Jump to content
thelawlorfaithful

DOJ drops case against General Michael Flynn

Recommended Posts

In DOJ’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution, they argue that Flynn’s calls were routine

If that's true, why was their substance redacted? For that matter, why has Trump so vehemently fought release of his income tax returns which every other president beginning with Richard Nixon has divulged? And why was Don McGahn's testimony before the Mueller commission redacted from its report? And why has Trump so vehemently fought to keep McGahn from testifying before the House of Representatives?

Transparency in simple words refers to the condition of being transparent. In the business world, it refers to the quality that needs to be present in a process or activity for the smooth functioning of that activity. Transparency is very closely associated with accountability and authenticity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Here is the analysis from EmptyWheel who is well worth following for those who want to keep track of our government...

 

In this post, I showed how former National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s memorialization of a conversation about Mike Flynn’s calls to Sergey Kislyak with President Obama and others on January 5, 2017 made it clear that Obama wanted nothing to do with any investigation into Flynn. I noted there was one redacted passage that seemed, “consistent with Obama adopting some caution, but deferring any more drastic measures unless, ‘anything changes in the next few weeks.'”

In a never-ending bid to distract from Trump’s disastrous performance on COVID, the Trump Administration has now released the full letter, which reads this way:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Corney and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied, “potentially.” He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that “the level of communication is unusual.”

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

The italicized passage is new. It reveals that Flynn was speaking to Kislyak “frequently,” a comment which is consistent with Sally Yates’ concernabout the “back and forth” between Kislyak in which Flynn was making “specific asks.” Some of those specific asks Yates described in her Mueller interview remain redacted (as are the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak themselves).

In DOJ’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution, they argue that Flynn’s calls were routine calls made to “build relationships.”

Such calls are not uncommon when incumbent public officials preparing for their oncoming duties seek to begin and build relationships with soon-to-be counterparts.

But the motion addresses only a subset of calls, not (for example) the face-to-face meeting with Kislyak on December 1, or calls Flynn made during the election (his 302 mentions one he made in January 2016, at a time he claimed not to be working with Trump, but there are reports there were more).

Most importantly, the filing doesn’t address a key reason why the FBI had reason to investigate Mike Flynn: the frequency of his calls to Kislyak were “unusual.”

In an effort to gaslight Trump supporters, then, the Trump Administration just showed that DOJ’s motion to dismiss falsely treated as normal communications that were not.

Which, given that the Trump Administration just produced evidence that proves DOJ’s motion to dismiss made a false claim, provides Sullivan all the more reason to demand all the transcripts between Flynn and Kislyak.

 

So, instead of letting the Trump team know they had a concern, they decided to investigate Flynn and not say a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BYUcougfan said:

So, instead of letting the Trump team know they had a concern, they decided to investigate Flynn and not say a word.

Whataboutism: It's the word of the day every day

  • Idiot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

So, instead of letting the Trump team know they had a concern, they decided to investigate Flynn and not say a word.

 

56 minutes ago, SUDSFan said:

Whataboutism: It's the word of the day every day

That is not whataboutism, that is what happened.  We are talking about the Flynn case.  Maybe you just don't understand what whataboutism means?

  • Cheers 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BYUcougfan said:

That is not whataboutism, that is what happened.  We are talking about the Flynn case.  Maybe you just don't understand what whataboutism means?

Aren't you essentially saying What about Obama? since Trump wasn't yet the guy in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BYUcougfan said:

So, instead of letting the Trump team know they had a concern, they decided to investigate Flynn and not say a word.

Again if you don’t know how high it goes that would be what you should do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Again if you don’t know how high it goes that would be what you should do...

Bullshit

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Dude.  Just admit you are a Q supporter. 

What is Q?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Dude.  Just admit you are a Q supporter. 

doggy style dog hump GIF by Cartuna

You have a boner for all things Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SUDSFan said:

Aren't you essentially saying What about Obama? since Trump wasn't yet the guy in charge.

SUDS, that is the whole point of this.  It is the story.  Whataboutism would be if Trump's FBI has concerns about part of the Biden transition team, and instead of telling the Biden team, they investigate and don't warn Biden there might be a problem.  And additionally do all they can to make sure the investigation goes on after Obama leaves office.  If all of that happens, or even part of it,  and then I say "well, Obama did it".....that would be whataboutism.  However, this has never happened before that we now about, so there can't be any whataboutism.  It is outrageous, and if you take a more cynical read of what happened, your take could be that Obama tried to sabotage the transition of power.  Its kind of a big deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 2:11 PM, sactowndog said:

I’m curious why the right thinks the following is bad?  Even Turley has said the FBI had grounds to commence an investigation.  If the administration has concerns about an actor, Dem or Republican, they should be cautious about putting US intelligence assets at risk until they are absolutely certain.   

I’m mostly following this with interest rather than commenting but not sure how anyone but the most partisan player could disagree.

Because by the time this meeting happens, nearly 3 weeks before Rice puts down this memorialization, the FBI already knows Flynn is not a Russian asset. They’ve conducted interviews using confidential informants, searched through all of Page’s campaign emails, and had prepared to close the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn because they’d found “no derogatory information” in any of their databases, which includes the CIA. They know he’s not working for Russia, they know what’s on the call and that Flynn is advancing American, not Russian, interests. 

Despite knowing all of this they still are searching for a way to keep the investigation going, which is why the moribund Logan Act has to be brought up. Rice pins it all on Comey in the redacted paragraph, but she’d also go on to openly lie about much of this so who knows.

One of the truly great successes of our American experiment of government in our history has been the peaceful transition of power. This is no small feat if you look at governments throughout history. Other than the shenanigans of 1860, what happened here is unprecedented. An outgoing administration made a point to criminally implicate the incoming one of crimes they know at the time to be false. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC circuit court in response to request for a writ of mandamus orders Judge Sullivan to reply within ten days. The only precedent they cite is the aforementioned USA vs Fokker case, specifically 48(a).

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/orders.nsf/14CA50587730CED08525856F006906EF/%24file/20-5143LDSN.pdf

The relevant Fokker passage.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E7CE07715B86640185257F8C00512106/%24file/15-3016-1607222.pdf

Those settled principles counsel against interpreting statutes and rules in a manner that would impinge on the Executive’s constitutionally rooted primacy over criminal charging decisions. Of particular salience, 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 (1977). A court thus reviews the prosecution’s motion under Rule 48(a) primarily to guard against the prospect that dismissal is part of a scheme of “prosecutorial harassment” of the defendant through repeated efforts to bring—and then dismiss—charges. Id.

So understood, the “leave of court” authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges, or a view that any remaining charges fail adequately to redress the gravity of the defendant’s alleged conduct. See In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003). The authority to make such determinations remains with the Executive.

Sullivan’s argument is going to need to be a doozy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flynn case has always been about trying to get to Trump. The FBIs entrapment of Flynn in trying to get at Trump is far more corrupt than anything Flynn did. Sullivan is doing the FBI no favors in prolonging this case. This article pretty much sums it up.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/21/the-flynn-saga-seems-too-complex-read-this/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because by the time this meeting happens, nearly 3 weeks before Rice puts down this memorialization, the FBI already knows Flynn is not a Russian asset. They’ve conducted interviews using confidential informants, searched through all of Page’s campaign emails, and had prepared to close the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn because they’d found “no derogatory information” in any of their databases, which includes the CIA. They know he’s not working for Russia, they know what’s on the call and that Flynn is advancing American, not Russian, interests. 

Despite knowing all of this they still are searching for a way to keep the investigation going, which is why the moribund Logan Act has to be brought up. Rice pins it all on Comey in the redacted paragraph, but she’d also go on to openly lie about much of this so who knows.

One of the truly great successes of our American experiment of government in our history has been the peaceful transition of power. This is no small feat if you look at governments throughout history. Other than the shenanigans of 1860, what happened here is unprecedented. An outgoing administration made a point to criminally implicate the incoming one of crimes they know at the time to be false. 

I have not seen proof they knew at the time to be false.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because by the time this meeting happens, nearly 3 weeks before Rice puts down this memorialization, the FBI already knows Flynn is not a Russian asset. They’ve conducted interviews using confidential informants, searched through all of Page’s campaign emails, and had prepared to close the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn because they’d found “no derogatory information” in any of their databases, which includes the CIA. They know he’s not working for Russia, they know what’s on the call and that Flynn is advancing American, not Russian, interests. 

Despite knowing all of this they still are searching for a way to keep the investigation going, which is why the moribund Logan Act has to be brought up. Rice pins it all on Comey in the redacted paragraph, but she’d also go on to openly lie about much of this so who knows.

One of the truly great successes of our American experiment of government in our history has been the peaceful transition of power. This is no small feat if you look at governments throughout history. Other than the shenanigans of 1860, what happened here is unprecedented. An outgoing administration made a point to criminally implicate the incoming one of crimes they know at the time to be false. 

Not only have I not seen proof but as pointed out by Empty Wheel, Flynn was coordinating with the Mira Lago.   Did they know what was being said and who was involved?  Coordinating campaign activities with a foreign government to hack an opposing campaign is a big deal if true.  
 

I have no problem with either party doing a full investigation if they suspect such collusion may have occurred.  And until they are clear, protecting US Intelligence assets.  It’s ridiculous and cynical to call that “blocking a peaceful transition of power”.   The Obama administration did nothing but insure our key intelligence assets were secure.  That caution is what any Administration should do.  It’s not inconceivable a top level incoming party could be corrupted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I have not seen proof they knew at the time to be false.  

 

18 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Not only have I not seen proof but as pointed out by Empty Wheel, Flynn was coordinating with the Mira Lago.   Did they know what was being said and who was involved?  Coordinating campaign activities with a foreign government to hack an opposing campaign is a big deal if true.  
 

I have no problem with either party doing a full investigation if they suspect such collusion may have occurred.  And until they are clear, protecting US Intelligence assets.  It’s ridiculous and cynical to call that “blocking a peaceful transition of power”.   The Obama administration did nothing but insure our key intelligence assets were secure.  That caution is what any Administration should do.  It’s not inconceivable a top level incoming party could be corrupted.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/04/30/fbi-flynn-documents-227153

The FBI took steps in early 2017 to close its investigation into former Trump adviser Michael Flynn before abruptly reversing course, according to new documents filed in Flynn’s pending legal effort to rescind his guilty plea for lying to federal agents.

The filings indicate that by Jan. 4, 2017, the FBI had drafted a document summarizing findings on a probe — code-named “Crossfire Razor” — of whether Flynn had been acting as a Russian agent during the 2016 campaign. The partly redacted document, which was included in the court filings, indicated the FBI had no “derogatory” information on Flynn and was prepared to close the case.

Comey testified he’d approved the closure in late December. They’d investigated and found nothing there. But since the closure hadn’t been officially filed by January 4th, the FBI’s “own incompetence helps us” in Strzok’s words, they could find some other law with which to keep Flynn under investigation. Hence, the silly Logan Act conversation in the January 5th meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/04/30/fbi-flynn-documents-227153

The FBI took steps in early 2017 to close its investigation into former Trump adviser Michael Flynn before abruptly reversing course, according to new documents filed in Flynn’s pending legal effort to rescind his guilty plea for lying to federal agents.

The filings indicate that by Jan. 4, 2017, the FBI had drafted a document summarizing findings on a probe — code-named “Crossfire Razor” — of whether Flynn had been acting as a Russian agent during the 2016 campaign. The partly redacted document, which was included in the court filings, indicated the FBI had no “derogatory” information on Flynn and was prepared to close the case.

Comey testified he’d approved the closure in late December. They’d investigated and found nothing there. But since the closure hadn’t been officially filed by January 4th, the FBI’s “own incompetence helps us” in Strzok’s words, they could find some other law with which to keep Flynn under investigation. Hence, the silly Logan Act conversation in the January 5th meeting.

Yeah not a huge fan of relying on partially redacted documents and I believe Empty Wheel has addressed a number of these points.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Yeah not a huge fan of relying on partially redacted documents and I believe Empty Wheel has addressed a number of these points.  

You don’t believe in reading official documents for yourself but some random dude named empty wheel has his finger on the pulse because he can mystically read the memorialization of a conversation written down weeks after it occurred? There is nothing unusual about an incoming NSA talking to foreign diplomats. Since the FBI found “no derogatory information” in their counterintelligence research on Flynn during that time, Yates either has been ill informed as to what the FBI has found in the investigation, or is bullshitting. 

I’m not going to spend all day today shredding some blogger feeding shit sandwiches to believers for whom no amount of facts can be persuaded to think for themselves. Have a good day.

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

You don’t believe in reading official documents for yourself but some random dude named empty wheel has his finger on the pulse because he can mystically read the memorialization of a conversation written down weeks after it occurred? There is nothing unusual about an incoming NSA talking to foreign diplomats. Since the FBI found “no derogatory information” in their counterintelligence research on Flynn during that time, Yates either has been ill informed as to what the FBI has found in the investigation, or is bullshitting. 

I’m not going to spend all day today shredding some blogger feeding shit sandwiches to believers for whom no amount of facts can be persuaded to think for themselves. Have a good day.

Dude chill... I am reading a variety of analysis.

oh and generally her posts are very factual.   
 

Marcy Wheeler (known on Twitter by the handle "emptywheel") is an American independent journalist specializing in national security and civil liberties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×