Patterico's Pontifications

5/14/2020

Judge Sullivan Will Be Closely Examining the Dishonesty of the Government’s Dismissal Motion

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



There were a lot of developments yesterday in the Flynn case, making it difficult to write about the recent Supreme Court arguments (short answer: Trump loses in New York, gets at best a partial and meaningless win with respect to Congress) or the FBI search warrant served on Richard Burr (related to his alleged insider trading on classified COVID information). We knew that Judge Sullivan was calling for amicus briefs, but yesterday he appointed, as an advocate against the Government’s position, a retired judge who recently co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.” And the order said something else, too:

Wow. I do not see sanctions for perjury for Flynn arising out of what has happened so far, by the way. (If he’s questioned again under oath, all bets are off.)

But with the publication of a story last night in the New York Times, Judge Sullivan is, I predict, about to go apoplectic.

A key former F.B.I. official cast doubt on the Justice Department’s case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn during an interview with investigators last week, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap’s interview. A Justice Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it would soon be filed with the court.

Let’s remind everyone what these notes were about. I wrote about them in this post, so for a full explanation go there. In short, Priestap attended a pre-interview meeting with Andrew McCabe and Jim Comey, and wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.” This was trumpeted by the Flynndication crowd as proof that McCabe and Comey had a goal of getting Flynn fired. I said previously that this was nonsense:

[I]t’s obvious that Priestap is asking a rhetorical question here. He is contrasting two possible courses of action: a) telling Flynn what they have on him, or b) hiding it from him. He is arguing against the latter action, and invoking what he clearly thinks is an obviously improper goal (although as I will argue below I’m not sure it’s actually improper!) as a rhetorical move to show that the proposed course of action that he disagrees with is wrong. But the fact that Comey and McCabe choose the latter course of action is not an admission that getting Flynn fired is their goal.

Now I know the reaction of Trumpists is going to be: Priestap got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Of course he’s going to lie and say it was nothing. That’s fine, but it’s not what he says. If the Government cited his notes in support of one scenario, and knew that he was offering an alternate explanation, and didn’t tell the judge that, the judge is going to be very, very unhappy.

And they did cite his notes. From the Government’s motion:

Priestap 1

Priestap 2

The context here is the Government’s extremely pro-defense recitation of the lead-up to the interview. The notes are presented as evidence in support of a larger narrative that the FBI was engaged in a rogue effort to set Flynn up. And yet, per the New York Times:

Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case … that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

The department’s decision to exclude mention of Mr. Priestap’s interview in the motion could trouble Judge Sullivan, who signaled late on Tuesday that he was skeptical of the department’s arguments.

Ya think?

This is not the only evidence of dishonesty in the motion. Mary McCord (as I noted here) wrote an op-ed in the New York Times the other day disputing the way that the Government cited her interview as evidence in support of its dismissal motion. Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, the Government’s motion repeatedly cites McCord’s statements (Exhibit 3) in numerous places at pages 14-17 of its brief, all in support of the argument that the statements were not material, in a brief in which (contrary to what you may have read elsewhere) the Government argues that the interview of Flynn was not justified: “Nor was there a justification or need to interview Mr. Flynn as to his own personal recollections of what had been said.” McCord explains that her words were used to argue that the interview was unjustified and Flynn’s lies immaterial, when she in fact believes the opposite:

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. … The materiality is obvious.

This is a pattern. The Government is repeatedly taking the words of witnesses and twisting them to support a conclusion with which those witnesses strongly disagree.

And the Government is not telling the judge any of this.

I don’t think Judge Sullivan is going to be pleased by any of this.

72 Responses to “Judge Sullivan Will Be Closely Examining the Dishonesty of the Government’s Dismissal Motion”

  1. Barr now has a well established pattern of dishonesty and distortion of the words of DOJ officials, starting with Mueller and continuing on to McCord and Priestap. I hope history judges him harshly for protecting a clown president over the Constitution.

    Paul Montagu (690195)

  2. According to the same “people familiar with the interview”, in the same article but excluded from your post:

    Priestap told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes, and that he was providing his interpretation of his notes as he read them now, according to a person familiar with his interview.

    Why did he jot down those specific notes about getting Flynn to lie or get fired? What’s the theory? Was he cut off by McCabe because it was McCabe, Stzrok and Page who floated that, which he noted and recorded, and objected to? Is there a better theory?

    We know the Flynn interview blew off WH protocol, to the displeasure of Yates and McCord, and discouraged the presence of counsel. So, square that with “trying to do the right thing” and not setting up Flynn. Try.

    As for McCord, the materiality of Flynn to a “serious” (her words) counterintelligence investigation was so “obvious”, when briefed by McCabe days before Yates’s meeting with Obama on Jan5, Yates didn’t know what Obama and Comey were talking about. Because McCord never mentioned it.

    beer ‘n pretzels (e7227f)

  3. Barr now has a well established pattern of dishonesty and distortion of the words of DOJ officials, starting with Mueller and continuing on to McCord and Priestap. I hope history judges him harshly for protecting a clown president over the Constitution.

    Paul Montagu (690195) — 5/14/2020 @ 9:12 am

    They still cling to this notion Trump was exonerated by Mueller. It’s amazing how fanatical some of these guys are, and they seem to be getting angrier and angrier. Barr is responsible for some serious cracks in society. He is the antithesis of what is good in law enforcement.

    Dustin (e5f6c3)

  4. In other government corruption news-

    FBI serves warrant on senator in investigation of stock sales linked to coronavirus

    Federal agents seized a cellphone belonging to a prominent Republican senator on Wednesday night as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into controversial stock trades he made as the novel coronavirus first struck the U.S., a law enforcement official said.
    Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, turned over his phone to agents after they served a search warrant on the lawmaker at his residence in the Washington area, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a law enforcement action.

    The seizure represents a significant escalation in the investigation into whether Burr violated a law preventing members of Congress from trading on insider information they have gleaned from their official work.
    ……
    Such a warrant being served on a sitting U.S. senator would require approval from the highest ranks of the Justice Department and is a step that would not be taken lightly. Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment.

    A second law enforcement official said FBI agents served a warrant in recent days on Apple to obtain information from Burr’s iCloud account and said agents used data obtained from the California-based company as part of the evidence used to obtain the warrant for the senator’s phone.
    …..
    UPDATE-
    Burr steps aside as Intelligence Committee chair after FBI serves warrant in stock inquiry

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  5. The irony: a prosecutor encouraging a judge to second guess the prosecution’s exercise of its discretion in the Flynn case. Imagine if all of the judges in Patterico’s cases engaged outside experts to argue the other side of his motions to dismiss his own cases!

    As I see it, the precedent in the DC Circuit seems to forbid this kind of substantive inquiry by the judge:

    Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a prosecutor to obtain “leave of court” before dismissing charges against a criminal defendant. Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(a). That language could conceivably be read to allow for considerable judicial involvement in the determination to dismiss criminal charges. But decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion. See e.g., Newman, 382 F.2d at 480. To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges. Rather, the “principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement” has been understood to be a narrow one—”to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment … when the [g]overnment moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n. 15, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977).…

    United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

    I’m not sure what the rule is in California state courts but, for consistency sake, I would encourage Patterico to always ask the judges in his cases to take substantive inquiries of all his prosecutorial decisions – including but not limited to appointing third party experts to review Patterico’s decisions! After all, we wouldn’t want to think this post has been written solely due to animus against DOJ.

    Al S (4fa42a)

  6. Its like princess bride all over again.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  7. “The Government is repeatedly taking the words of witnesses and twisting them to support a conclusion with which those witnesses strongly disagree.”

    BTW, I’m not sure what is the point here. Prosecutors may only draw conclusions with which the witnesses agree?

    I mean:
    Prosecutor: Your Honor, we have presented 1,000 pieces of evidence that the defendant did the crime.
    Defense Atty: I have a witness that disagrees with the prosecution’s conclusion.
    Judge: Well in that case, I RULE FOR THE DEFENSE!

    Al S (4fa42a)

  8. @7, The point is that they’re misrepresenting the meaning of the statement.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  9. I’m taking a wild guess here that Al S is not an attorney who have ever seen the inside of a courtroom.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  10. Sullivan is already way out of line, what are a few more missteps…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. The Trumpkins’ contortions would be funny if their Orange Lord Of The Flies had not murdered 85,699 Americans in the last two months. And still counting.

    nk (1d9030)

  12. Haiku, Have you decided to retract your lie from last night?

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  13. This is a pattern. The Government is repeatedly taking the words of witnesses and twisting them to support a conclusion with which those witnesses strongly disagree.

    Patterico, this seems little unclear.

    What I think you mean is The Government is repeatedly taking the words of witnesses and twisting them to mean something the witnesses did not intend and do not agree with.

    You original wording could also mean that the witnesses don’t agree with the overall conclusion of the government’s position. Which I don’t think you intended, and is not really a call of any single witness.

    Good post btw.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  14. Is this typical behavior for district court judges? How often has a District court judge done something like this with the DoJ? And whatever Sullivan’s “Skepticism” toward the DoJ, they are the prosecutors and he is not. The DoJ submitted a 20 page defense of their decision, and Sullivan’s response is to ask a Clintonista Left-wing judge to give arguments why Flynn should be held in criminal contempt. This is very strange and odd, and will be overturned on appeal. In summary, Sullivan seems to think Flynn is guilty, despite his withdrawing his plea, and the DoJ agreeing with Flynn.

    So what is the point of all this, other than Sullivan’s personal feelings? Its not JUSTICE. It seems like a weird vendetta, consistent with Sullivan’s previous odd statement that Flynn committed “Treason” for being an unregistered agent of Turkey – which the DoJ didn’t charge him with!

    rcocean (846d30)

  15. People are speculating that Left-wing Sullivan is trying to force Trump to pardon Flynn. This will allow Biden to attack Trump on the issue in the Fall Campaign. It certainly seems a valid explanation of the Sullivan’s odd behavior

    rcocean (846d30)

  16. More corruption news-
    Appeals court greenlights emoluments suit against Trump
    A lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by accepting foreign government money through his luxury Washington hotel can proceed to fact-gathering about Trump’s profits, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

    The Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals voted, 9-6, to reject Trump’s bid to shut down the lawsuit the governments of Maryland and the District of Columbia brought alleging violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses.

    Trump, who has vigorously fought a series of similar lawsuits for years, will now need relief from the Supreme Court if he wants to block Maryland and D.C. from pressing demands for his business records as his re-election campaign gets into full swing.
    ……
    Judge Diana Motz said that even if Hazel erred, the president had not shown he had an “indisputable” right to shut down the suit, which would be required for the appeals court to step in at this stage. Motz, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the records D.C. and Maryland were seeking at this point in no way intruded on Trump’s official duties.

    “The discovery here — business records as to hotel stays and restaurant expenses, sought from private third parties and low-level government employees — implicates no Executive power. The President has not explained, nor do we see, how requests pertaining to spending at a private restaurant and hotel threaten any Executive Branch prerogative,” she wrote.

    Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, writing for all six dissenters, said it was evident that Maryland and D.C. were trying to mire Trump in litigation for partisan reasons.
    …..
    The judges in the majority bridled at that language.

    “The dissent portrays us as ‘partisan warriors’ acting with an ‘absence of restraint … incompatible with the dictates of the law,'” Motz wrote. “But we remain confident that our narrow holding, reached with careful attention to the standard of review, is the essence of restraint. Readers may compare our measured approach with the dramatics of the dissent and draw their own conclusions.”

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  17. A couple of additional points:

    1. Ms. McCord does not appear to be an unbiased witness. A brief search revealed reports from right-leaning organizations like Epoch Times that she worked with Adam Schiff on Trump’s impeachment. Of course that doesn’t render her comments incorrect but it’s always important to know a witness’s possible bias.

    2. Although Patterico’s characterization of the Priestap comments as rhetorical seems plausible to me, would the fact that the notes could also be construed the way Flynn’s backers have portrayed them be, by itself, reason to cast doubt on the prosecution? Would the DOJ be justified in concluding that the notes don’t look good, even if Priestap has a good explanation for them, and that Flynn’s new lawyer could use the notes to powerful effect? Every lawyer here can probably recall conversations with otherwise sympathetic clients along the lines of “why did you send that email (or write that letter, or make that phone call)? What are we supposed to say about that in court?” The client might have a good explanation but it’s still a problem for the case.

    I have my own pro-Trump bias so it’s a struggle to assess the evidence objectively. But just think, Flynn could have avoided this whole mess if he’d only told the agents, “you must have a recording of that conversation. I’ll tell you what I remember, but I don’t want to mislead you, so just go with whatever’s on the recording.” Maybe it’s significant that he didn’t say it.

    RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa)

  18. 14. Golly, so much unsupported crap…!!! But the usual from that poster.

    How often has a District court judge done something like this with the DoJ?

    Pretty rarely, and what the DOJ is doing is unprecedented in this judge’s very long and distinguished career.

    And whatever Sullivan’s “Skepticism” toward the DoJ, they are the prosecutors and he is not.

    Why is skepticsm in scare-quotes? And why is it capitalized? No, he isn’t the prosecutors. He’s the judge who rules on motions. Duh.

    …Sullivan’s response is to ask a Clintonista Left-wing judge to give arguments why Flynn should be held in criminal contempt.

    I call bullspit; back up your smear of the amicus with facts.

    …Sullivan seems to think Flynn is guilty, despite his withdrawing his plea, and the DoJ agreeing with Flynn.

    Yes, he knows Flynn to be guilty, and he finds the whole DOJ course of conduct stinks like a feedlot on a hot day.

    The rest is just your usual hymn to the Orange Raccoon.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  19. People are speculating that Left-wing Sullivan…

    Now support that defamation with facts.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  20. In retrospect, a pardon would have been a smoother way of dealing with this. There is enough evidence that the Flynn affair was initiated for partisan reasons, which for Trump is more than enough for a pardon. Plus Trump can say that the crime was minor compared to Flynn’s record of service.

    Doing it through a motion to dismiss creates too many issues, as we are seeing. Even if it ends up dismissed, the DOJ seems to have take a black eye.

    Bored Lawyer (56c962)

  21. @21, I think you’re right, and the questions about the DOJ’s behavior in this cast doubt on other proprietorial decision.

    Time123 (f5cf77)

  22. @8: The witnesses are at odds with their own testimony and notes.

    Priestap now thinks there was an attempt to do the right thing and not set Flynn up, but can’t recall the circumstances around his contemporaneous notes which imply the opposite was discussed and he was cut off when he seemingly objected. (And, we know how the interview was conducted, and how Comey publicly bragged about it later.)

    McCord now thinks that Flynn‘s discussion with Kislyak and lies about it were “serious” and “material”, but not so serious and material to mention it to Yates at the time.

    beer ‘n pretzels (73045a)

  23. 21 & 22. Assuming facts not in evidence, namely that Trump is a brave and decisive person who takes things in hand. He is not. He is lazy, timid, and spoiled, and after much trial and error, he found a lackey in Barr to whom he expresses a whim and Barr looks for a way to fulfill it. See e.g. the Roger Stone sentencing. Did I say “lackey”? Make it “valet with a cabinet appointment”.

    nk (1d9030)

  24. As I see it, the precedent in the DC Circuit seems to forbid this kind of substantive inquiry by the judge:

    Do you? Do you actually see it that way? Or did you read that on The Federalist or Redstate or twitter? Because if you actually read the case, you’d know that

    (a) the language you’re quoting is dicta; (b) you’re not quoting all the relevant language; and (c) the binding circuit precedent is a different case that says that the court does have a role to play in deciding whether the public interest justifies dismissal.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  25. #18 You’re such a nice person. I’m not. I’d say that McCord’s working with Adam Schiff on Trump’s impeachment gives her comments ZERO credibility unless they are backed up the wazoo by objective facts. I wouldn’t trust her “opinions” on Flynn farther then I could throw her.

    rcocean (846d30)

  26. Trump shouldn’t pardon Flynn unless he absolutely has to. The DoJ has written a 20 page brief on why the case should be dropped, and Flynn is entitled to complete vindication. Let crazy Sullivan keep reveling himself as a dishonest leftist. Let him be overturned on appeal.

    rcocean (846d30)

  27. Is this typical behavior for district court judges? How often has a District court judge done something like this with the DoJ?

    About as often as the DOJ has sought to dismiss a case that it already won involving a political crony of the president with objectively unjustifiable arguments, such as claiming that the DOJ just learned something it had known for years.

    And whatever Sullivan’s “Skepticism” toward the DoJ, they are the prosecutors and he is not.

    Right. He’s the judge. Who has to decide what to do with the case.

    The DoJ submitted a 20 page defense of their decision,

    Was that 20 page defense legally or factually correct?

    and Sullivan’s response is to ask a Clintonista Left-wing judge to give arguments why Flynn should be held in criminal contempt. This is very strange and odd, and will be overturned on appeal. In summary, Sullivan seems to think Flynn is guilty, despite his withdrawing his plea, and the DoJ agreeing with Flynn.

    Like dismissing the case, withdrawing a guilty plea requires judicial approval. Flynn asked to withdraw his plea. He has not withdrawn it.

    Gleeson is not “left wing.” That’s just loopy. You don’t know a darn thing about him, do you?

    So what is the point of all this, other than Sullivan’s personal feelings? Its not JUSTICE.

    So justice is defined by your personal feelings?

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  28. I think it’s good for Sullivan to keep celebrating himself. It show a healthy self-esteem.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  29. Coupla notes…

    Judges HATE being told partial truths.

    It is, in fact, a violation of our ethics code to even cite to case law without also noting for the court contrary legal holdings.

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  30. @25- “Do you actually see it that way? Or did you read that on The Federalist or Redstate or twitter?”

    No, former Judge Paul Cassell over at Volokh pointed to the case. But the case seems pretty straightforward as I read it. What is the binding precedent to which you refer?

    Al S (4fa42a)

  31. I’d also note that I disagree that the quoted langauge from Fokker Services is dicta. Seems to me that the DC Circuit’s interpretation of FR Crim P 48(a) is directly necessary for the holding in the case construing the “approval of the court” language in the Speedy Trial Act in a manner that preserves the prosecutors’ primacy over charging decisions and does not allow courts to impose their own charging preferences.

    Al S (4fa42a)

  32. Because I’ve said all that I ever in my life want to say on this topic…

    Off-topic: Got a pair of really nice new 4K monitors. Hooked them up via Desplayport, because that’s thenew thing. Right?

    WRONG. This concise rant explains why, Thank god the monitors also have 2 HDMI ports. They are nice monitors. But Displayport is teh suck.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  33. displayport roolz
    hdmi droolz

    Dave (1bb933)

  34. Interpreting language in the Speedy Trial Act may be persuasive as to interpreting similar or the same language in Rule 48, but it is not actually binding precedent. The binding precedent as to the interpretation of that language is in a case where that Rule is actually being interpreted: U.S. v. Ammidown.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  35. Thunderbolt/USB-C is where it’s at. HDMI is very problematic, because depending on the vintage of your 4k monitor, if it’s HDMI 1.2, 1.4, 1.4a, 2.0, you will drive it differently. Displayport for most of a decade has had better compatibility.

    USB-C/Thunderbolt, tunnels Displayport, as well as either a 10G/40G connection for ethernet, USB, power!!!. Thunderbolt has some security issues if you have physical access to the port, but if you have physical access to the port, you have physical access to everything else, I’m not worried at home.

    The best of all worlds is a laptop, Thinkpads in my case, but my wife drives Macbooks, and we have Razor Core EGPU’s that power off of a single thunderbolt cable, and run Nvidia Quadro graphics adapters in the Core.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  36. Try doing IC design on a little screen. I need at least two big monitors, and there’s no tools that run on Mac anyway. Not a lot of USB-C/Thunderbolt in the PC world either. Maybe soon. Never had Firewire, either. Different universe.

    I’m guessing everyone who thinks Displayport is cool only has the one monitor. If you have more than that (which it nicely enables) it does unpleasant things when you power one of them off.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  37. I for one, am very much looking forward to the judge denying the motion and an appeal going to the DC Circuit. Just so we can see Judge Srinivasan – revealed just last week to be an utter partisan hack – write an opinion saying “no, no, no, see what Fokker Services meant was the exact opposite from the plain language of the opinion”.

    Al S (4fa42a)

  38. Try doing IC design on a little screen.

    No thanks.

    Dave (1bb933)

  39. Almost any Gen 7+ Intel based laptop has Thunderbolt or USB-C, and I don’t think you can buy a non-45w mobile Intel CPU based machine without at least USB-C for expansion and power. I only use Thinkpads because of the keyboard, and this one, X390 has a couple of type C ports, my real work laptop is a Carbon X1 Extreme G2 which has the 15.6, it can power of a type C, but it’s got a 45w 6 core, so it uses the weird Lenovo 135w power adapter too, but I never break that out since the Razor Core will supply 90w, and it doesn’t go into boost mode too often after unloading the graphics off of the machine, and it’s going to be a while before I choose to get on a plane, most of my clients have punted the office until Oct 31st, heck one has indefinitely postponed a new 23 story HQ even though they had started construction, dumping half a billion into a new building today seems silly, not like it wasn’t before hand, but more so today.

    I’m probably going to replace the X390 with one of the new X14’s with the AMD Ryzen 4000 cpus. The AMD chipset doesn’t support Thunderbolt, but I typically bifurcate my use between long road trips with the big one, and short trips or dragging it around the house with the small one, so it doesn’t get connected to a display much so I don’t really care, it will still power off of USB-C. BTW the best think I’ve found for all of these devices is this little mag-safe like adapter, it’s a bit of a wart, but it saves the type c ports.

    Depending on your vintage of display, the power saving features do interact oddly. I have a 4X27 setup, and the middle 2 are current gen 4K displays and they work fine, both the outer 2 are 1440p (realistically there’s not a huge advantage of 4k@27 outside of Visio for me), but one of those is a 5 year old HP and it’s fine with power saving, the other is a 6 year (7?) old Dell and it just bounces on/off regardless of input. Neither 1440 will drive over 1080p on HDMI though, and a DP->DVI-D is too expensive, so those two are dedicated on the Razor Core, and it seems to manage power better than most systems, or the Quadro in it I guess.

    I’ve been contemplating replacing the whole deal with one of the LG 49″ ultrawides, but the prices have increased by $300 since Covid, and these two 4k’s are only a year old.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  40. Interesting note about Ammidown–one year ago to the day, Judge Sullivan issued an order relying on that decision, not Fokker, in deciding a Rule 48(a) motion.

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

  41. Dave (1bb933) — 5/14/2020 @ 2:19 pm

    2 3840×2160 monitors, plus one of the old 1290×1200 for PDFs. If I played games, it would be really cool.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  42. Predicted and predictable.

    Have you ever BEEN in Wisconsin? Bars are necessary. I doubt they’re forcing anyone to go in though.

    “Things that can’t go on won’t”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. Almost any Gen 7+ Intel based laptop has Thunderbolt or USB-C

    I used to use laptops to communicate while traveling. Now I use a phone or a tablet (even a ipad). Otherwise they are useless to me. Desktop motherboards MAY have one USB-C 3.2 port, mostly for hooking up a phone, but damn few have two.

    The problem with Displayport has nothing to do with power-saving. It’s an artifact of a poor PnP design. The monitor has an output that tells the computer it is there, and if you turn off the monitor it turns tat off, too. It looks to Windows as if the monitor was physically removed, so Windows helpfully takes everything that was on that monitor and crams it onto one of the others. The result usually involves a complete trashing of the desktop. No other display scheme behaves like this; even if powered off they demonstrate presence.

    People usually fix this by buying DP to HDMI cables, and/or shunning DP for ever after. It’s really a pain not being able to turn your monitor off without unintended consequences.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. I do not see sanctions for perjury for Flynn arising out of what has happened so far, by the way. (If he’s questioned again under oath, all bets are off.)

    Flynn, when he pleaded guilty, swore under oath to the judge that he lied. If he now says he didn’t, that means he committed perjury.

    However, Flynn may concede to the court that he lied. The dismissal of the case hinges on lack of materiality to any investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  45. The FBI’s explanation of why they did that intervie s all here in Exhibit 5

    https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  46. Everyone admits Flynn didn’t tell the whole truth. The question is whether it was material to the investigation (assuming there actually was an investigation to be affected) and not just a perjury Trap. Further, Flynn could have lied AND the DoJ could still believe it the investigation so tainted that its not worth the effort.

    We Know McCabe lied to the FBi investigators but nothing came of it. We know Comey and Brennan have lied to Congress and nothing came of it. we know Comey leaked classified data, and nothing came of it.

    But somehow Sullivan is VERY upset that Flynn lied to the FBI. Its very Odd.

    rcocean (846d30)

  47. Maybe the DOJ should indict those people.

    Time123 (797615)

  48. 51… After more than 3 years of excusing the behavior of the nation’s premier intelligence and law enforcement leadership, that wouldn’t garner much support among teh Resistance.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. Also in Exhibit 5 (I am not sure who is testifying:

    So that begins the last week of the Obama administration.

    And during that week, the then Acting Attorney General was urging me to tell the White House that the Vice President’s statements are inaccurate and to give them a heads -up that the statements that he had made to the public were inconsistent with what we knew [about 5 to 6 words redacted]

    And I resisted that, for two reasons.

    The first and most important reason is I worried it would step on our investigative equities. Our investigative team wanted to consider, so what else should we do with respect to Mr. Flynn?

    And I should have said this at the beginning. At that point, we had an open counterintelligence investigation on Mr. Flynn, and it had been open since the summertime, and we were very close to
    closing it. In fact, I had — I think I had authorized it to be closed at the end of January, beginning – – excuse me, end of December, beginning of January.

    And we kept it open once we became aware of these communications. And there were additional steps the investigators wanted to consider, and if we were to give a heads- up to anybody at the White House, it might step on our ability to take those steps.

    An , second, even if that hadn’t been the case, I don’t think the FBI’ s job is to give rudentialheads-ups. And if the leadership of the Department of Justice wanted to do that, that was certainly fine for them to do, but I didn’t think it was something that I should do.

    And then the DNI and the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, so Mr. Clapper and Mr. Brennan, both approached me on the 19th, the last evening of the Obama administration , and asked me whether I was going to tell them about what I knew about Mr. Flynn before they took [sic] office, and I said that I was not, given our investigative equities, and the conversation ended there.

    The administration takes office on the 20th, obviously.

    On the 24th, I directed agents to go to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn and had the Deputy Director call. Flynn and say: We want to send over a couple agents to interview you Are you willing to talk to them? [Note – they didn’t say about what – SF]

    And he said: Sure Send them over I will talk to them right now.

    And we sent two of our most experienced counterintelligence investigators over to the White House . I did not tell the Department of Justice that I was taking that step until after I had taken the step.

    And two experienced agents went over and met Mr. Flynn alone.

    The Deputy Director said: If you want to have somebody else there, that is fine. He said: I will meet with them alone.

    And he met with the two agents and was interviewed in his office in the West Wing and said ssentially what the Vice President had said on television, which is: I didn’t talk to the Russians about their expulsion of diplomats. I didn’t talk to the Russians about their — the sanctions . I didn ‘ t talk about that at all.

    And then the agents, obviously being experienced agents, start interviewing him, and not – – they didn’t show him the transcripts, but they started using in their questions words that were taken directly from the transcripts: Did you say this, and did you say that, and did you say this?

    [Transcripts is plural because there was mre than oene conversation between Fynn and Kislyak. SF]

    And he obviously began to pick up that they had something else that was underlying their questions , and he said: Look, it is possible. I am guessing you guys ]about 16 letters redacted]the Russians, but — he said I don’t remember talking about that. I was in the Dominican Republic. I didn’t get his text because I had bad coverage there. I called him back. And I don’t remember talking to him about this. And I am sorry, but I didn’t — he said: My recollection is I did not talk to him about that.

    And thw agents – – and the reason I mention their experience is because I talked to them about this – – they discerned no physical indications of deception . They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact . They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.

    And they interviewed him completely, went through it all, did not show him the transcript,[about 9 letters redacted] or transcripts, and then came back and drafted a 302 and reported to me and the Deputy DirectorAnd I then briefed the White House on the contents of what Mr. Flynn had said.

    That is the 24th of January.

    On Jan 26 hgh level DOJ people went to the White House and briefed the White House Counsel On Jan 27 they offered to make thee transcript available. John Eisenberg later went over to the FBI and looked at the transcripts. On Feb 10

    …the FBI carried the transcripts — two of our folks carried the transcripts over to the White House and reviewed them with White House Counsel and, I believe, the Vice President.

    And on the 13th of February, Mr. Flynn resigned.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  50. Also in Exhibit 5 (I am not sure who is testifying:

    Sadly, I’ve been paying attention to this stuff so long that I know that one without looking further. It’s Comey.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  51. But somehow Sullivan is VERY upset that Flynn lied to the FBI. Its very Odd.

    No, that is not why Sullivan is upset, if he is upset. He’s upset that Flynn and the current DOJ team are playing games in his courtroom.

    And he may not be upset. The more that comes out in public, the better off everyone is.

    Kishnevi (65f98d)

  52. 51. Because I had to cut and paste this in pieces, and when I cut and pasted this it added some spaces around apostrophes, and ignored redactions, I repunctuated this a bit, and put in some notes, including a sic at an obvious error in speaking by Comey. and somehow made a “the” into a “thw” because I’d somehow deleted the word “the” before “agents” and tried to put it back in. Ad I typed the wrong bracket sign in one place.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  53. Near the end of Exhibit 5 there is some more testimony by Comey, this time with his name included. )

    The government is so careless there that they leave out a page or more.

    We seem to switch Congressmen without notice!

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  54. The French take:

    The facts above do not mean that Judge Sullivan will deny the DoJ’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case. Nor do they mean that Sullivan will hold Flynn in contempt. I still believe that Sullivan is likely to grant the DoJ’s motion—but not without letting both the government and Flynn know exactly how he feels about each party’s conduct in the case.
    My newsletter Tuesday argued that many of the institutional strains of 2020 can be traced back to the immense pressure placed on those institutions by corrupt actions in 2015 and 2016. And so it is here. There is no excuse for Flynn’s decision to act as an unregistered agent of Turkey while advising a presidential campaign (nor is there any excuse for the $68,000 in fees and expenses he took from Russia-related entities in 2015). He should not have lied to the FBI (or the vice president).
    At the same time, the DoJ is hardly approaching the court with clean hands. In the initial Flynn investigation, there’s evidence of internal gamesmanship and trickery combined with a classic perjury trap that snapped shut on a senior adviser to the president. The DoJ then overcompensated for its misdeeds by filing a motion to dismiss Flynn’s case that fails to grapple with the full extent of Flynn’s crimes and ultimately grants Flynn a special exemption from the law that it does not grant other defendants.
    And now a federal judge is responding to extraordinary facts with an extraordinary order of his own. Stay tuned. This story is far from over.

    Paul Montagu (b3f51b)

  55. An attorney with Covington & Burling filed a Notice of Appearance today on behalf of the firm. C&B originally represented Flynn. The current DOJ/Flynn approach seems to imply C&B was negligent (or worse) in helping Flynn plead guilty. Normally lawyers can’t reveal dealings with their clients due to confidentiality but a malpractice defense is an exception. If that happens here, I don’t think it will help Flynn or the DOJ.

    DRJ (15874d)

  56. Flynn, when he pleaded guilty, swore under oath to the judge that he lied. If he now says he didn’t, that means he committed perjury.

    Yes. *If* he now says that. Read everything I wrote.

    I do not see sanctions for perjury for Flynn arising out of what has happened so far, by the way. (If he’s questioned again under oath, all bets are off.)

    So yes, Sammy, I’m fully aware that he swore under oath he had lied. But if he says nothing else, I do not see sanctions for him. Get it now?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  57. So. Patterico (115b1f) — 5/14/2020 @ 8:42 pm

    yes, Sammy, I’m fully aware that he swore under oath he had lied. But if he says nothing else, I do not see sanctions for him. Get it now?

    I think the judge may think that somewhere Flynn has denied that in court. Now I don’t know where that could be. You know a great deal more about this case, but you could have missed it, or at least not read the same way, whatever the judge is thinking about.

    Now I think that Flynn has been very careful, in court or in legal papers, not to dispute the assertion that he lied. Not so the PR campaign on his behalf where the FBI FD-302 saying that he was truthful has been quoted over and over again.

    Perhaps the judge thinks somewhere Flynn crossed the line and did deny he lied. I know the judge warned him several times (by questioning him as to him not saying that) that he was coming close to doing that. I think this is the possible perjury charge judge has in mind. (albeit it’s not prosecution – the judge is considering contempt of court.)

    The show cause order you quote seems to indicate that the judge thinks a denial by Flynn under oath that he lied to the FBI may have already happened. I don’t think the judge raised that issue, merely in case Flynn tries to say he didn’t lie.

    In any case, I think it is wrong, and unreasonable, to preclude a convicted person from claiming he false pleaded guilty, because this does happen, and nobody ever prosecutes anyone for perjury for this kind of thing (to do so, you’d have to concede he was innocent

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)

  58. DRJ @57. An attorney with Covington & Burling filed a Notice of Appearance today on behalf of the firm. C&B originally represented Flynn.

    I would never burn a client on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, unless he actually sued me or brought a professional responsibility complaint against me. Never because he complained about me on appeal or in other post-trial proceedings with no consequences to me, and doubly never on my own volition.

    Even the one time I had an inquiry (not a complaint) from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, I only told the commission what I did and what information I was acting on, and turned over my file at their request. (I received a “no further action” letter and a thank you for my cooperation, no complaint was filed.)

    nk (1d9030)

  59. Comey and Brennan have lied to Congress and nothing came of it. we know Comey leaked classified data, and nothing came of it.
    I won’t speak for Brennan, but show me where Comey lied to Congress or leaked classified data. The leaked the notes of a conversation with Trump, but it wasn’t classified.

    Paul Montagu (c3380c)

  60. I agree it generally makes no sense to get into that, nk, but the party alignments in this case are so unusual that it is hard to predict where it could end up.

    DRJ (15874d)

  61. 60. Seems to me a clear ethical violation to publicly go after a former client preemptively, and I therefor doubt that a lawyerly fig leaf will be the substance of any C&B appearance.

    But consider the dynamics of a scenario where Flynn or his counsel represent to the court things which are simply false? C&B would be under a duty of candor to the court to speak out, according to some readings of our ethics code. Perhaps nothing more elaborate than, “That is not strictly true, Your Honor”.

    What an interesting case this has become!

    Ragspierre (d9bec9)

  62. Now I think that Flynn has been very careful, in court or in legal papers, not to dispute the assertion that he lied. Not so the PR campaign on his behalf where the FBI FD-302 saying that he was truthful has been quoted over and over again.

    I’m pretty sure that in his January motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he actually did submit an affidavit denying it.

    David Nieporent (9c8c00)

  63. Didn’t the DOJ get Michael Milkin to plead guilty to a crime that didn’t violate any statutes, just so his brother wouldn’t get a bad sentence? Why are you so stuck on rooting for Flynn to get punished?

    Flynn’s offense was making a material misstatement in an FBI interview. Before the interview, there was no actual crime. I would think that since they had the transcript and they knew Flynn had not done anything criminal before the interview that there was no purpose for the interview besides entrapment.

    The Obama team purposely ticked off the Russians while Flynn was on vacation so that the Russian ambassador would call Flynn while he was away from secure communications and they could eavesdrop on his conversation.

    Why do you think that Flynn is such a criminal that this kind of treatment is OK? I have not read every post on this guy but it seems that you are more interested in the process of getting a win for the prosecution, than actually fair treatment.

    Nick Temple (008ee0)

  64. 60. Seems to me a clear ethical violation to publicly go after a former client preemptively, and I therefor doubt that a lawyerly fig leaf will be the substance of any C&B appearance.

    That’s how I see it, too. Moreover, it’s bad lawyering for their own selves. If they do not participate in the hearing, they are not bound by anything that happens there and not estopped from contesting adverse findings of fact by Sullivan in a future malpractice or disciplinary case in which they are parties. If they participate, they might be estopped.

    They may actually be looking to burn Flynn because one of the prerequisites of bringing a malpractice suit in a criminal case is that the defendant was finally exonerated, and that’s worse than unethical, it’s damn nasty.

    But “I only know what I read in the papers” and I’m just speculating, really.

    nk (1d9030)

  65. The Obama team purposely ticked off the Russians while Flynn was on vacation so that the Russian ambassador would call Flynn while he was away from secure communications and they could eavesdrop on his conversation.

    LOL.

    Dave (1bb933)

  66. Still, nowhere near as nefarious as the FBI eliminating all the payphones so they could better trace people’s telephone calls, and the people too, on their personal phones.

    nk (1d9030)

  67. Judge Sullivan has tapped a former judge to argue to his court why the DOJ shouldn’t drop the charges against Gen. Flynn. The former judge, John Gleeson, has been a vocal critic of the DOJ’s action. Yet not too long ago, he wrote a piece stating that a judge CANNOT ignore a DOJ request to drop a case. I’m sure Sidney Powell will make that clear in the hearing.
    The DOJ and the Executive Branch have sole Constitutional responsibility for prosecuting federal cases. If Judge Sullivan wants to charge Gen. Flynn with Perjury in his court, he would need the DOJ as the prosecutor. He can’t be prosecutor AND judge in the case. Judge Sullivan has made is extreme animus towards General Flynn known on Several occasions. Once saying he should be considered a traitor. Strong words. Biased words.
    Ms. Powell can’t do much till the hearing takes place and Judge Sullivan makes his decision. If Judge Sullivan does try to sentence Gen. Flynn to jail time, then Ms. Powell can apply for a writ of mandamus to the DC Circuit Court. Whatever is sticking in the craw of Judge Sullivan about Gen. Sullivan, I’m sure if the DC Circuit smacks his ruling aside, it will increase his blood pressure that much more.

    DNH (9497a1)

  68. I’ll tell you what result Judge Sullivan is aiming at:

    Agreeing to the dismissal of the case, but holding Mike Flynn in contempt of court for lying under oath to the court and sentencing him to a few months in jail.

    Sammy Finkelman (6c9102)

  69. Judge Sullivan shood remind the AG and the DOJ — the “chief enforcer of federal laws” — of its guiding principle:

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  70. Flynn’s attorney just asked the DC Circuit of appeals to not only step in and order Judge Sullivan to accept the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, but also to reassign the Flynn case away from Sullivan:
    https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Petition-filed.pdf

    (inserts gif of splodey heads)

    whembly (c30c83)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1222 secs.