DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (3 Viewers)

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

That's on Flynn, not the Saudis.

Right, that's why think it's important to consider Flynn's lies to the FBI about his Kislyak call in the context of the Saudi nuclear deal he was advancing

One of Flynn's most ambitious projects -- which happened to overlap with his advisory role to the Trump campaign -- was his secret work with ACU Strategic Partners, and subsequently Iron Bridge, to partner with Russia to build over a dozen nuclear reactors in the Middle East. In 2015, Flynn took multiple trips to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel in connection with these deals, all of which he failed to disclose on his security clearance forms during the transition.

Flynn was well aware that the eventual lifting of US sanctions against Russia were critical to the Middle East nuclear deal he was promoting.
The day after the Flynn-Kislyak calls, on December 30, 2016, Trump tweeted "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!" Eleven minutes after Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, Flynn texted Alex Copson, the head of the ACU nuclear project, that the deal was "good to go." That night, Copson told a future whistleblower that he expects Trump to "rip up" the sanctions against Russia, allowing the project to go forward.

Flynn ... was eager and willing to provide nuclear technology to countries like Saudi Arabia with whom the US does not have counterproliferation agreements. All of these ventures were for Flynn's personal profit at the expense of US foreign policy...

The Trump admin continued pursuing Flynn's nuclear deal long after his departure from the campaign:

Trump’s cronies are in secret talks to sell nuclear tech to Saudi. The risks are clear

The congressional report on this multibillion-dollar scheme provides further evidence of attempts to monetise the Trump presidency

www.theguardian.com

The first thing Trump did in office was to issue a travel ban ostensibly for the purpose of preventing terrorism, but which excluded Saudi Arabia, the home country of most of the 9/11 perpetrators. Trump has done Saudi bidding in destroying the Iran Nuclear deal, killing Soleimani and trying to kill Abdul Reza Shahlai, and denying bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's killing. Now Pompeo is dodging an IG investigation into arms dealings with the Saudis.

It's hard for me to understand what we're really getting in return for all of this favorable foreign policy. Al Jazeera's reporting shows that lots of Saudi and Emirati money was being funneled into Trump's 2016 campaign:

Report: Saudis, UAE funnelled millions to Trump 2016 campaign

Lebanese-American fugitive CEO claims Saudi Arabia and UAE had deal with Trump to cripple Iranian oil industry.

www.aljazeera.com

Khawaja's recent indictment shows he was also funneling money to Hillary's campaign, so I suppose we may one day find out from his (or George Nader's) criminal case the extent to which one side, the other, or both, promised the Saudis favorable foreign policy. Flynn's and Trump's post-election behavior would appear to be making good on such a promise. And it's not hard to figure out who the Saudis (and therefore, Emiratis) would prefer between Biden and Trump in 2020, so I have literally zero doubt that we'll see them meddling in the months to come as they did in 2016.

 

[surada]

Right, that's why think it's important to consider Flynn's lies to the FBI about his Kislyak call in the context of the Saudi nuclear deal he was advancing

The Trump admin continued pursuing Flynn's nuclear deal long after his departure from the campaign:

Trump’s cronies are in secret talks to sell nuclear tech to Saudi. The risks are clear

The congressional report on this multibillion-dollar scheme provides further evidence of attempts to monetise the Trump presidency

www.theguardian.com

The first thing Trump did in office was to issue a travel ban ostensibly for the purpose of preventing terrorism, but which excluded Saudi Arabia, the home country of most of the 9/11 perpetrators. Trump has done Saudi bidding in destroying the Iran Nuclear deal, killing Soleimani and trying to kill Abdul Reza Shahlai, and denying bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's killing. Now Pompeo is dodging an IG investigation into arms dealings with the Saudis.

It's hard for me to understand what we're really getting in return for all of this favorable foreign policy. Al Jazeera's reporting shows that lots of Saudi and Emirati money was being funneled into Trump's 2016 campaign:

Report: Saudis, UAE funnelled millions to Trump 2016 campaign

Lebanese-American fugitive CEO claims Saudi Arabia and UAE had deal with Trump to cripple Iranian oil industry.

www.aljazeera.com

Khawaja's recent indictment shows he was also funneling money to Hillary's campaign, so I suppose we may one day find out from his (or George Nader's) criminal case the extent to which one side, the other, or both, promised the Saudis favorable foreign policy. Flynn's and Trump's post-election behavior would appear to be making good on such a promise. And it's not hard to figure out who the Saudis (and therefore, Emiratis) would prefer between Biden and Trump in 2020, so I have literally zero doubt that we'll see them meddling in the months to come as they did in 2016.

Some of your information is not accurate. Al Jazeera is out of Qatar and Qatar has a propaganda campaign against KSA. Trump is ignorant about KSA.. and they didn't have 16 of the 9-11 terrorists. Five were using fake IDs so no one knows their nationality and 1 died a year earlier in a plane crash in Pompano Beach.. The Saudis yanked OBL's citizenship in 1994 and declared AQ a terrorist outfit the same year. OBL hated the Saudis .. He wanted to attack America and give it a Saudi face. The Saudis didn't want Trump to destroy the Iran Nuclear agreement.

I think Flynn was in a heady mood thinking he was going to get filthy rich brokering nuclear tech to several countries. I can assure you that he couldn't read the Saudis.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sullivan appointed ex-judge John Gleeson to write the amicus, because of the ridiculous actions of the DoJ, since there wasn't opposition to the dismissal. Both the defendant and prosecution were on the same side, yet Flynn had clearly committed crimes in front of the court. Sullivan rightly requested an impartial opinion from someone not under the thumb of Trump.

The only problem is amicus briefs aren't allowed in criminal trials and Judge Sullivan stated that previously when others tried to file amicus for the Flynn case.

"The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases."

 

[SaintForLife]

The fact is that there remained an active counterintelligence investigation into whether Flynn was coordinating activities with Russia at the time the IC learned of a call between Flynn and Kislyak that he subsequently lied about to his superiors. Any lies Flynn told the FBI about that call would have been material to an investigation that was believed by the parties involved to be legitimate until a Trump installed AG -- whose application for the job was a memo he wrote about how the investigation into the President was illegitimate -- said that it wasn't.

Actually the FBI was in the process of closing the investigation on Flynn because they found no evidence of him being an agent of Russia. Strzok intervened so they could try to use the Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open.

The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he intentionally lied when he said he didn't remember discussing the sanctions with the Russian ambassador. The prosecutor Van Grack told Flynn during the plea agreement that the FBI agents "stand by their statements" which led Flynn to believe the FBI agents thought he lied. Flynn was never told that those FBI agents thought he didn't lie and he or his counsel was never shown the transcript of the call.

The FBI did not need to gin up Logan Act charges to ask Flynn questions about what he discussed with Kislyak in that call. The fact that they considered charging him under the Logan Act could have related to his initial lies to superiors in his own administration in which he claimed not to have discussed foreign policy that he did, in fact, discuss with Russia (that be extremely problematic, particularly if it were contrary to the incoming admin's official policy). It is revisionist history to suggest that the FBI needed the Logan Act to make the lies "material." There was an open CI investigation which the contents of the Kislyak-Flynn call fell squarely into.

Once again, the FBI was in the process of closing the investigation when Strzok intervened at the last minute with the Logan Act angle. I posted proof of that in my previous posts on this thread that included a copy of an email between Strzok and Page. Not a single American citizen has ever been prosecuted using the Logan Act. The rationale that an incoming National Security Advisor asking the Russians not to escalate after the sanctions is something illegal is a huge stretch.

I had a reasonable exchange with JimEverett in this thread in which we analyzed some of Sullivan's potential considerations. He did not berate my reading comprehension or suggest I was being disingenuous, and I think our discussion about what's likely to happen in court was more productive than shouting talking points past each other. The suggestions you've made about Van Grack's supposed brazen lies, if you're correct, would result in his disbarrment or suspension. I don't think that, or anything close to it, is going to happen. It is conceivable to me that Sullivan, or more likely a DC appeals panel with majority R appointees, determines dismissal is warranted either based on (1) not wanting to disrupt the balance of Article II or III power regarding prosecutions or (2) some analysis of the facts stating that the investigation was not warranted.

You knew that I posted the evidence multiple times with screenschots of official government documents and I typed out the evidence multiple times in the thread, but you kept saying that I won't list the evidence.

Those weren't suggestions that I made about Van Grack's lies. Thats what actually happened. Since you said you were unable to follow follow Twitter threads I posted and summarized what was said in this Twitter thread so it was easier to follow. This Twitter thread backs up all those assertions with official government documents:

I do not think Sullivan will dismiss the case because in addition to him likely agreeing that Barr's motion consists of political fodder as opposed to legal analysis, I think the case law shows it to be within Sullivan's jurisdiction, and not the executive's, to continue to sentence Flynn. Having seen some of their recent rulings, I could see DC appeals judges Rao and Henderson adopting Barr's talking points and trying to dismiss the case, which would result in a procedural mess if Sullivan then wanted Article III interests to be represented in an en banc appeal (en banc is when an appeals court panel is made up of the entire court, instead of a 3-judge panel; it would be highly unusual for an appeal relating to a criminal conviction to be brought by anyone other than a convicted person, because (1) convicts do not appeal their own dismissals, and (2) it is rare that the executive and judiciary do not agree on a dismissal). My guess as to why Sullivan hired counsel relates to the unusual posture this case is in with competing balances of Article II and III power, but I don't know for sure. This does not prove that he's partisan or biased.

Sullivan knows about the prosecutor's misconduct in the case so it's even more confusing why he won't dismiss the case. Sullivan allowing an amicus brief when he had already denied them before in this case and he knows they aren't alowed in criminal trials is even more confusing.

I am not ruling out the possibility that one of those pieces of evidence (particularly the Priestap notes) is determined to be significant, but that would more likely be by one of the GOP-appointed appeals court judges than by Sullivan (or anyone else). I don't think any of the "new" evidence changes materiality or is probative of Flynn's guilt or innocence, and thus is not Brady material anyway. But apart from the Priestap notes and the Logan Act discussion -- both which in my opinion are red herrings -- the vast majority of evidence you're citing consists of things Flynn already knew both times he pled guilty.

Why do you think Van Grack turned over the documents that he had been withholding from the defense, for over 2 years, as soon as Barr's appointment of US Attorney Jensen? Those documents contradicted his case against Flynn so it's obvious why he kept it hidden.

 

[TaylorB]

Some of your information is not accurate. Al Jazeera is out of Qatar and Qatar has a propaganda campaign against KSA.

I didn't mean to turn this into an argument about whether Al Jazeera is credible. Setting aside the specific article I used to illustrate my point, there is a robust public record about what Khawaja and Nader were doing on behalf of KSA and UAE in 2016 that might help explain the Trump administration's unusual affinity for those nations' leaders. I would not dispute your point that Qatar has a bone to pick with KSA, but it doesn't mean that anything I said is inaccurate or untrue. For what it's worth, KSA has conducted its own anti-Qatar propaganda campaign too, and has itself tried to get rid of Al Jazeera. But if you don't trust Al Jazeera, you can remove the article from my post and I think the substance is still correct.

Trump is ignorant about KSA.. and they didn't have 16 of the 9-11 terrorists. Five were using fake IDs so no one knows their nationality and 1 died a year earlier in a plane crash in Pompano Beach.. The Saudis yanked OBL's citizenship in 1994 and declared AQ a terrorist outfit the same year. OBL hated the Saudis .. He wanted to attack America and give it a Saudi face. The Saudis didn't want Trump to destroy the Iran Nuclear agreement.

I think Flynn was in a heady mood thinking he was going to get filthy rich brokering nuclear tech to several countries. I can assure you that he couldn't read the Saudis.

I am not saying the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers; I am just pointing out how odd it was that KSA and UAE were excluded from the travel ban when according to our own government, that's where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The only group I've ever heard dispute the assessment of the nationalities of most of the hijackers is the Saudis themselves. Do you have support for the suggestion that it wasn't mostly Saudi and Emirati nationals?

This is also the first time I've heard anyone suggest the Saudis didn't want Trump to destroy the Iran Nuclear agreement. That seems contrary to everything I've ever read on the subject. Do you have support for that?

Finally, when you say Trump and Flynn couldn't read the Saudis or were ignorant about them, I think that is partially true. I think Trump views himself as an equal broker with them, but the Saudis (and Emiratis) view Trump and Kushner as sort of pawns whose policies were for sale. For example, bin Salman claimed Kushner was "in his pocket":

Saudi Arabia's crown prince reportedly bragged about having Jared Kushner 'in his pocket' after being told classified information meant for Trump

Citing a source, The Intercept reported that Jared Kushner discussed with the Saudi crown prince classified information from the presidential daily briefing.

www.businessinsider.com

and George Nader called Kushner a "clown prince" in reference to his middle east plan:

The princes, the president and the fortune seekers

WASHINGTON (AP) — After a year spent carefully cultivating two princes from the Arabian Peninsula, Elliott Broidy, a top fundraiser for President Donald Trump, thought he was finally close to nailing more than $1 billion in business.

apnews.com

But the fact that the Trump admin is still attempting to deal nuclear tech to the Saudis at arms length, albeit under the table, and that they're presumably getting something in return, means that his and Flynn's read on the Saudis was correct, at least to some extent.

 

[SaintForLife]

More on the Logan Act:

Comey told Congress in a March 2, 2017 briefing that he didn't think much of the Logan Act angle regarding Michael Flynn.

Comey, Yates, McCord, and McCabe couldn't get their stories straight about why the FBI sent agents after General Flynn.

There was conflicting testimony about whether it was for investigating statements to Pence, Logan Act, or a counterintelligence operation

Why would the FBI be trying to resolve disputes between Flynn and Pence? That's none of their business. The Logan Act has never been used to prosecute a single American citizen and is most likely unconstitutional. How could it have been a counterintelligence investigation when the FBI already knew what was in those calls?

Logan Act is the last refuge for the American prosecutorial scoundrel

Some believe a contrived crime is better than no crime.

thehill.com

 

[JimEverett]

Jin was a civil case, but there was a citation in the opinion supporting the Article III judge’s inherent authority to appoint amicus that didn’t seem to draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. I found this law review article discussing the ~54 times amicus has been appointed, and some of these are criminal or quasi criminal cases:

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/04/Goldman-63_Stan._L._Rev._907.pdf

So for example, SCOTUS appears to have appointed amicus in Bond v. U.S. in 2010 when the Solicitor General changed course on whether a criminal defendant had standing to raise a 10th amendment challenge to a federal statute she was convicted under. There’s a case in the article where John Roberts was appointed amicus in a double-jeopardy case as well (not necessarily on point here, but interesting).

The article is questioning the prudence of appointing amicus in certain circumstances, and to be clear I don't feel strongly one way or another about whether Sullivan should have done it. But there does seem to be precedent for doing so in a criminal case when the government’s changing course “orphans” a prior argument, and in this case, the argument left “orphaned” by the DOJ has already been adopted by the trial judge in accepting the guilty plea.

It is an interesting move. I looked at the Bond case and found this law review article linked on the SCOTUS Blog: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Goldman-article1.pdf

I just skimmed the article a little bit, not really looked at it much - but I do think there is a difference between appointing at the trial level, and even the pre-sentencing level vs. the appellate level.
More than that - it seems clear that appeals courts can make a substantive ruling on the record without regard to a memorandum or, perhaps, even a party, although they may at times want an argument. Which, again, speaks in favor of a difference between the trial level and the appellate level. Are you aware of ay appointment as "stand-in" at the trial level?

I stated this above, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with Judge Sullivan rejecting (or agreeing) with FLynn's Motion to Withdraw and then sentencing Flynn. Also nothing improper, I think, at rejecting DOJ's Motion to DIsmiss Charges - given (and I think this was your point about Fokker) - given that the defendant has already entered a plea.
And that makes it all the mroe confusing to me why the Judge did what he did.

Although I guess some part of the reasoning is that "post-verdict" is different from the trial-stage proper. Which, again, I think plays on your point about the Judge's reliance on Fokker.

 

[TaylorB]

Actually the FBI was in the process of closing the investigation on Flynn because they found no evidence of him being an agent of Russia. Strzok intervened so they could try to use the Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open.

The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he intentionally lied when he said he didn't remember discussing the sanctions with the Russian ambassador. The prosecutor Van Grack told Flynn during the plea agreement that the FBI agents "stand by their statements" which led Flynn to believe the FBI agents thought he lied. Flynn was never told that those FBI agents thought he didn't lie and he or his counsel was never shown the transcript of the call.

Once again, the FBI was in the process of closing the investigation when Strzok intervened at the last minute with the Logan Act angle. I posted proof of that in my previous posts on this thread that included a copy of an email between Strzok and Page. Not a single American citizen has ever been prosecuted using the Logan Act. The rationale that an incoming National Security Advisor asking the Russians not to escalate after the sanctions is something illegal is a huge stretch.

You knew that I posted the evidence multiple times with screenschots of official government documents and I typed out the evidence multiple times in the thread, but you kept saying that I won't list the evidence.

Those weren't suggestions that I made about Van Grack's lies. Thats what actually happened. Since you said you were unable to follow follow Twitter threads I posted and summarized what was said in this Twitter thread so it was easier to follow. This Twitter thread backs up all those assertions with official government documents:



Sullivan knows about the prosecutor's misconduct in the case so it's even more confusing why he won't dismiss the case. Sullivan allowing an amicus brief when he had already denied them before in this case and he knows they aren't alowed in criminal trials is even more confusing.

Why do you think Van Grack turned over the documents that he had been withholding from the defense, for over 2 years, as soon as Barr's appointment of US Attorney Jensen? Those documents contradicted his case against Flynn so it's obvious why he kept it hidden.

It feels like we're spinning our wheels at this point. I concede that my opinions on Flynn's case could be biased by the fact that I think he and the others in Trump's close orbit are slimeballs, and I've truly tried to factor in that potential bias to make an objective legal assessment of all of the issues you're raising. You have a solid grip on the case being made on Flynn's side, but in my experience, your extreme confidence in those viewpoints makes you inclined to reject any proposed alternative viewpoints without giving them serious consideration. You probably feel the same way about me. The result -- a non-productive debate -- is the same regardless of whose fault it is.

The fact that I think Flynn is guilty of lying to the FBI, and that I think Barr's motivations here are political / personal, does not mean I subscribe to everything the government does, or even what they did in this case, and that includes Sullivan and Van Grack. I'm not an expert in any of this; I'm not a prosecutor, I'm not a politician, I'm not a national security expert, I'm not a judge. I'm a lawyer with nearly zero experience in criminal law. My firm has represented defendants in the federal justice system, and I've spent time watching federal criminal trials; in my limited experience, the process often feels rigged against defendants. The things the government is able to get away with at the state and federal level in terms of discovery and disclosure would make many reasonable people proponents of justice reform.

If I were defending Flynn, I'd be making a big deal out of all the things you're making a big deal out of. I don't think you're being disingenuous when you argue these points, but I am providing reasons why I absolutely believe that Bill Barr and Sidney Powell are. I don't think anything you're saying is completely untethered to truth -- otherwise, what they're trying to do wouldn't work. I am just pointing out that the things they're saying are a big deal and are fatal to the governments case against Flynn do not appear to me to resemble anything that is based on an honest legal assessment. That's likely why Van Grack withdrew, and likely why Sullivan is doing the things he's doing.

One possibility is that Flynn simply had the misfortune of being investigated by an entirely never-Trump FBI, prosecuted by a secretly never-Trump Republican Mueller, by a secretly never-Trump prosecutor, in front of a secretly never-Trump judge, and all of that has led to his wrongful persecution. But I am strongly suggesting that there is a legal avenue in which Flynn gets convicted which has nothing to do with politics, but rather with the fact that what he did was against the law, and detrimental to the rule of law. If you consider that possibility, it becomes a lot easier to understand the things that Sullivan and Van Grack have done that you're currently confounded by.

 

[surada]

I didn't mean to turn this into an argument about whether Al Jazeera is credible. Setting aside the specific article I used to illustrate my point, there is a robust public record about what Khawaja and Nader were doing on behalf of KSA and UAE in 2016 that might help explain the Trump administration's unusual affinity for those nations' leaders. I would not dispute your point that Qatar has a bone to pick with KSA, but it doesn't mean that anything I said is inaccurate or untrue. For what it's worth, KSA has conducted its own anti-Qatar propaganda campaign too, and has itself tried to get rid of Al Jazeera. But if you don't trust Al Jazeera, you can remove the article from my post and I think the substance is still correct.

I am not saying the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers; I am just pointing out how odd it was that KSA and UAE were excluded from the travel ban when according to our own government, that's where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from. The only group I've ever heard dispute the assessment of the nationalities of most of the hijackers is the Saudis themselves. Do you have support for the suggestion that it wasn't mostly Saudi and Emirati nationals?

This is also the first time I've heard anyone suggest the Saudis didn't want Trump to destroy the Iran Nuclear agreement. That seems contrary to everything I've ever read on the subject. Do you have support for that?

Finally, when you say Trump and Flynn couldn't read the Saudis or were ignorant about them, I think that is partially true. I think Trump views himself as an equal broker with them, but the Saudis (and Emiratis) view Trump and Kushner as sort of pawns whose policies were for sale. For example, bin Salman claimed Kushner was "in his pocket":

Saudi Arabia's crown prince reportedly bragged about having Jared Kushner 'in his pocket' after being told classified information meant for Trump

Citing a source, The Intercept reported that Jared Kushner discussed with the Saudi crown prince classified information from the presidential daily briefing.

www.businessinsider.com

and George Nader called Kushner a "clown prince" in reference to his middle east plan:

The princes, the president and the fortune seekers

WASHINGTON (AP) — After a year spent carefully cultivating two princes from the Arabian Peninsula, Elliott Broidy, a top fundraiser for President Donald Trump, thought he was finally close to nailing more than $1 billion in business.

apnews.com

But the fact that the Trump admin is still attempting to deal nuclear tech to the Saudis at arms length, albeit under the table, and that they're presumably getting something in return, means that his and Flynn's read on the Saudis was correct, at least to some extent.

Two were from the Emirates, one from Lebanon, one from Egypt. Five on fake IDs.. One dead in Sept 2000 in PompanoBeach.. Saudi students have been getting expedited US visas since the early 1950s whereas other countries were very difficult to get US visas. The 5 who are unknown could be Saudis or overstayers on Hajj visas. The Guy who worked in the US consulate issuing visas was a Yemeni.. and he was long gone by 9-11.

The Russians claim CP Bin Salman had Kushner in his pocket. I haven't been around young MBS since he was 16 but I know his father. They are NOT blabbermouths. They know exactly what Trump is... and what Kushner is.

 

[SaintForLife]

It feels like we're spinning our wheels at this point. I concede that my opinions on Flynn's case could be biased by the fact that I think he and the others in Trump's close orbit are slimeballs, and I've truly tried to factor in that potential bias to make an objective legal assessment of all of the issues you're raising. You have a solid grip on the case being made on Flynn's side, but in my experience, your extreme confidence in those viewpoints makes you inclined to reject any proposed alternative viewpoints without giving them serious consideration. You probably feel the same way about me. The result -- a non-productive debate -- is the same regardless of whose fault it is.

The fact that I think Flynn is guilty of lying to the FBI, and that I think Barr's motivations here are political / personal, does not mean I subscribe to everything the government does, or even what they did in this case, and that includes Sullivan and Van Grack. I'm not an expert in any of this; I'm not a prosecutor, I'm not a politician, I'm not a national security expert, I'm not a judge. I'm a lawyer with nearly zero experience in criminal law. My firm has represented defendants in the federal justice system, and I've spent time watching federal criminal trials; in my limited experience, the process often feels rigged against defendants. The things the government is able to get away with at the state and federal level in terms of discovery and disclosure would make many reasonable people proponents of justice reform.

If I were defending Flynn, I'd be making a big deal out of all the things you're making a big deal out of. I don't think you're being disingenuous when you argue these points, but I am providing reasons why I absolutely believe that Bill Barr and Sidney Powell are. I don't think anything you're saying is completely untethered to truth -- otherwise, what they're trying to do wouldn't work. I am just pointing out that the things they're saying are a big deal and are fatal to the governments case against Flynn do not appear to me to resemble anything that is based on an honest legal assessment. That's likely why Van Grack withdrew, and likely why Sullivan is doing the things he's doing.

One possibility is that Flynn simply had the misfortune of being investigated by an entirely never-Trump FBI, prosecuted by a secretly never-Trump Republican Mueller, by a secretly never-Trump prosecutor, in front of a secretly never-Trump judge, and all of that has led to his wrongful persecution. But I am strongly suggesting that there is a legal avenue in which Flynn gets convicted which has nothing to do with politics, but rather with the fact that what he did was against the law, and detrimental to the rule of law. If you consider that possibility, it becomes a lot easier to understand the things that Sullivan and Van Grack have done that you're currently confounded by.

That was a very reasonable post until your last paragraph. I understand where you are coming from and we will just have to agree to disagree.

It's hard to not think the Russia investigation was mostly political. The Obama administration used his intelligence agencies to spy on his party's opposition in a Presidential campaign. Once Trump won the election the Obama administration did everything they could do to sabotage his administration by pushing the investigation and Comey later getting the Special Counsel started.

It's not like Obama was a stranger to spying. Edward Snowden exposed that his administration was spying on the entire country by collecting their cell phone data without a warrant.

The Obama administration spied on ex CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson while she was reported on Fast and Furious.

The Obama administration spied on the Senate and Brennan's employees broke into their computer's.

The Obama administration spied on a Fox News reporter and Associated Press reporters.

The Obama administration spied on members of Congress who opposed the Iran deal.

Why should we be surprised that he decided to spy on an incoming Presidential campaign? We have more compelling evidence of Obama spying that we ever did for the opening of the Russia investigation.

The intial investigation was fine, but the FBI and Mueller knew very early that there was no conspiracy or collusion and they did everything they could to drag it out.

 

[surada]

That was a very reasonable post until your last paragraph. I understand where you are coming from and we will just have to agree to disagree.

It's hard to not think the Russia investigation was mostly political. The Obama administration used his intelligence agencies to spy on his party's opposition in a Presidential campaign. Once Trump won the election the Obama administration did everything they could do to sabotage his administration by pushing the investigation and Comey later getting the Special Counsel started.

It's not like Obama was a stranger to spying. Edward Snowden exposed that his administration was spying on the entire country by collecting their cell phone data without a warrant.

The Obama administration spied on ex CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson while she was reported on Fast and Furious.

The Obama administration spied on the Senate and Brennan's employees broke into their computer's.

The Obama administration spied on a Fox News reporter and Associated Press reporters.

The Obama administration spied on members of Congress who opposed the Iran deal.

Why should we be surprised that he decided to spy on an incoming Presidential campaign? We have more compelling evidence of Obama spying that we ever did for the opening of the Russia investigation.

The intial investigation was fine, but the FBI and Mueller knew very early that there was no conspiracy or collusion and they did everything they could to drag it out.

Is there any evidence for your list of accusations?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Is there any evidence for your list of accusations?

Sort of -

From what I remember:
Sharyl Atkinsson had her computer compromised and she blamed the FBI/Obama administration. I think she sued and the case was dismissed. I do not remember seeing compelling evidence that the Obama administration was spying on her.

I'm not exactly sure what he means by the spying on the Senate unless it was when the Senate was reviewing the detainee treatment by the CIA, and the CIA later reviewed the searches contrary to the rules that were agreed upon, and Brennan had to apologize for it. But that was on a system set up for review and not on Senator's personal computers.

The Fox news reporter I think was when the FBI spied on a reporter who published classified information and suspected him of trying to coerce illegal activity.

Not sure what he means about Congress and the Iran deal.

It appears he's taking the accusations against the FBI and Obama administration at face value.

Obama did receive criticism for his crackdown against reporters who were reporting leaks of "classified" information.

I don't think SFL's interpretation of events is the simplest explanation.

 

[surada]

Sort of -

From what I remember:
Sharyl Atkinsson had her computer compromised and she blamed the FBI/Obama administration. I think she sued and the case was dismissed. I do not remember seeing compelling evidence that the Obama administration was spying on her.

I'm not exactly sure what he means by the spying on the Senate unless it was when the Senate was reviewing the detainee treatment by the CIA, and the CIA later reviewed the searches contrary to the rules that were agreed upon, and Brennan had to apologize for it. But that was on a system set up for review and not on Senator's personal computers.

The Fox news reporter I think was when the FBI spied on a reporter who published classified information and suspected him of trying to coerce illegal activity.

Not sure what he means about Congress and the Iran deal.

It appears he's taking the accusations against the FBI and Obama administration at face value.

Obama did receive criticism for his crackdown against reporters who were reporting leaks of "classified" information.

I don't think SFL's interpretation of events is the simplest explanation.

Thank you.. I thought the accusations were a bit exaggerated.. I don't understand extreme partisanship. We should consider what's good for the country NOT a party. I really dislike the gross accusations and lies and conspiracies promoted by Trump.. Nobody benefits, not even Trump and it makes finding solutions so much more difficult ..

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Thank you.. I thought the accusations were a bit exaggerated.. I don't understand extreme partisanship. We should consider what's good for the country NOT a party. I really dislike the gross accusations and lies and conspiracies promoted by Trump.. Nobody benefits, not even Trump and it makes finding solutions so much more difficult ..

I think fitting things into a narrative is normal for most of us, and we're a tribal species so this is pretty predictable for all of us.

I believe Obama did face a certain amount of criticism for his Administration's spying, so his accusation isn't out of left field. I would characterize it as more of an institutional issue that has spanned administrations though.

I think a simpler explanation is that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign is because they believed the Trump campaign behaved in way consistent with their experience of illegal and suspicious behavior. However, that also doesn't mean that they aren't guilty of over-reach, or sloppy procedures, or cutting corners or whatever else. I'm sure that happens. We need to have strict oversight of these parts of our government... I just hope people have the same commitment to civil liberties for everyone.

For the record, I'm not saying I agree with SFL's position, but I also don't mind forcing the FBI to justify their methods. That should be true whether they are investigating a political campaign or a mosque or anyone else they suspect of wrong doing. Strict adherence to procedures is what will protect us all.

 

[surada]

I think fitting things into a narrative is normal for most of us, and we're a tribal species so this is pretty predictable for all of us.

I believe Obama did face a certain amount of criticism for his Administration's spying, so his accusation isn't out of left field. I would characterize it as more of an institutional issue that has spanned administrations though.

I think a simpler explanation is that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign is because they believed the Trump campaign behaved in way consistent with their experience of illegal and suspicious behavior. However, that also doesn't mean that they aren't guilty of over-reach, or sloppy procedures, or cutting corners or whatever else. I'm sure that happens. We need to have strict oversight of these parts of our government... I just hope people have the same commitment to civil liberties for everyone.

For the record, I'm not saying I agree with SFL's position, but I also don't mind forcing the FBI to justify their methods. That should be true whether they are investigating a political campaign or a mosque or anyone else they suspect of wrong doing. Strict adherence to procedures is what will protect us all.

Well, the US has monitored ALL communication in and out of Soviet/Russian embassies worldwide as long as I can remember going back to Libya 1969 and probably before that. If you were calling the embassy all the time, the US would have noticed. Do you consider that spying on Trump?

 

[Lapaz]

I think fitting things into a narrative is normal for most of us, and we're a tribal species so this is pretty predictable for all of us.

I believe Obama did face a certain amount of criticism for his Administration's spying, so his accusation isn't out of left field. I would characterize it as more of an institutional issue that has spanned administrations though.

I think a simpler explanation is that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign is because they believed the Trump campaign behaved in way consistent with their experience of illegal and suspicious behavior. However, that also doesn't mean that they aren't guilty of over-reach, or sloppy procedures, or cutting corners or whatever else. I'm sure that happens. We need to have strict oversight of these parts of our government... I just hope people have the same commitment to civil liberties for everyone.

For the record, I'm not saying I agree with SFL's position, but I also don't mind forcing the FBI to justify their methods. That should be true whether they are investigating a political campaign or a mosque or anyone else they suspect of wrong doing. Strict adherence to procedures is what will protect us all.

Agree completely, and it is why we need a strong and independent Inspector Generals office.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sort of -

From what I remember:
Sharyl Atkinsson had her computer compromised and she blamed the FBI/Obama administration. I think she sued and the case was dismissed. I do not remember seeing compelling evidence that the Obama administration was spying on her.

Judge faults feds for ‘Kafkaesque’ stance in journalist’s surveillance suit

www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org

She said she also hopes her case will be bolstered by another recent development: one of the individuals involved in checking Attkisson’s equipment who had previously asked to remain anonymous has now agreed to be identified. Leslie Szwajkowski, a retired FBI agent who once was the head of the bureau’s Electronic Surveillance Technology Section.

"I, and my associates involved, were quite shocked at what we found,” the ex-FBI official said in an affidavit submitted by Attkisson’s attorneys. “We felt that what was transpiring, and had transpired, was outrageous.”

Journalist seeks to revive litigation over alleged surveillance by feds - POLITICO

www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I'm not exactly sure what he means by the spying on the Senate unless it was when the Senate was reviewing the detainee treatment by the CIA, and the CIA later reviewed the searches contrary to the rules that were agreed upon, and Brennan had to apologize for it. But that was on a system set up for review and not on Senator's personal computers.

Does it make it okay in your eyes because it wasn't on the Senate's computers?

CIA admits to spying on Senate staffers

John Brennan issues apology after acknowledging that agency spied on Senate intelligence committee’s staff members

www.google.com

The Fox news reporter I think was when the FBI spied on a reporter who published classified information and suspected him of trying to coerce illegal activity.

Reporters publish classified information all the time. Once again, it sounds like you are okay with it.

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report

The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday. In a chilling move sure to rile...

news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

More on Rosen and when Obama spied on the Associated Press

AP FACT CHECK: Obama doesn't always tell the straight story

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama's recent denunciation of President Donald Trump's treatment of the press overlooks the aggressive steps the Justice Department took to keep information from the public during his administration.

apnews.com

Not sure what he means about Congress and the Iran deal.

Report: U.S. spying on Israel swept up members of Congress

The article reports that the U.S. continued to spy on select leaders of allied nations despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to curb such surveillance two years ago.

www.politico.com

I like how the Politico article describes it as swept up like it was inadvertent. That sure sounds a lot like how they ended up spying on Flynn.

It appears he's taking the accusations against the FBI and Obama administration at face value.

Obama did receive criticism for his crackdown against reporters who were reporting leaks of "classified" information.

I don't think SFL's interpretation of events is the simplest explanation.

You seem to excuse the spying as an institutional issue and something that's happened over multiple administrations. The mass surveillance that Snowden exposed did start under Bush, but it was continued and expanded by Obama. Can you list any other examples of domestic spying by other administrations?

What's your explanation for all of it since you think mine isn't correct?

 

[Lapaz]

Judge faults feds for ‘Kafkaesque’ stance in journalist’s surveillance suit

www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org

She said she also hopes her case will be bolstered by another recent development: one of the individuals involved in checking Attkisson’s equipment who had previously asked to remain anonymous has now agreed to be identified. Leslie Szwajkowski, a retired FBI agent who once was the head of the bureau’s Electronic Surveillance Technology Section.

"I, and my associates involved, were quite shocked at what we found,” the ex-FBI official said in an affidavit submitted by Attkisson’s attorneys. “We felt that what was transpiring, and had transpired, was outrageous.”

Journalist seeks to revive litigation over alleged surveillance by feds - POLITICO

www-politico-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Does it make it okay in your eyes because it wasn't on the Senate's computers?

CIA admits to spying on Senate staffers

John Brennan issues apology after acknowledging that agency spied on Senate intelligence committee’s staff members

www.google.com

Reporters publish classified information all the time. Once again, it sounds like you are okay with it.

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report

The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday. In a chilling move sure to rile...

news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org

More on Rosen and when Obama spied on the Associated Press

AP FACT CHECK: Obama doesn't always tell the straight story

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Barack Obama's recent denunciation of President Donald Trump's treatment of the press overlooks the aggressive steps the Justice Department took to keep information from the public during his administration.

apnews.com

Report: U.S. spying on Israel swept up members of Congress

The article reports that the U.S. continued to spy on select leaders of allied nations despite President Barack Obama’s pledge to curb such surveillance two years ago.

www.politico.com

I like how the Politico article describes it as swept up like it was inadvertent. That sure sounds a lot like how they ended up spying on Flynn.

You seem to excuse the spying as an institutional issue and something that's happened over multiple administrations. The mass surveillance that Snowden exposed did start under Bush, but it was continued and expanded by Obama. Can you list any other examples of domestic spying by other administrations?

I have no problem with the government spying on us when there is a justifiable reason. Trump and his associates gave tremendous justifiable reasons. I hate to address the matters you raised about Obama for fear of thread jacking, but I will say that the only thing I didn't approve of with the Obama administration was how aggressively it went after whistleblowers, which I think is a critical check to wrong-doing. I believe whistleblowers are supposed to report their findings to their Inspector General, which is why undermining the integrity and independence of Inspectors General is far worse. If not for the mass surveillance, Flynn probably wouldn't have had to plead innocent, because there wouldn't be any recordings to prove he was guilty. I think that surveillance protects us. With that said, we need whistleblowers to tell us if they go too far.