossible to respond to in this forum. Obama leaking a "secret phone call" does not bear on Flynn's guilt or innocence for lying to the FBI. If you cite to a specific transcript I can try to better assess whether it's relevant to the claims against Flynn.

Conclusion
One of the best things that could ever happen to a criminal defendant is to be prosecuted by a branch of government that is controlled by a person whose political and criminal exposure is impacted by what that defendant knows. The benefit to Barr and Trump of claiming that the whole investigation is "illegitimate" is that it has impacts beyond Flynn's case (Stone, Manafort, etc.). That is the broader goal Barr is trying to accomplish. It's destructive to the rule of law, because it has no basis in the rule of law.

SFL, I am curious to know whether or not you agree with my legal assessments of Flynn's guilt or innocence. But now that I've responded to you, I want to know from you whether you agree there was a concerning pattern of clandestine meetings with Russians and/or Russian cutouts during the election and transition, and what you make of that pattern? Specifically I'm referring to Flynn, Kushner, Trump, Cohen, Manafort, Rick Gates, Erik Prince, Stone, Papadopoulos, Don Jr., etc. I want to know what behavior of Flynn's you think was "questionable." I'm curious whether you're bothered by Trump lying about a multi-billion dollar deal in Moscow while much of this was going down, and whether you think his refusal to release tax returns relates to dealings with foreign entities he doesn't want us to know about? There are plenty of counter-intelligence redactions to the Mueller report, plenty of spin-off investigations we don't know the outcome of. Is there literally no basis at all for me and others to be suspicious of the sum of these things?

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

You do realize we just put the final nail in our economy's role as international currency with the 5 Trillion and counting we printed to help cover the now 20% unemployment rate that's come as a direct result of Trump's bungling of the CV pandemic, right?

In another month when there are MAGA hats lined up in soup lines with tyvek suits on, you're going to change your mind or go down with the orange ship.

You do realize that everyone in your party of choice called him racist and xenophobic when he placed the travel ban. You do realize that the spending as much as I hate it was a necessary evil to stabilize the economy and without that ther would probably be twice the unemployment rate we have now. Trump did however build the economy that we had previously and he can rebuild it. While Biden and Obama had the lowest labor participation rate in history and told us those jobs were never coming back. He was right as long as the party of misguided children were running the show. Get ready for 4 more years of President Donald J. Trump. Then you need to take time and look at the wasteland of the democrats bench. In 2024 I’ll either be voting for Don Jr. or Ivanka.

 

[TaylorB]

In 2024 I’ll either be voting for Don Jr. or Ivanka.

I am just glad that conducting government business on a private email server is no longer disqualifying. Who can better sympathize with the struggles of the middle class than a woman whose husband exploits it for a living? And I always figured Don Jr. had a soft spot for coal miners somewhere under his safari trophy hunt vests. If this is what you say I love it especially later in the summer

 

[Beach Friends]

I am just glad that conducting government business on a private email server is no longer disqualifying. Who can better sympathize with the struggles of the middle class than a woman whose husband exploits it for a living? And I always figured Don Jr. had a soft spot for coal miners somewhere under his safari trophy hunt vests. If this is what you say I love it especially later in the summer

Well, I guess nothing is disqualifying as long as you have Comey to come out and make up elements of a crime and then declare that the facts did not support a finding that those elements were met.

Or, do you think "butterdidntmeantoo" is more of an affirmative defense?