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

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

The Circuit Court ordered Sullivan to grant the DOJ's Motion. That motion sought dismissal with prejudice. I guess Sullivan could grant the dismissal without prejudice, but that would seem to go against what the Circuit Court has ordered.

I’ve seen speculation from former federal prosecutors that Sullivan could still grant it without prejudice, but you’re right that the circuit court simply ordered him to grant the DOJ motion, which was with prejudice. This will be moot if it goes en banc, which seems highly likely according to what I’ve been reading. But I don’t see how he has discretion to dismiss it without prejudice according to the wording of the order.

 

[SaintForLife]

There was some other big news that came out today besides the ruling.

There was more evidence released today that Mueller prosecutor Van Grack was withholding. The Strzok notes from the meeting that included Obama, Biden, Comey, Rice and Yates was finally produced.

It shows Obama was involved in the Flynn investigation despite his previous denials. Biden was also shown to be involved and he even mentioned the Logan Act in the meeting.

The bombshell was that Comey said in that meeting that the Flynn call with Kislyak "Appear legit." The Obama administration already had the transcript of the Flynn call at this point of the meeting, but they still decided to go after Flynn.

Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team.

Comey Told Obama that Flynn’s Conversations with Russian Ambassador ‘Appear Legit,’ According to Strzok Notes

Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn's legal team.The page...

news.yahoo.com

“Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it,” Obama allegedly said.

Republicans Say 'Biden Lied' About Flynn Case | Law & Crime

Attorneys for Michael Flynn filed notes written by disgraced former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Peter Strzok that appear to detail the impressions of former Obama administration officials about the code-named "Crossfire Razor" investigation into President Donald Trump's...

lawandcrime.com

 

[MT15]

So, they decided to ask him about the calls when Pence came out and publicly said that Flynn had assured him there were no discussions about the sanctions during the calls, IIRC. Which got their attention, because they knew that was a lie. So why would he lie? That seems like a pretty legitimate concern to me. Anytime someone is lying about their interaction with a country like Russia, it opens them up to possible blackmail.

And when they asked him, he lied to them also. And just like a million other people who have lied to the FBI in the past, they decided to “go after” him. He wasn’t treated any differently than millions of other folks. You can agree or disagree with their tactics, but it wasn’t unusual or out of the ordinary.

So why do people look at him as some sort of victim, or even more weirdly, some sort of American hero? He was working for Turkey at same time he was supposed to be a US public servant, and he didn’t disclose that. He was involved in a plot to kidnap a legal resident of the US and send him to Turkey where he would have probably been executed. His son was presumably involved in even worse stuff than he was.

 

[SaintForLife]

There have been some more updates on the Flynn case recently. I'll post the corresponding tweets. These are more documents that show how they pushed for going after Flynn despite the evidence that he wasn't working with Russia.

 

[MT15]

The fact that you still fail to realize Herridge is completely in the tank for a Trump is perplexing. She fails at journalism and should be regarded as little more than a cheerleader for Trump. Her tweets include anonymous sources and artfully posed pictures of papers that she has marked up as if her markings are some sort of proof of anything.

There was a statement recently about the investigation of supposed FISA abuses, I wonder if you saw that?

 

[Ayo]

The fact that you still fail to realize Herridge is completely in the tank for a Trump is perplexing. She fails at journalism and should be regarded as little more than a cheerleader for Trump. Her tweets include anonymous sources and artfully posed pictures of papers that she has marked up as if her markings are some sort of proof of anything.

There was a statement recently about the investigation of supposed FISA abuses, I wonder if you saw that?

well, to be fair, we don't really know what SFL thinks about the tweets because there was no real commentary to the post. I think that post illustrates why it's important to adhere to the point that Andrus raised:

“So whenever you post such links on this particular board, you need to comment, and not just three words like "Here it is" or "So it begins". You should comment on why you posted it, and/or offer your own opinion regarding what you are linking to. Add some substance.”

I've had posts reported that offered just tweets and I had to go back and add to it.

And that's fine - I don't mind. And I think discussions like this are a good example of why that rule is in place. Perhaps with a bit more 'opinion' or 'some substance' in addition to the 'naked links' we could talk about the credibility of the source, as an example?

 

[TaylorB]

Think about all the things Trump and Flynn knew at the time the FBI briefed them on August 17, 2016--Trump's got a secret signed LOI pending for a multi-billion dollar deal in Moscow with Russian businessmen, has at least twice been explicitly offered foreign assistance (once by Russia), is being secretly approached by Russian diplomats through cut-outs about meeting Putin pre-election, and has close friends coordinating with Russian cut-outs trying to obtain emails the Russians obtained illegally from Hillary and the DNC. The FBI briefs Trump and Flynn about the possibility that they're being targeted by Russian intelligence operatives. Trump's response is to talk about Baron putting a password on his computer, and Flynn goes off on some tangent about the FBI's resources. Seriously: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7d7b-d3de-ab7b-7d7b6dba0000

Herridge isn't the least bit curious why Flynn didn't say anything to the FBI like "you know now that you mention it, I'm working on a secret nuclear energy deal in the middle east that requires us to drop Russian sanctions, I speak with Kislyak often, and I've been promoting Russian troll bots on twitter while secretly being recruited by Israeli cyber-security firms," or why Trump didn't say "you know what, like two weeks ago, my campaign manager shared internal polling data with Russians about battleground states that Russia probably would have found really useful in deciding who to target with their ongoing internet disinformation campaigns, and my son met with the Russians just a couple weeks before that!" But Herridge's conclusion here is not that Trump and Flynn were deliberately hiding what they knew, but rather that this briefing was part of the FBI trap to "get" Trump.

The en banc panel is probably going to reverse the mandamus -- my prediction is 7-4 along partisan lines -- and who knows what happens after that, other than that Trump will pardon Flynn if he actually faces prison time, like he did with Stone. But the reason he's doing it is because of what Flynn and Stone know, not because of how they were prosecuted. When Herridge pulls out the highlighter for documents slow-dripping out of DNI declassification, it's part of the misdirection effort.

Or Herridge is right, Trump is innocent, and we can expect him to have learned from 2016, so now he will promptly call up the FBI and let them know if he catches wind of any foreign efforts to interfere on his behalf. If we've learned anything about Trump these 3 1/2 years, it's that he is committed to transparency, learns from his mistakes, and resists temptations from foreign influence peddling.

 

[SaintForLife]

well, to be fair, we don't really know what SFL thinks about the tweets because there was no real commentary to the post. I think that post illustrates why it's important to adhere to the point that Andrus raised:

“So whenever you post such links on this particular board, you need to comment, and not just three words like "Here it is" or "So it begins". You should comment on why you posted it, and/or offer your own opinion regarding what you are linking to. Add some substance.”

I've had posts reported that offered just tweets and I had to go back and add to it.

And that's fine - I don't mind. And I think discussions like this are a good example of why that rule is in place. Perhaps with a bit more 'opinion' or 'some substance' in addition to the 'naked links' we could talk about the credibility of the source, as an example?

I'm curious why you only call out certain people. Superchuck still posts empty posts with only the tweet and not a single word, but I've never seen you say anything about that. I wonder why. I've never reported any of his posts, but I know you love to complain.

I believe that rule is to prevent trolling and you know I've made my opinions quite clear and made many posts with my thoughts.

 

[Farb]

It almost as if they attack the poster's credibility first and then the actual post. Naw, can't be. It is just me being all right wing and paranoid thinking that is common tactic of the alt left.

 

[SaintForLife]

It almost as if they attack the poster's credibility first and then the actual post. Naw, can't be. It is just me being all right wing and paranoid thinking that is common tactic of the alt left.

That's the MO of a lot of poster's on the left here.

 

[SaintForLife]

Considering that she's no fan of Trump I'm surprised Yates admitted that about Comey. I think most people already knew that outside of the people who still believe in the Russia collusion conspiracy.

 

[MT15]

Considering that she's no fan of Trump I'm surprised Yates admitted that about Comey. I think most people already knew that outside of the people who still believe in the Russia collusion conspiracy.

That’s such a load of crap, SFL. Yates told the truth.

Comey did break with long-standing tradition about several things in the run-up to the election. It‘s no secret to anyone. Mostly, he helped Trump get elected, but you keep on believing he was “out to get” Trump. It makes no sense.

 

[TaylorB]

Most of us on this board who still believe the “Russia collusion conspiracy” simply discuss our interpretation of the facts publicly known about the investigations, many of which paint a stark picture of what people in Trump’s orbit were up to at a time when Russia was actively interfering in our democracy. Flynn, for example, was telling the Russians not to worry about sanctions and diplomatic expulsions we imposed to punish Russia for what they did. None of that was ever dependent on whether Comey and the DOJ were in lock step about what to do about it.

We couldn’t have known, particularly at the time we started becoming confused about Trump’s bizarre affinity for Putin, how the investigation was being handled. Had we known at that time that Flynn was lying to the FBI about what he was up to with the Russians, it would have made sense given what Trump was saying publicly. When you scoff at us for believing the “Russia collusion conspiracy,” it feels like you’re not referring to the specific things we’re saying, but rather repeating Trump’s general denial of the whole story. The story is much more complicated than your abrupt dismissal suggests. To my recollection you’ve still never addressed the fact that trump was publicly calling for Russia to hack Hillary’s emails while secretly negotiating the biggest deal of his life for a tower in Moscow. You still have no explanation for Manafort giving the Russians data that appeared to help them target voters. And on and on.

 

[SaintForLife]

Another interesting development with the Flynn case. Stephen Schrage is not someone I heard of before, but he did meet with Durham recently. He was Halper’s former PhD candidate. He describes how he "unintentionally lit the match" of Russiagate, by connecting people like Carter Page and Stefan Halper:

The Spies Who Hijacked America

As a doctoral candidate at Cambridge working under "FBI Informant" Stefan Halper, I had a front-row seat for Russiagate

t.co

Stefan Halper on Michael Flynn on January 10th, 2017: “I don’t think Flynn’s going to be around long... the way these things work... opponents… so-called enemies [are] looking for ways of exerting pressure…that’s how it builds.”

Stefan Halper on January 10th, 2017 said Michael Flynn would be “squeezed pretty hard,” and Flynn’s “reaction to that is to blow up and get angry. He’s really forked... That is his reaction. That’s why he’s so unsuitable.”

“At one point, I even recall telling Halper that taking Flynn out would be like 'beheading' Trump’s team. I had no idea I had been unintentionally aiding a spy preparing the guillotine and helping lead Flynn to exactly such a beheading.”

During the interview with Maria Bartiromo, Schrage played a tape he made of Stefan Halper saying General Michael Flynn was "really forked," just two days before Flynn's call to Sergei Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post.

 

[SaintForLife]

To my recollection you’ve still never addressed the fact that trump was publicly calling for Russia to hack Hillary’s emails while secretly negotiating the biggest deal of his life for a tower in Moscow. You still have no explanation for Manafort giving the Russians data that appeared to help them target voters. And on and on.

Pointing to when Trump called for Russia to find Hillary's emails as evidence of collusion is so nonsensical it's hard to take seriously. If Trump was truly colluding with Russia, do you think that a press conference would be the choice to send the message that Trump and Putin would surely want to be secret?

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.

Did we really expect Russia to be able to find the 33,000 emails that Clinton's staff deleted with Bleachbit? Considering how the press was in the tank for Clinton, is it realistic to assume that the press would reward Russia if they were able to magically find the emails deleted by bleachbit?

Manfort gave polling data to Kilimnik who was actually a State Department source. Mueller didn't find any conspiracy with Russia & polling data. Mueller pointed to financial motives behind Manafort sharing polling data with Kilimnik to impress clients and people he owed money.

 

[insidejob]

Pointing to when Trump called for Russia to find Hillary's emails as evidence of collusion is so nonsensical it's hard to take seriously. If Trump was truly colluding with Russia, do you think that a press conference would be the choice to send the message that Trump and Putin would surely want to be secret?

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.

Did we really expect Russia to be able to find the 33,000 emails that Clinton's staff deleted with Bleachbit? Considering how the press was in the tank for Clinton, is it realistic to assume that the press would reward Russia if they were able to magically find the emails deleted by bleachbit?

Manfort gave polling data to Kilimnik who was actually a State Department source. Mueller didn't find any conspiracy with Russia & polling data. Mueller pointed to financial motives behind Manafort sharing polling data with Kilimnik to impress clients and people he owed money.

Dude, it was reported that literally within minutes of him making that statement at that rally about "Russia, if you're out there, we'd like those 33,000 emails...that'd be great." that our intelligence services witnessed an explosion of activity in Russian hacking and general electronic activity.

So, yeah, I think he figured no one could claim he was actually serious since he said it so openly and publicly, but that was the exact point. Do or say something so outrageous that he can just deny it as kidding or a hypothetical but over and over again it's been shown he is dead serious and not joking.

 

[SaintForLife]

Dude, it was reported that literally within minutes of him making that statement at that rally about "Russia, if you're out there, we'd like those 33,000 emails...that'd be great." that our intelligence services witnessed an explosion of activity in Russian hacking and general electronic activity.

So, yeah, I think he figured no one could claim he was actually serious since he said it so openly and publicly, but that was the exact point. Do or say something so outrageous that he can just deny it as kidding or a hypothetical but over and over again it's been shown he is dead serious and not joking.

Is it possible for someone to recover emails that had been deleted by bleachbit? The Russians didn't find the 33,000 emails deleted with bleachbit right?

 

[Nebaghead]

Is it possible for someone to recover emails that had been deleted by bleachbit? The Russians didn't find the 33,000 emails deleted with bleachbit right?

Probably depends on the competency of the person who used the software. Typically, there is a backup or copy that no one knew about or forgot. As someone who has worked in IT for over 25 years I can tell you people do the dumbest things. The other part is if anyone outside the server received the email they would have a copy.