Patterico's Pontifications

9/23/2020

September 29 Will Be a Very Interesting Day

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am



If you follow politics closely, you may know that September 29, 2020 will be the date of the first Presidential debate between President Donald J. Trump and doddering old fool Joe Biden. Trump and his incompetent crew have succeeded in tamping down expectations for Biden so much that if Biden manages to string a sentence or two together in a coherent fashion, he will be judged the winner by acclamation. Nice job playing the expectations game, Trump campaign!

Anyway, Chris Wallace, the moderator of the first debate, has reportedly picked his topics for that debate. Those topics, supposedly, according to The Commission on Presidential Debates, are:

The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
Covid-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
The Integrity of the Election

But here’s the thing. The Commission on Presidential Debates admits that the topics are “[s]ubject to possible changes because of news developments” — and I know a news development that is likely to happen that day … and as a reader of this blog, you’re about to know it too. Namely: that morning, Judge Emmet Sullivan will be holding a hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.

One of three things is likely to happen: Judge Sullivan will deny the motion, he will grant it, or he could take it under submission. But any way you slice it, the hearing is likely to make news. Big news. Judge Sullivan is, in my view quite appropriately, palpably skeptical of the Government’s position, which strikes me as patently corrupt and plainly pretextual — an obvious attempt to paper over a cynical and baseless change of position for the purely political reason of running interference for a political crony who likely has dirt against Trump.

I have a feeling Judge Sullivan is going to voice his opinion loudly — probably loudly enough for Chris Wallace to hear, even over the noise of his pre-planned series of questions.

If Chris Wallace is as smart as I think he is, he will see this coming as clearly as I do. After all, he gets paid to do this stuff. I don’t.

But even if he doesn’t see it coming, I predict the news cycle is going to cause some re-jiggering of the topics to accommodate this critical issue, which goes straight to the heart of this president’s abuse of the rule of law.

You heard it here first: the Flynn case is making news on September 29, and it’s going to come up in the debate.

Always trust content from Patterico.

184 Responses to “September 29 Will Be a Very Interesting Day”

  1. Namely: that morning, Judge Emmet Sullivan will be holding a hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.

    I’m sure that there will be people who care.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  2. Those of us who don’t take a paycheck from uncle sam will never trust the fbi, cia and most certainly the dept. of injustice and its rogue judges like sullivan.

    mg (8cbc69)

  3. Perhaps that nut wallace will ask biden about his coked up kids dealings with Burisma.

    mg (8cbc69)

  4. I doubt this news development will be discussed in the debate(s), but maybe it should.

    Voters in Florida passed a constitutional amendment to re-enfranchise convicted felons adding hundreds of thousands voters to the polls. Because the election will be hotly contested in the Sunshine State, the Republican establishment, fearing that most of the re-enfranchised felons will vote for Democrats, then passed a law blocking them from voting if they had any unpaid fines or court costs.

    Enter Mike Bloomberg. He spent millions paying fines and court costs so 32,000 felons could vote. Allahpundit has the details of the scheme and the relevant statutes on bribes for votes.

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/09/22/mike-bloombergs-team-re-enfranchises-32000-felons-florida-black-latino/

    Now, if Trump should lose Florida because the felons voted for Biden, you don’t think he’d raise huge stink about Bloomberg’s packing the polls with felons? He’s already planning to litigate the election to no end, which is why he’s adamant about filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court before November, under the belief the justices will rule in his favor.

    This election is going to get real ugly real quick, especially if it takes weeks to determine the outcome.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  5. That’s a thing about the Court vacancy that I wish more people would point out. Trump, because he cannot keep his mouth shut, is openly stating he wants a justice who will rule for him in any contest regarding ballots:

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/the-highest-ratfuckers-in-the-land

    People keep citing past precedent without noting that the current circumstances are unprecedented – the sitting president is banking on the Court deciding for him in an election contest and ensuring that result through picking a preferred justice.

    As for the debate, given that the entire West Coast was bathed in smoke oh a few weeks ago, and that the Weather Service has run out of names to give tropical storms, and Greenland and Antarctica glaciers are breaking apart, you’d think some small reference to the environment or climate might have been in order.

    But why worry about the future?

    Victor (661f31)

  6. It really depends. Wallace won’t have a lot of time to digest the ruling, write a question about it, and get it to the Biden campaign in time for them to craft a coherent response for Slow Joe.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  7. Perhaps that nut wallace will ask biden about his coked up kids dealings with Burisma.

    mg (8cbc69) — 9/23/2020 @ 2:43 am

    “Hunter and I didn’t talk about his Job because my other son Beu had just died. When we together we talked about that….I didn’t have as much time with family as I liked as VP….my assignment on Ukraine was important and there was bipartisan and international support that they needed to replace that corrupt persecutor as part of their anti-corruption actions.”

    Seems easy to answer. The parts that are provable are true and the parts that aren’t provable allow him to show empathy.

    Time123 (80b471)

  8. @5, What bloomberg did looks very close to illegal. I’m not sure it if is or not and could be persuaded either way depending on the facts.

    I assume many of the 32,000 people whose fines have been paid were there for substance abuse issues; drugs, drunk driving, etc. I don’t have a huge problem with them being allowed to vote.

    If the law was broken the people that broke it should be punished. But I don’t feel like this is a signifigant moral crime.

    Time123 (80b471)

  9. Well the thing with the Florida fines and penalties is that Florida local governments are 1) not required to tell ex-felons (by the way, they are ex-felons, not felons) how much they owe and in some cases it’s difficult to tell, but 2) it’s a felony to vote if you still owe the money so 3) what a great way of discouraging ex-felons from ever voting.

    It’s a voter suppression scheme, pure and simple. One more example of how Republicans appear to believe that the less democratic a government is, the more Republican.

    Victor (661f31)

  10. Felons count more than law abiding citizens, and the only concern for the latter are fraudulent prosecutions, like those in the flynn case terrorists like susan rosenberg need their own unorganized militia.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  11. What bloomberg did looks very close to illegal

    On what basis? I presume you have an actual criminal statute to cite in making such a bold claim?

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  12. This election is going to get real ugly real quick, especially if it takes weeks to determine the outcome.

    Could get ugly real quick. In a plausible best case scenario, Biden wins the day-of vote decisively enough that there’s no path for Trump to litigate his way to victory, which would obviate a whole lot of vitriol.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  13. @11 question answered in the link

    Time123 (80b471)

  14. @12 Here’s an article from The Atlantic that describes nightmare scenarios that could happen if neither Trump nor Biden is willing to concede during the Interregnum. Several of them are plausible, and they are being discussed by both parties.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-election-that-could-break-america/ar-BB19kN77

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  15. Yup. Judge Sullivan will be making news.

    I’d bet he deny the DOJ’s dismissal motion and schedule the sentencing hearing pronto.

    whembly (c30c83)

  16. @5 I don’t know all the details of the Florida law and it seems that the amount of hyperbole on both sides is obscuring what’s actually happening.

    I don’t have a problem with ex-felons unable to vote unless all of the debts is paid to society. To me, that’s part of their punishment.

    Once the debts are paid, of course they should be able to vote.

    Now, this Bloomberg gambit. I don’t think the government would win in a criminal court… but what about civil? It’s obvious he’s doing this with the belief that these ex-felons would vote Democrats. But is that enough in a civil case?

    whembly (c30c83)

  17. It’s obvious he’s doing this with the belief that these ex-felons would vote Democrats.

    And that tells you a lot of the state of politics today. The DNC has the felon vote all wrapped up.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  18. @16, what’s the theory for a Civil suite?

    Time123 (b4d075)

  19. A lot can happen in six days.
    Jonah said this yesterday: “By Friday, you’re going to look back on Tuesday nostalgically on those simpler more innocent times.”

    Paul Montagu (4a1ef8)

  20. BTW, I think Sullivan should quickly deny the DOJ motion after listening to all the testimony and immediately sentence Flynn to probation.

    Paul Montagu (4a1ef8)

  21. @16 I don’t know yet… seeing the usual twitterati legal-eagle spit balling this.

    It would be disastrous if a ballsy federal prosecutor to take on Bloomberg for violating that federal law bribing for votes. There’s no way they can prove it, unless there’s a smoking gun of some sort.

    However, many thinks that FL has civil laws that can take Bloomberg to court. But, to me, I think all of this is meaningless because of the standing issue. How do you argue for damages in a scenario when ex-felons got their right to vote back after someone else pay their court fine/fees?

    whembly (c30c83)

  22. “The Trump record” is centered on corrupt use of the presidency to cover-up Russia’s assistance, protect those who helped facilitate or conceal it, and punish anyone unwise enough to pursue it.

    So this arguably falls under the first topic.

    Dave (1bb933)

  23. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 9/23/2020 @ 3:31 am

    that’s a really interesting comment.

    Voting is such a sacred thing, handled with complete cynicism. I guess I would raise the voting age, definitely exclude felons, possibly even add some measures considered beyond the pale like a poll test. The deficit is looming as such a huge disaster waiting to happen that I would be open to limiting representation to people paying more than they are taking, including things like student loans. Even Trump likes handing out the future’s cash.

    As far as Patterico’s post goes, whether you like Trump or not, the way he’s staffed his administration with people who wind up being dishonest, hating Trump, or hated by Trump, says something about this administration. Part of what’s protected Trump is that the bias out there is so bad, some people just don’t distinguish from a Rush Limbaugh or a Michael Cohen, and that’s both lefties who hate them both, and Team R guys who figure you’re damned if you don’t.

    I consider Flynn’s reversal of fortune with the DOJ to be so obviously corrupt and I am encouraged they didn’t get away with it. Even if Judge Sullivan gives them what they want, they didn’t really get away with it.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  24. (by the way, they are ex-felons, not felons)

    Yeah, and Rae Carruth is an ex-murderer.

    felon: noun — a person who has been convicted of a felony.

    beer ‘n pretzels (4b6ea9)

  25. I’d bet he deny the DOJ’s dismissal motion and schedule the sentencing hearing pronto.

    The Sentencing Memorandum (docket document #50) has already been filed and the parties responded to it. Sullivan could sentence Flynn that day. If so, Wallace could ask Trump if he plans to pardon Flynn.

    DRJ (aede82)

  26. Maybe Wallace can ask Joe if he was the one who leaked classified info to WaPo, a felony, to resuscitate the Flynn investigation or if he knows who did.

    It doesn’t look like anybody handwringing about Flynn cares, which is pretty much all you need to know.

    beer ‘n pretzels (630d56)

  27. @25

    I’d bet he deny the DOJ’s dismissal motion and schedule the sentencing hearing pronto.

    The Sentencing Memorandum (docket document #50) has already been filed and the parties responded to it. Sullivan could sentence Flynn that day. If so, Wallace could ask Trump if he plans to pardon Flynn.

    DRJ (aede82) — 9/23/2020 @ 7:44 am

    Ah…good point.

    Would Sullivan let the politics of the day influence his decision?

    I’ll revise my prediction: I’d bet he deny the DOJ’s dismissal motion and sentence Flynn for 30 days in jail.

    whembly (c30c83)

  28. Here’s from the Atlantic article and Republican plans for the election.

    We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

    Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

    It’s not often the gang sends out a press release indicating how they intend to pull off the heist, but Trump’s career is a testimony to the fact that in the U.S. we prefer self-confident criminals.

    Victor (661f31)

  29. Well, Dustin, I think this election is going to be highly contested and litigated. Allahpundit does a good job outlining Bloomberg’s strategy. I’m not clear on the legality of him paying fines and court costs so select felons can vote, since he doesn’t live in Florida, but someone with his resources surely had a team of lawyers research the relevant statutes. I do think it’s sneaky though.

    If you read the Atlantic article it paints a dark picture of how ugly the vote counting could get.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  30. Item 1. This “parody” at Russia Today is something else. I think we can say with 100% confidence that Putin is not worried about his open support for Trump.
    Item 2. Trump’s reaction to Putin’s assassination attempt on his political rival was this: “Uhhhhh, we’ll talk about that at another time.”
    Item 3: Trump doesn’t want to listen to briefings on Russia, and the CIA ain’t gonna tell him. Trump 1st, national security 2nd.
    This all goes back to Trump’s and Flynn’s coziness with Putin, from the very beginning. Ever since the Golden Escalator ride 1,900± days ago, it remains that Trump has not said one critical word to or about the Russian dictator.

    Paul Montagu (4a1ef8)

  31. Folks who bought steeles drinking buddy circle need not be listened to

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  32. @28: Yeah, that sounds diabolical.

    I hope Trump is surveilling the Biden campaign, getting a pee dossier together, and has an “insurance policy” ready — you know, all those legit ways to screw with an election.

    beer ‘n pretzels (a4febf)

  33. @29, why is paying off the fines sneaky? He’s made no effort to hide it. The unpaid fines don’t reduce recidivism. It’s money that the state was owed, so it’s good that the state is getting it. It’s possible this act of charity might help some of those 32,000 people become more productive members of society. At worst he’s given money on behalf of scumbags who will go do more scumbag things.

    Time123 (80b471)

  34. @32, you mean the Durham “investigation”?

    Time123 (80b471)

  35. They advantage criminals and defund cops, you cant be more crystal clear.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  36. I hope Wallace asks tough questions of both candidates, beer n pretzels. Do you, or only of Biden?

    DRJ (aede82)

  37. beer ‘n pretzels (a4febf) — 9/23/2020 @ 8:09 am

    The long standing recommendation has been go long on gas futures. Looks like adding tin-foil to the portfolio has a good upside too.

    frosty (f27e97)

  38. We know what game wallace will be playing,

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  39. The Sentencing Memorandum (docket document #50) has already been filed and the parties responded to it. Sullivan could sentence Flynn that day. If so, Wallace could ask Trump if he plans to pardon Flynn.

    Or, given the speed at which things happen these days, why he just pardoned Flynn.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  40. World Socialist Web Site: The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key claims of the 1619 Project

    “The New York Times, without announcement or explanation, has abandoned the central claim of the 1619 Project: that 1619, the year the first slaves were brought to Colonial Virginia—and not 1776—was the “true founding” of the United States……

    …… The Times’ “disappearing,” with a few secret keystrokes, of its central argument, without any explanation or announcement, is a stunning act of intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud. When it launched the 1619 Project in August 2019, the Times proclaimed that its aim was to radically change what and how students were taught about American history. With the aim of creating a new syllabus based on the 1619 Project, hundreds of thousands of copies of the original version of the narrative, as published in the New York Times Magazine, were printed and distributed to schools, museums and libraries all across the United States. A very large number of schools declared that they would align their curricula in accordance with the narrative supplied by the Times.

    The deletion of the claim that 1619 was the “true founding” came to light this past Friday, September 18. Ms. Hannah-Jones was interviewed on CNN and asked to respond to Donald Trump’s denunciation, from the standpoint of a fascist, of the 1619 Project. Hannah-Jones declared that the “true founding” contention was “of course” not true. She went further, making the astonishing, and demonstrably false, claim that the Times had never made such an argument…..

    …… The 1619 Project was never about historical clarification. As the WSWS warned in September 2019, the “1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class.” As revealed in a leaked meeting with Times staff, Executive Editor Dean Baquet believed that it would be helpful to the Democratic Party to shift focus after the failed anti-Russia campaign. …

    …… The fraud perpetrated by the Times has already had serious political consequences. As the WSWS warned, the 1619 Project has been an enormous gift to Donald Trump. On September 17, Constitution Day, Trump delivered a speech at the National Archives Museum in which he obscenely postured as a defender of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution against the “radical left,” specifically naming the 1619 Project. In his typically menacing fashion, Trump warned that he would “restore patriotic education” and that “our youth will be taught to love America.”

    It was in response to Trump’s attacks that Hannah-Jones appeared on CNN. She noted that Trump is trying “to bring the 1619 Project into the culture wars.” She went on, “He clearly is running on a nationalistic campaign that’s trying to stoke racial divisions, and he sees it as a tool in that arsenal.”
    True enough. But Hannah-Jones is one of the key “stokers” of racial divisions; and it was the New York Times that brought “the 1619 Project into the culture wars,” viciously attacking all critics of a historical narrative that makes racial hatred the driving force of American history.”

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html
    __ _

    tsar becket adams
    @BecketAdams
    ·
    man, when even the socialists think you’ve gone too far.

    _

    harkin (d6570a)

  41. He didnt commit a crime, thats what the prisecutors did.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  42. Trump should ask Biden if he supports the racial hatred engine known as The 1619 Project being taught to kids across the country.
    _

    harkin (d6570a)

  43. I’ll revise my prediction: I’d bet he deny the DOJ’s dismissal motion and sentence Flynn for 30 days in jail.

    whembly

    In January 2020, the original prosecutors asked for six months but the Barr DOJ wants charges dismissed. And none of this takes into account why Flynn has twice admitted guilt in court under oath, only to deny it now. One or the other constitutes a separate lie.

    But if Sullivan refuses to dismiss Flynn and sentences him to anything, including just community service, the question for Trump is “Will you pardon Flynn?”

    DRJ (aede82)

  44. I have a feeling Judge Sullivan is going to voice his opinion loudly — probably loudly enough for Chris Wallace to hear, even over the noise of his pre-planned series of questions.“
    __

    Sullivan being more political than judicial, no way!
    _

    harkin (d6570a)

  45. I hope Wallace asks tough questions of both candidates, beer n pretzels. Do you, or only of Biden?

    Sure. I was simply adding my question to the list being compiled in this thread, DRJ, which just by happenstance only had tough questions for Trump. Is there a problem?

    beer ‘n pretzels (a52731)

  46. ‘Justice deferred is justice denied’you can ask stephen hatfill about that.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  47. Perhaps the hosts will provide a post where commenters can suggest questions for the debate. I think there are good ones to ask both candidates and I am sure the commenters here have many to offer, including yours. But in the context of this post, it looks like you are trying to change the subject.

    DRJ (aede82)

  48. Nobody is going to care about the Flynn case. Everybody is going to care about the mental and physical prowess presented by Biden and Trump to interested viewers on television.

    What they say doesn’t matter. How they look and act does.

    The medium is the message.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. DRJ,

    I’ve never seen a post where the subject hasn’t been changed. Sometimes it happens within the first three comments, which can be frustrating. I don’t think this post is an exception to common practice. However, I’m happy to put up such a post later today.

    Dana (292df6)

  50. Sullivan being more political than judicial, no way!

    How so? Sullivan has no choice but to conclude this matter promptly, and Flynn’s attorney has also complained that delay is costing Flynn money.

    DRJ (aede82)

  51. But in the context of this post, it looks like you are trying to change the subject.

    I thought the subject was the Flynn case. Oh man, my bad.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cfe23d)

  52. I like when comments go elsewhere. It often makes for interesting disvusdions. But I prefer that to happen when people wander off into interesting alleys, not when they want to avoid the topic of the post.

    How ever, if one only reads the first paragraphs of the post (and ignores the rest) then they might think the topic of the post is “debate questions.” If so, suggested questions for either candidate would be on point. I think exploring debate questions is a good idea.

    DRJ (aede82)

  53. bnp, you think the topic is Flynn. Interesting admission.

    DRJ (aede82)

  54. Sullivan being more political than judicial, no way!

    Remind me why judicial nominations have gotten so political. It’s really a mystery.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cfe23d)

  55. bnp, you think the topic is Flynn. Interesting admission.

    OK, DRJ, I’ll play. What are acceptable comments to make in this thread so as to stay on topic? I’ll wait…

    beer ‘n pretzels (cfe23d)

  56. bnp, you think the topic is Flynn. Interesting admission.

    Yes, I admit to have read the host’s post, five paragraphs of which are about— wait for it— the Flynn case.

    beer ‘n pretzels (cfe23d)

  57. Remind me why judicial nominations have gotten so political. It’s really a mystery.

    Abortion.

    DRJ (aede82)

  58. OK, DRJ, I’ll play. What are acceptable comments to make in this thread so as to stay on topic? I’ll wait…

    Anything commenters want, including noting attempts to change the topic when it becomes uncomfortable.

    DRJ (aede82)

  59. But I don’t feel like this is a signifigant moral crime.

    Compare to Dinesh D’Souza, please.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  60. Seeing as biden shows to be barely cognizant of major facts, its almost cruel to ask him questions, maybe its a vincent the chin act.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  61. Anything commenters want, including noting attempts to change the topic when it becomes uncomfortable.

    I apologize for making it uncomfortable for you.

    beer ‘n pretzels (630d56)

  62. “Seeing as biden shows to be barely cognizant of major facts, its almost cruel to ask him questions, maybe its a vincent the chin act.”

    “Trump and his incompetent crew have succeeded in tamping down expectations for Biden so much that if Biden manages to string a sentence or two together in a coherent fashion, he will be judged the winner by acclamation. Nice job playing the expectations game, Trump campaign!”

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  63. But I don’t feel like this is a signifigant moral crime.

    Compare to Dinesh D’Souza, please.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:13 am

    I have to admit that off the top of my head I cannot. All I can recall is that Dinesh violated campaign finance laws. I’m happy to see members of either party (john edwards) prosecuted for that. Mostly from a sense of nihilism.

    Time123 (80b471)

  64. I apologize for making it uncomfortable for you.

    beer ‘n pretzels (630d56) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:19 am

    I think this is a revealing response. Rather than just explain why you’re on topic and not distracting from a bad issue for Trump (his administration’s corruption), you just mock someone for pointing out how hard it is to discuss anything without these kinds of moves constantly being made. Apparently anyone who doesn’t just let it slide when Trump’s fans shout squirrel is the problem, lol.

    But how could you really defend the DOJ letting a guy who lied to the president get away with a crime he repeatedly admitted he committed? His only defense is that he was lying about lying the first time he lied. It is easier to mock how senile Joe Biden is.

    Dustin (c34d2e)

  65. But I don’t feel like this is a signifigant moral crime.

    Compare to Dinesh D’Souza, please.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:13 am

    Granted. If Flynn has just handled it at the time, it would be forgotten by all but the die hards (who never change their mind). Maybe a week in house arrest.

    But the DOJ’s flip flop is significant enough.

    Dustin (c34d2e)

  66. Rather than just explain why you’re on topic

    Dustin, I explained fully @57. Did you read it?

    The unofficial rule here is that when someone makes a claim, they back it up. DRJ made a claim, and did not back it up despite requests to do so.

    That you would call me out instead is the “revealing” comment. Par for the course.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8e0f93)

  67. I don’t think this topic will make the debate. I think everyone overestimates the general interest in their field and I think that’s happening here. I’m quite interested in this case, but I don’t think it rises to a high level of interest for most of America.

    I think median American is far more interested in the already announced topics than this one.

    nate (5efffe)

  68. DRJ made a claim, and did not back it up despite requests to do so.

    I answered you. What claim did I not back up?

    DRJ (aede82)

  69. And you read and accepted my answer as shown by your comment 62. I am not uncomfortable with this discussion, although you still seem to be.

    DRJ (aede82)

  70. I like when comments go elsewhere. It often makes for interesting disvusdions.

    Me, too, but I prefer when they jump an area code, not a hemisphere.

    Paul Montagu (4a1ef8)

  71. I don’t think Flynn is a concern with most voters. Even though the issue centers around the administration’s abuse of law, the issue is not directly impacting voters’ health, wallets, or physical safety. Flynn is of concern to a select audience more tuned in to the specific of the Trump administration’s corruption. I think issues that are already having a direct impact on Americans is what interests voters, and what they want to hear debated. These issues would certainly include the already slated subjects are what interests voters most. The Flynn case is a specialty item, not the main course.

    Dana (292df6)

  72. I answered you. What claim did I not back up?

    Your answer was at what comment #? Seems easy.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8e0f93)

  73. Most voters will not care but it is up to Wallace to ask it in a way that makes it relevant to voters’ decision-making. (For that matter, the same is true of bnp’s question about “who leaked classified info to WaPo, a felony, to resuscitate the Flynn investigation or if he knows who did.”) The details of both questions won’t matter but presidents who use the government to shield cronies and politicians who use the media to attack opponents are interesting to most voters. In Trump’s case, I would ask about how Trump is using the DOJ to favor people like Manafort, Stone and Flynn and to hurt Cohen — when the only difference seems to be who kept their mouths shut and who didn’t.

    DRJ (aede82)

  74. Comment 59, beer n pretzels.

    DRJ (aede82)

  75. Your answer was at what comment #? Seems easy.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8e0f93) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:50 am

    I like how you’ve meta threadjacked now. Cute. It’s still not about the issue of the post so I guess that’s a win?

    In Trump’s case, I would ask about how Trump is using the DOJ to favor people like Manafort, Stone and Flynn and to hurt Cohen

    Yes. The interesting thing is that Trump would defend this by referencing fake news or how terrible his enemies are, and then he would deny what he defended.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  76. @33 Well, Time123, at least one representative and the attorney general in Florida are calling for a criminal probe into Bloomberg’s payments to re-enfranchise released felons. The Republican establishment is not happy about it.

    https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/rep-gaetz-bloomberg-may-face-criminal-probe-for-paying-felons-fines/

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  77. DRJ, you simply repeated your unsupported claim that I changed the subject. That is not an answer. You didn’t back it up because obviously you can’t.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8405c6)

  78. DRJ, you simply repeated your unsupported claim that I changed the subject. That is not an answer. You didn’t back it up because obviously you can’t.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8405c6) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:58 am

    Your comments are not on subject. Read over all of them. By calling you out she backed it up. You’re asking her to cite an outside source to prove this in a debate?

    Come on man. Just give your point of view on why it’s good or bad for Trump to pardon Flynn, and relax about it. Everyone does this off-topic thing sometimes and it gets annoying in excess but isn’t worth a defense.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  79. The details of both questions won’t matter but presidents who use the government to shield cronies and politicians who use the media to attack opponents are interesting to most voters.

    I disagree. I speak to a lot of involved and savvy voters, and not once has the subject of Flynn, or even efforts by this administration to use the media protect their own or attack opponents come up in conversation. Not even at political meetings. It’s as if the corruption of this administration is a given at this point. Far more pressing are directly impacting Americans in very obvious ways, every day of the week.

    Dana (292df6)

  80. one has to consider with the prima facie evidence of malpractice, what is sullivan and gleasons real goal, keeping this water torture going, and there are some data points that come to mind,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  81. @76

    @33 Well, Time123, at least one representative and the attorney general in Florida are calling for a criminal probe into Bloomberg’s payments to re-enfranchise released felons. The Republican establishment is not happy about it.

    https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/rep-gaetz-bloomberg-may-face-criminal-probe-for-paying-felons-fines/

    Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 9/23/2020 @ 9:58 am

    I haven’t seen it directly from Bloomberg’s group, but the big issue is the fact that only Blacks and Latinos can apply for this assistence.

    If true… hooboy.

    whembly (c30c83)

  82. Ok, 77, I see now. I view “Flynn” here in this post as the issues in his criminal case, but perhaps you see “Flynn” as including other issues such as politics and national security. I am fine with anyone discussing that but I still think it is an attempt to distract people from the criminal case issues, because those are harder issues for Flynn supporters. Better for them to point to all the unfairness of the media and politics than to confront Flynn’s admissions and conduct in his criminal case.

    DRJ (aede82)

  83. mg (8cbc69) — 9/23/2020 @ 2:43 am

    Perhaps that nut wallace will ask biden about his coked up kids dealings with Burisma.

    Only one was coked up.

    I don;t think he’ll ask about Burisma but Trump (or Biden!) could bring it up. Biden could say Trump tried to get Ukraine to announce a false investigation.

    On the other hand, Chris Wallace is likely to ask about court packing. He was already asked by someone but Biden said he didn’t want to divert attention from other issues, so he wasn’t answering the question.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-and-the-supreme-court-11600816122

    Legislation expanding the Supreme Court would need Mr. Biden’s signature, and he was asked Monday by a Wisconsin news station whether he was open to it. His answer: “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question. Because it will shift the whole focus, that’s what [Trump] wants.” This is a calculated political dodge, and moderator Chris Wallace shouldn’t let Mr. Biden get away with it in next week’s first presidential debate. Would he veto court-packing legislation?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/biden-wont-answer-court-packing-question

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/will-biden-pack-the-court.php

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  84. actually both are, one was caught on tape, inhaling, she works for some criminal justice non profit,

    having dispatched the heads of aqap, islamic state and the chief pasdaran chief, should count for something no,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  85. I guess Bloomberg can gift whoever he wants since it is his money. He is reportedly doing it through the Florida Restoration Rights Coalition and perhaps their outreach/members are all or mostly minority?

    DRJ (aede82)

  86. I am fine with anyone discussing that but I still think it is an attempt to distract people from the criminal case issues

    Glad you’re fine with that. Nobody should take seriously any handwringing about Flynn’s crime when the felony that re-started the case is considered a distraction.

    And, with comments here about felons in Florida and Trump’s plans to mess with the election, that a comment about Flynn and debate questions in a post about Flynn and debate questions gets flagged as “changing the subject”, we can discern who is uncomfortable.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8e0f93)

  87. @55. Siege mentality; think ‘Alamo.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. “ Another objection from the left is that an efficient confirmation process will break norms, which is ridiculous coming from the ideological side that understands nothing but how to use raw power for political gain. It was a power play when Kavanaugh was nominated, an episode that stiffened the spine and broke the starry-eyed spell of a lot of formerly centrist Republicans. It is a power play when ideological pseudo-history such as the 1619 Project wins a Pulitzer Prize and is taught in more than 3,000 schools.

    It is a power play when Democrats stop budget relief that would have aided thousands of working-class people. It is a power play when jobs and livelihoods are held hostage by protests and riots. Barricading a Supreme Court nominatio is most definitely a power play coming from a side that wants to give statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, pack the courts, and abolish the Electoral College. The talk of constitutional norms, therefore, is absurd, as those who win elections decide the norms, according to the established rules.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/22/theres-no-downside-to-trump-nominating-amy-coney-barrett/
    _

    harkin (d6570a)

  89. Ok, the criminal case is a distraction to you. Got it.

    DRJ (aede82)

  90. Ok, the criminal case is a distraction to you. Got it.

    Nothing I wrote led you to that. Forget it.

    beer ‘n pretzels (a52731)

  91. Oh. twitter *dot *com/joshdcaplan/status/1308731208667484167

    Actually, nothingburger. For the salacious (and unfounded) accusations, Ron Johnson swallowed and regurgitated disinformation from a literal Russian spy who went to a literal Russian spy school. Senator Johnson visited Moscow over our 4th of July holiday and came back with lots of Putin-friendly propaganda. Putin’s man from Wisconsin is a great Russian, not a great American.

    Paul Montagu (4a1ef8)

  92. @91 The NYT writing articles you disagree with was a political power play? Dumb argument.

    Time123 (80b471)

  93. @82, the fact that Matt Gaetz is the face of it doesn’t improve their credibility.

    Time123 (b4d075)

  94. as opposed to adam schiff

    https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/23/grand-jury-indictments-officer-breonna-taylor-shooting-louisville-police-kentucky-reports/

    btw, there wasn’t a ‘no knock’ warrant, but that doesn’t matter,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  95. @82 From what I’ve read it is true that almost all of the assistance went to Black and Hispanic ex-convicts. Not sure what the rational behind that was. Maybe Bloomberg wanted to increase minority turnout in Florida. Or perhaps he thought that if offered assistance to Anglo ex-convicts, they might vote for Trump. I don’t know, but that’s why I think this was a sneaky move.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  96. Democrats propose sweeping bill to curb presidential abuses

    House Democrats on Wednesday proposed a bill to curb presidential abuses, a pitch to voters weeks ahead of Election Day as they try to defeat President Donald Trump, capture the Senate from Republicans and keep their House majority.

    The legislation, a wide-ranging package of new and revised bills, would limit the president’s pardon power, strengthen laws to ban presidents from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments, better protect independent agency watchdogs and whistleblowers from firing or retribution and require better reporting by campaigns of foreign election interference.

    This sounds encouraging, although Trump simply ignores the law when he feels like it.

    Also:

    In a related action, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., announced legislation to strengthen disclosure requirements for members of Congress, their families and staff who receive a benefit from the federal government.

    Katie Porter is my Congresscritter, in a seat Trump handed to the Dems.

    Dave (1bb933)

  97. 80. I understand you disagree but don’t many voters on the left care about “presidents who use the government to shield cronies” and many voters on the right care about “politicians who use the media to attack opponents” (aka FAKE NEWS!)? It seems that way from the polls, blogs, and news, even people they don’t admit it in everyday conversation.

    DRJ (aede82)

  98. 93.

    Nobody should take seriously any handwringing about Flynn’s crime when the felony that re-started the case is considered a distraction.

    I do not characterize any leak claim as a distraction (except from this post topic in an effort to distract folks from Flynn’s crime), but you label discussion about Flynn’s crime as “handwringing.” Your position seems to be that concerns about how this happened to Flynn are legitimate but concerns about what Flynn did are not. IOW you seem to treat the Flynn criminal case as a distraction from the real problem of who targeted/leaked/etc Flynn. Isn’t that true?

    DRJ (aede82)

  99. FWIW I understand concerns about how one Administration might target or lay traps for the next Administration, especially with different parties. Clinton folks sabotaged the Ws on Bush’s keyboards and now Obama’s actions have raised real questions about Trump’s treatment. But Trump, Flynn, etc., brought some of this on themselves by reaching out to Putin and others during the campaign and before taking office.

    DRJ (aede82)

  100. The real Issues of the Flynn case is the ethics violations of the prosecution when bringing the case against Flynn. The conflict of interest violations of his defense attorneys who should have been removed from the case and ordered to refund all fees paid to them by the defendent, and the ethics violation of the judge, whose comments indicated he believed the defendent was guilty and had to walk back the remarks the next day. The judge should have been removed from the case. The constitution guarantees the defendent a fair trial, given all these ethical violations, this was clearly impossible and the case should have been thrown out. The people on this site who pretend to be concerned about Trumps ethical behavior seem strangely unconcerned about the numerous ethical issues with this case and the legal profession in general.

    1DaveMac (4cc9b4)

  101. Yet the current DOJ prosecutors assigned by AG Barr have filed documents saying none of those things happened.

    DRJ (aede82)

  102. Those who keep bringing up Flynn’s guilty pleas ignore two important facts:

    1- that innocent people often plead guilty in court for various reasons, usually with pressure from their lawyer, and many strong reasons were present in this case
    2- that the transcript of the call, and the FBI records of the questioning of Flynn about it afterwards (yes they were not able to destroy/alter all evidence), establish that Flynn did not lie or do anything wrong. Even FBI agents at the time did not think he was lying and believed the call was legitimate.
    It was a framing in addition to the misconduct in the courts described in post 103 (1DaveMac). (We will see if the judicial misconduct continues after Sept 29th.)

    Please read the documents yourself before repeating what you hear third hand.

    Dani C (632935)

  103. @105, i have. Your characterization is wrong.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  104. Yeah, I’ll be watching the baseball playoffs.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. @106

    @105, i have. Your characterization is wrong.

    Time123 (b87ded) — 9/24/2020 @ 6:34 am

    Okay… it’s pretty spot on, and goes into what we’ve discussed in the other threads about how the #Resistance is undermining politics.

    whembly (c30c83)

  106. that the transcript of the call, and the FBI records of the questioning of Flynn about it afterwards (yes they were not able to destroy/alter all evidence), establish that Flynn did not lie or do anything wrong

    Whembly, did Flynn lie to the FBI about contact with K? Did he lie to Mike Pence about it? IIRC Trump fired him for lying to Pence.

    Time123 (36651d)

  107. @109

    that the transcript of the call, and the FBI records of the questioning of Flynn about it afterwards (yes they were not able to destroy/alter all evidence), establish that Flynn did not lie or do anything wrong

    Whembly, did Flynn lie to the FBI about contact with K?

    Flynn’s now saying he didn’t, as he didn’t have the transcript at the time of the interview.

    Did he lie to Mike Pence about it?

    We know from the transcript that he didn’t. (he didn’t discuss the Obama financial sanctions… only about Russian’s response to expelling diplomates)

    IIRC Trump fired him for lying to Pence.

    Time123 (36651d) — 9/24/2020 @ 1:14 pm

    The media crapstorm based on an illegal leak started that.

    Since the transcript was released, Pence didn’t think Flynn lied to him.

    whembly (c30c83)

  108. Flynn told Pence and the FBI he didn’t walk to the Russian ambassador over sanctions.

    Here’s what he said on the call. Looks like talking about sanctions to me.

    FLYNN: We don’t need to, we don’t need that right now, we need to- we need cool heads to
    prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we’re going to do because we have
    absolutely a common uh. threat in the Middle East right now
    KISL YAK: We agree.
    FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.
    KISL YAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today
    is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh~ does it mean that
    the United States isn’t willing to work on terrorist threats?
    FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.
    KISL YAK: Because that’s the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.
    FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.
    KISL YAK: So that’s something that we have to deal with. But rve heard what you say, and I
    certainly will try·-
    FL YNN: Yeah.
    KISL YAK: – to get the people in Moscow to understand it.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  109. KISLYAK brought it up. And that’s it.

    Flynn didn’t bring it up or continue that conversation. His focus was Russian’s response to the US diplomats and to lower the temperature.

    Flynn didn’t promise any changes to FSB/GRU sanctions. He really didn’t promise much of anything really.

    That ONE line uttered by KISLYAK, its understandable that Flynn may not of remembered it later, as he didn’t speak to it.

    This was all WITHOUT the benefit of reviewing the transcript with the FBI interviewers. <— this is unusual as the FBI had the BLOODY transcript and the only reason to go over it with someone is to CLARIFY some ambiguous meaning.

    Yet, they chose NOT to share the transcript with Flynn….now, ask yourself WHY??

    whembly (c30c83)

  110. KISL YAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today
    is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh~ does it mean that
    the United States isn’t willing to work on terrorist threats?
    FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.
    KISL YAK: Because that’s the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.
    FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.
    KISL YAK: So that’s something that we have to deal with. But rve heard what you say, and I
    certainly will try·-
    FL YNN: Yeah.
    KISL YAK: – to get the people in Moscow to understand it.
    FLYNN: Yeah.
    fI’imestamp 08:00]
    FLYNN: And please make sure that its uh – the 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. 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- ifwe send out 30
    guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, r mean we have to get
    this to a – lefs, let’s keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And
    then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where,
    where we’re gonna go, uh~ regarding uh, regarding our relationship. And also, basically we have
    to take these, these enemies on that we have. And we definitely have a common enemy. You
    have a problem with it, we have a problem with it in this country, and we definitely have a
    problem with it in the Middle East.

    He clearly had a conversation about sanctions. He may not have responded to that, it’s debatable based on what was said next. But it was part of the coversation. Also, isn’t expelling diplomatic personal part of the sanctions?

    Yet, they chose NOT to share the transcript with Flynn….now, ask yourself WHY??

    They thought the Russians were trying to compromise the Trump campaign, had maybe even done so. They suspected Flynn was part of that.

    Time123 (36651d)

  111. @113 Dude, what you highlighted was in regards to preventing an escalation between the two nations. That is, he’s pleading with Kislyak not to “one up” in response to Obama’s actions. That’s literally someone seeking cooler heads.

    Yet, they chose NOT to share the transcript with Flynn….now, ask yourself WHY??

    They thought the Russians were trying to compromise the Trump campaign, had maybe even done so. They suspected Flynn was part of that.

    Time123 (36651d) — 9/24/2020 @ 2:05 pm

    That’s horsepucky man, I think you know that.

    Crossfire Hurricane was on its way to be SHUT DOWN in early January of 2017, only to be kept open by Peter Strzok because of some incompetence in the FBI who failed to complete the closure. The same Peter Strzok who was shown to have enormous animus towards Flynn and Trump (1st we “f” Flynn, then we “f” Trump). When that was report, Strzok was kicked off of the SCO.

    Furthermore, in late January of 2017, the FBI released a report that deemed the Flynn-Kislyak call “fine”.

    What I’m trying to convince you is that left over folks from the previous administration unethically (not necessarily illegally) used their power of the office to undermine the incoming administration.

    whembly (c30c83)

  112. 110. whembly (c30c83) — 9/24/2020 @ 1:55 pm

    Flynn didn’t promise any changes to FSB/GRU sanctions. He really didn’t promise much of anything really.

    He knew he couldn’t because he was acting without authority from Trump >

    But he hinted. Trump afterwards, said it worked out well. U.S. diplomats were not expelled, in exchange for nothing.

    Yet, they chose NOT to share the transcript with Flynn….now, ask yourself WHY??

    To prove he was liar. Or, if you will, to determine for themselves whether Mike Flynn or Mike Pence was the liar.

    But Fllynn clearly guessed, based on questions he was asked, that they had a transcript and began backtracking and speaking about his uncertain memory. That the (secretly revised) 302s said he was not deceptive was the result of Comey (I think) asking leading questions of Peter Strzok. Strzok reqrote not only his own 32, but the other guy’s. There’s something about doing that in his text messages with Lisa Page – Strzok wanted to make it sound like it was the other guy’s words – his language, his style and was concerned he could change it too much. hat was around February 10, 2017

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  113. …and speak of the Devil:
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/#.X20Bph1ednA.twitter

    “So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5.

    “[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.”

    “F,” the first agent wrote back.

    “[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting.

    “Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded.

    “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with people[?]?

    PLEASE, PLEASE read it, as there are citations.

    This isn’t a good look for the Obama era FBI/DOJ officials.

    whembly (c30c83)

  114. The Senate report seems to indicate that before Putin supported Donald Trump, he supported Joe Biden (for the Democratic nomination in 2016) That’s because it indicates that he (he would be behind it) gave very much money to Hunter Biden (to spend on girls probably) and arranged a supply of girls for him.

    This comports with my theory that Putin opposed Hillary after February 2014 because he blamed her for the Euromaidan Revolution, (Ukrainian: Революція гідності, Revoliutsiia hidnosti)

    Victoria Nuland had played a crucial role in it, and Vladimir Putin mistakenly thought that she was one of Hillary’s women. (if she were somehow, she would have left the State Department with her)

    Hillary Clinton doesn’t want anyone to understand, not us not Putin what the real source (and timing) of Putin’s hostility to her was. I mean she doesn’t (or didn’t in 2016) want Putin to undererand he was wrong about her support of Ukrainian independence)

    Putin also, of course, hoped to infiltrate spies into a future Trump Administration. Like Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort. Manafort was having nothing to do with that (for one thing, government job didn’t pay what he wanted) and gave very limited information to Russia, (mostly internal polls the campaign had) just enough for them not to drop contact.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  115. This jumped out at me.

    What’s this “professional liability insurance” things? This covers you in case you do something wrong in your line of work?
    https://www.scribd.com/document/477364140/Explosive-FBI-Texts-Show-Internal-Furor-At-Crossfire-Hurricane-Handling

    “Five days later, on January 10, 2017, FBI analyst knew it was so bad that they “all when and purchased professional liability insurance.” The same employees worried that “the whole thing is pretty ugly…weshallsee how things pan out” and “[t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece.” Further, “the new AG might have some questions…then yada yada yada…we all get screwed.”

    Straight from the horse’s mouth.

    @Time123: does this not add any doubt whatsoever that these investigation was done “by the book”???

    whembly (c30c83)

  116. https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/hunter-biden-received-3-5m-from-russian-billionaire-report

    The timing is important. This was when Joe Biden was a possible candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2016.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  117. Again with:
    https://www.scribd.com/document/477364140/Explosive-FBI-Texts-Show-Internal-Furor-At-Crossfire-Hurricane-Handling

    “Newly produced notes of Andrew McCabe show that at 5:15 p.m. on May 10, 2017, McCabe briefed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They were trying very hard to pin something on General

    Flynn. Exhibit B.
    Flynn –
    Open: nothing
    Closed: everything
    Blackmail: theoretically possible, not the strongest theory.”

    whembly (c30c83)

  118. More in:
    https://www.scribd.com/document/477364140/Explosive-FBI-Texts-Show-Internal-Furor-At-Crossfire-Hurricane-Handling

    “Newly produced notes of Peter Strzok show: Strzok met with Bruce Schwartz, Lisa, and George at DOJ on March 28, 2017, where he noted Flynn Intel Group “satisfied the registration obligation” and “no evidence of any willfulness.” Nonethanless, “Bruce” decided to issue subpoenas to the Flynn Intel Group “and more.” Exhibits C. D.

    Also damning…

    The new Strzok-Page text messages show that Strzok played games with the FBI sentinel serialization system and entry of 302s, Strzok and Page were pulling talking points from a Lawfare article, and “F” in Pamela Brown knows there were two phone call memos.” Further, these text messages reinforce how zealously Strzok and Page were working to oppose Trump’s election and subvert the peaceful transfer of power.

    whembly (c30c83)

  119. The government’s Motion to Dismiss conceded that Flynn made false statements but claimed they were not material to its investigations. Motion to Dismiss (page 17, paragraph 2). Thus, the government could not successfully prosecute Flynn because materiality is an element of the crime.

    DRJ (aede82)

  120. The weak point in this argument is that the original prosecutors, Flynn and the Court had already found materiality. In addition, the Motion glosses over Flynn’s statements to Spicer and Pence as not “entirely candid” and thus of no consequence, but they were the reason for reopening/continuing the case (which had not been closed so it did not need to be reopened). Flynn’s not entirely candid statements caused Spicer and Pence to make untrue statements that created national security issues for the Administration, which is why Trump fired Flynn.

    DRJ (aede82)

  121. For those here who demonize Sally Yates, read the Motion to Dismiss. Yates was described as appalled by Comey’s apparent desire to treat this as primarily a criminal case instead of notifying the Trump Administration of the serious national security problem posed by Flynn. My guess is that Comey saw this as a criminal case because Flynn was not a national security novice. Flynn knew his calls with the Russians were being watched/listened to. In fact, according to the Barr DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss, Flynn told the FBI interviewers that he knew they listened when they first asked to interview him about the calls.

    DRJ (aede82)

  122. Normally a pleading by the government would be mere allegations that must be proven at trial but, in this case, where the case is completed and the Barr DOJ is investigating the government for the defendant, then I think the allegations in the Motion to Dismiss can be treated as admissions and true.

    DRJ (aede82)

  123. @127

    Normally a pleading by the government would be mere allegations that must be proven at trial but, in this case, where the case is completed and the Barr DOJ is investigating the government for the defendant, then I think the allegations in the Motion to Dismiss can be treated as admissions and true.

    DRJ (aede82) — 9/24/2020 @ 3:16 pm

    I think the DOJ is looking for any “off ramp” and determined the current strategy as the way to go.

    The “law geek” in me just want the Judge to rule on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and let the government and defense get cracking. However, I emphasize with the government in that it’ll going one hell of a messy case, as they’ll have to bring in folks not with the government anymore as their witness.

    whembly (c30c83)

  124. if they can do this to a three star general, they can do it to anyone, you’re still making excuses for this (spanish cognate) now judge gleeson by contrast has treated the second largest money laundering outfit in the world, hsbc with kid gloves, when they’re bank vault is stained with al queda and cartel money,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  125. Hey, yall…

    Remember all that stuff Democrats and Trump-critics were saying about how crazy and wrong it was to investigate political rivals?

    The Obama administration was literally doing that.

    Literally. There’s texts to prove it.

    If you still doubt this, try to replay the scenario that it’s the Bush Administration folks doing this to the incoming Obama administration.

    whembly (c30c83)

  126. Durham on the hunt for Clinton cash…

    mg (8cbc69)

  127. @131

    Durham on the hunt for Clinton cash…

    mg (8cbc69) — 9/24/2020 @ 3:25 pm

    …eh, I doubt he’s actually investigating that. Probably investigating the FBI peep’s rationale for NOT investigating the Clinton Foundation and compare that to the Trump campaign.

    whembly (c30c83)

  128. It’s the FBI’s job to investigate infiltration of the United States government by foreign agents, and it’s not the same as telling the Ukrainian government “If you want this sweet foreign aid that Congress appropriated for you, get me some dirt on Joe Biden”, or promising Assange a pardon for the information Wikileaks stole from the DNC.

    Like I’ve said before, your high horse has hoof and mouth disease and, furthermore, it’s a squirrel.

    nk (1d9030)

  129. @133 it’s there job to make up sh!t?

    Per FBI text messages at the time:

    “So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5.

    “[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.”

    “F,” the first agent wrote back.

    “[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting.

    “Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded.

    “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with people[?]?

    whembly (c30c83)

  130. And it would matter if they had summarily executed Flynn, instead of taking him to court where they would have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    nk (1d9030)

  131. 126. DRJ (aede82) — 9/24/2020 @ 3:12 pm

    In fact, according to the Barr DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss, Flynn told the FBI interviewers that he knew they listened when they first asked to interview him about the calls.

    According to some testimony I saw, Flynn didn’t realize this right away, but came to understand or suspect that (maybe he even verbalized it) from the detailed questions the two FBI agents asked as the interview went on. Flynn never showed visible signs of nervousness.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  132. This was an utter fraud of an investigation, sammeh its taken 3 1/2 yests to get to the truth.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  133. Whembly, you’ve posted some interesting info and it deserves more attention than I can put into it right this instant. Thank you for putting it up. I wanted to acknowledge it, even if I don’t have time to respond with an informed take at this moment.

    Questions I want to look for answer to

    Who sent these texts and why weren’t they covered in the IG report?
    What do the people who sent the texts say that they meant by them?
    What is the DOJ saying happened? Are they still saying the prosecution was fine but Flynn’s lies weren’t material (Which isn’t correct based on other applications of that standard) or do they now assert that the investigation and prosecution was improper?

    Time123 (daab2f)

  134. @138

    Whembly, you’ve posted some interesting info and it deserves more attention than I can put into it right this instant. Thank you for putting it up. I wanted to acknowledge it, even if I don’t have time to respond with an informed take at this moment.

    Thank you for this!

    Questions I want to look for answer to

    Who sent these texts and

    These are the “rank and files” folks, so their identity are properly shielded for now. For now, we know Durhnam has these texts and knows who they are.

    why weren’t they covered in the IG report?

    Occam’s Razor? They didn’t see it.

    The IG Report isn’t the all-encompassing-final-word report buddy. It’s only a piece of the overall puzzle.

    What do the people who sent the texts say that they meant by them?

    Pretty sure we can read it and easily infer the conversation. I mean, there’s very little ambiguity in there.

    What is the DOJ saying happened? Are they still saying the prosecution was fine but Flynn’s lies weren’t material (Which isn’t correct based on other applications of that standard) or do they now assert that the investigation and prosecution was improper?

    Time123 (daab2f) — 9/24/2020 @ 7:28 pm

    Those are questions that I’m sure Flynn’s defense will demand if Judge Sullivan doesn’t grant dismissal.

    whembly (c30c83)

  135. Its rather striking all the carp they dug up looking for their pony.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  136. @Time123 and @thread: just ANOTHER court filing by Flynn’s attorney was published:
    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.249.0.pdf
    This is about the FBI special agent assigned to the Flynn case and he stating damning things about the investigations and particularly the Special Counsel Office. I’ll parse out some stuff in a bit…

    whembly (c30c83)

  137. BARNETT was the FBI SA.
    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.249.0.pdf

    The RAZOR and Manafort investigation were part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. BARNETT was briefed on the investigation which was largely based on information alleging that members of the TRUMP Presidential Campaign had compromising information on Hillary Clinton Campaign and the TRUMP Campaign had been penetrated by the Russians. BARNETT thought the Crossfire Hurricane was “opaque,” with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events. BARNETT thought the case theory was “supposition on supposition.” Initially, BARNETT believed his lack of understanding concerning the case was a result of his just becoming familiar with the case.

    whembly (c30c83)

  138. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.249.0.pdf

    “BARNETT throught the predication on the RAZOR investigation was “not great.” One fact used for predication was a speech that Flynn gave in Russia several years prior. BARNETT believed the speech may have been ill-advised but not illegal…BARNETT was not clear on what the persons opening the case wanted to “look for or at.”

    whembly (c30c83)

  139. Continuing…
    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.249.0.pdf
    “BARNETT was treading very lightling in the RAZOR investigation due to the upcoming presidential election in 2016…Using the available methods and restrictions, BARNETT advised no evidence of criminal activity was found.

    Aw hell… just read the whole thing ya’ll. It’s that explosive.

    whembly (c30c83)

  140. Pretty sure we can read it and easily infer the conversation. I mean, there’s very little ambiguity in there.

    These are government employees. They literally owe the public an explanation for what they meant.

    If their texts document that they felt the the investigation was illegitimate that needs to be on the record in black and white.

    If their texts document something else, such as sarcasm being shared with a close peer or, we are entitled to know that as well.

    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1309255040998268931/photo/1

    I’m frustrated that the DOJ is releasing partial information like this. Information that does create inferences, without having done the work to clarify what should be easily clarified. How had is to interview the agents involved in the above text and ask them why they sent it, what they meant by it, and put their role into proper context.

    The characterization Flynn’s lawyers put on it is clear. But I could argue that their apparent incredulity at someone’s preference for Clinton shows a bias against her on their part. We shouldn’t have to guess. The fact that the DOJ could have asked them, could have provided those answers and chose not to bothers me.

    Occam’s Razor? They didn’t see it.

    The IG Report isn’t the all-encompassing-final-word report buddy. It’s only a piece of the overall puzzle.

    Agree 100%

    But why not? Did they miss it? If so what else did they miss? Was it not provided to them for some reason? Was it not available at the time for technical reasons (seems far fetched)? Was it out of scope for some reason? Or did did the IG not find it pertinent or compelling for some reason.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  141. Interesting summary. It’s very clear that Barnett was skeptical about the case. I’m interested in the fact that they kept him involved even though he made that known and asked to be re-assigned. When members of the team wanted to keep him out he felt that Meuller would back his need to be involved.

    It’s also interesting that he didn’t think the SCO team was motivated by animus towards trump (top of page 10)

    Though Barnett said he repeatedly expressed those doubts to colleagues and superiors — and says he feared groupthink and a “get Trump” attitude was driving the investigation forward — he continued to be included in the work of Mueller’s attorneys during sensitive interviews.

    The interview report says that while Barnett viewed the investigative steps taken as “legally justified,” the so-called predication — or factual basis — for the probe into Flynn was “not great.” Barnett said that his view of the overall Trump-Russia probe was that it was based on “supposition upon supposition.”

    The interview summary itself is a series of contradictions. Though Barnett voices deep doubts about the motivations of some of his colleagues, he ultimately agreed that Flynn lied to the FBI. He also indicated that he believed the other investigations led by the Crossfire Hurricane team were meritorious, though he says he often offered more benign theories about actions taken by Trump and his team when other agents were inclined to view them in a more incriminating light.

    Will do more reading. Gotta get back to work.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  142. @146

    It’s also interesting that he didn’t think the SCO team was motivated by animus towards trump (top of page 10)

    He’s saying the opposite buddy.

    The very last sentence states:

    BARNETT believed the prosecution of FLYNN by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”

    whembly (c30c83)

  143. @147,
    Bottom of page 9, top of page 10.

    Neither of these is personal animus.

    Quick summary on may part.

    Barnett said the ‘get trump attitude was exhibited in two ways.
    -Interpreting things in the most negative way.
    -All of the attorneys wanted to be part of something ‘big’, a successful prosecution.
    He said it wasn’t necessarily ‘get trump’ but more the conviction there was ‘something criminal there’ and a competition as to which attorney was going to find it. There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more an attitude of ‘the evidence is there we just have to find it.”

    Time123 (53ef45)

  144. I struggle to see how that’s *not* having personal animus. This is not prosecutorial zealotry.

    This is the school of thought, brought to you by Lavrentiy Beria:
    Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.

    whembly (c30c83)

  145. My read was that they were convinced a crime had happened and wanted to be the one to find the proof. That’s bad, arguably a systemic problem for how we do criminal justice. Given what was happening at the time there were a lot of people that felt that way. Especially after Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation.

    What he didn’t say is that they were motivated by a personal or political bias against Trump or a preference for Hillary.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  146. He said it wasn’t necessarily ‘get trump’ but more the conviction there was ‘something criminal there’ and a competition as to which attorney was going to find it. There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more an attitude of ‘the evidence is there we just have to find it.”

    Time123 (53ef45)

  147. Time. Look at the last sentence of that document. I’ll repeat it here:
    BARNETT believed the prosecution of FLYNN by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”

    He’s perception of this evolved.

    In the beginning of the SCO investigation…Barnett briefed Special Counsel Rhee on the Flynn case.

    He told Rhee there was “no evidence of a crime.”

    Barnett believed Rhee “had an agenda” and told her they wouldn’t be working together.

    whembly (c30c83)

  148. This whole ordeal “fits” the moniker that this was a witch hunt. No hyperbole here.

    whembly (c30c83)

  149. Time123 (53ef45) — 9/25/2020 @ 7:59 am

    Especially after Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation.

    That was the issue that Adrew McCabe started a ivestigatio of Trump over.

    Rod Rosestei did otwat McCabe charge of such a investigation and he maneuvered to put the ex-FBI Director, Robert Mueller, who had had (perhaps unwarrented) bipartisan support in the past, and even had had his term extended by Act of Congress two years past the maximum, put in charge of the investigation.

    First by trying to get Trump name him the replacement FBI Director, and then by appointing him to a newly created position of Special Counsel.

    Rod Rosenstein apparently did not feel he could just shut down that investigation into a possible corrupt reason Trump fired Comey that McCabe had just started.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  150. @141: Pretty damning. Will be ignored by most of the Mueller superfans, though.

    Barnett, at the time, said that he believed the investigation was “problematic and could result in an inspector general investigation.”

    Uh, yeah.

    Barnett told investigators that he thought “Rhee was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.”

    … but Barr …

    beer ‘n pretzels (1ddfef)

  151. Time. Look at the last sentence of that document. I’ll repeat it here:
    BARNETT believed the prosecution of FLYNN by SCO was used as a means to “get TRUMP.”

    He’s perception of this evolved.

    In the beginning of the SCO investigation…Barnett briefed Special Counsel Rhee on the Flynn case.

    He told Rhee there was “no evidence of a crime.”

    Barnett believed Rhee “had an agenda” and told her they wouldn’t be working together.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/25/2020 @ 8:11 am

    And as he said earlier in the interview that was because they were convinced a crime had been committed and wanted to be the one to find the proof.

    Unless I’m missing something this is all from 1 interview, not a series of interviews over time.

    Here’s what I think is an important distinction. Based on what Barnet has said the people doing the investigation legitimately believed a crime had been committed. This doesn’t support that they were out to get Trump for other reasons.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  152. @157 I disagree.

    Personal/political animus is the only thing that makes sense. They BELIEVED a crime was committed (your words). BARNETT was saying there was no evidence supporting that.

    If you BELIEVED a crime was committed, you need to back it up. But, the whole crew was “scrambling” to substantiate it. That lends credence that the predicate was extremely thin and that there were ulterior motives to “get TRUMP”.

    whembly (c30c83)

  153. I read the Barnett interview, and I think Ms. Wheeler provides relevant context.

    The claim that there was no evidence that Trump directed Flynn to undermine sanctions is false. I say that because Flynn himself told Kislyak that Trump was aware of his conversations with Kislyak on December 31, 2016, when Kislyak called up to let Flynn know that Putin had changed his mind on retaliation based on his call.

    FLYNN: and, you know, we are not going to agree on everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, you know and, and be smart about it and, uh, uh, keep the temperature down globally, as well as not just, you know, here, here in the United States and also over in, in Russia.
    KISLYAK: yeah.
    FLYNN: But globally l want to keep the temperature down and we can do this if we are smart about it.
    KISLYAK: You’re absolutely right.
    FLYNN: I haven’t gotten, I haven’t gotten a, uh, confirmation on the, on the, uh, secure VTC yet, but the, but the boss is aware and so please convey that. [my emphasis]

    Flynn literally told the Russian Ambassador that Trump was aware of the discussions, but Barnett claims there was no evidence.
    Now is probably a good time to note that, months ago, I learned that Barnett sent pro-Trump texts on his FBI phone, the mirror image of Peter Strzok sending anti-Trump texts.
    So Billy Barr has released a 302 completed just a week ago, without yet releasing the Bill Priestap 302 debunking some of the earlier claims released by Billy Barr in an attempt to justify blowing up the Flynn prosecution, much less the 302s that show that Flynn appeared to lie in his first interview with Mueller’s investigators (as well as 302s showing that KT McFarland coordinated the same story).
    And the 302 is an ever-loving shit show. Besides the key evidence — that his claim that investigators didn’t listen to him even though the conclusion of the Mueller Report is the one that he says only he had — Barnett disproves his claims over and over in this interview.
    Barnett’s testimony substantially shows four things:

    1. He thought there was no merit to any suspicions that Flynn might have ties to Russia
    2. He nevertheless provided abundant testimony that some of the claims about the investigation (specifically that Peter Strzok and probably Brandon Van Grack had it in for Flynn) are false
    3. Barnett buries key evidence: he mentions neither that Flynn was publicly lying about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak (which every other witness said was driving the investigation), and he did not mention that once FBI obtained call records, they showed that Flynn had lied to hide that he had consulted with Mar-a-Lago before he called Sergey Kislyak.
    4. Jensen didn’t ask some of the most basic questions, such as whether Barnett thought he had to investigate further after finding the Kislyak call or who the multiple people Barnett claimed joked about wiping their phone were.

    Barnett believes that Mueller’s lawyers (particularly Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann) were biased and pushing for a conclusion that the Mueller Report shows they didn’t conclude, but he didn’t work primarily with either one of them and his proffered evidence against Rhee actually shows the opposite.

    I agree with Ms. Wheeler: The Barnett interview is a sh!tshow.

    Paul Montagu (39c87e)

  154. Ach, it’s “awaiting moderation”. It was a long cut-and-paste, but a good one.

    Paul Montagu (39c87e)

  155. @157 I disagree.

    Personal/political animus is the only thing that makes sense. They BELIEVED a crime was committed (your words). BARNETT was saying there was no evidence supporting that.

    If you BELIEVED a crime was committed, you need to back it up. But, the whole crew was “scrambling” to substantiate it. That lends credence that the predicate was extremely thin and that there were ulterior motives to “get TRUMP”.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/25/2020 @ 8:55 am

    Barnett said it was not necessarily “get TRUMP” but more the conviction there was “something criminal there” and a competition as to which attorney was going to find it. There was a lack of letting the evidence lead the investigation and more an attitude of “the evidence is there we just have to find it.”

    He’s explicitly saying there wasn’t an ulterior motive to “Get TRUMP”. They legitimately believed trump was involved in criminal activity. They might have been wrong, but he’s framing it as an honest mistake and not a frame job.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  156. Whembly, this is really frustrating. You and i see the obvious follow up question that would resolve our dispute; “Mr bennet do you believe the SCO was trying to frame trump for a crime he didn’t commit or in your opinion were they trying to pursue what they believed was a legitimate investigation.”

    if they didn’t ask that they should have, and they should have released that. Walking close to that edge but not being clear is inexcusable.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  157. for those who followed the series alias, it’s as if arvin sloane, hired sark to defame jack bristow,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  158. @163 Agreed.

    The biggest scandal of Crossfire Hurricane/Razor to me isn’t that FBI opened the investigation in the first place. It’s that they kept the thing open after receiving contradictory evidence, and also didn’t do anything to rebut false allegations about collusion that were peddled in media.

    FBI/DOJ knew that the dossier had major problems when it was published in January 2017. Steele’s source was the target of an FBI probe, there was evidence of possible disinformation.

    But *none* of that was officially disclosed until nearly 3 years later.

    whembly (c30c83)

  159. well to open an investigation with a corrupt source, that’s a violation of rule 13 of the fisa act, not to correct it, is rule 14, mind you, there was an actual russian spy, with top level clearance and cbw expertise, who was hanging around for 20 years,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  160. The Kentucky Attorney General said that the police actually announced they were police (saying this was no knock is the same kind of lie like that Michael Brown put his hands up in Ferguson.

    Bit that doesn;t change anyhing – in fact it makes t make more sense.

    In the well known St. Valentine’s Day massacre, Al Capone’s henchmen pretended to be police.That;s how they got them not to resist.

    https://www.history.com/topics/crime/saint-valentines-day-massacre

    This rash of gang violence reached its bloody climax in a garage on the city’s North Side on February 14, 1929, when seven men associated with the Irish gangster George “Bugs” Moran, one of Capone’s longtime enemies, were shot to death by several men dressed as policemen

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre

    The Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre was the 1929 murder of seven members and associates of Chicago’s North Side Gang that occurred on Saint Valentine’s Day. The men were gathered at a Lincoln Park garage on the morning of that feast day. They were lined up against a wall and shot by four unknown assailants who were dressed like police officers.

    Breonna Taylor’s new boyfriend wouldn’t necessarily have believed them (How come police over here?)

    This could explain why he fired only one bullet.

    Just enough to let Breonna Taylor’s old bofriend or his gang members know he wasn’t fooled.

    If he had actually thought it was police, he’d have to be crazy, or desperate, to start a gunfight with them.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  161. The biggest scandal of Crossfire Hurricane/Razor to me isn’t that FBI opened the investigation in the first place. It’s that they kept the thing open after receiving contradictory evidence

    This is just my opinion but i think when Trump fired Comey and said it was to stop the Russia investigation he convinced a lot of people that there was something there. It also created a situation where the same team that was investigating Trump was investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The second portion was a real thing.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  162. he was fully in his right to fire comey, he should have been jailed for what he enabled,

    https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/millenarian-mobs/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  163. @168: The most blatant Russian interference in the election was the pee dossier, but the special counsel hacks focused on everything but that.

    beer ‘n pretzels (44a930)

  164. @170 You don’t think hacking the DNC servers and releasing the info through Wiki Leaks at key times might have had an impact?

    Time123 (53ef45)

  165. you think if peter strzok were a russian spy, would he have done anything different, philby ran a whole network of sketchy operatives, including ex nazi collaborators, by angleton and co, and they were admitted to the us, australia, canada,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  166. they can’t identify who did it, with any degree of certainty, so said the head of crowdstrike in testimony that was conspicuously ‘covered with a pillow’

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  167. I still believe Judge Sullivan is going to deny the dismissal motion.

    But, when BARNETT (Case Agent for Razor) tells Jeannie Rhee of the SCO “I won’t have anything to do with Razor” under the SCO, that should cause Judge Sullivan to question how much he can take what the SCO filed in the case at face value.

    But, I doubt it…

    whembly (c30c83)

  168. You don’t think hacking the DNC servers and releasing the info through Wiki Leaks at key times might have had an impact?

    What was the most significant piece of information to come out of the leaks, other than exposing the media folks (like Maggie Haberman, often used as a source here) who run interference for the Dems? Be specific. What surveillance warrants or unfounded charges of campaign collusion came out of that?

    beer ‘n pretzels (44a930)

  169. I still believe Judge Sullivan is going to deny the dismissal motion.

    But, when BARNETT (Case Agent for Razor) tells Jeannie Rhee of the SCO “I won’t have anything to do with Razor” under the SCO, that should cause Judge Sullivan to question how much he can take what the SCO filed in the case at face value.

    But, I doubt it…

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/25/2020 @ 11:39 am

    Causes me to want his sworn testimony issued as evidence with proper cross examination.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  170. BNP If you were awake during the campaign you can recall for yourself what roll that played and how much of the news coverage at the time involved that.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  171. If you carefully read the transcript of the call it will become clear how Flynn could not recall discussing sanctions, because it was Kislyak who was bringing it up. Flynn was not really engaging, nor did he directly discuss new/revised sanctions.  Keep in mind too that Flynn was relaxed in the FBI interview and was not trying to be precise because 1) he wasn’t told it was an official FBI interview (in fact intentionally led to believe otherwise) and 2) he realized they had the transcript and therefore could get any details they wanted about the conversation. He also had nothing to hide, but the FBI did not want facts about the call. Instead, they were seeking to determine if there was something illegitimate going on between Flynn and Russia, which they did not find (DID NOT FIND). Flynn was conducting legitimate business suitable for his role on the transition team.

    Now say some individuals at the FBI, DOJ and White House really believed collusion was going on between the Trump campaign and Russia and they were determined to discover who was behind it and expose it to the world. Suppose they also had good reasons to investigate.  I could believe all that (even if their hunch ended up being wrong).  However, even the best intentions do not justify anyone violating procedures and protocols like they did, let alone fabricating, falsifying and destroying information in order to prosecute (and persecute) others for their gain.  Procedures exist to protect innocent people, like Flynn, from getting wrongfully surveilled, accused, or convicted by a powerful government. 

    So in the end it is very wrong the harm they caused to Flynn (et. al.), to the current administration, to our country and to its institutions regardless of whether any one of them is ever held to account.

    Dani C (0c346d)

  172. @176

    Causes me to want his sworn testimony issued as evidence with proper cross examination.

    Time123 (53ef45) — 9/25/2020 @ 11:43 am

    BARNETT was officially interviewed by FBI with his own attorney present. This is about as official as a sworn testimony.

    whembly (c30c83)

  173. BNP If you were awake during the campaign you can recall for yourself what roll that played and how much of the news coverage at the time involved that.

    Your answer of Nothing is noted, Time123.

    beer ‘n pretzels (c1bc39)

  174. Interesting discussions from an FBI agent:

    I’m going to give you my impression of this as an Agent. You’ll undoubtedly get some brilliant legal analysis by
    @shipwreckedcrew
    later but he’s an attorney not an Agent. Another guy to watch is
    @Jim_Casey_
    .

    Here goes.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    5h
    How much fixing depends on the Agent. I’ve had AUSAs rewrite my affidavits and others who made zero changes. Just to give you an idea I’ve had legal documents written by DOJ attorneys that I’ve sent back later to the same DOJ attorneys who corrected their own writing.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    5h
    So I never take it personally if they make changes. However, most of my documents need little changes. Just a point of bragging here.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    5h
    Anyways, Barnett describes a situation where the SCO is driving the investigation. That’s not totally out of bounds in my view. You’ve got a staff of attorneys who are working one case. What else are they going to do? However, it’s clear Barnett is upset about it.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    5h
    I think that is where things get good. Because in my view he’s not uncomfortable with their involvement or leading the investigation but he’s uncomfortable that they’re pushing all kinds of paper based on nothing. And he feels like a worker bee.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    5h
    Let me tell you this. Most Agents are dominate type A personalities. We don’t like being bossed around. Not by our SSA not by upper management and really not by an attorney. We don’t work for them.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    Now many AUSA will refer to Agents as “my agents.” That is acceptable because it’s really a term of endearment. AUSAs use that of Agents they like and respect. Agents and AUSAs often form friendships and work together for years and many cases.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    So some of us don’t find anything objectionable to that phrase. It also is good to keep an AUSA as your defender as it’s useful to keep management from giving you assignments that interfere with their interests.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    All that being said…no Agent wants to be a cog or worker bee. None. As I said, Agents work for the Agency who writes their checks not the attorney.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    Barnett even goes so far as to make his contempt for Rhee plain to Rhee and others. This is pretty damning, IMO. Most Agents have attorneys they’d never work with. And other Agents too. We don’t normally tell them to their face. It’s not politically smart.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    By that I mean office politics. Your ability to get stuff done depends on your reputation and ability to get others to help you. It’s a small community and the path of least resistance is to simply say a courteous “sure, I look forward to it).

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    But Barnett was so contemptuous of Rhee and the investigation that he straight up tells Rhee “yeah, that’s not happening.” It’s at this point I really like Barnett, LOL.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    So Barnett lays out an environment where FBI superiors and the SCO were pushing all of this despite any evidence. It’s casts everything in a very bad light but stops short of any directly damning info.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    Also “check the box” is common vernacular across federal agencies. Sometimes it literally means checking the box on some stupid form. Doesn’t matter if that thing isn’t relevant or needed, it’s on the form. Government is replete with them.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    In other situations it’s basically going through steps to fulfill an informal checklist management has created so they can say they did everything they could before doing something (like closing a sensitive case.)

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    So this explains why Barnett didn’t think anything was too amiss. He just assumed it was part of typical management bureaucracy. At least till the SCO investigation.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    This does cast the Flynn investigation in another light and I don’t know how Sullivan doesn’t dismiss now. Honestly this stuff paints the entire investigation as a politically motivated hit job over the protestations of a line Agent.

    Sir Aaron
    @SirAaron_
    ·
    4h
    That’s it. I’ll answer legit questions but I’m not going to dox myself. Anybody trying to get me to do so will be blocked without warning.

    whembly (c30c83)

  175. This is the day ya’ll.

    Quick, what will Judge Sullivan do?

    whembly (c30c83)

  176. September 29 WAS a very interesting day.
    And Judge Sullivan is going to…drum roll…stall, to torture Flynn as long as possible (of course). Best exchange of the 4+ hours was:

    JUDGE SULLIVAN: So I just have to ask the question again. Are you aware of any other opinions other than Lowry? Maybe I missed something…
    MR MOOPPAN: No, Your Honor. I’m not aware of any other case where the FBI counter-intelligence chief said the point of this interview is to get him to lie so we can get him fired. Those cases just don’t get brought in the first instance. … This is the Department of Justice, not the department of prosecutions.

    Dani C. (632935)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7709 secs.