Patterico's Pontifications

5/7/2020

DoJ to Drop Case Against Flynn

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:07 pm



News breaking in the last hour:

I said ten days ago that I suspected Barr was putting his thumb on the scale:

I no longer trust the United States Department of Justice.

You don’t need to issue pardons if you have a hatchet man as AG to do your dirty work for you.

Now “Durham is coming”:

Disgusting. All of it.

To me, the only interesting question is whether more AUSAs will resign.

UPDATE: I don’t hold out a lot of hope for this development, but Judge Sullivan *could* deny the motion:

I would love to see that happen, but I am not holding my breath. More likely he grants it after a hearing with tough questions and caustic comments.

185 Responses to “DoJ to Drop Case Against Flynn”

  1. The headline should be “DoJ Moves to Drop Case Against Flynn” because it is really up to the judge.

    The blatant corruption is jaw-dropping.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Sad, sad day in the USA.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  3. Flynn knew that if he waited for the right time, he could get all charges dropped, but he also knew that that time hadn’t yet come when he had to plead guilty or face prosecution on more serious charges than what he pled (pleaded?) guilty to.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  4. The headline should be “DoJ Moves to Drop Case Against Flynn” because it is really up to the judge.

    The blatant corruption is jaw-dropping.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 5/7/2020 @ 12:17 pm

    A different prosecutor reviewed the case and deemed it “untethered to and unjustified”.

    With the recent more-unredacted 2nd scope memo… Jensen/Barr made the right call.

    whembly (c30c83)

  5. A pardon would have surprised nobody, but this should scare the hell out of those who wondered how bad the corruption could really get.

    John B Boddie (f7954e)

  6. What Flynn pled gilty to was an unprovable case (that he lied rather than had a bad memory, which he claimed immediately upon being asked was he sure)

    Defendants do that to avoid other prosecutions or to close down an investigation.

    Flynn claims the prosecution he wanted to avoid was that of his son, and furthermore that it was official (and some kind of rule was violated in that connection) but that’s probably not the case.

    Q. Doesn’t withdrawing the guilty plea means he could be prosecuted for not registering as a foreign agent, or even for bribery, or espionage, or whatever?

    But they’re not going to do it.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  7. Q. Doesn’t withdrawing the guilty plea means he could be prosecuted for not registering as a foreign agent, or even for bribery, or espionage, or whatever?

    But they’re not going to do it.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 5/7/2020 @ 12:35 pm

    A. Yes, they can refile and throw the books at him if they found other crimes (ie, alledged FARA).

    whembly (c30c83)

  8. Somewhat related legal question. When negotiating a plea bargain, how much consideration is given to “dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s” on the lesser charges the defendant is pleading to? I realize the sentiment is “screw him at least we aren’t going for everything we could here”, but would there possibly be sanctions involved if the lesser charges were not supported? Even if the defendant pleads? Just a non-lawyer being curious.

    Russ from Winterset (a48e87)

  9. I realize that a prosecutor’s conscience is going to be the ultimate limit on the situation, but let’s flesh it out. If an embezzler is pleading to lesser charges of, say, tax evasion, do prosecutors feel the need to limit the plea to what they can prove in court, or is it considered wrapped up when the defendant willingly pleads to the charge? Personally, I could see it going either way: a need to only file charges that are ultimately true versus pragmatic concerns in getting any conviction in a case where the defendant’s guilt could be offset by good performances by his counsel or factors that might make defendant sympathetic to the jury.

    Russ from Winterset (a48e87)

  10. @Patterico and others… please read the DOJ dismissal document:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6883957-FLYNN.html#document/p1

    Frankly, your jaw-dropping corruption is misplaced.

    whembly (c30c83)

  11. The only jaw-dropping corruption in this case is from the Obama officials who initiated this entire mess.

    Edoc118 (d01b97)

  12. Keep digging into the whole sordid mess that was the corruption of the FBI.

    That doesn’t mean Flynn is innocent, his lobbying for Turkey is disgusting for an American, but it’s par for the course from our political class. Look at DiFi and her China lobbying.

    It’s time for the FBI to fully come clean and their corruption to be excised.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  13. 10. Re; corruption of the FBI

    Roger Stone was on the radio last night and pointed out how strange he manner of his arrest was. They used all that force and planning to prevent his escape. And CNN was there.

    (I suppose you could argue it was to preserve evidence, but he had had all sorts of opportunities to destroy evidence before that, and this doesn’t happen with regular search warrants. They weren’t looking for a small stash of illegal drugs.)

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  14. Take it from a man who’s done it before:

    “So why did he do it? Well, his then lawyers told him to. Why would they do that? Because the dirty rotten stinking corrupt federal justice system wins 99 per cent of its cases, 97 per cent without going to court. Kim Jong-Un’s Attorney-General (assuming he has or needs one) can only marvel. A culture of judicial “settling” is by definition corrupt. Me a decade ago when my old boss Conrad Black was quaintly insisting on his day in court:

    Guilt? Innocence? What sort of nut subscribed to such outmoded absolutisms? If Black had just cut a deal, sighed Richard Breeden, the $800-an-hour special investigator brought in to “clean up” Hollinger, all this could have gone away years ago. When the U.S. justice system comes a-calling, the sane response is: What do I have to do to get you guys to piss off and screw over someone else? For former governor Jim Thompson, former ambassador Richard Burt and former woman d’un certain âge Marie-Josée Kravis, the star directors of Hollinger’s audit committee, it took going on the witness stand and making a fool of yourself for a couple of hours… They were embarrassing performances, but the day ends and life goes on. Black’s lifelong business partner, David Radler, eventually cut his deal, too. Nothing personal. That’s just the way the system works.

    Conrad Black didn’t want a deal. He wanted justice.

    Settling” is a very unsettling concept in the criminal context – in part because it destroys equality before the law: Someone who’s got twenty bucks in his savings account can be forced to “settle” long before someone with twenty mil. In the case of this particular investigation, there was certainly foreign collusion in the 2016 election: Mrs Clinton colluded with an MI6 spook who colluded with his contacts in the Kremlin. But Hillary doesn’t have to “settle” because she’s never had anything to fear from the Strzoks and Comeys. For those less able to withstand the onslaught, the preponderance of American media see no injustice in the Flynn fit-up. For example, former federal prosecutor and CNN “legal analyst” Renato Mariotti:

    This isn’t unusual at all.

    Michael Flynn was treated like thousands of other subjects who were interviewed by FBI agents.

    If you don’t like how Flynn was treated, change the rules for everyone. Because this is how it works.

    Yeah, well, I’ve been pretty consistent on that, too. “This criminal case is about lying – lying to the FBI,” as the US Attorney declared sonorously in announcing the prosecution of Martha Stewart. Who was that federal boy scout? Oh, yeah: Renowned liar James Comey. Me sixteen years ago:

    Martha, it seems, will be going to jail for telling a lie. Not in court, not under oath, not perjury, but merely when the Feds came round to see her about a possible crime. They couldn’t prove she’d committed a crime, so they nailed her for lying while chit-chatting to them about the non-crime. And for that they’re prepared to destroy her company.

    It’s true that it’s an offence to lie to the Feds. But, as my New Hampshire neighbours Tom and Scott, currently in my basement stretching out a little light carpentry job to the end of the winter, are the first to point out, the Feds lied to the public about Waco and Ruby Ridge (another bloodbath) for years. If the Feds can lie to the people, why can’t the people lie to the Feds?

    Misremembering to the FBI should not be a crime – especially not on the basis of a politically motivated policeman’s supposedly contemporaneous “notes”, rather than an audio or video recording. Instead of a presidential pardon, why not repeal this vile pseudo-crime that mocks due process? I take it that, the GOP having lost the House, Congress will not enact a new Strzok Act, restoring the citizen’s right to misremember to a corrupt police agency’s goons, but why cannot Bill Barr suspend this “crime” pending an investigation into its misuse by prosecutors over recent years?”

    Steynbot (3e69e0)

  15. “this doesn’t happen with regular search warrants.”

    Lol

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  16. whembly @7

    Is there any obstacle, in this case, to prosecution under FARA or worse because it is not exactly a withdrawal of a guilty plea, but more of a dropping of charges?

    Another question:

    I note that Rule 48 doesn’t allow the government ti dismiss a case without the consent of the defendant after a trial has started.

    Is that because a dismissal is not as good for the defendant as an acquittal or a directed verdict of acquittal. If the rule were otherwise, could the government (if the court [= judge] agreed) dismiss it without prejudice? Or in other words, what rights of the defendant are being preserved by that rule?

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  17. “It’s time for the FBI to fully come clean and their corruption to be excised.”

    This affair is being conducted in such a way as to avoid any changes to the status quo. The FBI will not change its procedures, and anyone else convicted under similar circumstances will not have their cases re-examined. Flynn’s actual guilt or innocence are irrelevant, the DOJ is dropping the case because of his connections.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  18. Gee, and things were going so well.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  19. “I note that Rule 48 doesn’t allow the government ti dismiss a case without the consent of the defendant after a trial has started.”

    I’m guessing, but I’d say it’s because of double jeopardy. If the case is dropped, I’d assume it could be refiled later.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  20. So who does Flynn sue? His former lawyers who were incompetent? Or Comey, McCabe, and Strokz for setting him up? And BTW, why doesn’t some one get the Logan Act off the books, since its just a “Joke Law” 99% of time.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  21. From the Texas tread:

    Kishnevi (e89fd2) — 5/7/2020 @ 12:28 pm

    Flynn committed the crime he was accused of, and he did it because he was trying to hide actions that compromised national security.

    No, it was to hide actions that the press told him he could be prosecuted for, namely the Logan Act.

    And because, in speaking about sanctions, he’d gone beyond the authority he had from Trump (although he had been careful not to promise Trump would do anything, which also saved him from ay possible violation of the Logan Act, if the act has any validity in the first place.)

    Remember, he first lied to members of the Trump transition team and then to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, (when Mike Pence wanted to double check directly with Mike Flynn before going yo Sunday morning television interview shows on January 15, 2017) and only later to the FBI.

    Lying to the public, or to the campaign, was not a crime. Potentially violating the Logan Act was. (even though probably every outlet that write about that had something in it to note how much of a dead letter it was But it is possible that Mike Flynn heard something on the radio or TV that mad e him worry about this. He may have known that conversations of the Russian ambassador were an almost routine target for eavesdropping, but he also knew that there was a vast unanalyzable amount of material collected, and, in normal circumstances, nobody was going to check.)

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  22. “So who does Flynn sue?”

    He goes to work at Fox News with previous Barr success story Oliver North.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  23. rcocean (1a839e) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:20 pm

    And BTW, why doesn’t some one get the Logan Act off the books, since its just a “Joke Law” 99% of time.

    Well, it probably has some deterrent effect, so whenever there was a possibiliy of doing that, whoever in Congress could get the ball rolling, has decided not to..

    The Logan Act might be what stops someone from going to a foreign country and promising to do something if, or when if it more likely, he, or his candidate, were elected.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  24. Since the DoJ is dropping the case, it would be rather bizarre if the Judge decided the DoJ was wrong and did what? Sentence Flynn to jail?

    Its all irrelevant anyway. If Sullivan sentenced Flynn to anything, Trump will pardon him and justify it with the DoJ dropping the case. That’s all folks. Now on to freeing Roger Stone.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  25. @16

    whembly @7

    Is there any obstacle, in this case, to prosecution under FARA or worse because it is not exactly a withdrawal of a guilty plea, but more of a dropping of charges?

    To my layman view… if there are other legit crimes, even ones waived under the original plea agreement, the prosecution *could* indict Flynn on those crimes.

    However, given the political nature of what Flynn went through, those crimes need to be pretty slam dunk in order for a prosecutor to take another bite.

    Another question:

    I note that Rule 48 doesn’t allow the government ti dismiss a case without the consent of the defendant after a trial has started.

    Is that because a dismissal is not as good for the defendant as an acquittal or a directed verdict of acquittal. If the rule were otherwise, could the government (if the court [= judge] agreed) dismiss it without prejudice? Or in other words, what rights of the defendant are being preserved by that rule?

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:16 pm

    Not sure if it matters, but I’d be interested what the legal posters think.

    I think the mere fact the government dropping charges conveys a defendant’s exoneration.

    whembly (c30c83)

  26. The Logan Act might be what stops someone from going to a foreign country and promising to do something if, or when if it more likely, he, or his candidate, were elected.

    Except no one’s ever been convicted of violating it, nor has anyone been prosecuted under it, for 150 years. I’m tired of these “Joke laws” where we told that so-and-so can’t be charged for violating ti, because haha -its a big joke and then out of the blue its used against someone the DoJ/FBI doesn’t like.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  27. At one time, I thought this blog was a well thought blog.

    And then you showed up. Sads.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  28. the DOJ is dropping the case because of his connections.

    Claiming facts not in evidence.

    But, since you know, was he prosecuted because of his connections?

    beer ‘n pretzels (2a3cd5)

  29. I have no legal background. I do want to say that when a high ranking officer takes a job giving intelligence advice to foreign nations after his retirement, it doesn’t feel right to me. Maybe it isn’t illegal, but lots of wrongs are not outright illegal. I am not justifying any wrongdoing by prosecutors; that’s separate. If I were a general I would not be be meeting with high officials of the Russian government because the odds of them trying to ensnare you into something shady are 99.99%. Like I started IANAL.

    Mark (fc56b3)

  30. @20

    So who does Flynn sue? His former lawyers who were incompetent? Or Comey, McCabe, and Strokz for setting him up? And BTW, why doesn’t some one get the Logan Act off the books, since its just a “Joke Law” 99% of time.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:20 pm

    Hey may have a case against his former lawyers, as being conflicted as they were… but, man that’s a high bar.

    Only way he can sue Comey, McCabe, et. el. if they were first convicted of that ‘deprivation of federal civil rights’ law (I forget what its called). If there were convicted of that, then I would think that’d open up avenue to sue in civil court. It would be an extremely TALL ORDER for that to happen.

    Keep in mind: Comey, McCabe, et. el. are cops/prosecutors. Yes, they may be bad apples but there’s a difference between “they got it wrong” vs. “abuse driven by pure animus to the point of depriving civil rights”. Cops/Prosecutors must be able to get things wrong as they are human too.

    whembly (c30c83)

  31. 12… yes! NJ Rob

    18… yes, they were going so well… didn’t see this coming!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. “Claiming facts not in evidence.”

    Now read the rest of my post. This is special treatment, not reform.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  33. OT
    Anyone know what tomorrow is?
    Or more precisely, what tomorrow is the anniversary of.

    Kishnevi (e89fd2)

  34. 19. Davethulhu (a122fb) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:19 pm

    I’m guessing, but I’d say it’s because of double jeopardy.

    If the case is dropped, I’d assume it could be refiled later.

    That’s what they call dismissal “without prejudice.”

    Q. Does dismissal “with prejudice” invoke double jeopardy? Or is there some distinction between dismissal “with prejudice” and what is needed to invoke double jeopardy. If is the same as an acquittal, what is gained by not allowing a dismissal “with prejudice” or are most dismissals assumed to be “without prejudice?”

    I can see sometimes, a defendant might want evidence for a lawsuit, or the vindication of an acquittal and so not want a premature dismissal even with prejudice, but is that the thinking behind this Rule 48?

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  35. I have not been following the details of the Flynn case, so I will not opine on that.

    But in other legal news, SCOTUS today unanimously reversed the Bridgegate convictions.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf

    What is amazing, at least to me, is that SCOTUS unanimously held that the government’s legal theory of wire fraud was defective, and contrary to its prior holding in a 1987 case.

    So how did the government’s case get past the district court and the Third Circuit court of appeals?

    Criminal statutes are supposed to give clear notice of the proscribed activity. Four lower court judges said, yeah, what you did is the crime. Nine SCOTUS judges just said, nope, it isn’t. And we already told you that decades ago.

    Pretty embarrassing.

    And, yes, the government sometimes overreaches and does stupid things in pursuit of what they perceive as slimy conduct. You certainly can’t say that nine members of SCOTUS were all corrupt or put their thumbs on the scale.

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  36. Does dismissal “with prejudice” invoke double jeopardy?

    Apart from double jeopardy, it is res judicata. If a claim, even a civil claim, is dismissed with prejudice, then that is the end. Not only for that claim, but any other claim that should have been brought on the same facts. (I litigated this once in a civil case.)

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  37. 36. Correct.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  38. 33. Kishnevi (e89fd2) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:49 pm

    Or more precisely, what tomorrow is the anniversary of.

    Wll, in the Jeish calendar it is PEsach sheni,

    Tomorrow is May 8.

    It’s the 75th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe and the day my father was liberated.

    Yes that day. The last day of the war. He had been taken to Theresienstadt, which was filled with prisoners from other concentration camps at the end of the war. He once told me that he had been scheduled to be killed the next day, but I am not sure exactly what he meant by that. This might have been true for a lot of the prisoners.

    Russia celebrates this on May 9.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  39. Patterico, At least this is an admission by Trump and his enablers that Flynn’s arguments were BS. IF they thought it had merit they wouldn’t have done this.

    Amazing that the party that brought us HRC would end up the less corrupt and dishonest choice.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  40. I think Roger stone is feeling pretty darn happy at this point.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  41. The Stroke Strzok

    Now everybody, have you heard, gonna mine that vein?
    Then Strzok’s the word
    Don’t take no rhythm,
    Don’t need no style
    Gotta thirst for smirkin’
    Now step in dat pile uh
    Put your right hand up, swear to tell the truth
    That the turd in teh pool’s a Baby Ruth
    Spread the news pollution, both far and wide
    Make your contributions on the sly and
    Strzok it, Strzok it
    Could be a winner boy you lie pretty well
    Strzok it, Strzok it (Strzok)
    Strzok it, Strzok it
    You got your number down
    Strzok it, Strzok it
    Say you’re a winner but dude, you’re chicken dinner now

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  42. Its amazing that Bridge-gate is still in the news, when did that happen? answer: 7 years ago. man the wheels of justice grind slowly.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  43. Amazing that the party that brought us HRC would end up the less corrupt and dishonest choice…

    … of the criminally insane

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  44. @39

    Patterico, At least this is an admission by Trump and his enablers that Flynn’s arguments were BS. IF they thought it had merit they wouldn’t have done this.

    Amazing that the party that brought us HRC would end up the less corrupt and dishonest choice.

    Time123 (dba73f) — 5/7/2020 @ 1:58 pm

    I’m sorry… what?

    What exactly are you saying that Flynn’s arguments were BS?

    whembly (c30c83)

  45. Better yet, read the actual motion to dismiss… this link from politico even have ALL OF THE SUPPORTING footnote documentations (108 pages):
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-f070-d102-a9ff-f7fb7daf0000

    whembly (c30c83)

  46. Now prosecute his persecutors.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. @44 Yes. Flynn’s arguments about being railroaded were obviously BS. If they had merit Barr’s DOJ wouldn’t have dropped charges.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  48. Now prosecute his persecutors.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:09 pm

    Maybe if you get a bunch of people to chant “lock them up” Trump and Barr will do something.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  49. I think Roger stone is feeling pretty darn happy at this point.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:04 pm

    He was actually convicted by a Jury of his peers so Trump will have to pardon him.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  50. Better yet, read the actual motion to dismiss… this link from politico even have ALL OF THE SUPPORTING footnote documentations (108 pages):
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-f070-d102-a9ff-f7fb7daf0000

    whembly (c30c83) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:09 pm

    If they thought the motion had merit they would have let the judge decide. They knew it was BS so they dropped the charges.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  51. The thought of Strzok in handcuffs probably makes Lisa Page horny.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ca0aeb)

  52. @47 Huh? The DOJ dropped it because of Flynn’s argument:

    Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as
    explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and
    thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.
    Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and
    therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d
    688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency
    function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and
    quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have
    conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor
    criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the
    answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the
    investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a
    lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility
    that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances
    of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s
    statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.6

    And even if they could be material, the Government does not believe it could prove that
    Mr. Flynn knowingly and willfully made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt
    .7

    Based on the facts of this case, the Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn
    committed a false statement under its burden of proof.
    The FBI agents “had the impression that
    Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” Ex. 13 at 4. And the statements in question
    were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal
    (“I don’t know”) or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question. See
    United States v. Ring, 811 F. Supp. 2d 359, 384 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding that “faulty memory” is
    not enough to establish “willful” lie absent proof the defendant indeed remembered the matter in
    question). Combining the vague substance of the answers, the FBI’s own preliminary estimation
    of Mr. Flynn’s truthfulness, the inconsistent FBI records as to the actual questions and statements
    made, and Director Comey’s own sentiment that the case was a “close one,” Ex. 5 at 9, the
    evidentiary problems that have emerged create reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Flynn
    knowingly and willingly lied to investigators during the interview.

    Mr. Flynn previously pleaded guilty to making false statements. See Def’s Plea
    Agreement, ECF Nos. 3-4. In the Government’s assessment, however, he did so without full
    awareness of the circumstances of the newly discovered, disclosed, or declassified information as
    to the FBI’s investigation of him. Mr. Flynn stipulated to the essential element of materiality
    without cause to dispute it insofar as it concerned not his course of conduct but rather that of the
    agency investigating him, and insofar as it has been further illuminated by new information in
    discovery.

    whembly (c30c83)

  53. Hope the remainder of the day goes better for you, Time123.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. It must be skulduggery now, because it couldn’t have been skullduggery then.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. @ 50

    If they thought the motion had merit they would have let the judge decide. They knew it was BS so they dropped the charges.

    Time123 (dba73f) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:15 pm

    Then I know you haven’t read the government dismissal arguments. It goes into detail as to how Flynn was railroaded.

    whembly (c30c83)

  56. Yes, that much was obvious…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. I hope that no one here, on either side of this issue, is ever called in to answer questions SOLELY BECAUSE they hope you will contradict the facts they believe they have so they can charge you with something, then break you on the wheel.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  58. It would be more interesting if the judge throws out the plea, but not the charges and this goes to trial. Comey should insist on it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. @54, He confessed under oath. That seems to at least theoretically meet the burden of proof.

    @57, Unless they’ve changed the process such that this type of action is no longer allowed per DOJ policy it’s just a special deal for a guy the president likes. That’s not justice, it’s cronyism. I suppose if the person who made this decision testified under oath that they believed it and that this was an exception to how they do business I might re-consider. But until then it’s just more corruption from Trump.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  60. If we had a time machine, and go go back and observe all the participants and their secret conversations, not one mind would change. One side or the other would claim “the time machine was rigged!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  61. “I hope that no one here, on either side of this issue, is ever called in to answer questions SOLELY BECAUSE they hope you will contradict the facts they believe they have so they can charge you with something, then break you on the wheel.”

    Surely there will be institutional change, and not just special dispensation for the well connected, right?

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  62. @59, you say that as if it wasn’t standard practice they use to gain leverage.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  63. @54, He confessed under oath. That seems to at least theoretically meet the burden of proof.

    There is duress that does not include rubber hoses. He and his lawyers were presented with a limited set of facts, and the choices appeared different than they do now. Innocent people plead guilty ALL the time, when the cost of losing is extreme and they haven’t a way to prove their innocence.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. “Innocent people plead guilty ALL the time, when the cost of losing is extreme and they haven’t a way to prove their innocence.”

    Surely there will be institutional change, and not just special dispensation for the well connected, right?

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  65. Do away with the Logan Act, the go-to, surefire path to a DC jury conviction used by the rat-rogering bureaucracy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. @59, you say that as if it wasn’t standard practice they use to gain leverage.

    They have all the leverage to begin with. It’s the Eye of Sauron; pray it doesn’t land on you.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  67. “They have all the leverage to begin with. It’s the Eye of Sauron; pray it doesn’t land on you.”

    Surely there will be institutional change, and not just special dispensation for the well connected, right?

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  68. Do away with the Logan Act, the go-to, surefire path to a DC jury conviction used by the rat-rogering bureaucracy.

    No one has ever, in 221 years, been convicted of violating the Logan Act.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. Surely there will be institutional change, and not just special dispensation for the well connected, right?

    I suspect that will require a capable reformer elected in a landslide (a Teddy Roosevelt type, focused on defanging the federal leviathan), or far more likely, lots of lampposts after a revolution.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. The DOJ dropped it because of Flynn’s argument:

    Te government doesn;t seem to soley rest its mton on the issue of matreriality, but materiality is something that would not inevitably be within the scope of Flynn’s knowledge. They say that, while he stipulated to that, that was (possibly) because he was not aware of the newly discovered, disclosed, or declassified information about to the FBI’s investigation of him.

    Like with the perspnal gain requirement in Bridgegate, this is an issue people don’t usually pay much attention to.

    Q. If the truth that somebody lies to conceal would not be a crime, can lying be material?

    The answer, it seems, is yes, but there must still be a real investigation or the potential of one.

    And here, Flynn argues, (lost among his other arguments?) this was not a real investigation. The only purpose of the investigation was to interview Flynn. The FBI otherwise had no interest in investigating a possible violation of the Logan Act. So therefore his answers were not material to anything.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  71. The claim that Flynn got special treatment fell on deaf ears three years ago. Now it’s being pulled from people’s backsides.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ca0aeb)

  72. @61

    @54, He confessed under oath. That seems to at least theoretically meet the burden of proof.

    Who believed who was under duress AND has since worked to rescind his guilty plea. Defendants *ARE* allowed to withdraw guilty plea, which is NOT an easy endeavor.

    @57,

    Unless they’ve changed the process such that this type of action is no longer allowed per DOJ policy it’s just a special deal for a guy the president likes. That’s not justice, it’s cronyism. I suppose if the person who made this decision testified under oath that they believed it and that this was an exception to how they do business I might re-consider. But until then it’s just more corruption from Trump.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:30 pm

    What do you mean “this type of action is no longer allowed per DOJ policy”. What are you talking about?

    Again, I implore you to read the dismissal documents:
    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-f070-d102-a9ff-f7fb7daf0000

    You’ll find clarity.

    whembly (c30c83)

  73. Surely there will be institutional change, and not just special dispensation for the well connected, right?

    There are more ways to be “well-connected” than being beloved of Trump. But, sure, powerless people like Martha Stewart don’t stand a chance, while folks like Angela Davis or Bill Ayers can call in all those favors.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  74. 54. What the governemnt is arguing in its motion to dismiss is that Flynn was innocent but might not have known that!

    Because his innocence could hinge on a lack of materiality, and he wasn’t in possession of all the facts that he later came to know.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  75. Anyone know what tomorrow is?
    Or more precisely, what tomorrow is the anniversary of.

    My cute little high school girlfriend’s 48th birthday.

    Also, I think some war in Europe ended that day back when Joe Biden was starting out in the Senate.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  76. The larger context is (1) Flynn’s cozy dinner with Vlad Putin to celebrate the Kremlin-controlled Russia Today, (2) his unpatriotic and un-American act of working for the Turkish government while working for the president-elect, and then (3) his conversation with a representative of a hostile foreign power that had just undertaken a “sweeping and systematic” hacking/disinformation attack on the United States of America. That doesn’t sound “untethered” to me.
    I hope Judge Sullivan does the right thing.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  77. @76

    54. What the governemnt is arguing in its motion to dismiss is that Flynn was innocent but might not have known that!

    Because his innocence could hinge on a lack of materiality, and he wasn’t in possession of all the facts that he later came to know.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:47 pm

    Right… good point. Further illustrates he was right to rescind his guilty plea.

    whembly (c30c83)

  78. @80

    The larger context is (1) Flynn’s cozy dinner with Vlad Putin to celebrate the Kremlin-controlled Russia Today,

    Why is this a big deal? Are we to criminalize mere associations?

    (2) his unpatriotic and un-American act of working for the Turkish government while working for the president-elect, and then

    What exactly was it that was objectionable here? I never got the full understanding about this other than possible FARA violations.

    (3) his conversation with a representative of a hostile foreign power that had just undertaken a “sweeping and systematic” hacking/disinformation attack on the United States of America.

    As incoming National Security Advisor, are you saying it wasn’t his job to talk to foreign ambassadors for any reason?

    That doesn’t sound “untethered” to me.

    The DOJ disagrees with you.

    …as do I.

    I hope Judge Sullivan does the right thing.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/7/2020 @ 2:59 pm

    He already accepted the dismissal.

    whembly (c30c83)

  79. One thing that has bothered me about this case from the beginning is that, supposedly, the lies Flynn allegedly told the FBI were not his only ones (see #21). If memory serves the reason he was let go as National Security Advisor was that he had lied to others in the administration, in particular VP Pence. If Flynn is as innocent as his supporters say, what about the other lies he supposedly told? What were they?

    I know, any other lies by Flynn might not be relevant in any legal sense to the prosecution. But they are relevant in the moral or contextual sense of trying to understand whether Flynn is a corrupt person who deserved to be taken down or an innocent man singled out by unscrupulous investigators and prosecutors.

    It would also be helpful if the DOJ would release a transcript of the infamous call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Some lies are worth prosecuting and some aren’t, it would be nice to have a better idea where these fell on the scale and how bad was whatever he said to the ambassador.

    I’d welcome answers to those questions, although would prefer they not be accompanied by chastisement for my ignorance and/or laziness in not already finding them, even if that would be deserved. Thanks in advance.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  80. The DOJ’s motion to dismiss may well have been to forestall the tongue lashing that certain DOJ lawyers had coming from Judge Sullivan. Judges who have been lied to–as in this case–have been known to get mighty testy. It has happened before with Sullivan—the Senator Stevens case with its prosecutorial misconduct was one. It happened here again; After the Stevens matter Judge Sullivan issued a standing order which applied to all future criminal cases before him–the prosecution would release all exculpatory material to the defendant–no exceptions, no weasel word slimy tactics.
    That applied to the Flynn matter; Van Gracken and other prosecutors did not comply, but repeatedly told the judge they had.

    A ticked off federal judge is a bad thing. With an honest press (who am I kidding?) the probable hide ripping and butt whipping that Sullivan would deliver to the DOJ would be embarrassing. Better to tell the judge “We give up” and hope he won’t tear the DOJ a new one. That said, I’m confident that Mr. Van Gracken better never step in Judge Sullivan’s courtroom again.

    Patterico has been around long enough that he probably knows that.

    Skeptical Voter (ec29d0)

  81. Flynn is pond scum, is guilty as vouched under oath, and a fitting member of the thug’s administration. Which is why several cultists here are doing snoopy dances at this travesty.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  82. A defiant President Donald Trump on Thursday insisted that he asked Michael Flynn to resign because of Flynn’s statements to Vice President Mike Pence. The president also denied that he told his key national security advisor to discuss sanctions with a Russian official.

    “He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that’s just not acceptable,” Trump told reporters at the White House at his first solo news conference as chief executive.

    “I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence.”

    Pence, the FBI, whomever. Flynn got fired for lying, got prosecuted for lying, pleaded guilty to lying. But sure, he’s probably fine because…I don’t know, reasons, or something.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  83. 82. You can file a bar complaint anyhow. Go ahead. Please keep us informed as to your progress.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  84. No one has ever, in 221 years, been convicted of violating the Logan Act.

    I see my poor attempt at sarcasm was thickly veiled…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  85. General Flynn – bankrupted by being forced to spend millions in his own defense against a corrupt prosecution – finally escapes the quicksand…

    Karens hardest hit.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  86. Nobody cares.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  87. “General Flynn – bankrupted by being forced to spend millions in his own defense against a corrupt prosecution”

    It cost him millions to plead guilty? Pretty bad value.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  88. Roger Kimball writes… Gen. Flynn hasn’t got justice yet. That will come when he is made whole financially and when those who desecrated their offices by bringing the awesome police power of the state to bear against an individual they knew to be be innocent.

    What happened to Gen. Flynn has been one of the most repellent incidents in the biggest political scandal in our nation’s history, the malignant attempted coup by the Deep State to delegitimize the results of a free and open democratic election. It’s not over yet, not by a long shot. We’re not at the end, maybe not even the beginning of the end, as Churchill said in another context, but perhaps we’re at the end of the beginning.

    Congratulations to Gen. Flynn, a national hero, and to his able and tireless counsellor, Sidney Powell.

    https://spectator.us/flynnocent-michael-flynn-justice-served/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. Why is this a big deal? Are we to criminalize mere associations?

    I didn’t say “criminalize”, but Flynn’s friendly association with the dictator of a hostile foreign power should raise red flags. Why doesn’t that concern you?

    What exactly was it that was objectionable here?

    Um, I’m pretty sure I said it was unpatriotic and un-American to get a six-figure paycheck from a foreign government while working for Trump, and it was illegal for his not reporting this association. The question I have is why isn’t that objectionable to you?

    The DOJ disagrees with you.

    Yes, the corrupt Barr-led DOJ disagrees with me.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  90. Roger Kimball long ago became a hiss and a byword when he joined the T-rump cult.

    Just another casualty of the Thug in the Oval Office.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  91. Reason 1093 why Trump must not be reelected and counting.

    nk (1d9030)

  92. This reminds me when Holder/Obama’s DOJ dropped the New Black Panther case in Philadelphia, a result most commenters here found improper. Some seem to have changed their views on how law works since then.

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. Today’s document dump should clarify matters on a host of issues and individuals, e.g., Clapper, Schiff, Comey, Rosenstein.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  94. If this sort of conduct is BAU for US prosecutors, perhaps that should be vigorously investigated and a Code of Conduct created.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. 84.Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 5/7/2020 @ 3:11 pm

    Pence, the FBI, whomever. Flynn got fired for lying, got prosecuted for lying, pleaded guilty to lying. But sure, he’s probably fine because…I don’t know, reasons, or something.

    In his exclusive interview with CBS tda, Attorney General William Barr was asked if Flynn lied. He answered it this way: (approximately)

    Pwoplw sometimes plead guilty to things that turn out not to be crimes.

    Barr also said he obligated to drop the case – that it was his duty.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  96. “People sometimes plead guilty to things that turn out not to be crimes.”

    I’m sure Barr will be investigating other miscarriages of justice once this Flynn business is over.

    Davethulhu (a122fb)

  97. Lead prosecutor Van Grack has withdrawn from all of the cases he is was working on. He knows – and the DOJ knows – he is toast.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. Maybe you can walk me through the similarities, DRJ?

    https://patterico.com/2009/10/10/the-attorney-general-acorn-and-the-new-black-panthers/

    BuDuh (2f95be)

  99. Three years of America having to live through this sham of a scam. There needs to be a reckoning.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. he wasn’t in possession of all the facts that he later came to know.

    Such as there being no investigation to begin with, just a speculative interrogation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  101. Flynn is pond scum, is guilty as vouched under oath, and a fitting member of the thug’s administration. Which is why several cultists here are doing snoopy dances at this travesty.

    This prosecution separates the lawyers from other people.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  102. I didn’t say “criminalize”, but Flynn’s friendly association with the dictator of a hostile foreign power should raise red flags. Why doesn’t that concern you?

    Jeebus, but we’d better go after half the presidents of the last two centuries if THAT’S the standard.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  103. Defending a man who supports Trump, when the State attempts to crush him under its heel, does not mean I support Trump. Simple decency is not political, and it escapes some who support Trump and some who don’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  104. 81. RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa) — 5/7/2020 @ 3:07 pm

    If memory serves the reason he was let go as National Security Advisor was that he had lied to others in the administration, in particular VP Pence. If Flynn is as innocent as his supporters say, what about the other lies he supposedly told? What were they?

    The content of his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak, after it was illegally leaked that he had had them..

    (The leakers had more, but they started with the bare fact of the calls. That protected them somewhat from prosecution, but that didn’tsucceed in getting rid of Flynn and they escalated. Theu had this interview, told the White House Flynn had lied, and that didn;t get Flynn fired. Finally there was a leak that specified he had discussed (lifting the) sanctions (Obama had just imposed)

    There could have been other lies, but that’s what we’re talking about.

    Here’s an AP story reviewing that: (Caution: it takes the actions of some Obama administration officials at face value. I mean Yates was truly worried about what it says she was?)

    https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3

    I know, any other lies by Flynn might not be relevant in any legal sense to the prosecution. But they are relevant in the moral or contextual sense of trying to understand whether Flynn is a corrupt person who deserved to be taken down or an innocent man singled out by unscrupulous investigators and prosecutors.

    Both. Barr said in his CBS News interview that there was no counterintelligence investigation into Flynn at that time

    By the way, I wonder if the people who wanted to take Flynn down wanted the full extent of his corruption exposed, because that would have been a reflection on them

    Why did they just let Obama dismiss him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and no more, when they suspected he had become a Russian agent of influence??

    It would also be helpful if the DOJ would release a transcript of the infamous call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.

    It’s the NSA (or the president) that probably as declassification authority, and the permanent people always warn against setting a precedent, but the conversations have been described in summary form and everybpdy seems to agree about the key points.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

    Flynn resigned late Monday, after allegations that he discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and then misled Vice President Pence about the nature of those conversations. Flynn initially denied discussing sanctions at all, but in his resignation Flynn said he “inadvertently” gave Pence “incomplete information” about the conversations.

    That resignation letter itself an implausible lie.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  105. oh. Wait, Kevin. You dropped your halo.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  106. Both Flynn and Barr reflect their orange pussy-ass boss, corrupt criminal traitor Trump, who is all mouth and no balls.

    When Flynn thought Mueller had a case against him, he folded like a wet noodle, pleaded guilty, and cooperated with Mueller’s investigation.

    When Barr saw that Flynn’s prosecution was not going to be a cakewalk after all, he folded like a wet noodle, and dismissed the case.

    Is that simple, comrades. Everything else is Bolshoi.

    nk (1d9030)

  107. Jeebus, but we’d better go after half the presidents of the last two centuries if THAT’S the standard.

    I’m not aware of any American president having a friendly dinner with the dictator of a hostile foreign power to celebrate the success of their biggest propaganda/disinformation organ, but perhaps you can dispel me of that notion, Kevin.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  108. One thing that had bothered some officials in the Obama Administration and led to early end of his tenure as Director of the D.I.A. was that he had spent an entire day at the headquarters of the GRU in 2013, combined with his very pro-Russian advocacy.

    He requested another meeting with the GRU but it was refused.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/31/michael-flynn-new-evidence-spy-chiefs-had-concerns-about-russian-ties

    s DIA chief, Flynn visited the GRU in Moscow in 2013. He was the first US officer ever allowed inside its headquarters, where he gave a lecture on leadership. “It was a great trip,” he told the Washington Post, adding that it was fully approved. Flynn was keen to make a second GRU visit but permission was denied, it is understood.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  109. Paul Montagu @19,

    It was Mike Flynn who was at the dinner, not Trump. Mike Flynn held no position at the time.

    But Green Party candidate Jill Stein was there!

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/12/21/that-infamous-moscow-dinner-where-michael-flynn-and-jill-stein-sat-with-putin-utahs-rocky-anderson-was-there-too

    It’s your typical dinner banquet photo, except for who’s seated at the table.

    In the center is Vladimir Putin, the Russian president; at his right elbow, retired U.S. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, at the time hardly a household name. A few seats over, among high-ranking Russian officials and other VIPs, is Jill Stein, the Harvard doctor and 2016 (and quadrennial) Green Party presidential candidate….

    ….The event was a December 2015 fete in Moscow for news outlet Russia Today’s 10th anniversary. Had the 2016 U.S. presidential election not turned out as it did, the photo, and the event with it, likely would be forgotten by now.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  110. The DOJ’s motion to dismiss may well have been to forestall the tongue lashing that certain DOJ lawyers had coming from Judge Sullivan.

    LOL. Gentleman’s bet: they are in for a tongue lashing now, at a minimum.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  111. A ticked off federal judge is a bad thing. With an honest press (who am I kidding?) the probable hide ripping and butt whipping that Sullivan would deliver to the DOJ would be embarrassing. Better to tell the judge “We give up” and hope he won’t tear the DOJ a new one. That said, I’m confident that Mr. Van Gracken better never step in Judge Sullivan’s courtroom again.

    Patterico has been around long enough that he probably knows that.

    You obviously have not read Judge Sullivan’s order that I linked the other day and asked people to read.

    Your fantasy about how Judge Sullivan would react is, in my view, 180 degrees from the reaction he actually will have.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  112. In December, 2015, Mike Flynn was not yet associated with Trump.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

    Having already been consulted regarding national security by Carly Fiorina as well as other candidates, including Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump,[82] Flynn was asked in February 2016 to serve as an adviser to the Trump campaign.[83]

    In July 2016, it was reported he was being considered as Trump’s running mate; Flynn later confirmed that he had submitted vetting documents to the campaign and, although a registered Democrat, was willing to accept the Republican vice-presidential nomination if chosen.[84][1] However, Trump instead selected Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  113. This prosecution separates the lawyers from other normal people.

    FIFY

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  114. No Part 3, I guess. Damn…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  115. “ The thought of Strzok in handcuffs probably makes Lisa Page horny.”

    – beer ‘n pretzels

    Makes a lot of Trumpkins horny too.

    Leviticus (6159e1)

  116. Hennessey-Jurecic-Wittes:

    It is exceptionally rare for the United States Department of Justice to move in court to dismiss a case in which a defendant has—ably assisted by first-class lawyers—entered into a plea agreement to spare himself prosecution on more serious felony charges. It is rarer still for the government to do so without acknowledging that it violated any law or that the defendant’s rights were somehow infringed. And it is still rarer yet for the government to take such a move without a single career prosecutor being willing to sign onto the brief seeking dismissal.
    Yet this is what the government did today, May 7, in the case of Michael Flynn, the man who ever-so-briefly served as national security adviser for President Trump at the beginning of his administration.
    […]
    The government’s 20-page brief is not an honest document—perhaps the reason that it is signed only by Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia—and not a single one of the career prosecutors who worked on the case. That may also be the reason why Brandon Van Grack, the prosecutor who has worked the case from the beginning, moved to withdraw from the case entirely just hours before the Justice Department filed its motion.
    The brief’s account of the history of the Flynn case is not accurate, its account of the government’s own conduct equally flawed. And it all leads up to a conclusion so obviously wrong that one does not need to know anything about counterintelligence to see through it: that there is no reasonable basis even to interview a senior government official when that person has offered to undo sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary government that interfered in an election—and who subsequently lied to the Vice President of the United States about the substance of his conversation with an agent of that government. Based on this position, the Justice Department today took an even greater leap: that it is perfectly legal for the official, if interviewed under these circumstances, to lie through his teeth repeatedly to the FBI agents who show up to interview him.

    Barr just executed a hyperpartisan whitewash, to Trump’s eminent satisfaction. Flynn’s, too.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  117. 118… I’ll admit I do get a schadenchub thinking about a 6AM SWAT raid and perp walk in the offing for Teh Strzokster…

    that Quimbysmirk does it for the NeverTrump Anklebiters…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  118. It was Mike Flynn who was at the dinner, not Trump.

    Um, yes, Sammy.
    Flynn was there in Moscow, 21 months after Putin invaded and annexed the Crimean region of Ukraine, who then launched a massive propaganda/disinformation against the Ukrainian, who then shot down a commercial airliner, and was actively trying amass more territory by wresting eastern Ukraine. And Flynn thought it was a swell idea to sit at the same table as this dictator-thug, to fete the success of his Kremlin-controlled propaganda arm.
    Jill Stein never had any excuse, but she’s an inconsequential Green Party chucklehead.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  119. @109

    Jeebus, but we’d better go after half the presidents of the last two centuries if THAT’S the standard.

    I’m not aware of any American president having a friendly dinner with the dictator of a hostile foreign power to celebrate the success of their biggest propaganda/disinformation organ, but perhaps you can dispel me of that notion, Kevin.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/7/2020 @ 4:59 pm

    Dude… he was given approval by the Obama administration to make that trip. The intelligence agencies debriefed him before and after that meeting.

    whembly (c30c83)

  120. In Glorious Trumpland, Kameraden, there is only one crime: Not loving the Glorious Orange Leader with all your heart, all your mind, and all your money.

    nk (1d9030)

  121. In December, 2015, Mike Flynn was not yet associated with Trump.

    Um, yes, Sammy.
    What’s your point? That Flynn’s pre-Trump associations with the dictator of a hostile foreign power somehow don’t count?

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  122. Seen on Twitter (Ben Shapiro):

    Gonna be amazing when Trump appoints Flynn to head the FBI, and Flynn then prosecutes a variety of Democrats for violating the Logan Act.

    Jimmy Carter’s trip to North Korea to forestall Clinton’s military action comes to mind. Probably saved by the statute of limitations.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  123. having a friendly dinner

    Damn, those goalposts were RIGHT HERE! Now they are clear down there!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  124. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/05/07/new-doj-documents-show-president-obama-was-in-on-the-flynn-takedown-n2568420

    Newly released documents from the Department of Justice show President Obama informed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of a phone call between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. He did so in the Oval Office.

    whembly (c30c83)

  125. Dude… he was given approval by the Obama administration to make that trip. The intelligence agencies debriefed him before and after that meeting.

    Flynn was a private citizen. He was fired from DIA in August 2014 and the Putin dinner was December 2015, and he lied about who was paying him, among other things.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  126. President Obama informed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of a phone call between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

    And that’s a bad thing because Presidents are not allowed to know such things or they’re not allowed to tell their DAGs?

    nk (1d9030)

  127. And that’s a bad thing because Presidents are not allowed to know such things or they’re not allowed to tell their DAGs?

    They’re only allowed to tip off *foreign* law enforcement agencies in perfect conversations with other heads of state, apparently.

    Dave (1bb933)

  128. @129

    Dude… he was given approval by the Obama administration to make that trip. The intelligence agencies debriefed him before and after that meeting.

    Flynn was a private citizen. He was fired from DIA in August 2014 and the Putin dinner was December 2015, and he lied about who was paying him, among other things.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/7/2020 @ 6:29 pm

    …said a Democrat.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/423558-exculpatory-russia-evidence-about-mike-flynn-that-us-intel-kept-secret

    Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.

    He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.

    When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.

    whembly (c30c83)

  129. Barr just executed a hyperpartisan whitewash, to Trump’s eminent satisfaction. Flynn’s, too.

    Trump has been trying to get his crony Flynn off the hook for over three years, ever since he tried to threaten the FBI Director over a private dinner arranged for that specific purpose.

    It’s taken him this long to dispose of everyone prepared to act with integrity.

    Trump’s not just a crook, he’s a pathetically incompetent crook.

    Dave (1bb933)

  130. SF:

    In December, 2015, Mike Flynn was not yet associated with Trump.

    125.
    125. Paul Montagu (b3f51b) — 5/7/2020 @ 5:58 pm

    Um, yes, Sammy.
    What’s your point? That Flynn’s pre-Trump associations with the dictator of a hostile foreign power somehow don’t count?

    That Flynn’s association with Russia is not because of Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  131. But Flynn’s association with Trump could be because of Russia?

    nk (1d9030)

  132. whembly, you’re using the same John Solomon who stunk up the Ukraine story so badly that The Hill got rid of him and washed their hands of him, a guy who’s so suspect that the FoxNews Brain Room advised the hosts to steer clear.
    He’s a one-sided hyperpartisan hack who used sketchy sources like Shokin and Lutsenko and other scuzzballs to peddle bullsh*t stories. He’s the same “journalist” who joined Giuliani and Parnas in a smear campaign against a US ambassador, who is in the bag for a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch (Firtash) and he shares the same attorneys with that oligarch (DiGenova-Toensing),

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  133. Democrats are fit to be tied, as are NeverTrumphumps. These are the early stages of teh Great Reckoning, where the DeepState wrongdoers will sweat and deny, and those who believe the last 3 1/2 years have been nothing less than an attempted coup may see some wrongs (and wrongdoers) dealt with.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  134. meanwhile Montagu loves him some CNN…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. I mean, what did he do? Oh, you can read all 5 things he admitted to, including those unrelated to Russia and just his general fraud and other treason adjacent activities.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  136. meanwhile Montagu loves him some CNN…

    Just Tapper, Haiku. Don’t oversell it.

    Paul Montagu (319e39)

  137. meanwhile Montagu loves him some CNN…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/7/2020 @ 7:57 pm

    Suspecting disloyalty?

    Maybe it’s closer than you realize.

    Dustin (e5f6c3)

  138. This analysis says the Judge can approve the dismissal but must first approve Flynn’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. The Judge may not agree to both.

    DRJ (15874d)

  139. But if the Judge refuses to dismiss, then what?

    Yet Rossi, the former prosecutor, said something akin to legal lunacy would predictably occur if the judge forces the case to continue. Were the judge to order the case to proceed, the prosecution would likely not call witnesses or even show up to court. And, that would be ridiculous. Rossi called the procedural moves a de facto “back door pardon” for Flynn.

    DRJ (15874d)

  140. These are the early stages of teh Great Reckoning, where the DeepState wrongdoers will sweat and deny,

    Meh! All they need to do is put on some Navy whites, and they’ll have Trump eating out of the palms of their hands.

    nk (1d9030)

  141. @137 Where, exactly, are you seeing reform of the “Deep State”? There hasn’t been any FISA reform. Trump has been using only executive branch tools to get his way, but in a more extreme way than they’ve ever been used before. No authority is going back to the legislature. Where is the reform of the “Deep State?”

    Nic (896fdf)

  142. The only wrongdoers being dealt with so far have been Trump Administration appointees and Trump affiliates.

    DRJ (15874d)

  143. Bill Barr has been creative in using the law to help Trump protect himself and those loyal to him. The Deep State is alive and well with Trump in charge.

    DRJ (15874d)

  144. “The blatant corruption is jaw-dropping.” Patterico

    And the Republicans yelled for four more years. You aint seen nothing yet.

    noel (4d3313)

  145. There’s an interesting overlap between those outraged that Flynn was prosecuted — largely on the ground that Flynn’s crime resulted from a political process and unfairly looked for evidence against him — and those equally outraged that Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted.

    Also interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton “for her careless use of a private e-mail server” at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, “If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today.”

    https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1258625823403376646

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  146. Careless?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  147. Barr keeps discovering “evidence” that happens to conform with Trump’s crazy notions. On Michael Flynn, the Mueller team and soon, I am sure, Biden’s son.

    Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    noel (4d3313)

  148. I see folks having issues with this still hasn’t read the DOJ’s dismissal document.

    Confirmation bias is a stubborn mule for some…

    whembly (c30c83)

  149. Regardless of the creative writing in the DOJ dismissive (I did that on purpose) document, we know that Flynn is a lying pos, along with a few other things that are criminal/corrupt.

    It is in keeping with the deep, dark evil that is the T-rumpian cult that someone like Roger Kimball could dream of calling Flynn an “American hero”. That insanity is echoed here by several myrmidons.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  150. Can’t see why Pat’s trying to slander an innocent man, Flynn’s been totally vindicated, exonerated, declared innocent by the high and holy word of the system. He’s now completely above reproach, just like that woman whose husband tragically died when he drank fish tank cleaner on Trump’s orders. The System and the Process is Law and Must Be Respected.

    Bonk (b7ae75)

  151. Looks like Flynn’s big mistake was plea bargaining, but what was he to do? The “experts” his lawyers were telling him that it was the only way out. He probably thought: “Ok, I’ll cut a deal, save my son, and some legal fees, and Trump will probably pardon me anyway”. In retrospect, a very bad move.

    From reading the DoJ brief, the key thing was that the FBI was going to shut down the Flynn investigation, when Comey/McCabe intervened, and set up a perjury Trap. As Barr states, Flynn’s lies weren’t material to any criminal investigation – he was simply set up. I’m also still puzzled by this 302 business, whereby FBI agents “draft notes” of conversations, instead of taping them. If you’re going to convict someone of lying to the FBI, shouldn’t you have their EXACT words, instead of someone’s memory? I’ve typed up ROD’s for business meetings and reviewed my subordinates ROD’s and man, people don’t hear what other people say.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  152. 156 You left off a sarc tag.

    You can only slander someone by lying about them. Did OJ kill his former wife? Sure he did. Is Flynn a lying pos who ALSO sought to sell his influence to foreign powers? Sure he is!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  153. The FBI agents refused to tell Flynn his statements could be used against him, which violated FBI procedures AND instead of showing Flynn the transcript of the phone call, they asked him to remember things. Again, the whole thing was a SET UP. As was using the Joke Law “Logan Act” as an excuse. I thought Barr laid it out pretty well in the CBS News transcript.

    And then we have Trump and Wray. Incredibly, Trump says Wray was appointed based on Rosenstein’s recommendation, and Chris christie just said “OK, lets see how it works out”. Again, rod Rosenstein is the key man in all this. Why was this guy appointed? Why did Trump keep trusting him? Why has he skated and not been criticized by EITHER side? Its very weird.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  154. The “experts” his lawyers were telling him that it was the only way out.

    Prove that statement. I very much doubt its veracity.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  155. President Obama informed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates of a phone call between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

    Yeah, it looks like Barry O was up to his eyeballs in this scandal. Funny how “Life Long Republican” Comey trusted Obama and NEVER took notes of any meeting with him, but was taking notes of every talk with Trump and distributing them to everyone in FBI HQ.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  156. The other big news is that John lying Brennan was telling the House Intelligence committee in secret that he had zero evidence of Russia-Trump wrongdoing, while telling the Public it was going to be “worse than Watergate”. Once a liar, always a liar.

    BTW, McCain was saying the same thing in May 2017 after Comey got fired. “This [Russia-Trump] will be bigger than Watergate”. We now know, McCain knew the Steele Dossier had been financed by GPS and Hillary CLinton. No wonder he invited Bill and Hillary to his funeral, they were best buddies!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  157. And finally, where is John Dean? I thought this was – for the 32nd time – going to be “Worse than anything I saw Nixon do”. Like Brennan – once a liar, always a liar.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  158. No wonder he invited Bill and Hillary to his funeral, they were best buddies!

    Were you speaking of McAnus or your cult leader, because the Great Goad Cheeto was besties with both Clintons…to the extent a pathological narcissist has any real friends

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  159. “Did OJ kill his former wife? Sure he did. Is Flynn a lying pos who ALSO sought to sell his influence to foreign powers?”

    Yeah, but ’round up all the people who killed their former wives’ picks up a much narrower dragnet than ’round up every lying POS in DC who sought to sell his influence to foreign powers.’

    Matter of fact, the number of people NOT picked up by that dragnet would likely be lower than the number of righteous people in Sodom. The lack of specificity and association with a much more heinous and specific crime seems to be one of those ‘word tricks’ lawyers play.

    Bonk (a7aaa7)

  160. In any case, Flynn may have been fired for lying, but calling him a ‘lying POS’ seems to be just asserting things without evidence. The courts have cleared him, and ‘making false statements’ is not actually ‘lying’ without evidence of intent. Repeatedly failing to make the distinction is evidence of a diseased and malevolent mind trying very hard to meme an association that doesn’t really exist.

    Bonk (2ca00d)

  161. @158, if that was True Barr wouldn’t have had to drop the charges to help Trump’s buddy. Face it, they’ve admitting Flynn’s arguments lacked merit.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  162. Yah, no… The “everybody does it” fashionable BS won’t start here.

    Everybody doesn’t lie as a default. Flynn seems to. He’s known for it.

    Everybody does not sell influence to foreign (and hostile) powers. Flynn was knee-deep in the practice.

    Next, you go to “lack of specificity” as a deflection. More BS.

    What I’ve said is all true.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  163. As an aside, isn’t it hilarious when lawyers try making courtroom-style arguments in public that may have sounded great in front of a carefully-selected jury of their own influence but fail miserably when anybody with life experience and an Internet connection can rip them apart without even having a sympathetic judge strike your screw-ups from the public record?

    I think it’s hilarious. I think it’s engaging. I think it edifies and educates the public far better than anything seen on TV.

    Bonk (bdf7ef)

  164. “Yah, no… The “everybody does it” fashionable BS won’t start here.”

    Yes it will. It will ESPECIALLY do so in Washington, D.C.

    “Everybody doesn’t lie as a default. Flynn seems to. He’s known for it.”

    Everybody in politics does as a default. Everybody in military ranks above major does as default. If you don’t know this, you haven’t been paying attention.

    “Everybody does not sell influence to foreign (and hostile) powers. Flynn was knee-deep in the practice.”

    Washington, D.C. lobbyists absolutely make a living of selling their influence to the highest bidder, foreign and hostile or not. And Turkey dang sure ain’t China, which has open and covert, and ignorant lobbyists in government far further than Washington D.C.

    “Next, you go to “lack of specificity” as a deflection. More BS.”

    “B.S.” is also a very non-specific description, and the usual response when someone doesn’t have a real one ready and wants to throw people off the conversation.

    “What I’ve said is all true.”

    It is not, by any real experience. A jury of college students might believe you, but anyone with any life experience in dealing with DC will laugh you off the stage.

    Bonk (727c7a)

  165. …Flynn may have been fired for lying, but calling him a ‘lying POS’ seems to be just asserting things without evidence. The courts have cleared him…

    Let me help you seem LESS like an apologist…

    Flynn was not “may” have been fired for lying. Flynn was fired for lying repeatedly. (Ironically, he was fired by a profligate liar.)

    Courts are not magic. They don’t have the power to sweep away reality, and the reality is that Flynn is a lying pos. As is the POTUS. OJ is still the killer of his former wife.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  166. @166

    @158, if that was True Barr wouldn’t have had to drop the charges to help Trump’s buddy. Face it, they’ve admitting Flynn’s arguments lacked merit.

    Time123 (66d88c) — 5/8/2020 @ 7:55 am

    You keep saying this without substantiation… can you elaborate?

    It doesn’t make sense for the DOJ to drop the Flynn case if Flynn’s arguments lacked merits. It’s actually the opposite.

    whembly (c30c83)

  167. Uh-oh, Raggy, looks like a man who lifts heavier weights than you also shows that Flynn was clear on Turkey and FARA too. Did you not update your fact-checking(TM) software with the Verrit-verified hivemind?

    David Reaboi
    @davereaboi
    ·
    1h
    When you see NeverTrump cling to “But Turkey! But FARA!” in their utterly repulsive and pathetic effort to find something—anything—to justify their loathing of a Trump adviser, recall that FBI also gave Flynn a clear bill of health when it came to FARA, not just Russia.

    Bonk (43b841)

  168. …making courtroom-style arguments in public that may have sounded great in front of a carefully-selected jury of their own influence…

    Trial attorneys don’t select juries. Only a rather stupid adolescent would make the assertion they do, while trying pitifully to insult lawyers and vaunt their own wonderfulness.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  169. Huh? So when Flynn swore under oath that he lied, and when his FIG was involved with Turkey, AND when he failed to follow the laws regarding that and he lied subsequently, he was lying.

    You have an amazing faculty for excusing sh!t. You must be a T-rump true believer.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  170. @166
    @158, if that was True Barr wouldn’t have had to drop the charges to help Trump’s buddy. Face it, they’ve admitting Flynn’s arguments lacked merit.
    Time123 (66d88c) — 5/8/2020 @ 7:55 am

    You keep saying this without substantiation… can you elaborate?

    It doesn’t make sense for the DOJ to drop the Flynn case if Flynn’s arguments lacked merits. It’s actually the opposite.

    whembly (c30c83) — 5/8/2020 @ 8:12 am

    Sure it does. Trump wanted it done so Barr did it. I’m not a lawyer but all the legal commentary I’ve seen has been consistent that the DOJ dropping the charges for these reasons is inconsistent with past and current practices. Here’s the tell, the DOJ hasn’t issued any instructions that ‘material’ is be understood in this way going forward.

    I suppose we could have an IG review, but Trump fired that last IG.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  171. @171, Rags, I think you’re mistaken in your statement. Courts made no finding on Flynn’s latest arguments.

    Time123 (daab2f)

  172. Time, I don’t think I said Flynn’s court said anything.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  173. @176

    Sure it does. Trump wanted it done so Barr did it. I’m not a lawyer but all the legal commentary I’ve seen has been consistent that the DOJ dropping the charges for these reasons is inconsistent with past and current practices. Here’s the tell, the DOJ hasn’t issued any instructions that ‘material’ is be understood in this way going forward.

    I suppose we could have an IG review, but Trump fired that last IG.

    Time123 (66d88c) — 5/8/2020 @ 8:41 am

    You’re just guessing here.

    The Jensen DOJ dismissal document goes into detail what makes something ‘material’ backed up with case laws. This isn’t a new interpretation.

    Again, I implore you to read it, rather than getting op-ed analysis from others.

    whembly (c30c83)

  174. Whembly, It’s a pretext. Will they be applying this logic to any other defendants and cases?

    Time123 (66d88c)

  175. Breaking—White House Aide Tests Positive for Virus Ahead of Pence Trip
    A White House aide has tested positive for coronavirus infection, according to people familiar with the matter, the second person working at the executive residence to contract the virus this week.
    …….

    Ripmurdock (bd44cc)

  176. 181 — I read that Trump was in a white-hot rage about his valet testing positive. Why weren’t people doing better at protecting him, Donald Trump?

    It’s completely plausible that Trump would have raged on that score, while being rather less concerned about the protection of other Americans.

    Radegunda (39c35f)

  177. Of course Trump was angry at someone near him testing positive, especially since he’d been told it wasn’t possible for that to happen..

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  178. Maybe you can walk me through the similarities, DRJ?

    Some are that both cases were largely completed in the government’s favor — a default in the NBP case and a guilty plea in Flynn — only to have the Administration change the outcomes in ways that suggested partisan purposes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  179. “Huh? So when Flynn swore under oath that he lied,”

    The courts don’t have all the time in the world to find out exactly what happened, so they force confessions to things that may or may not be true all the time. They also drop cases all the time after threatening them even when they’re weak. Were you perhaps aware that Washington D.C. was a very political city with primarily political motivations? Were you trying to convince us that the law and its outcomes was somehow exempt from these considerations?

    People swear all sorts of false things under oath on their lawyer’s orders to get lighter sentences. And those get vacated every day. The outcome in court is not a matter of truth or lies, but in what outcome the prosecutors, the defense, and the judge can threaten or negotiate.

    “and when his FIG was involved with Turkey,”

    involved with” I see the many crying ‘vague descriptions’ is now piling up vague descriptions in his footnotes as he inexorably loses the argument. Go tell it to your stuffed animals.

    “AND when he failed to follow the laws regarding that and he lied subsequently, he was lying.”

    There are thousands of laws in DC regarding foreign interactions, most badly written, politically enforced, and failed in their following on a daily basis. Anyone who makes it their business to catalog and master the particulars of every possible interpretation to catch the newbies and spring the insiders is by definition a shifty and untrustworthy type.

    Bonk (c36238)

  180. Will they be applying this logic to any other defendants and cases?

    If anyone else is unfortunate enough to be subjected to this type of malfeasance, let’s hope they do.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3775 secs.