Are Barr/Trump slowly unraveling the Michael Flynn prosecution?

[fskimospy]

I said the predicate for the interview, not the investigation, and that the available FBI notes more support the DOJ's assertion, which for the ones I've seen, they do. If you can find in the interview notes where they talk about uncovering Russian collusion being a goal, then you can direct me to those. As far as I'm aware, the FBI knew all the answers to the questions they asked of Flynn ahead of time. Again, from what I know, even if the DOJ is completely correct in its assertion, this wouldn't be enough to drop the 1001 charge.

The interview was directly related to the counterintelligence investigation. It’s not even close, it’s completely obvious.

 

[HurleyBird]

The interview was directly related to the counterintelligence investigation. It’s not even close, it’s completely obvious.

Again I ask that you bring receipts. Look, I'm not actually asserting that the DOJ is definitely correct in this particular assertion. Just that the evidence I've seen so far, some of which I've quoted previously, supports their claim. I don't have a dog in this fight and if you're able to find in the interview notes something that contra-indicates the DOJ's assertion that the interview was predicated on Logan, I'd be glad to see it.

And again, I don't think it's any kind of lynch pin either way. Application of 1001's materiality clause is broad enough that it probably doesn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, I ask that you bring receipts.

It’s all in the public record.

 

[HurleyBird]

This is pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

Again I ask that you bring receipts. Look, I'm not actually asserting that the DOJ is definitely correct in this particular assertion. Just that the evidence I've seen so far, some of which I've quoted previously, supports their claim. I don't have a dog in this fight and if you're able to find in the interview notes something that contra-indicates the DOJ's assertion that the interview was predicated on Logan, I'd be glad to see it.

And again, I don't think it's any kind of lynch pin either way. Application of 1001's materiality clause is broad enough that it probably doesn't matter.

The good news is if you don’t have a dog in this fight you will recognize the unprecedented corruption of the DOJ. Seriously, corruption to this extent has never happened in our lifetimes.

 

[fskimospy]

This is pointless.

Well here’s the thing. You made a lot of claims and then asked people to disprove them. That’s not really how the world works.

If you want to back up what you said that’s great, but you seem disinterested in that. That’s your problem, not ours.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, the investigation was never closed. It was close to being closed, and it's asserted in the recently public Stzork-Page correspondence that at one point it should have been except for FBI incompetence:

Page
“Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.”

Stzork
"Our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

At that point, Stzork messaged the case manager to keep it open, presumably to explore the Logan act angle.

The DOJ claims that the only predicate for the interview was Logan Act violations, and that being a silly reason, invalidates everything after that point and makes 1001 violations immaterial. Opponents argue that the interview was for the larger Russia Collusion investigation. The FBI notes that we've seen from just before the interview are more supporting of the DOJ's record of events:

“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide."

...But as far as I understand materiality under 1001 that typically shouldn't matter, even if it looks a bit bad.

What I still don't understand though is why the FBI needed to do the whole runaround of invoking some absurd dusty law which would never succeed at court, and then attempt to get Flynn to lie about it when the FARA violation sounds like a such a slam dunk in and of itself. Flynn took a lot of money from bad people, lobbied for them, and failed to disclose it until after he was discovered. So why were the FBI on--and possibly over excepting "helpful incompetence"--the verge of closing the investigation in the first place?

I don't think it was clear at the time that Flynn was in violation of FARA. Flynn was obviously in violation of the Logan act when he negotiated with Kislyak behind the back of the Obama admin. Shee-it. He wasn't authorized to do that by anybody, raising obvious national security concerns.

 

[HurleyBird]

Well here’s the thing. You made a lot of claims and then asked people to disprove them. That’s not really how the world works.

Wrong. You can go back and re-read the post you've been taking exception to, and notice two things.

1. First, I've brought receipts. I've quoted from the FBI notes and from the Stzork texts.
2. Second, I didn't claim the FBI's predicate was the Logan act. I correctly stated that it's the DOJ position, and reflected that the available notes "are more supporting" of that position, and I provide the relevant portion of the notes in question. In what possible universe is that "making claims and asking people to disprove them"?

No, it was you that claimed--and not merely conjecture but an absolute assertion--that the predicate for the interview was Russian collusion. I didn't ask for evidence before this point. The burden of proof is absolutely on you here. First, because you made the claim, and second because one can't prove an existential negative. It's logically impossible. I cannot prove the non-existence of notes showing that Russian collusion was a predicate. You can prove the existence of the same... And again I'm more than open to modify my stance if the same is produced.

The good news is if you don’t have a dog in this fight you will recognize the unprecedented corruption of the DOJ. Seriously, corruption to this extent has never happened in our lifetimes.

See, this is what's so darn infuriating about the pervasive tribalism that runs rampant through this forum. I try to be nuanced, but because I'm not with you 100%, I'm against you. So much so that you actually forget about the things we agree on and assume that I'm against you in general. Of course I think the DOJ is corrupt. Don't you remember this at all? It was only one page ago:

Current DOJ: Not even trying to hide their political motivations. Novel interpretation of "materiality" for the benefit of Flynn. Probably a better interpretation to be honest, but not when it's inconsistently applied. No one else has, or likely will, be judged according to "is material" rather than the prevailing "could be material."

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. You can go back and re-read the post you've been taking exception to, and notice two things.

1. First, I've brought receipts. I've quoted from the FBI notes and from the Stzork texts.
2. Second, I didn't claim the FBI's predicate was the Logan act. I correctly stated that it's the DOJ position, and reflected that the available notes "are more supporting" of that position, and I provide the relevant portion of the notes in question. In what possible universe is that "making claims and asking people to disprove them"?

No, it was you that claimed--and not merely conjecture but an absolute assertion--that the predicate for the interview was Russian collusion. I didn't ask for evidence before this point. The burden of proof is absolutely on you here. First, because you made the claim, and second because one can't prove an existential negative. It's logically impossible. I cannot prove the non-existence of notes showing that Russian collusion was a predicate. You can prove the existence of the same... And again I'm more than open to modify my stance if the same is produced.

This is fantasy nonsense. The legal basis for the investigation was already examined and proved by the inspector general. You’re just making shit up.

See, this is what's so darn infuriating about the pervasive tribalism that runs rampant through this forum. I try to be nuanced, but because I'm not with you 100%, I'm against you. So much so that you actually forget about the things we agree on and assume that I'm against you in general. Of course I think the DOJ is corrupt. Don't you remember this all? It's only one page ago.

What’s funny is that you’re projecting your own problems on to me. I don’t care if you agree or disagree with me, you just said a bunch of dumb and wrong things. I understand how thinking people say you are dumb are motivated by partisanship makes you feel better, but maybe they just think you’re dumb.

 

[hal2kilo]

More declassified information regarding Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador. I thought all this came out before, but its now officially out. Personally, I think the FBI was justified in investigating Flynn.

Flynn urged Russian ambassador to take 'reciprocal' actions, transcripts show

 

[interchange]

More declassified information regarding Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador. I thought all this came out before, but its now officially out. Personally, I think the FBI was justified in investigating Flynn.

Flynn urged Russian ambassador to take 'reciprocal' actions, transcripts show

Incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn told Russia’s ambassador to Washington in late 2016 to take “reciprocal” actions in response to Obama administration sanctions for election interference, rather than escalating the situation into a “tit for tat.”

Annoying that the author and editor don't know the definition of tit for tat.

RE: Flynn. Personally I don't think there's anything malicious in what he was trying to accomplish, but it was a bad idea to discuss response with Russia ahead of the transition and a total shit-show to lie about it after.

 

[HurleyBird]

Annoying that the author and editor don't know the definition of tit for tat.

Oh, they know. It's purposeful. That said, my hunch is that it's the editor at fault and not the author--everything looks pretty level if you take out the headline and first paragraph.

 

[cytg111]

This is exactly what collusion looks like

Lawyers React to Flynn-Kislyak Calls | Law & Crime

The conversations formed the basis for the federal criminal charge of lying to the FBI, to which Flynn later pleaded guilty. According to attorneys and national security experts who have read the documents, however, the content of the calls appear to confirm that Flynn did, indeed, lie to...

lawandcrime.com

Just ravel your heads around the fact that Barr is on board with all this shit.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Annoying that the author and editor don't know the definition of tit for tat.

RE: Flynn. Personally I don't think there's anything malicious in what he was trying to accomplish, but it was a bad idea to discuss response with Russia ahead of the transition and a total shit-show to lie about it after.

Eh, I think it makes sense if you look at the actual quotes.

“I know, I - believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it,” Flynn responded. “But I really don't want us to get into a situation where we're going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody's got to go back and forth and everybody's got to be the tough guy here, you know?”

“[T]he idea is, be — if you — if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis,” Flynn said later in the call. “Then that, then that is a good message and we'll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we're not going to escalate this thing, where we — where because if we put out — if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, I mean we have to get this to a — let’s, let's keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay?”

Its also possible that they were direct quotes and they didn't include Flynn specifically saying tit for tat. But reciprocal was in quotations because it was a direct quote.

 

[interchange]

Eh, I think it makes sense if you look at the actual quotes.





Its also possible that they were direct quotes and they didn't include Flynn specifically saying tit for tat. But reciprocal was in quotations because it was a direct quote.

Reciprocal retaliation is the definition of tit for tat. The alternative described is escalation. The words tit for tat do come up later, but the context there is asking to wait for the retaliation until the transition.

 

[hal2kilo]

David Corn's take on the release of the transcripts.

Trump and his crew tried to undo reality and whip up a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has dubbed the “Obamagate” scandal, with a supposedly victimized Flynn in a starring role.

Newly Released Transcripts Show Michael Flynn Betrayed the United States

His lying is the least of it.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Jhhnn]

David Corn's take on the release of the transcripts.

Trump and his crew tried to undo reality and whip up a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has dubbed the “Obamagate” scandal, with a supposedly victimized Flynn in a starring role.

Newly Released Transcripts Show Michael Flynn Betrayed the United States

His lying is the least of it.

www.motherjones.com

Well, at least Flynn didn't say thanks for all the help. I suppose the gratitude was best left unspoken.

 

[UNCjigga]

What was Kislyak going on about how the sanctions are hurting “your side too”. Am I reading too much into that? Why did Kislyak think the Obama Administration’s sanctions on Russia/Russians would hurt the incoming Trump Administration?

 

[Jhhnn]

What was Kislyak going on about how the sanctions are hurting “your side too”. Am I reading too much into that? Why did Kislyak think the Obama Administration’s sanctions on Russia/Russians would hurt the incoming Trump Administration?

Everybody is missing out on some golden business opportunities...

 

[ch33zw1z]

Stumbled onto this little twitter thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1261076113691865088

 

[cytg111]

What was Kislyak going on about how the sanctions are hurting “your side too”. Am I reading too much into that? Why did Kislyak think the Obama Administration’s sanctions on Russia/Russians would hurt the incoming Trump Administration?

Well, for one because #MoscowMitch wanted that Rusal alu mill in his backyard Kentucky. That was a no-fly with the sanctions IIRC.
I am sure that is just the top of the iceberg...

 

[UNCjigga]

Stumbled onto this little twitter thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1261076113691865088

Found this in the comments—I’ve heard of amicus briefs before, but I didn’t know that lay MAGAs could file dumbicus briefs too!

WARNING: Reading this will lower your IQ a point or 2:

Judge Emmet Sullivan Recuse Filed May 13, 2020 | PDF

That General Flynn no longer deserves to be in limbo. Judge Emmet Sullivan has acted out of jurisdiction and needs to Recuse and a Fair Judge is there is such a thing needs to review this case.

www.scribd.com

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270755646707728387

lol

He cites "highly irregular conduct" by prosecutors "to benefit a political ally of the President.”

 

[brycejones]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270755646707728387

lol

He cites "highly irregular conduct" by prosecutors "to benefit a political ally of the President.”

That has to sting for Barr. I am sure HurlyBird and HumblePie will be along any minute to own their errors.

 

[VRAMdemon]

It's inevitable that Flynn will never see the inside of a jail cell. But I'd rather that be because Trump got a nasty slap-down from the courts and had to resort to perversion of the pardon authority, (which we already knew he was willing and able to do), rather than because Trump and Barr managed to subvert the justice system.