COINTELPRO seems forgotten. After years of fighting against government overreach including the USAPATRIOT Act (esp. The Librarians' Connecticut Four), the liberal democrats with whom I have always identified & voted now are pro-censorship when it comes to Big Tech and ready to give the state full-power over our every move. Maybe too many have COVID-safe paychecks. The ACLU is no longer a beacon. FISA passed the Senate yesterday. Bernie didn't even vote. The only thing that makes sense is they all have their secret deals (usually through their children or siblings like Biden) and they don't want to lose power and have that exposed.
And you're leaving out the about-face on #MeToo. Look, the disparaged conservative critique of CBF was that the incorrect standard was being applied, and it would say the same thing about Tara Reade but for the fact that the groups that turned CBF's accusations into a national spectacle must now either admit their proffered standard was wrong, or acknowledge they hold a different standard when their guy is in the hotseat. The criticism by conservatives now isn't that we should adopt the absurd standard set by the outrage crowd, it's that the outrage crowd needs to own up to the standard they themselves set or take one on the chin. Democrats for some reason seem to have decided on the latter, even when there are probably more creative alternatives for them.
This was an entirely foreseeable outcome, but a disappointing continuation of the Democrats making very short-sighted political plays without any regard for the fact that they'll be bitten in the ass when their turn comes around. Some examples - burning Robert Bork's and Manuel Estrada's nominations; eliminating the filibuster; attempting to burn Kavanaugh's nomination; the long-term consequences of impeachment over strictly non-criminal charges are still TBD.
Right now, they push on three fronts that are guaranteed to be pyrrhic victories - Trumps tax returns; the prosecution of Flynn; state authoritarianism. All three of these are certain to be ass-kickers during the next Democratic administration. Buy popcorn futures.
Well, hearsay with no corroboration vs hearsay with some corroboration, yes. Both are objectively weak sauce, but to your point - if CBF cleared the bar, then TR certainly does. Crickets now.
They demanded an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh and his immediate resignation, but an NYT "investigation" that amounted to "well Trump raped more" was plenty enough to exonerate ole Joe
I'm not a D anymore (or an R for that matter) but I have to thank you for being honest. There are a few of you out there actually practicing journalism, it has to get lonely as your numbers are disappearing. Always applauded Wyden when he was fighting this shit with Paul, not a peep now. And the ACLU fighting to take away due process from college students. I'm 64 and fear for the future. Young people who think this is just political posturing that doesn't matter because Trump=Hitler may be in for a rude awakening. The guys who do this shit never think the shoe will be on the other foot and it always ends up there. The overall mediocrity of our self important elite is mind boggling and I hope folks wise up.
Why has it taken so long for a JFK and Hubert Humphrey Democratic to write this story. I’m 56. I grew up when Democrats would rather die than let civil liberties be taken from anyone, including Republicans. Now, those people seem to be gone. I voted for Trump, and I will again for those exact reasons.
Trump, who extorted an allied government to conduct a phony investigation of his political rival? Trump, who has removed due process rights and protections for immigrants and asylum seekers? Trump, who campaigned on discrimination against people based on their religion? Trump, who called for the death penalty of the central park five? Trump, who praised the use of torture in Guantanamo Bay? Trump, who asked the Russians to hack and then leak private e-mails of his opponents? Who said we should go after the families of terrorist suspects? Who appoints judges with the explicit goal of overturning decades of established abortion rights, police restrictions, and worker protections? Whose entire party works constantly to restrict voting rights? That Trump? You're going to vote for him because you're concerned about civil liberties? Have you thought this through?
On the broader issues, the Democratic Party's behavior these last few months was enough to get me to finally give up my right to vote, when piled on top of their behavior over the last five years or so. I just don't give a shit about them anymore, because they don't give a shit about anything real anymore.
Because they are not liberals. They are The Left. Completely different animal. Utterly corrupt and anti-American. The Left IS the Democratic Party and the media now. And they did not want a civilized discussion. They want to jail and destroy their enemies. And their enemies are the rest of us.
We have no "left" in this country; we have 2 corporate coldwarrier parties, as does much of the world. Bernie Sanders was undermined by the same oligarchs as Jeremy Corbin in the U,K. The tactics varied a little, otherwise same old story decade after decade.
Thank you for this piece. Your investigative work always shows an honest effort to think and reason irregardless of the lines, and I appreciate your wit and clarity. There is a broad range of comments here; It looks a lot like party line enforcement, particularly from the Blue Team. I hope you continue to not pay any attention to any of it, from either side. Personally, I grew up with Democrats of the most progressive, liberal type, and as a working class kid sacking groceries to keep an old car on the road, I saw as much as I needed to by the time I went to University.
Since the Bolshevik Revolution, the Democratic Party in the USA has been all about winning elections. It is the primary practical aim of the Party. I think you should examine carefully what effect this has on their philosophy and on their actions, and ask yourself: What do I imagine would be the price too high to pay, for the Democratic Party to be willing to consider a loss? Then look for it, in practice. Throughout my youth, the Party was eager to embrace revolution, reform, and the ideas of individual rights. But it's a mistake to imagine they believed any of it. It was just a game plan to win, and now: they have a new plan.
What we're witnessing is the real-time maturation of a liberal--in the true "classic" sense" (individual rights, freedom of speech/expression, worker's rights, etc). Oddly, it is the conservative movement over the past 40 years that has been most consistent with the original ideology. The American "liberal" movement which espoused noble, egalitarian ideals was corrupted long-ago by selfish hijacking of moral movements to establish their elite status in media, academia, and global political/economic self-serving...power, the ultimate corrupter.
The media was transparently partisan and hypocritical before Trump, but in the past 4 years they have behaved so badly that most of the public no longer has any respect for the profession of "journalism." Personally, I love to watch Trump berate and abuse the twits in the White House press corps. Most of their questions aren't serious inquiries and don't deserve a serious response.
Back in the early '80's, I took a few journalism courses when I was in college, although, thank God, I decided against going into the field. (I'd be very lonely now if I had.) I remember the teachers saying that Watergate had upturned the old rules of journalism and the trend was now "advocacy journalism" rather than objectivity. I was a young liberal then and so that did not trouble me at the time. But now we are seeing the fruits of what happens when journalists become convinced that crusading for their pet causes is more important than telling the truth.
There's also something unattractive (not to mention transparently unethical), in a journalist or anyone else, about thinking as long as your target is a schmuck it's perfectly okay to gang up on him and treat him unfairly. Trump isn't somebody that central casting would ever pick to play the role of engaging, sympathetic victim; but that doesn't prevent him from being one, by any objective standard... nor does it get institutional media off the hook as victimizers and bullies.
This ignores the valid reasons for concern related to Flynn’s activities. Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions. He was opening himself to blackmail by lying to the Vice President. And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia. Yes, in hindsight it seems tame because there wasn’t some Trump-Putin conspiracy exposed. But these actions by Flynn (in which he pled guilty) would still warrant action in my view. But I completely agree about the excessive use of surveillance. But are you going to write articles like this for every American prosecuted through these means? Is Trump going to apply this same legal jujitsu in every federal case? No, because Trump wants to help Flynn. Not because he actually wantS to reform the surveillance state. So I don’t think the judge is acting in an authoritarian manner. It’s a valid check on a politically motivated executive.
Joe -- You've not been paying attention to the actual evidence. Instead, you're relying on sources who are making verifiably false representations of what the evidence shows. For example, Flynn was in no way undermining US foreign policy. He was part of the duly elected President's transition staff. In talking to other foreign leaders, he was merely doing his job. Yes, Trump's foreign policies were going to differ from Obama's. Those policies were part of the just completed election. Trump clearly stated his views on Russia, Iran, China, etc. Hillary, for the most part, ran on continuing Obama's policies. The voters approved of Trump, not Hillary. So, the change in policies was part and parcel of the peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. Flynn wasn't doing anything wrong any more than Obama's transition team did wrong when they had similar conversations in the waning days of the Bush Administration.
Second, Flynn didn't lie to the FBI. Nor did he mislead them. (The FBI had a transcript of the call. There was NOTHING Flynn could have said that would have improved or harmed the FBI's understanding of what was said on the call.) The two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was being truthful and that any falsehoods he may have said were NOT intentional but were nothing more than a lapse of memory. This the BEST evidence we have of whether or not Flynn lied. The two agents came away believing that he did not.
So, why did Flynn agree to plead guilty to lying? FBI agents are supposed to record such an interview on form FD 302 within 5 days. In this case, it took the FBI weeks to finalize the 302 -- during which time it was revised and edited multiple times. (Some of the editors were not even in the room with Flynn.) At the end of this editing process, the FBI's official take on the interview Flynn went from truthful to deceitful. It was this revised version that served as the basis for charging Flynn. The prosecutors didn't tell Flynn (as they were required to) about the prior versions of the 302. They told him that two FBI agents would testify in court that he'd intentionally lied. How could he prove differently? To top it off, his defense had cost him millions of dollars and the prosecution was threatening to charge Flynn's son. Flynn agreed to plead guilty because he had been bankrupted and he hoped to protect his son from ruin, not because he thought he'd done anything wrong.
Dan, I'm afraid you are the uninformed one here. First, Flynn, according to court documents, was trying to influence Russia's actions in matters of foreign policy and undermine the then-current administrations position. Of course Trump can change those official positions, but only once he's in office. You'll have to find some evidence of a similarly direct effort by Obama to overstep Bush. However, this is mostly a red herring since Flynn wasn't charged with or being investigated for Logan act violations. (Side note: the 'voters' wanted Hillary, Trump won because of electoral college mechanisms.)
So, on to the substance: There is no evidence to contradict the testimony that Flynn lied. Flynn attempted to mislead the FBI in the course of an investigation into foreign espionage, not aware that they had a transcript of his call(s). He also lied to Pence. (or Pence lied along with him). Flynn's attempt to withdraw his plea doesn't dispute his conversations with Kislyak. Sztrok, in a later interview, said he and his partner didn't see indications of lying from Flynn and didn't "have the impression" he was lying at the time. Comey, in testimony to Congress, recalls "My recollection was he was — the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being — they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there" . This is straightforward, Flynn was lying, but didn't have an obvious tell during an interview. The right wing is spinning a false narrative out of bits and pieces of nothing.
There is no evidence the FBI's take changed. Texts from Sztrok and Page make it quite clear that editing was only to make it readable, not to change material facts. Moreover, the 302 we have from Flynn's interview does not (at least in unredacted portions) make any statement as to whether the FBI ultimately concluded that Flynn lied. So how could it have been edited to change its position when it doesn't take any such position? This is all just fabrication from Trumpists.
Flynn took a plea deal because his actions had exposed him to multiple charges. He pleaded down to merely lying and the prosecutors let him off with that in exchange for cooperation. The FBI would have had to prove its case, not the other way around, but Flynn clearly thought they could.
As the representative of the incoming administration,Flynn not only had the right to influence the actions of a foreign nation, but the responsibility to advise those nations of the posture of the new administration.
Huh? He allegedly made a false statement. There's no evidence or anyone even claiming that he knowingly did so, nor that he purposefully lied. You have mischaracterized Flynn by attributing a dishonest motive.
"Flynn clearly thought they could [prove their case]."
This is also an assumption on your part. Given the threats to Flynn and his family made by the FBI as well as the exorbitant emotional and financial cost, Flynn had little choice but to accept the deal.
Flynn was charged with "willfully and knowingly mak[ing] materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements" with multiple examples. Both McCabe and Comey have stated that he was clearly lying. Flynn called Kislyak the day new sanctions were announced. Mueller report states that Kislyak called Flynn to tell him the Russians had changed their policy in response to his requests. Flynn allegedly repeated the lie to Pence. It is simply not plausible to believe Flynn didn't deliberately lie.
There is nothing in any of the released documents that indicates the prosecutors had any doubts about their charges. The judge said Flynn had sold his country out! Flynn of course had a choice to reject the deal, since he later tried to do so with a new, conspiracy-hawking lawyer. Even so, neither Powell, nor the DOJ's attempt to bury the case have actually disputed the lies from what I have seen. They try to argue (badly) on procedural grounds.
You would have to have the Kislyak call and the original 302 had it been filled out within 5 days to know if Flynn lied. What Comey and McCabe said is irrelevant. Mueller is irrelevant. Pence is irrelevant to Flynn's case. Since we don't have the original 302, we don't even know what Flynn said. We know that the 302 was mishandled and weeks went by before the form was filled out. Then it was edited later to make Flynn look bad. Trusting two-week old memories to accuse someone of lying is very lame. There is no evidence of lying except Flynn's guilty plea and that evidence has been undermined by Flynn's claim of coercion. Any "lies" aren't material because the FBI already had the evidence of the Kislyak call. So you go nuthin.
lol....YOU POOR UNINFORMED BOOB. Please explain how the Russians could Blackmail Flynn for a conversation that had nothing worth blackmailing....Please show us the transcript that shows something compromising on Flynn.....Please explain how the transcript was never leaked? If the blackmail was the reason to embarrass Flynn, why not just release the transcript to prove your baseless hyperventilating claim? You idiots are a disgrace to common sense Liberalism. You are all petty tyrants as long as a Marxist is in office. Then you become the 'resistance' when rational right wingers win elections fairly. Watching you twits collectively light your own hair on fire is gratifying.
If the Vice President is making public statements that the Russians know to be false they can use that to put pressure on Flynn to not expose what they knew really went down on the call. Which was a discussion to not react to Obama’s sanctions.
If you are actually asking me why classified documents have NOT been leaked, I’m afraid I don’t have an answer.
I’m not lighting hair on fire. I’m pretty calm. Just wanted to point out the legitimate reasons why law enforcement was concerned.
Can you give me another case where anything close to this logic by Barr has been applied? No. You can’t. So stop name calling and maybe start reading about how our legal system works.
What public statements made by Pence were false? You assume some nefarious dealings but still have zero evidence anything of the kind occurred. Weird how the transcript still hasn't been admitted as evidence in the case. I assume Obama illegally spied on Trump's campaign as an insurance policy in case he beat the "most qualified person ever" to run for president. Weird how I can provide more evidence of that and you look the other way. Does your hypocrisy hurt your head? Do you know what Rule 48 is, of course not....you're wlecome....
Pence said on live TV that Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador.
You seem to ignore the fact that Russia was engaged in a comprehensive effort to influence the election.
Our intel agencies were trying to find out what was happening and Flynn got caught in the net.
I would also like to see transcripts but that’s not really how counter-intelligence works.
Lastly, if Obama was somehow trying to undermine the Trump admin by taking Flynn down why would he personally warn Trump to stay away from him? And why wouldn’t he have made a much bigger deal about Russian intervention publicly? Your logic doesn’t hold up.
Flynn would discover the illegal spying on Trump if he wasn't taken out immediately. The entire hoax was to discredit Trump and make him ineffective to govern....seems like the entire media sheep went right along with it, well except the racists and alt right wingers at FOX, huh? Is Matt a racist for seeing the forest for the trees? Your willful denial of the reality is delusional.
He didnt discuss sanctions, he discussed not retaliating until Trump got in....huge difference, but Leftists project their lack of critical thought onto those that do. The "comprehensive effort to influence the election" happen how,...exactly? Did Russia make Hillary keep a private email server in her basement? Did Putin get Comey to call her investigation a "matter" and then illegally exonerate her after listing how its a crime to do what she did? My God you sheep are pathetic. You wouldn't know a precedent if it were reversed in a court and a case withdrew by a Judge....oops I can see why now...All your corrupt Leftist Judges are now shills for the Deep State. So fun to watch you twerps tread water and still keep losing. Please deflect and change the subject some more.
Sure, Russia wanted HRC to win. Because the House Intel docs were released, we know that now. Brennan overruled the consensus of the intel agencies. Russia conducted some social media campaigns to create discord. In addition, however, the CIA/FBI/DOJ fabricated evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election in order to cover up the FISA section 702 "About" queries which amounted to violations of the Constitutional amendment against illegal search and seizure. That is what #Obamagate is all about.
@Joe "You seem to ignore the fact that Russia was engaged in a comprehensive effort to influence the election." Where is that in evidence? It isn't but you think saying it without evidence doesn't matter? If you look at the 'evidence' the DOJ & FBI & Intelligence agencies supplied and want to hang your hat on that then you are willing to except the evidence provided by kindergartners. It's embarrassing to see officials in the government acting at such an incompetent level, lying so transparently and thinking that that gets them off the hook.
I know why you morons on the left just swallow this shit whole but there may come a day when you are willing to admit to the stench you've created.
EVERYONE knew or could know what was said on the call. The Russians could not blackmail Flynn by “revealing” something recorded on the call. And what was said was not illegal. This argument has no merit.
I notice you haven't provided any refutations of my claims or of the evidence that shows they forced Flynn to plead guilty or come after his son as well. Weird how you dip squat idiots don't even know his first legal team was fired for getting him to cop to a phony charge and then make up dirt on Trump or else...good grief you think avoiding the facts will change the reality? Oops sorry I forgot I was dealing with people that think there are more than two genders. LOL Do you even know what Brady evidence is? Rule 48? NOPE
Mike Herzog's ad hominem attacks were unnecessary but he otherwise has a point. Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional attorney, broke this down quite beautifully in his recent podcast. Flynn did nothing more as far as we know other than contact the Russian ambassador to advise him on the incoming administration's stance on the sanctions. That is not a crime and it is customary for incoming administrations to make such contacts. The "lie" was not material (read the dismissal or listen to Glenn's explanation). Plus it is not even entirely clear that he intentionally lied (even the FBI notes acknowledge that). Intent is required for this particular crime (i.e., the Logan Act...which deserves another discussion ). As to Flynn pleading guilty, as someone who works in the criminal defense arena, I can assure you that defendant's are railroaded into pleading guilty all the time, that includes innocent defendants. I won't go into how this works but it is not at all uncommon. I believe that is what happened to Flynn. I implore those of you who are only getting your news from certain outlets to listen the Glenn's podcast. It is very enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=5041s
I listened to Greenwald’s podcast. Anyone interested in this matter and its implications going forward would gain from doing the same. It WAS too long for most, I’m afraid, but that’s Glenn being Glenn. He always goes through everything, all the details and the background legal arguments, with a fine tooth comb. If you asked both Glenn and DJT to comment on the exact same thing, Donald would be on the third tee after bloviating repetitiously for five minutes, while Glenn would be wrapping up his introductory comments in which he’d provide the foundation and background upon which he would then make his airtight presentation and give his conclusions.
Lying to the FBI is NOT a crime UNLESS it is materially false with respect to the matter under investigation. So you need to know what the "lie" is and whether it relates to the subject matter under investigation in a MATERIAL way. We do not know what the "lie" was here.
What did ho lie about you twit? How did his testimony cause harm to an investigation that didn't even exist? My God you Leftists are daft. Maybe your legal degree can describe how the legal system is supposed to work when A Democrat is in charge instead of a Republican? You fucking hypocrites are disgusting losers with no ability to accept defeat nor reality. Obama committed treason and abetted Russia by perpetuating a fraud on the FISA courts by omitting exculpatory evidence and altering warrants. But please keep defending the Nixon 2.0 hoax. Obama is now the worst president ever for spying worse than Nixon. Its Hillaryous how Obama managed to out do the two Republicans that you morons think were the worst. LOL
Wrong. Flynn was able to discuss anything he wanted as a member of the incoming team. There is no crime there. Never has an outgoing administration engaged is such shameful behavior. Just bc you dont like who won, doesn't give my now former party the right to do the things they have been doing. Dont like the Trump team? Win at the ballot box. Your repsonse is the problem with this entire party. Making excuses for bad behavior.
How do you explain Comey’s announcement about re-opening the Clinton email investigation right before the election? How does that fit the narrative of an Obama conspiracy against Trump?
The simple answer is the self-important FBI bumbled it’s way through it all on both sides.
Joe, that was a CYA move by Comey to protect him and the FBI from criticism for going easy on Clinton at a time when everybody expected her to win. And he did go easy on her.
Comey expected Clinton to win and went hard on her, so that no one could accuse him of showing her any special treatment. He made a big public splash announcing 'new' e-mails although nothing had substantially changed in the nothing-burger investigation. There was never any reason to think that the additional e-mails were qualitatively different from the previous ones.
Well, Comey was and remains a fool who was completely out of his league. So there's that. But being a fool is obviously not mutually exclusive to being an oily slime, as Comey demonstrated.
Appointing a lawyer to run the FBI was one of the low points of a singularly unimpressive presidency. It wasn't the lowest point, obviously, though it probably makes the Bottom Ten. (Accepting the Nobel Prize "awarded" for literally no reason whatsoever by a handful of Eurotrash Socialists and cashing the check would be the low point, if Obama hadn't executed an American citizen with a drone strike, but without due process.)
The FBI had no choice. The NYPD was in on the raid and they threatened to make public that additional e-mails were acquired during the raid of Carlos Danger's laptop. Comey was simply trying to get on top of the situation and control the narrative.
I was amazed as Comey pissed off both sides. If he had done his job he would have kept his mouth shut. He was so smug and self important that agents called him "The Cardinal" behind his back.
What say we go back to Nov 2008-Feb 2009 and unmask all of Mr. Obama's people's conversations? I'll bet dollars to donuts that some or all of them had discussions with foreign nations which showed variations in Mr. Obama's policy goals compared to Mr. Bush's policies. So, can we now charge all of Mr. Obama's people with the crime of interfering with National Security?
The Obama administration has done the same - speaking to foreign entities. In fact Kerry even spoke to Iran when he left Government and gave them advice.
Do you seriously maintain that the new admin can not signal its intentions or in this case ask the Russians to wait before going crazy
Wrong. As the incoming administration those months between election and inauguration is to set up and get ready for the transition. That means talking to many, many ambassadors, among many other things, , and telling them what to expect. Your ignorance of these matter leaves you spinning in the air.
"Climate denier". Because thinking a trace gas (that happens to be essential for life on earth) might not be the sole volume knob in one of the most complex systems man has ever tried to comprehend. Or something.
Where do Leftists go to get their license to be both arrogant and ignorant at the same time?
I don't "deny" climate, I do however deny that there is such a thing as catastrophic man caused global warming.
And I dare you to call my Asian-immigrant wife a racist to her face for wearing her MAGA hat while I'm standing next to her. But she can defend herself so maybe you'd prefer saying that to my half-Asian children? Or, maybe you'd prefer my 79-yr-old immigrant mother. But, alas, with your vast wealth of knowledge and understanding of EVERYONE who supports making America great again, how about you just call me racist?
"Statement of fact." You're pathetic and ignorant Patrick!
While it was justified to investigate Flynn, the abusive actions of the govt require dismissal of the case. There is evidence of personal or partisan animus on the part of the investigators; the FBI violated its own rules in not notifying WH counsel or telling Flynn he was under investigation; the pattern of illegal leaks clearly indicates the FBI was using them to create pressure on Flynn; the 302 was edited by McCabe and Lisa Page; the transcript was never shown to the defense or the judge; the original 302 is missing; Brady material was denied the defense; the judge was lied to about the existence of more Brady material. And while the was some reason to investigate Flynn, the case was super thin, and there was no reason for the agents to even interview him. They had the transcript, which all parties knew. That you bring up the blackmail issue shows just how thin the pretense was. Seriously? The pretext for interviewing Flynn was that the Russians might blackmail over his lying to Pence? That's so absurd I'm not sure even you believe it. That's exactly the kind of thing that is said when there is a very weak case for sending in agents. Taiibi is exactly right. Trump hatred has blinded liberals to what used to be their principles.
One is whether Flynn is legally culpable for something.
Two, is whether the FBI and FISA courts acted improperly. If the FBI acted improperly then Flynn gets to walk. That's how our system of justice works. We presume innocence and we demand strict adherence to the Constitution from our legal system. To do otherwise for any reasons, but especially partisan reasons, is to abandon the American rule of law.
Yes, but my hang-up is with the fact that Flynn has not filed any due process claims. Barr is simply throwing it out. That is different than winning an appeal. I think ultimately that is why the judge has ordered arguments on this. Because there should be some level of process here and not just one AG throwing it out.
Barr is throwing it out b/c he wants to protect the DOJ, whose attorneys engaged in grave prosecutorial misconduct. He knows Flynn would not only win on appeal but also make the DOJ look very bad indeed
"undermining foreign policy"? I see . . . (a) so President Trump, who would be Flynn's boss, would have no right to change the foreign policy established by the Obama Administration, and "therefore" Flynn couldn't possibly discuss such things (if he did). Gotcha. (b) He didn't "Undermine" anything - he asked the Ambassador not to react precipitously. Seems like a "reasonable" request. (c) Obama announcing the sanctions when he did - turning it back on you, what's Obama doing "undermining American foreign policy" by doing things by which he attempts to "tie the hands" of his successor? He's ABOUT TO BE GONE - - - - decency would suggest "don't do such things," but Obama's too arrogant for that. (d) You ignore the misconduct associated with (1) keeping the case open; (2) using the LOGAN ACT as a pretext for the same; (3) not following protocol in terms of notifying the White House Counsel's office re the interview; (4) taking affirmative steps to encourage Flynn NOT to be represented; (5) taking affirmative steps to obscure / minimize the preliminary warning regarding telling the truth in such interviews; (6) the failure to follow protocol in the preparation of the 302; (7) the doctoring of the 302; (8) the threats against Flynn's son; (9) the failure to advise the Court about the promise to lay off Flynn's son, and the role that promise played in obtaining the plea.
But NONE OF THAT BOTHERS YOU because Flynn worked for Trump, and "Orange Man Bad."
Dear God, you people have no principles but "I want my way."
Can't stand DT, but this has been a joke of an investigation, the sole purpose of which was to negate Trump's victory, on the false premise that he was sincere on his campaigning about ending wars, and opening up to Russia, policies the MIC/surveillance state could not tolerate. DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand.
Of course, let's not go overboard and say this a something only the Dems would do; Bill Clinton's being impeached on lying about getting a BJ from a woman not his wife, was conducted by three men who were receiving the exact same benefit from non wives even as they posed as moral men to their very core.
What would politics be without hypocrisy of the highest order?
"DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard-nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand."
More horseshit and ignorance masquerading as insight. You can't possibly know that. Mind reading is not a valid form of argument. The rest of your argument is on the same level.
There is also evidence that prosecutors were coercing Flynn's lawyers with threats to prosecute THEM in order to force Flynn's lawyers to advise Flynn to plead guilty.
"Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions." Disingenuous: by this logic, no incoming administration would be allowed to countermand a previous administration's policies.
"He was opening himself to blackmail by lying to the Vice President."
Then the FBI should have informed the Trump administration of that. Yet they did not.
"And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia."
Proof by repeated assertion is not proof. What Russia did in the 2016 election was penny-ante stuff, far less than the influencing carried out by China, Israel, and a host of other foreign powers did in the same election. And it is well below the level of dirty tricks regularly carried out by the old USSR.
Right out of the box and you're wrong. "This ignores the valid reasons for concern related to Flynn’s activities. Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions." Excuse me. US foreign policy is whatever the President says it is and Trump was changing it and Flynn let the Russians know that. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. Or are you one that thinks the apparatchiks in the State Department are Constitutionally charged with forming foreign policy?
"And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia. " Pure bogus propaganda pushed by the Deep State and carried by water carriers MSNBC and CNN. And he didn't lie. Do you even know the definition of lying? Does it even matter to you to speak accurately?.
"Not because he actually wantS [sic]to reform the surveillance state." JFC, what do you think the man has been doing for three years? He challenges them at every turn and brought down a Tsunami of shit on himself from the Left and their whores in the media. Did you think transforming the Deep State was a weekend job for a weekend warrior like yourself?
"So I don’t think the judge is acting in an authoritarian manner. It’s a valid check on a politically motivated executive. "
First, the judge is out of his league and will get severely slapped down for this and I have to think that he knows that but is operating by a nefarious set of motives. His actions can be considered judicial abuse/an abuse of power. It's not a valid check because the executive branch has every right to act politically as long as what he's doing is right. It was right for the DOJ to pull this case for lack of evidence and for prosecutorial misconduct. No need to be mind readers and guess at people's motives. They, the prosecutors, violated the law!
Flynn did not ask the Russians to “change foreign policy”. He asked them not to escalate in response to Obama’s expulsion of diplomats. Even if Flynn’s call was not wise policy, it was not a crime. And, the FBI has the transcript of the call, so if there was a crime, they should have read Flynn his rights and informed the White House counsel of the interview. Comey admitted that they purposely chose not to do so as the WH was in transition and not fully organized.
Bottom line, during the Bush administration, the same people who worked for the rights of Guantánamo detainees now defend the Stasi tactics of the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence apparatus simply because of Trump. And hypocrisy is beyond astounding.
All of the Central Park 5 confessed initially (four on video) to at least having been material witnesses to the rape of the jogger. Yet they recanted later and pleaded innocent. So tell us, do you believe their initial confession is the strongest piece of evidence as to whether they committed or participated somehow in the rape?
1. Trump wasn’t President yet and sanctions came from the US government not just “Obama”
2. He pled guilty to lying so I am taking that as proof he lied. He has not filed a due process claim so it is a valid plea deal.
3. Trump has been undermining and attacking these investigations from Day 1. So pretending he is a good faith actor reasonably responding to a matter of injustice is just as naive as thinking the FBI was 100% right
PS: Barr’s logic that since there was no preexisting evidence of a crime prior to them finding evidence of a crime is ridiculous and is not how our legal system work.
The crime of lying to the FBI is premised upon the duty to speak truthfully in response to questions posed in the course a legitimate investigation. If the investigation is not legitimate, there is no duty to speak truthfully, hence no prosecutable crime. State power cannot criminalize lies that are immaterial to legitimate state purposes. And if we allow that to occur, there will be no limit to state power.
IT'S NOT A CRIME TO "LIE" TO THE FBI UNLESS HE WAS MIRANDIZED. HE WASN'T. ALSO THE FBI HAVE LOST THE 302'S OF THE CONVERSATION AND CAN'T FIND THEM, BRADY VIOLATION. THIS CASE IS OVER MOVE ALONG. I HOPE YOU HOLD TO YOUR TOTALITARIAN PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WHEN THEY COME KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR.
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
As recently stated in United States v. Brennan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62427, *11-*12 (E.D. Pa. April 7, 2020) the crime of false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a) requires that the government prove, among other things, that the false statement was "made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government" (citing United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 213 (3d Cir. 2012)). Addressing the jurisdictional element, the Court explained that "jurisdiction" in matters involving the FBI exists "when someone lies to FBI agents performing a legitimate investigation into federal crimes" (citing Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 402, 405 (1998)).
In other words, the FBI's jurisdiction extends to, but no further than, legitimate investigation. It has no jurisdiction to engage in illegitimate investigation. And where jurisdiction is lacking, false statement cannot be criminal.
An obvious case makes the point. Say the FBI decides to "investigate" your daughter for terrorist activity. There is no factual basis for the investigation, and it is being used as a pretext to apply pressure on her so that she will turn informant on her friend. FBI agents come to your door, tell you they are investigating your daughter for terrorist activity and have a warrant for her arrest and interrogation. They ask you if she is home. You know that if you answer truthfully, they will enter your house, arrest her, and take her to an "undisclosed location" for interrogation. She may even be rendered to another country, so that the interrogation can employ techniques not used in the U.S. You lie and tell them she is not at home and you have no idea where she is.
You have not committed a crime, and I would be happy not only to defend you, but to bring a Bivens claim against the agents as well.
When I was a freshman in college in 1967, the FBI came to my room, looking for my roommate. I (truthfully) told them I didn’t know where he was. They were investigating why he was corresponding with so many Communist countries. He listened to short wave radio, and if he mailed in time, frequency, content to the broadcaster, they would mail back a confirmation that he had received their broadcast. He also learned to sing or play various national anthems.
Thanks for the clear example but my point is that there were several lines of investigation that were legitimate. Barr is using the fact they were ready to move on and then started it up again after the call. But that doesn’t wipe away the original justification. It just breathed new life. And yes, the FBI probably should have held back. But this isn’t the way to go about it.
There was no original crime. The lie to the FBI was challenged but the state refused to first produce the original 302 and then claimed it was lost. There is a history of the FBI using these tactics. One must have great faith to maintain this was legitimate.
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Oh, for CS, go read Powell's open letter to Obama and STFU if you can't do anything but spew gibberish. According to the inverse of your assumption of Barr's logic, the police can go arrest a person and then look for a crime based on...well, according to you, nothing at all.
Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told?
Obamagate is the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents in "search of a crime". When no crime was found, they opened up an investigation based on a dossier that they paid for through the Clinton campaign using a foreign source previously labelled unreliable by the FBI - Christopher Steele. They then presented this dossier to the FISA court, as if it were valid foreign intelligence, to obtain the desired warrants.
#Obamagate is about operations run by the CIA/FBI/DOJ to attempt to cover up the Obama admin's massive espionage operations against political opponents--FISA section 702 "About" queries. It's not mostly about attempts to "get Trump."
That's called deflection. I presume the assumption is that you can argue by bringing up what is entirely unrelated to the question and shut the questioner up by playing "But Mommmm, Bobby hit me first." Ludicrous.
Name a single time it's okay to break a law because no one has been jailed for it before. Everybody gets one free, right? That said, Flynn wasn't prosecuted under the Logan Act, so this is completely irrelevant. The FBI investigated Russian interference in our democracy, which it is duty bound to do. Flynn lied to them in matters directly concerned with the investigation, he admitted it twice in court. He should be in jail, period.
Go read Jonathon Turley & Alan Dershowitz, both have come out swinging in protest. But not only list one occurrence, but MULTIPLE occurrences. And just to bolster this, go read the U.S. Supreme Courts latest decision on this exact same issue. Oh, and did I mention, that was a 9-0 ruling. Guess what, those words he posted are the exact same words the 9 Justices quoted. Interesting, Huh. And if you really want to put your panties in a tight wad, go read the D.C. Circuits own rule on this exact same matter. Yes, the D.C. Circuit is the same court branch this clown Sullivan is a part of and under. So wake up and come back when you have actually read something other then comic books.
That case involved procedural due process claims. Barr has not put forth a single constitution violation here, especially not such an obvious due process claim as in the Stevens case
Barr is basically saying since there was no evidence of guilt prior to the voluntary interview given by Flynn that therefore anything after that is null. That is ridiculous. The whole point of an interview is to establish that person’s story. Flynn chose to lie. That’s on him.
The Stevens case was dropped by the Justice department under Eric Holder due to prosecutorial misconduct exposed by Flynn's Attorney Powell when she represented him. Are you saying Eric Holder is a conservative partisan?
I understand that's what your intent is although in reality you seem to be twisting yourself in knots in order to try to rationalize a conspiracy theory you have fully bought into for several years. Not being argumentative with you here, but this is what it looks like to people not invested in the whole Russiagate nonsense- which is what it is.
So you believe that there was no Russian effort to interfere in 2016 and that none of Trump’s team had contacts with Russians? That happened and Flynn was caught in the net. If he came out and said “yes, that was me talking and we were discussing the incoming foreign policy with the ambassador” he would not be in this mess.
You believe that the microscopic site put up (maybe) by Russian people is "one of the biggest assault" on America. Wake up, please: the US, as well as practically all nations in the world, do much, much more than that in every single election of any importance.
Probably, while you say these absurdities, you also belong to the group who considers Alger Hiss a good guy.
you're ignoring the fact that the decision was already made to shut down the investigation into Flynn, but Strzok kept it open on the pretext of a "Logan Act" violation. You're ignoring the rest of it too .... you have a lot invested in "Orange Man Bad," and nothing in "justice under the law."
It was illegitimate. What makes you think otherwise? Can you offer one piece of evidence that made a counterintelligence investigation legitimate? Evidence. not CNN opinions or MSNBC wild assed guesses.
The FBI was conducting a legitimate investigation of Russia's interference in the election, including Trump's many dubious contacts with Russia and other foreign governments. Flynn lied, thereby attempting to obstruct the investigation and betraying his country. If you are concerned about state power you should be concerned about the president installing loyalists, dismissing watchdogs, and protecting his cronies from prosecution.
If that were correct you wouldn't get an argument from me but you apparently haven't been paying attention to the latest releases of documents in this case which revealed that before the FBI "interviewed" they already knew Flynn wasn't working with the Russians and neither was the Trump campaign. Do you not think that a problem?
The real crime is that the Obama administration already knew that the idea that Flynnor Trump were Russian agents were simply opposition lies but they didn't care because thy wanted to destroy both Flynn and Trump.
If you bother to read the documents you will see that the FBI and DOJ were very concerned that Flynn might be a witting or unwitting security threat. They became particularly concerned when Pence promoted the lies on TV, and debated about whether to inform the White House, since Flynn might be deceiving them and exposing them to vulnerabilities; or keeping it under wraps to further the investigation. This is very clear in all the available records.
Flynn was initially considered as a person of interest in the general Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia collusion due to his Russian contacts. By late 2016 they hadn't found anything conclusive and were prepared to close the file on him. Then his suspicious call to Kislyak came to light as the administration was trying to understand Russia's response to new sanctions. Then Pence started repeating false statements which was a red flag that prompted the interview.
" they already knew Flynn wasn't working with the Russians and neither was the Trump campaign"
How could the FBI know that? Did they know about the Trump Tower meeting, for example? Did they know that whenever Trump met in person with Putin Trump would treat it as a personal meeting rather than an official meeting between heads of state. Did they know that Trump would publicly state he believed Putin and not the FBI, CIA, The Senate when it came to Putin's interference in the 2016 election?
Because the facts don't support your case, you invent your own.
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
"If the investigation is not legitimate, there is no duty to speak truthfully, hence no prosecutable crime"
So whenever the police, FBI, etc question someone, the person being questioned decides whether the investigation is legitimate and if they decide it's not they are free to lie. Thanks for that info - I didn't know that. So by implication before anyone is questioned the interrogators are obligated to present the entire case (as it stands) to the person who is being questioned so they (the person being questioned) can make an informed decision. You know what - I think that's nonsense.
You are completely throwing out the context of the law.
Authority is derived from actual law, not from entities who claim to have authority. That's settled case law in the SCOTUS.
Now I'll agree... being a lowly citizen fighting back against actions taken under of color of law, is no small task. The underlying dynamics of the Flynn case are not, in fact, very complex.
The liability to many of the players, once the blowback gets underway, including Flynn's previous counsel submitting to blackmail and threats by the prosecution, leading them to throw Flynn under the bus by convincing him to take a plea, leaves them ripe for blowback as well.
There was no crime here... there was no legitimate investigation... there was illegal activity taking place that even the FISC head justice outlined in the FISA Court investigation memo from April 2017, that found massive illegal surveillance of Americans.
That declassified memo should have been screaming headlines. No left leaning media even bothered to present it to the public.
Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the journalistic malpractice being committed today in the U.S.
You know, you're right. The original plea bargain he signed involved spending 10 years in jail and having 'I love Obama' tattooed into his forehead. Wait, I just checked, and I may have got it slightly wrong. Turns out he was just getting probation. By that time he'd already spent the bulk of the money due his lawyers, any of the draconian threats against his son were done, he'd provided Mueller all the info they wanted and he was pretty much home free. But then Trump started musing he might pardon the man that he himself had fired and some loony right-wing lawyers started to sing in his ear so he decided simple probation was unbearable and it was time to spend even more money on lawyers and just generally f his life up. On the positive side it did give the Trump-cult an excuse to feel persecuted, by proxy, if not directly.
That is not my point -- you appear to have misread my comment.
Whether an investigation is legitimate -- i.e., whether the relevant facts establish cause to infer the commission of a crime -- is determined objectively, not by what any participant may think or believe. If a person making a false statement believes the investigation is illegitimate and decides to lie, s/he is gambling that a court will ultimately agree. Likewise, the investigators are gambling that a court will conclude the contrary. One virtue of our system is that investigators, prosecutors and their targets are not the judges of their own cases. Further, and this is important, there should be no presumption of legitimacy -- i.e., the state should be required to prove that its investigative powers have been employed based on objective cause.
Whether an investigator decides to disclose details or circumstances to the person being questioned is a matter of tactics, not law. I know of no such requirement, although it is the case that an investigator cannot mislead the person through false statement or half-truth.
The question in Flynn's case is whether the objective circumstances at the time made an investigation of his call with Kysliak legitimate -- i.e., whether there was cause to believe the call involved the commission of a crime. The objective facts of which I am aware suggest it was not, and that the investigative power was abused.
To be clear, I do not like or defend Flynn, much less Trump. However, I am generally very skeptical of state power, especially when it comes to organs like the FBI (you can read all the history you want on that), and thus believe that doubts should be resolved in favor of individual protection, not the state's police power.
At the point when Flynn was being interviewed the FBI knew Russia had intervened in the 2016 election of the side of Trump and that Flynn was lying about what he discussed with the ambassador. They also knew Russia had acquiesced to Flynn's request to not expelled Americans from Moscow. They would have been derelict if they had not had a chat with Flynn. Certainly if I was responsible for protecting the country from a predatory, quasi-criminal enterprise like Putin's I'd like to know what Flynn was up to. I don't understand why he lied to everyone. His conversations with the ambassador could easily have been framed as a win for the US. Flynn couldn't unilaterally waive the Magnitsky Act, even if he wanted to, so any promised he made would have been worthless.
"... it is the case that an investigator cannot mislead the person through false statement or half-truth."
I don't think that's accurate, although I also don't think that's what the FBI did
One problem with discussions like this is that they involve selective and subjective evaluations. For every "fact" you have cited, there is a "counter-fact." For example, the recently released transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee investigation show that it was by no means certain the Dem emails were exfiltrated, as opposed to being copied to an external drive.
The U.S. Attorney for D.C. has concluded that the interview of Flynn did not involve a "material" false statement. This is another way of saying that there was no legitimate basis for the interview. The question is whether that conclusion is within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion. I think it is.
I have practiced law for 39 years, and have been involved in a number of cases in which confessions and/or statements have been suppressed as a consequence of official lying. That is not always the result because the analysis focuses on voluntariness, coercion, etc., but it is common. The FBI's own manual instructs agents (or used to) that they risk having statements disqualified if they lie to an interview subject.
Again, the issue revolves around the extent to which you are willing to grant extraordinary authorities to the government -- the authority to lie, to interview on hunch or mere suspicion, to employ power for political ends. I'm not.
So John it appears that you would be just fine with the FBI coming to your house, telling you you didn't need a lawyer because you weren't under investigation and then questioniing you about a converstation you had weeks ago and useing any discrepancy they might find, no matter how small or innocuous, to charge you with lying and bankrupt you with legal fees before blackmailing you with a threat against your family all on the basis of not actual criminal investigation? And if you later found that the reason they came in the first place was that you had been critical of one of your local politicians you'd be OK with that still?
This is the stuff that in other countries ultimately leads to death squads.
What was his point - that suspects are allowed to determine whether the questions asked of them are legitimate and if they don't think so, then they can freely lie?
I'm firing my therapist and hiring you. Do you do remote sessions? I'd like to start by reviewing my childhood - years 2 though 5. I assume you accept Paypal, although I must tell you I only pay after the session is over.
What was the lie? They haven't said exactly what it was, and the initial report from the agents who interviewed him didn't say anything about lies. It was edited later to say he lied. And the lie itself? Could be as simple as him misremembering something, and the FBI catching it and calling it a lie. That, along with pressure to prosecute his son, is enough coercion to make anyone plead guilty when being railroaded. If this wasn't a Republican, if it was some normal person who was railroaded into confessing to a murder under pressure from prosecutors, you'd be all against these sort of tactics. You're not just a hypocrite, you're a fool for thinking the "authorities" always do good and never lie or cheat.
As an outsider its amazing to observe America,a country that I love and admire BUT when it comes to 'political crimes',be they real ones or imaginary ones,almost all Americans simply retreat to the bunker where their tribe is hanging out-its virtually formulaic at this stage.
Surely America is far better than this endless hackneyed game of tit for tat?
Paradoxically the unconscious wished outcome by both sides is ending up as a one party state-for that's the logical extrapolation from believing the narrative as laid down by each side.
If the FBI asks you what color the sky is and you say gray, its a crime? You fucking idiots are reprehensible losers that don't deserve America. How about lying to Congress? Or at the Impeachment hearings? I mean hell how Dmeocrats are now proven liars after the transcripts of their interviews has been released...is Yovanovich going to be prosecuted for lying about Burisma? You hypocrites are a joke...."bull pucky"...LOL
Remember when the Central Park Five all plead guilty....but then they were said not be guilty? Odd how that worked, huh?
How about obstruction? If you delete 30,000 emails, that were under subpoena, that's not obstruction. However, if you claim executive privilege when under a bogus investigation, That somehow is obstruction. If claiming executive privilege is obstruction, then Obama, should have been charged a long time ago. So hypocritical!. But it takes a lot of useful idiots to keep the Russia hoax narrative alive and I must say,I'm amazed at just how many there are out there.
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
There's also RGB's SCOTUS criticism of this criminalizing of the "exculpatory denial" as being a very shaky idea that might fall if every really challenged.
There's also FBI dept. policy about using this law (probably for fear of breaking it if overused/abused).
One must admit that the circumstances are a bit concerning - going around Sally Yates' direction (Obama's acting AG); no notification/reminder that this was a formal interrogation; no counsel present.
I think the point of all this is - would you consider this acceptable if deployed against you (Biden's "ordinary people")? If the answer is "no", you should think twice before cheering it on.
"I think the point of all this is - would you consider this acceptable if deployed against you (Biden's "ordinary people")? If the answer is "no", you should think twice before cheering it on. "
For all the dimwits who try to argue a lie is a lie is a lie, [extraordinary proposition, really] I wonder what there take would be if Obama or Yates or Brennan or Clapper/Comey/Strojk/Page/van Grack et al were brought up on such flimsy crap and treated exactly the same by the Trump Justice department. Anyone think they'd say, "Ya that's fine."?
We do not even know if he lied - FBI does not record the conversation - it refused to provide the original 302 and now claims the 302 was lost. So the only evidence is that the original team said that they did not think he lied. The FBI after refusing to provide the original 302 - produced new versions and got caught due to metadata - i.e. writing it 7 months later - not original team,etc - So what evidence??? Why does the FBI not record ?? - Police in many places are required body cams. Let me guess - they never make mistake and they are always truthful at the FBI - so their word is enough to convict an otherwise innocent man. (No other crime charged).
-Actually, the original 302 is confirmed (created Jan 24, 2017) and the contents described (tangentially) in several of the HPSCI transcripts that Schiff has been withholding for the last 3 years.
-Educated guess is that the CIA/FBI had been illegally bugging Flynn's phone, and the FBI re-wrote the 302s based on post Jan 24, 2017
illegal tapping of Flynn's phone
-There are no "UNMASKING" requests for the Flynn-Kislyak phone call, yet Obama knew the details of the Flynn phone call BEFORE any US intelligence agency had transcribed Kislyak's side of the call.
-My educated guess is that the FBI re-wrote 302s about Flynn-Kislyak based on illegal wiretaps of Flynn's later conversations, but ONLY recently found out that both Flynn and Kislyak was OUTSIDE the US when the calls were made, so that the FBI could not capture "legal" versions of those phone calls.
Adam Schiff very clearly doesn't think Russiagate is as big a deal as he makes it out to be as he just voted- again- lol- to hand over even more vast surveillance powers over to Trump.
You obviously are oblivious to the law. By the way, the agents — including Peter Strzok — didn’t believe he lied. Hence we have the edited 302. A 302 is supposed to be filed within 5 days of an interview by the agent. Flynn’s was filed weeks later. It had been edited by multiple people who were not at the interview, including Lisa Page who was not an agent. She’s a lawyer.
You’re wrong Marty. It is NOT a crime if the lie is immaterial to the “crime”. Not bullpucky. FACT. And an easily verifiable fact if you care to spend 1 minute on Google.
It is a crime to lie to a Federal Agent in the course of the person doing an official business. I.e. if an FBI agent asks how much is that fruit cost, and you lie and tell her it is $2 versus the actual price. You can not be charged with Lying to an FBI agent (1001), unless the person was investigating price gauging (there is an official investigation opened). In Flynn's case the Investigation termed January 4th, but was left unclosed.
The plea was withdrawn when the Feds broke their part of the deal. There is no evidence he lied, or it would be cited. The only evidence is he was set up. The FBI notes show they never asked Flynn about sanctions at all, so how could he have lied about it?
No, Flynn attempted to withdraw his plea when he got a new, crazy lawyer. The judge threw it out since he had no legitimate basis for doing so. There is no evidence he was set up, the FBI even went out of its way to prod his memory during the interview. He was under no government compulsion to lie, he just did. And yes, the interview notes clearly show he was asked about sanctions. From the FD-302: "The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if recalled any
conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian
diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian
hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he
That "new crazy lawyer" has brought the US Government to its knees in both the Ted Stevens case and the Enron case. There is a reason Flynn sought her out. She is the best appellate lawyer in the country.
The evidence of the setup ABOUNDS.
From the legal proceedeings:
"...the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words,
prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.”
You can't say "the interview notes clearly show he was asked about sanctions" because A) The interview notes have been lost ohidden. B) The one who wrote them has been isolated from Fynn's legal team, and everyone else for that matter, and C) the word "sanctions" does not appear even once in the re-written 302 that Strozk and Paige conspired to fabricate. In your own quote, the word sanctions does not appear. Sanctions are not the same as expulsions of diplomatic personnel, which Flynn admitted to possibly discussing.
FBI is so keen on the truth that it does not allow recordings. Even original 302 they lost so what he said is well, somewhere in the universe's memory -
I do not share your faith in the FBI - and others do not - well before Flynn case - and based on real cases of lies by FBI>
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Democrats love to lick the boots of the intelligence ghouls like Clapper and Brennan- Russiagaters who are without a doubt guilty of lying to Congress yet they walk free to spread Russiagate conspiracy theories on MSNBC and CNN. Like all conspiracy theorists, they dig in further the more evidence is presented that debunks their conspiracy theory.
Sorry what crime occurred after they decided to close the case on Jan 5th, after they found nothing wrong with the call? Sad how a person like yourself can not comprehend what legal actually means. Maybe we can start listening in on your conversations and then question you later to see if you remember everything correctly, in case you lie, we will prosecute you in case Russians want to blackmail your wife. You are a moron.
You're done with this because you know nothing and blindly hold to your unfounded beliefs, therefore people pointing out your ignorance hurts your feelings. Now, put on some pants and go upstairs and see what your mother made you for lunch.
Wow, you have me all figured out. It’s amazing you can infer so much from a few comments about an issue that is so unclear that no one on this site can come close to knowing the full picture of. It’s not about my beliefs it’s about not wasting my time trying to learn from people who harbor so much animosity for opposing views.
Apparently you don't understand the fact that Flynn's Miranda rights were violated, the FBI broke numerous laws in its pursuit of Flynn, and then threatened Flynn in order to get him to plead guilty. Now the prosecutorial misconduct is clear, and the prosecutors themselves have dropped the case b/c in a fair courtroom, the judge would throw the case out. The fact that the original 302 is missing from the file is damning in and of itself - and like Taibbi says, it's the 21st century, why didn't they record the interview instead of taking notes afterward? Post-interview note-taking is a highly inaccurate way to handle interviews.
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Oh and for the record, the item Flynn discussed as the INCOMING National Security Advisor to the President elect is and was and always will be legal. It was Michael Flynn's job to do exactly that.
There was no crime in the beginning and there was no crime at the end, nor was there one in the middle. So please list the crime Flynn supposedly committed with a timeline. So I can promptly show you he was: A.) not under investigation, b.) never informed of his rights, or even c.) coerced into pleading, all of which are criminal acts by the FBI. Especially since this all occurred against an opposition party and an incoming duly elected President. Sit back and hang on to your boyfriends thong and watch how fast the Appeals court slaps this judge and his corrupt way down.
What proof is there that Flynn was undermining US foreign policy. First of all, the transcript of the call has gone missing. Second, the FBI had no such finding, and third, it is generally known that Flynn merely asked the Russians not to escalate. Is it interference to try to get an enemy to not escalate or was it US and Obama policy to escalate the confrontation. No blackmail was possible, pure nonsense. A valid check on possible political motivation would require amicus briefs presented by non partisans. Not people who already consider Flynn guilty of something they’re making up. How will it be determined who is politically motivated doing it as Sullivan has required?
Actually, it's well within the rights of an incoming president to reach out to other nations like Russia in an attempt at deescalation by promising a different course, if said nation didn't escalate things.
Carter did this kind of thing with the Russians in 76. Bill Clinton did it with European allies. Obama did it with Muslim countries.
Suddenly it's only wrong when Trump does it via Flynn? I think not.
It was well with Trump's right to tell the Russians through Flynn that he didn't want to escalate the situation. Change my mind.
I think the one thing you miss is that the FBI had been investigating Flynn for a while, listed to that call, and concluded that there was "no derogatory information" in that call or anywhere else. They had decided to close the investigation based on that call. But Strock intervened and said keep it open as a pretext to do the interview. So there was no real legitimate investigation going on. Also, it is hard to believe that Flynn really "lied" in the sense of *knowingly and willfully* stating something untrue about the call. The guy was the former director of national intelligence, he absolutely knew they had the transcript. If you read the reporting, on at least a couple of occasions he said "I am not sure but you guys should have that" or "I dont think so, but maybe, you guys can check that". So, just makes no sense that he would have willfully and knowingly said anything untrue about the call. Clearly he must have misspoke.
The other thing is the idea of undermining US policy. The Trump won the election on a platform of improving Russia relations. That transition period should be coordinated, but Obama decided to drop a giant sanctions bomb to create a foreign policy mess to upend one of Trump's initiatives. Flynn who was the incoming National Security Director, not some random citizen (like John Kerry trying to undermine US sanctions on Iran) asked the ambassador, less than a month before Trump's inauguration, not to overreact to the sanctions. I cant see any world where that is actionable, and the FBI concluded that the substance of the call was not "no derogatory information"
Flynn was representing the new Admin coming in. He had every right to contact the Russians and start working on the next Admin's ideas. Obama and his ilk were a cabal of loathsome characters. The massive amounts of unmasking being done by anyone and everyone in the last few days of the campaign stinks to high heaven.
Flynn was not told he was under investigation and there was no evidence he committed a crime. Add to that the contents of his phone call were not illegal, but the leaking of the details by law enforcement of that call was a felony. The FBI used the conversation to coerce him into a plea deal because they thought he would uncover a Russian plot that didn't exist.
“ Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions.”
Flynn was the National Security ADVISER. The fact that you (or others) don’t agree with his advice is not a sufficient reason to send the man to jail.
“And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults by Russia on our democratic process.”
Russia’s “assault on our democratic process” was routine and trivial – the kind of thing great powers do to each other as a matter of course – and the political impact of its facebook postings was negligible.
On the other hand, the political impact of Flynn’s legal keelhauling was enormous.
Judge Sullivan’s blocking of the AG’S dismissal is a political act, having nothing to do with the legaloid excuses offered for it.
Flynn may we’ll have deserved to be fired.. but prosecuted? You’ve got to be joking. He was targeted maliciously by an out of control FBI that manufactured cause, manufactured and or hid evidence over a pretext that these vindictive government officials k ew to be false. Taking away a mans liberty is one thing. Depriving him of due process over a vendetta by officials under color of state law is an entirely different matter.
The strzok/page memos show that the FBI was considering acting to get Flynn fired, which is a violation of US statutory law against interfering with officials in the performance of their duties.
"Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect."
Sad but, in my opinion as well, true.
I used to think it was a joke when the right accused the left of supporting tyranny. Now I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't always true and I just hadn't noticed it before.
Matt Taibbi is one of the few journalists remaining on the left with any ethics and integrity. The NYT, WaPo, and major TV networks are revealed as partisan hacks who don’t do their homework and can’t be counted on to stand up for what’s right and just.
Alert: the NYT and Wapo are not left. They are neoliberal corporate coldwarrier complex shills, just like Repugs. Lots of good real media out there, like Democracy Now!, Real News Network, Common Dreams, Truthout.
This might be the most important piece of the author's acclaimed career. When the facts came to light, I expected Democrats to admit that, even if Trump is the worst president in history, what happened was not only illegal, but dangerous for our democracy. Instead, no Democrat came close to condemning the multiyear witch hunt, before this writing. A two party system cannot continue if one side chucks the rules because, they believe, a bunch of hick voters chose poorly. Like many suburban woman, I did not vote for Trump. My lack of support doesn't prevent me from understanding what really transpired. Career politicians and law enforcement officers decided the American voters made a mistake and they decided to rectify the situation by destroying the new administration. Calling the whole thing a distraction is an insult to any average person's intelligence. Now the 302 form is missing? Joe Biden unmasked Flynn eight days before retirement? A judge that lacks a criminal complaint has conscripted another Judge to play the part of Prosecutor? Loathe Trump all you want, an inept President is not nearly as terrifying as an unpunished attempted coup or the refusal of the Press to call it out. The behavior of Blue States regarding the coronavirus is fueled by the same hubris as the Flynn debacle . Tell me what public health policy is served by preventing a family of four, residing in the same house, from enjoying their boat together? Many counties in this country have yet to experience a single virus death. Why should they be shuddered like NYC?
Well the unfortunate truth is we're going to learn the Obamunists were deep into their Stasi state tactics well before 2016 against candidate Trump. There were others and the list is thought to including Paul Rand, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.
They were "at it" almost as soon as Donald J. Trump came down the escalator. It's what THEY do.
President Trump is going down as the greatest US President in living history. He was right about everything: immigration, supply chain security, trade and pointed the big finger of concern at Communist China.
Which for a Leftist is a grave sin. After all, they already weeped heavily with the fall of the Soviet Union. Look comrade, don't ask political questions or you'll be gulaged.
You are one of the few real journalists left out there. It is a dying trade and is extremely concerning. You do not let your own personal biases affect your analysis and discussion of serious issues and maintain a consistent criteria to conduct your evaluation. Keep up the good work!!!
As a Democrat who has walked away, I think you hit the nail on the head here. The left has lurched so far into state-worship and anti-Trump derangement (and I'm no Trump supporter) that it borders on suicidal. It pains me, but we're watching some terrifying trends emerge.
YES! I organized for both Obama Campaigns..... got Christmas cards from the White House...... with Bo’s paw print. When I see what happened to the working man, what has slowly happened to unions, 4 states went right to work under Obama, the standard of living, I feel betrayed which is worse than disenfranchised.
COINTELPRO seems forgotten. After years of fighting against government overreach including the USAPATRIOT Act (esp. The Librarians' Connecticut Four), the liberal democrats with whom I have always identified & voted now are pro-censorship when it comes to Big Tech and ready to give the state full-power over our every move. Maybe too many have COVID-safe paychecks. The ACLU is no longer a beacon. FISA passed the Senate yesterday. Bernie didn't even vote. The only thing that makes sense is they all have their secret deals (usually through their children or siblings like Biden) and they don't want to lose power and have that exposed.
Chaos abounds. Through the looking glass we are.
And you're leaving out the about-face on #MeToo. Look, the disparaged conservative critique of CBF was that the incorrect standard was being applied, and it would say the same thing about Tara Reade but for the fact that the groups that turned CBF's accusations into a national spectacle must now either admit their proffered standard was wrong, or acknowledge they hold a different standard when their guy is in the hotseat. The criticism by conservatives now isn't that we should adopt the absurd standard set by the outrage crowd, it's that the outrage crowd needs to own up to the standard they themselves set or take one on the chin. Democrats for some reason seem to have decided on the latter, even when there are probably more creative alternatives for them.
This was an entirely foreseeable outcome, but a disappointing continuation of the Democrats making very short-sighted political plays without any regard for the fact that they'll be bitten in the ass when their turn comes around. Some examples - burning Robert Bork's and Manuel Estrada's nominations; eliminating the filibuster; attempting to burn Kavanaugh's nomination; the long-term consequences of impeachment over strictly non-criminal charges are still TBD.
Right now, they push on three fronts that are guaranteed to be pyrrhic victories - Trumps tax returns; the prosecution of Flynn; state authoritarianism. All three of these are certain to be ass-kickers during the next Democratic administration. Buy popcorn futures.
Re: MeToo. It should be noted that Tara Reade's accusations are intrinsically considerably more credible than Ford's ever were.
Well, hearsay with no corroboration vs hearsay with some corroboration, yes. Both are objectively weak sauce, but to your point - if CBF cleared the bar, then TR certainly does. Crickets now.
They demanded an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh and his immediate resignation, but an NYT "investigation" that amounted to "well Trump raped more" was plenty enough to exonerate ole Joe
I'm not a D anymore (or an R for that matter) but I have to thank you for being honest. There are a few of you out there actually practicing journalism, it has to get lonely as your numbers are disappearing. Always applauded Wyden when he was fighting this shit with Paul, not a peep now. And the ACLU fighting to take away due process from college students. I'm 64 and fear for the future. Young people who think this is just political posturing that doesn't matter because Trump=Hitler may be in for a rude awakening. The guys who do this shit never think the shoe will be on the other foot and it always ends up there. The overall mediocrity of our self important elite is mind boggling and I hope folks wise up.
Why has it taken so long for a JFK and Hubert Humphrey Democratic to write this story. I’m 56. I grew up when Democrats would rather die than let civil liberties be taken from anyone, including Republicans. Now, those people seem to be gone. I voted for Trump, and I will again for those exact reasons.
Stunningly, the ACLU has come out against due process on college campuses. Because Orange Man bad.
There is nothing stunning about this - the old ACLU is now run by La Raza and assorted other totalitarian kooks. Whites and most Jews fled long ago.
Trump, who extorted an allied government to conduct a phony investigation of his political rival? Trump, who has removed due process rights and protections for immigrants and asylum seekers? Trump, who campaigned on discrimination against people based on their religion? Trump, who called for the death penalty of the central park five? Trump, who praised the use of torture in Guantanamo Bay? Trump, who asked the Russians to hack and then leak private e-mails of his opponents? Who said we should go after the families of terrorist suspects? Who appoints judges with the explicit goal of overturning decades of established abortion rights, police restrictions, and worker protections? Whose entire party works constantly to restrict voting rights? That Trump? You're going to vote for him because you're concerned about civil liberties? Have you thought this through?
Excellent piece. Thank you.
Chelsea Manning's outrageous fines were actually paid by supporters through a crowdfunding platform. https://couragetoresist.org/chelsea-manning-free-fines-nearly-paid/ I was proud to contribute a small amount to it.
On the broader issues, the Democratic Party's behavior these last few months was enough to get me to finally give up my right to vote, when piled on top of their behavior over the last five years or so. I just don't give a shit about them anymore, because they don't give a shit about anything real anymore.
"Chelsea Manning's outrageous fines were actually paid by supporters through a crowdfunding platform. https://couragetoresist.org/chelsea-manning-free-fines-nearly-paid/ I was proud to contribute a small amount to it."
Glad that you point that out. I, too, made a small contribution to help defray her legal costs. I'm glad to hear that enough money was donated.
After the 2016 election I unenrolled from the Dem party. I am now registered to vote but as "Unrenrolled.
I can still vote in primaries. I can choose which primary to vote in.
Another good essay on the same topic - https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/07/covid19-and-the-left-an-ignored-civil-rights-crisis
Because they are not liberals. They are The Left. Completely different animal. Utterly corrupt and anti-American. The Left IS the Democratic Party and the media now. And they did not want a civilized discussion. They want to jail and destroy their enemies. And their enemies are the rest of us.
We have no "left" in this country; we have 2 corporate coldwarrier parties, as does much of the world. Bernie Sanders was undermined by the same oligarchs as Jeremy Corbin in the U,K. The tactics varied a little, otherwise same old story decade after decade.
Thank you for this piece. Your investigative work always shows an honest effort to think and reason irregardless of the lines, and I appreciate your wit and clarity. There is a broad range of comments here; It looks a lot like party line enforcement, particularly from the Blue Team. I hope you continue to not pay any attention to any of it, from either side. Personally, I grew up with Democrats of the most progressive, liberal type, and as a working class kid sacking groceries to keep an old car on the road, I saw as much as I needed to by the time I went to University.
Since the Bolshevik Revolution, the Democratic Party in the USA has been all about winning elections. It is the primary practical aim of the Party. I think you should examine carefully what effect this has on their philosophy and on their actions, and ask yourself: What do I imagine would be the price too high to pay, for the Democratic Party to be willing to consider a loss? Then look for it, in practice. Throughout my youth, the Party was eager to embrace revolution, reform, and the ideas of individual rights. But it's a mistake to imagine they believed any of it. It was just a game plan to win, and now: they have a new plan.
What we're witnessing is the real-time maturation of a liberal--in the true "classic" sense" (individual rights, freedom of speech/expression, worker's rights, etc). Oddly, it is the conservative movement over the past 40 years that has been most consistent with the original ideology. The American "liberal" movement which espoused noble, egalitarian ideals was corrupted long-ago by selfish hijacking of moral movements to establish their elite status in media, academia, and global political/economic self-serving...power, the ultimate corrupter.
Brilliant
The media was transparently partisan and hypocritical before Trump, but in the past 4 years they have behaved so badly that most of the public no longer has any respect for the profession of "journalism." Personally, I love to watch Trump berate and abuse the twits in the White House press corps. Most of their questions aren't serious inquiries and don't deserve a serious response.
Sad but true. When did Social Engineering 101 displace Professional Ethics 101 from the list of Journalism course offerings?
Back in the early '80's, I took a few journalism courses when I was in college, although, thank God, I decided against going into the field. (I'd be very lonely now if I had.) I remember the teachers saying that Watergate had upturned the old rules of journalism and the trend was now "advocacy journalism" rather than objectivity. I was a young liberal then and so that did not trouble me at the time. But now we are seeing the fruits of what happens when journalists become convinced that crusading for their pet causes is more important than telling the truth.
There's also something unattractive (not to mention transparently unethical), in a journalist or anyone else, about thinking as long as your target is a schmuck it's perfectly okay to gang up on him and treat him unfairly. Trump isn't somebody that central casting would ever pick to play the role of engaging, sympathetic victim; but that doesn't prevent him from being one, by any objective standard... nor does it get institutional media off the hook as victimizers and bullies.
This ignores the valid reasons for concern related to Flynn’s activities. Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions. He was opening himself to blackmail by lying to the Vice President. And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia. Yes, in hindsight it seems tame because there wasn’t some Trump-Putin conspiracy exposed. But these actions by Flynn (in which he pled guilty) would still warrant action in my view. But I completely agree about the excessive use of surveillance. But are you going to write articles like this for every American prosecuted through these means? Is Trump going to apply this same legal jujitsu in every federal case? No, because Trump wants to help Flynn. Not because he actually wantS to reform the surveillance state. So I don’t think the judge is acting in an authoritarian manner. It’s a valid check on a politically motivated executive.
Joe -- You've not been paying attention to the actual evidence. Instead, you're relying on sources who are making verifiably false representations of what the evidence shows. For example, Flynn was in no way undermining US foreign policy. He was part of the duly elected President's transition staff. In talking to other foreign leaders, he was merely doing his job. Yes, Trump's foreign policies were going to differ from Obama's. Those policies were part of the just completed election. Trump clearly stated his views on Russia, Iran, China, etc. Hillary, for the most part, ran on continuing Obama's policies. The voters approved of Trump, not Hillary. So, the change in policies was part and parcel of the peaceful transition of power from one administration to another. Flynn wasn't doing anything wrong any more than Obama's transition team did wrong when they had similar conversations in the waning days of the Bush Administration.
Second, Flynn didn't lie to the FBI. Nor did he mislead them. (The FBI had a transcript of the call. There was NOTHING Flynn could have said that would have improved or harmed the FBI's understanding of what was said on the call.) The two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was being truthful and that any falsehoods he may have said were NOT intentional but were nothing more than a lapse of memory. This the BEST evidence we have of whether or not Flynn lied. The two agents came away believing that he did not.
So, why did Flynn agree to plead guilty to lying? FBI agents are supposed to record such an interview on form FD 302 within 5 days. In this case, it took the FBI weeks to finalize the 302 -- during which time it was revised and edited multiple times. (Some of the editors were not even in the room with Flynn.) At the end of this editing process, the FBI's official take on the interview Flynn went from truthful to deceitful. It was this revised version that served as the basis for charging Flynn. The prosecutors didn't tell Flynn (as they were required to) about the prior versions of the 302. They told him that two FBI agents would testify in court that he'd intentionally lied. How could he prove differently? To top it off, his defense had cost him millions of dollars and the prosecution was threatening to charge Flynn's son. Flynn agreed to plead guilty because he had been bankrupted and he hoped to protect his son from ruin, not because he thought he'd done anything wrong.
Dan, I'm afraid you are the uninformed one here. First, Flynn, according to court documents, was trying to influence Russia's actions in matters of foreign policy and undermine the then-current administrations position. Of course Trump can change those official positions, but only once he's in office. You'll have to find some evidence of a similarly direct effort by Obama to overstep Bush. However, this is mostly a red herring since Flynn wasn't charged with or being investigated for Logan act violations. (Side note: the 'voters' wanted Hillary, Trump won because of electoral college mechanisms.)
So, on to the substance: There is no evidence to contradict the testimony that Flynn lied. Flynn attempted to mislead the FBI in the course of an investigation into foreign espionage, not aware that they had a transcript of his call(s). He also lied to Pence. (or Pence lied along with him). Flynn's attempt to withdraw his plea doesn't dispute his conversations with Kislyak. Sztrok, in a later interview, said he and his partner didn't see indications of lying from Flynn and didn't "have the impression" he was lying at the time. Comey, in testimony to Congress, recalls "My recollection was he was — the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being — they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there" . This is straightforward, Flynn was lying, but didn't have an obvious tell during an interview. The right wing is spinning a false narrative out of bits and pieces of nothing.
There is no evidence the FBI's take changed. Texts from Sztrok and Page make it quite clear that editing was only to make it readable, not to change material facts. Moreover, the 302 we have from Flynn's interview does not (at least in unredacted portions) make any statement as to whether the FBI ultimately concluded that Flynn lied. So how could it have been edited to change its position when it doesn't take any such position? This is all just fabrication from Trumpists.
Flynn took a plea deal because his actions had exposed him to multiple charges. He pleaded down to merely lying and the prosecutors let him off with that in exchange for cooperation. The FBI would have had to prove its case, not the other way around, but Flynn clearly thought they could.
As the representative of the incoming administration,Flynn not only had the right to influence the actions of a foreign nation, but the responsibility to advise those nations of the posture of the new administration.
@Josh Who are you talking to?
Whoops, my original comment here was in response to David Walser, somehow I read that as Dan. My bad, although the comment stands.
"Flynn attempted to mislead the FBI"
Huh? He allegedly made a false statement. There's no evidence or anyone even claiming that he knowingly did so, nor that he purposefully lied. You have mischaracterized Flynn by attributing a dishonest motive.
"Flynn clearly thought they could [prove their case]."
This is also an assumption on your part. Given the threats to Flynn and his family made by the FBI as well as the exorbitant emotional and financial cost, Flynn had little choice but to accept the deal.
Flynn was charged with "willfully and knowingly mak[ing] materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements" with multiple examples. Both McCabe and Comey have stated that he was clearly lying. Flynn called Kislyak the day new sanctions were announced. Mueller report states that Kislyak called Flynn to tell him the Russians had changed their policy in response to his requests. Flynn allegedly repeated the lie to Pence. It is simply not plausible to believe Flynn didn't deliberately lie.
There is nothing in any of the released documents that indicates the prosecutors had any doubts about their charges. The judge said Flynn had sold his country out! Flynn of course had a choice to reject the deal, since he later tried to do so with a new, conspiracy-hawking lawyer. Even so, neither Powell, nor the DOJ's attempt to bury the case have actually disputed the lies from what I have seen. They try to argue (badly) on procedural grounds.
You would have to have the Kislyak call and the original 302 had it been filled out within 5 days to know if Flynn lied. What Comey and McCabe said is irrelevant. Mueller is irrelevant. Pence is irrelevant to Flynn's case. Since we don't have the original 302, we don't even know what Flynn said. We know that the 302 was mishandled and weeks went by before the form was filled out. Then it was edited later to make Flynn look bad. Trusting two-week old memories to accuse someone of lying is very lame. There is no evidence of lying except Flynn's guilty plea and that evidence has been undermined by Flynn's claim of coercion. Any "lies" aren't material because the FBI already had the evidence of the Kislyak call. So you go nuthin.
lol....YOU POOR UNINFORMED BOOB. Please explain how the Russians could Blackmail Flynn for a conversation that had nothing worth blackmailing....Please show us the transcript that shows something compromising on Flynn.....Please explain how the transcript was never leaked? If the blackmail was the reason to embarrass Flynn, why not just release the transcript to prove your baseless hyperventilating claim? You idiots are a disgrace to common sense Liberalism. You are all petty tyrants as long as a Marxist is in office. Then you become the 'resistance' when rational right wingers win elections fairly. Watching you twits collectively light your own hair on fire is gratifying.
If the Vice President is making public statements that the Russians know to be false they can use that to put pressure on Flynn to not expose what they knew really went down on the call. Which was a discussion to not react to Obama’s sanctions.
If you are actually asking me why classified documents have NOT been leaked, I’m afraid I don’t have an answer.
I’m not lighting hair on fire. I’m pretty calm. Just wanted to point out the legitimate reasons why law enforcement was concerned.
Can you give me another case where anything close to this logic by Barr has been applied? No. You can’t. So stop name calling and maybe start reading about how our legal system works.
What public statements made by Pence were false? You assume some nefarious dealings but still have zero evidence anything of the kind occurred. Weird how the transcript still hasn't been admitted as evidence in the case. I assume Obama illegally spied on Trump's campaign as an insurance policy in case he beat the "most qualified person ever" to run for president. Weird how I can provide more evidence of that and you look the other way. Does your hypocrisy hurt your head? Do you know what Rule 48 is, of course not....you're wlecome....
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-politicized-order-inviting-amicus-briefs-against-the-flynn-cases-dismissal/
Pence said on live TV that Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador.
You seem to ignore the fact that Russia was engaged in a comprehensive effort to influence the election.
Our intel agencies were trying to find out what was happening and Flynn got caught in the net.
I would also like to see transcripts but that’s not really how counter-intelligence works.
Lastly, if Obama was somehow trying to undermine the Trump admin by taking Flynn down why would he personally warn Trump to stay away from him? And why wouldn’t he have made a much bigger deal about Russian intervention publicly? Your logic doesn’t hold up.
Flynn would discover the illegal spying on Trump if he wasn't taken out immediately. The entire hoax was to discredit Trump and make him ineffective to govern....seems like the entire media sheep went right along with it, well except the racists and alt right wingers at FOX, huh? Is Matt a racist for seeing the forest for the trees? Your willful denial of the reality is delusional.
He didnt discuss sanctions, he discussed not retaliating until Trump got in....huge difference, but Leftists project their lack of critical thought onto those that do. The "comprehensive effort to influence the election" happen how,...exactly? Did Russia make Hillary keep a private email server in her basement? Did Putin get Comey to call her investigation a "matter" and then illegally exonerate her after listing how its a crime to do what she did? My God you sheep are pathetic. You wouldn't know a precedent if it were reversed in a court and a case withdrew by a Judge....oops I can see why now...All your corrupt Leftist Judges are now shills for the Deep State. So fun to watch you twerps tread water and still keep losing. Please deflect and change the subject some more.
I'm a leftist and I'm with you 100% on this Russiagate bullshit. Democrats aren't leftists.
Sure, Russia wanted HRC to win. Because the House Intel docs were released, we know that now. Brennan overruled the consensus of the intel agencies. Russia conducted some social media campaigns to create discord. In addition, however, the CIA/FBI/DOJ fabricated evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election in order to cover up the FISA section 702 "About" queries which amounted to violations of the Constitutional amendment against illegal search and seizure. That is what #Obamagate is all about.
@Joe "You seem to ignore the fact that Russia was engaged in a comprehensive effort to influence the election." Where is that in evidence? It isn't but you think saying it without evidence doesn't matter? If you look at the 'evidence' the DOJ & FBI & Intelligence agencies supplied and want to hang your hat on that then you are willing to except the evidence provided by kindergartners. It's embarrassing to see officials in the government acting at such an incompetent level, lying so transparently and thinking that that gets them off the hook.
I know why you morons on the left just swallow this shit whole but there may come a day when you are willing to admit to the stench you've created.
EVERYONE knew or could know what was said on the call. The Russians could not blackmail Flynn by “revealing” something recorded on the call. And what was said was not illegal. This argument has no merit.
I notice you haven't provided any refutations of my claims or of the evidence that shows they forced Flynn to plead guilty or come after his son as well. Weird how you dip squat idiots don't even know his first legal team was fired for getting him to cop to a phony charge and then make up dirt on Trump or else...good grief you think avoiding the facts will change the reality? Oops sorry I forgot I was dealing with people that think there are more than two genders. LOL Do you even know what Brady evidence is? Rule 48? NOPE
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-politicized-order-inviting-amicus-briefs-against-the-flynn-cases-dismissal/
Mike Herzog's ad hominem attacks were unnecessary but he otherwise has a point. Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional attorney, broke this down quite beautifully in his recent podcast. Flynn did nothing more as far as we know other than contact the Russian ambassador to advise him on the incoming administration's stance on the sanctions. That is not a crime and it is customary for incoming administrations to make such contacts. The "lie" was not material (read the dismissal or listen to Glenn's explanation). Plus it is not even entirely clear that he intentionally lied (even the FBI notes acknowledge that). Intent is required for this particular crime (i.e., the Logan Act...which deserves another discussion ). As to Flynn pleading guilty, as someone who works in the criminal defense arena, I can assure you that defendant's are railroaded into pleading guilty all the time, that includes innocent defendants. I won't go into how this works but it is not at all uncommon. I believe that is what happened to Flynn. I implore those of you who are only getting your news from certain outlets to listen the Glenn's podcast. It is very enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=5041s
I listened to Greenwald’s podcast. Anyone interested in this matter and its implications going forward would gain from doing the same. It WAS too long for most, I’m afraid, but that’s Glenn being Glenn. He always goes through everything, all the details and the background legal arguments, with a fine tooth comb. If you asked both Glenn and DJT to comment on the exact same thing, Donald would be on the third tee after bloviating repetitiously for five minutes, while Glenn would be wrapping up his introductory comments in which he’d provide the foundation and background upon which he would then make his airtight presentation and give his conclusions.
Lying to the FBI is NOT a crime UNLESS it is materially false with respect to the matter under investigation. So you need to know what the "lie" is and whether it relates to the subject matter under investigation in a MATERIAL way. We do not know what the "lie" was here.
What did ho lie about you twit? How did his testimony cause harm to an investigation that didn't even exist? My God you Leftists are daft. Maybe your legal degree can describe how the legal system is supposed to work when A Democrat is in charge instead of a Republican? You fucking hypocrites are disgusting losers with no ability to accept defeat nor reality. Obama committed treason and abetted Russia by perpetuating a fraud on the FISA courts by omitting exculpatory evidence and altering warrants. But please keep defending the Nixon 2.0 hoax. Obama is now the worst president ever for spying worse than Nixon. Its Hillaryous how Obama managed to out do the two Republicans that you morons think were the worst. LOL
Tell me where he lied? He was was not aware they were investigating him. I don't know how stupid you all can be, where is the original crime lefties?
Let us all know when you come across a cogent thought.
Wrong. Flynn was able to discuss anything he wanted as a member of the incoming team. There is no crime there. Never has an outgoing administration engaged is such shameful behavior. Just bc you dont like who won, doesn't give my now former party the right to do the things they have been doing. Dont like the Trump team? Win at the ballot box. Your repsonse is the problem with this entire party. Making excuses for bad behavior.
How do you explain Comey’s announcement about re-opening the Clinton email investigation right before the election? How does that fit the narrative of an Obama conspiracy against Trump?
The simple answer is the self-important FBI bumbled it’s way through it all on both sides.
Joe, that was a CYA move by Comey to protect him and the FBI from criticism for going easy on Clinton at a time when everybody expected her to win. And he did go easy on her.
Comey expected Clinton to win and went hard on her, so that no one could accuse him of showing her any special treatment. He made a big public splash announcing 'new' e-mails although nothing had substantially changed in the nothing-burger investigation. There was never any reason to think that the additional e-mails were qualitatively different from the previous ones.
"Bullpucky" huh? Well that's an interesting argument.
Well, Comey was and remains a fool who was completely out of his league. So there's that. But being a fool is obviously not mutually exclusive to being an oily slime, as Comey demonstrated.
Appointing a lawyer to run the FBI was one of the low points of a singularly unimpressive presidency. It wasn't the lowest point, obviously, though it probably makes the Bottom Ten. (Accepting the Nobel Prize "awarded" for literally no reason whatsoever by a handful of Eurotrash Socialists and cashing the check would be the low point, if Obama hadn't executed an American citizen with a drone strike, but without due process.)
Comey's no fool.
The FBI had no choice. The NYPD was in on the raid and they threatened to make public that additional e-mails were acquired during the raid of Carlos Danger's laptop. Comey was simply trying to get on top of the situation and control the narrative.
I was amazed as Comey pissed off both sides. If he had done his job he would have kept his mouth shut. He was so smug and self important that agents called him "The Cardinal" behind his back.
"Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions."
That's moronic... That was the obama regime's foreign policy, and Trump can change if he wants.
Yes. After inauguration. And don’t call people morons. Not a good look for an adult. Makes you look childish.
What say we go back to Nov 2008-Feb 2009 and unmask all of Mr. Obama's people's conversations? I'll bet dollars to donuts that some or all of them had discussions with foreign nations which showed variations in Mr. Obama's policy goals compared to Mr. Bush's policies. So, can we now charge all of Mr. Obama's people with the crime of interfering with National Security?
The Obama administration has done the same - speaking to foreign entities. In fact Kerry even spoke to Iran when he left Government and gave them advice.
Do you seriously maintain that the new admin can not signal its intentions or in this case ask the Russians to wait before going crazy
So now you are advocating charging Kerry with violation of the Logan Act?
Nice
Wrong. As the incoming administration those months between election and inauguration is to set up and get ready for the transition. That means talking to many, many ambassadors, among many other things, , and telling them what to expect. Your ignorance of these matter leaves you spinning in the air.
And don't wear MAGA hats, because they make you look like a racist climate denier. Which is not calling names. It's a statement of fact.
"Climate denier". Because thinking a trace gas (that happens to be essential for life on earth) might not be the sole volume knob in one of the most complex systems man has ever tried to comprehend. Or something.
Where do Leftists go to get their license to be both arrogant and ignorant at the same time?
California
Oh dont worry, soon theyre going to be experts on indictments. In my dreams, i know.
Time for you to change your tampon, Patrck
I don't "deny" climate, I do however deny that there is such a thing as catastrophic man caused global warming.
And I dare you to call my Asian-immigrant wife a racist to her face for wearing her MAGA hat while I'm standing next to her. But she can defend herself so maybe you'd prefer saying that to my half-Asian children? Or, maybe you'd prefer my 79-yr-old immigrant mother. But, alas, with your vast wealth of knowledge and understanding of EVERYONE who supports making America great again, how about you just call me racist?
"Statement of fact." You're pathetic and ignorant Patrick!
@Patrick What an utterly moronic thing to say.
While it was justified to investigate Flynn, the abusive actions of the govt require dismissal of the case. There is evidence of personal or partisan animus on the part of the investigators; the FBI violated its own rules in not notifying WH counsel or telling Flynn he was under investigation; the pattern of illegal leaks clearly indicates the FBI was using them to create pressure on Flynn; the 302 was edited by McCabe and Lisa Page; the transcript was never shown to the defense or the judge; the original 302 is missing; Brady material was denied the defense; the judge was lied to about the existence of more Brady material. And while the was some reason to investigate Flynn, the case was super thin, and there was no reason for the agents to even interview him. They had the transcript, which all parties knew. That you bring up the blackmail issue shows just how thin the pretense was. Seriously? The pretext for interviewing Flynn was that the Russians might blackmail over his lying to Pence? That's so absurd I'm not sure even you believe it. That's exactly the kind of thing that is said when there is a very weak case for sending in agents. Taiibi is exactly right. Trump hatred has blinded liberals to what used to be their principles.
Where was there ever any evidence against Flynn at any time?
None.
There are two different issues here.
One is whether Flynn is legally culpable for something.
Two, is whether the FBI and FISA courts acted improperly. If the FBI acted improperly then Flynn gets to walk. That's how our system of justice works. We presume innocence and we demand strict adherence to the Constitution from our legal system. To do otherwise for any reasons, but especially partisan reasons, is to abandon the American rule of law.
Yes, but my hang-up is with the fact that Flynn has not filed any due process claims. Barr is simply throwing it out. That is different than winning an appeal. I think ultimately that is why the judge has ordered arguments on this. Because there should be some level of process here and not just one AG throwing it out.
Barr is throwing it out b/c he wants to protect the DOJ, whose attorneys engaged in grave prosecutorial misconduct. He knows Flynn would not only win on appeal but also make the DOJ look very bad indeed
I suspect that Durham will make a whole lotta letters look very bad. So Barr's reason isn't gonna stand.
That wasn't Barr's reason. The violating of the rule of law was the only justification that was needed. Anything else is just asinine mind reading.
And you have failed to address my point that Barr's reason to protect the DOJ will fail because Durham.
"undermining foreign policy"? I see . . . (a) so President Trump, who would be Flynn's boss, would have no right to change the foreign policy established by the Obama Administration, and "therefore" Flynn couldn't possibly discuss such things (if he did). Gotcha. (b) He didn't "Undermine" anything - he asked the Ambassador not to react precipitously. Seems like a "reasonable" request. (c) Obama announcing the sanctions when he did - turning it back on you, what's Obama doing "undermining American foreign policy" by doing things by which he attempts to "tie the hands" of his successor? He's ABOUT TO BE GONE - - - - decency would suggest "don't do such things," but Obama's too arrogant for that. (d) You ignore the misconduct associated with (1) keeping the case open; (2) using the LOGAN ACT as a pretext for the same; (3) not following protocol in terms of notifying the White House Counsel's office re the interview; (4) taking affirmative steps to encourage Flynn NOT to be represented; (5) taking affirmative steps to obscure / minimize the preliminary warning regarding telling the truth in such interviews; (6) the failure to follow protocol in the preparation of the 302; (7) the doctoring of the 302; (8) the threats against Flynn's son; (9) the failure to advise the Court about the promise to lay off Flynn's son, and the role that promise played in obtaining the plea.
But NONE OF THAT BOTHERS YOU because Flynn worked for Trump, and "Orange Man Bad."
Dear God, you people have no principles but "I want my way."
Can't stand DT, but this has been a joke of an investigation, the sole purpose of which was to negate Trump's victory, on the false premise that he was sincere on his campaigning about ending wars, and opening up to Russia, policies the MIC/surveillance state could not tolerate. DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand.
Of course, let's not go overboard and say this a something only the Dems would do; Bill Clinton's being impeached on lying about getting a BJ from a woman not his wife, was conducted by three men who were receiving the exact same benefit from non wives even as they posed as moral men to their very core.
What would politics be without hypocrisy of the highest order?
"DT has no deep and abiding beliefs in anything that doesn't personally benefit himself; that these supposed hard-nosed security types couldn't see that is a mystery I'll never understand."
More horseshit and ignorance masquerading as insight. You can't possibly know that. Mind reading is not a valid form of argument. The rest of your argument is on the same level.
There is also evidence that prosecutors were coercing Flynn's lawyers with threats to prosecute THEM in order to force Flynn's lawyers to advise Flynn to plead guilty.
I'd say you've laid out an excellent case for hurling the epithet at Joe of MORON.
Or, perhaps, a willingness to just lie. Or, perhaps, a willingness to parrot a narrative because it resonates with his own biases.
"Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions." Disingenuous: by this logic, no incoming administration would be allowed to countermand a previous administration's policies.
"He was opening himself to blackmail by lying to the Vice President."
Then the FBI should have informed the Trump administration of that. Yet they did not.
"And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia."
Proof by repeated assertion is not proof. What Russia did in the 2016 election was penny-ante stuff, far less than the influencing carried out by China, Israel, and a host of other foreign powers did in the same election. And it is well below the level of dirty tricks regularly carried out by the old USSR.
Right out of the box and you're wrong. "This ignores the valid reasons for concern related to Flynn’s activities. Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions." Excuse me. US foreign policy is whatever the President says it is and Trump was changing it and Flynn let the Russians know that. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. Or are you one that thinks the apparatchiks in the State Department are Constitutionally charged with forming foreign policy?
"And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults on our democratic process by Russia. " Pure bogus propaganda pushed by the Deep State and carried by water carriers MSNBC and CNN. And he didn't lie. Do you even know the definition of lying? Does it even matter to you to speak accurately?.
"Not because he actually wantS [sic]to reform the surveillance state." JFC, what do you think the man has been doing for three years? He challenges them at every turn and brought down a Tsunami of shit on himself from the Left and their whores in the media. Did you think transforming the Deep State was a weekend job for a weekend warrior like yourself?
"So I don’t think the judge is acting in an authoritarian manner. It’s a valid check on a politically motivated executive. "
First, the judge is out of his league and will get severely slapped down for this and I have to think that he knows that but is operating by a nefarious set of motives. His actions can be considered judicial abuse/an abuse of power. It's not a valid check because the executive branch has every right to act politically as long as what he's doing is right. It was right for the DOJ to pull this case for lack of evidence and for prosecutorial misconduct. No need to be mind readers and guess at people's motives. They, the prosecutors, violated the law!
Flynn did not ask the Russians to “change foreign policy”. He asked them not to escalate in response to Obama’s expulsion of diplomats. Even if Flynn’s call was not wise policy, it was not a crime. And, the FBI has the transcript of the call, so if there was a crime, they should have read Flynn his rights and informed the White House counsel of the interview. Comey admitted that they purposely chose not to do so as the WH was in transition and not fully organized.
Bottom line, during the Bush administration, the same people who worked for the rights of Guantánamo detainees now defend the Stasi tactics of the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence apparatus simply because of Trump. And hypocrisy is beyond astounding.
All of the Central Park 5 confessed initially (four on video) to at least having been material witnesses to the rape of the jogger. Yet they recanted later and pleaded innocent. So tell us, do you believe their initial confession is the strongest piece of evidence as to whether they committed or participated somehow in the rape?
1. Trump wasn’t President yet and sanctions came from the US government not just “Obama”
2. He pled guilty to lying so I am taking that as proof he lied. He has not filed a due process claim so it is a valid plea deal.
3. Trump has been undermining and attacking these investigations from Day 1. So pretending he is a good faith actor reasonably responding to a matter of injustice is just as naive as thinking the FBI was 100% right
Flynn retracted his guilty, did he not?
There's no confirmation that Flynn lied. Hence, no proof.
PS: Barr’s logic that since there was no preexisting evidence of a crime prior to them finding evidence of a crime is ridiculous and is not how our legal system work.
The crime of lying to the FBI is premised upon the duty to speak truthfully in response to questions posed in the course a legitimate investigation. If the investigation is not legitimate, there is no duty to speak truthfully, hence no prosecutable crime. State power cannot criminalize lies that are immaterial to legitimate state purposes. And if we allow that to occur, there will be no limit to state power.
However, it appears that coercion and entrapment were at work in this case.
IT'S NOT A CRIME TO "LIE" TO THE FBI UNLESS HE WAS MIRANDIZED. HE WASN'T. ALSO THE FBI HAVE LOST THE 302'S OF THE CONVERSATION AND CAN'T FIND THEM, BRADY VIOLATION. THIS CASE IS OVER MOVE ALONG. I HOPE YOU HOLD TO YOUR TOTALITARIAN PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WHEN THEY COME KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR.
I guess you do not have a problem with the FBI prohibition recording and doctoring forms -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
We're not trying to hide anything. We're trying to expose a blatant abuse of power--a serious threat to democracy.
Obviously, nothing as they charged him with nothing else.
Looks like you have a problem accepting the results of an election if thats your argument.
Please go back and re-read your own comment and think about how pro-police state it is and how ridiculous. It's a fascistic statement. Full on.
Name a single other case in which such logic has ever been applied. You can’t. Because this is an unheard of twisting of legal principles
As recently stated in United States v. Brennan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62427, *11-*12 (E.D. Pa. April 7, 2020) the crime of false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a) requires that the government prove, among other things, that the false statement was "made in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government" (citing United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 213 (3d Cir. 2012)). Addressing the jurisdictional element, the Court explained that "jurisdiction" in matters involving the FBI exists "when someone lies to FBI agents performing a legitimate investigation into federal crimes" (citing Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 402, 405 (1998)).
In other words, the FBI's jurisdiction extends to, but no further than, legitimate investigation. It has no jurisdiction to engage in illegitimate investigation. And where jurisdiction is lacking, false statement cannot be criminal.
An obvious case makes the point. Say the FBI decides to "investigate" your daughter for terrorist activity. There is no factual basis for the investigation, and it is being used as a pretext to apply pressure on her so that she will turn informant on her friend. FBI agents come to your door, tell you they are investigating your daughter for terrorist activity and have a warrant for her arrest and interrogation. They ask you if she is home. You know that if you answer truthfully, they will enter your house, arrest her, and take her to an "undisclosed location" for interrogation. She may even be rendered to another country, so that the interrogation can employ techniques not used in the U.S. You lie and tell them she is not at home and you have no idea where she is.
You have not committed a crime, and I would be happy not only to defend you, but to bring a Bivens claim against the agents as well.
When I was a freshman in college in 1967, the FBI came to my room, looking for my roommate. I (truthfully) told them I didn’t know where he was. They were investigating why he was corresponding with so many Communist countries. He listened to short wave radio, and if he mailed in time, frequency, content to the broadcaster, they would mail back a confirmation that he had received their broadcast. He also learned to sing or play various national anthems.
Thanks for the clear example but my point is that there were several lines of investigation that were legitimate. Barr is using the fact they were ready to move on and then started it up again after the call. But that doesn’t wipe away the original justification. It just breathed new life. And yes, the FBI probably should have held back. But this isn’t the way to go about it.
Joe, you're beaten. You're just a partisan hack.
There was no original crime. The lie to the FBI was challenged but the state refused to first produce the original 302 and then claimed it was lost. There is a history of the FBI using these tactics. One must have great faith to maintain this was legitimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Oh, for CS, go read Powell's open letter to Obama and STFU if you can't do anything but spew gibberish. According to the inverse of your assumption of Barr's logic, the police can go arrest a person and then look for a crime based on...well, according to you, nothing at all.
Could you tell me what the 'lie' was that Flynn is presumed to have told?
Maybe you can tell us what Obamagate is all about then? Isn't that an accusation in search of a crime?
Obamagate is the illegal unmasking of phone conversations using NSA metadata to spy on political opponents in "search of a crime". When no crime was found, they opened up an investigation based on a dossier that they paid for through the Clinton campaign using a foreign source previously labelled unreliable by the FBI - Christopher Steele. They then presented this dossier to the FISA court, as if it were valid foreign intelligence, to obtain the desired warrants.
#Obamagate is about operations run by the CIA/FBI/DOJ to attempt to cover up the Obama admin's massive espionage operations against political opponents--FISA section 702 "About" queries. It's not mostly about attempts to "get Trump."
If you think there is not evidence of wrong doing then you are even dumber than I think you are.
That's called deflection. I presume the assumption is that you can argue by bringing up what is entirely unrelated to the question and shut the questioner up by playing "But Mommmm, Bobby hit me first." Ludicrous.
You didn't answer his question. What lie did Flynn tell?
Name a single time the Logan Act was used to successfully prosecute somebody.
I hate Flynn. He sucks and represents everything I hated about Pentagon brass when I worked there.
That said, the FBI abused their power. Period.
Name a single time it's okay to break a law because no one has been jailed for it before. Everybody gets one free, right? That said, Flynn wasn't prosecuted under the Logan Act, so this is completely irrelevant. The FBI investigated Russian interference in our democracy, which it is duty bound to do. Flynn lied to them in matters directly concerned with the investigation, he admitted it twice in court. He should be in jail, period.
Go read Jonathon Turley & Alan Dershowitz, both have come out swinging in protest. But not only list one occurrence, but MULTIPLE occurrences. And just to bolster this, go read the U.S. Supreme Courts latest decision on this exact same issue. Oh, and did I mention, that was a 9-0 ruling. Guess what, those words he posted are the exact same words the 9 Justices quoted. Interesting, Huh. And if you really want to put your panties in a tight wad, go read the D.C. Circuits own rule on this exact same matter. Yes, the D.C. Circuit is the same court branch this clown Sullivan is a part of and under. So wake up and come back when you have actually read something other then comic books.
No, he didn't.
Name another case where "getting the guy fired" was part of the FBI's legit investigation. Prima facie evidence of bias, and nefarious intent.
Sen Ted Stevens
That case involved procedural due process claims. Barr has not put forth a single constitution violation here, especially not such an obvious due process claim as in the Stevens case
Barr is basically saying since there was no evidence of guilt prior to the voluntary interview given by Flynn that therefore anything after that is null. That is ridiculous. The whole point of an interview is to establish that person’s story. Flynn chose to lie. That’s on him.
The Stevens case was dropped by the Justice department under Eric Holder due to prosecutorial misconduct exposed by Flynn's Attorney Powell when she represented him. Are you saying Eric Holder is a conservative partisan?
Joe, you've been defeated.
See my above comment. This isn’t a competition. I engage with others to hear counterpoints to inform my own positions, it’s called intelligence
I understand that's what your intent is although in reality you seem to be twisting yourself in knots in order to try to rationalize a conspiracy theory you have fully bought into for several years. Not being argumentative with you here, but this is what it looks like to people not invested in the whole Russiagate nonsense- which is what it is.
You’re buying into the lie that the counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling was illegitimate.
It was illegitimate
So you believe that there was no Russian effort to interfere in 2016 and that none of Trump’s team had contacts with Russians? That happened and Flynn was caught in the net. If he came out and said “yes, that was me talking and we were discussing the incoming foreign policy with the ambassador” he would not be in this mess.
You believe that the microscopic site put up (maybe) by Russian people is "one of the biggest assault" on America. Wake up, please: the US, as well as practically all nations in the world, do much, much more than that in every single election of any importance.
Probably, while you say these absurdities, you also belong to the group who considers Alger Hiss a good guy.
you're ignoring the fact that the decision was already made to shut down the investigation into Flynn, but Strzok kept it open on the pretext of a "Logan Act" violation. You're ignoring the rest of it too .... you have a lot invested in "Orange Man Bad," and nothing in "justice under the law."
It was illegitimate. What makes you think otherwise? Can you offer one piece of evidence that made a counterintelligence investigation legitimate? Evidence. not CNN opinions or MSNBC wild assed guesses.
Read the Mueller Report
Still drinking that Russia Collusion Koolaid?
The FBI was conducting a legitimate investigation of Russia's interference in the election, including Trump's many dubious contacts with Russia and other foreign governments. Flynn lied, thereby attempting to obstruct the investigation and betraying his country. If you are concerned about state power you should be concerned about the president installing loyalists, dismissing watchdogs, and protecting his cronies from prosecution.
If that were correct you wouldn't get an argument from me but you apparently haven't been paying attention to the latest releases of documents in this case which revealed that before the FBI "interviewed" they already knew Flynn wasn't working with the Russians and neither was the Trump campaign. Do you not think that a problem?
The real crime is that the Obama administration already knew that the idea that Flynnor Trump were Russian agents were simply opposition lies but they didn't care because thy wanted to destroy both Flynn and Trump.
If you bother to read the documents you will see that the FBI and DOJ were very concerned that Flynn might be a witting or unwitting security threat. They became particularly concerned when Pence promoted the lies on TV, and debated about whether to inform the White House, since Flynn might be deceiving them and exposing them to vulnerabilities; or keeping it under wraps to further the investigation. This is very clear in all the available records.
Flynn was initially considered as a person of interest in the general Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump-Russia collusion due to his Russian contacts. By late 2016 they hadn't found anything conclusive and were prepared to close the file on him. Then his suspicious call to Kislyak came to light as the administration was trying to understand Russia's response to new sanctions. Then Pence started repeating false statements which was a red flag that prompted the interview.
" they already knew Flynn wasn't working with the Russians and neither was the Trump campaign"
How could the FBI know that? Did they know about the Trump Tower meeting, for example? Did they know that whenever Trump met in person with Putin Trump would treat it as a personal meeting rather than an official meeting between heads of state. Did they know that Trump would publicly state he believed Putin and not the FBI, CIA, The Senate when it came to Putin's interference in the 2016 election?
Because the facts don't support your case, you invent your own.
A Man of faith I guess. After all even before Flynn the FBI has played this game -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
"If the investigation is not legitimate, there is no duty to speak truthfully, hence no prosecutable crime"
So whenever the police, FBI, etc question someone, the person being questioned decides whether the investigation is legitimate and if they decide it's not they are free to lie. Thanks for that info - I didn't know that. So by implication before anyone is questioned the interrogators are obligated to present the entire case (as it stands) to the person who is being questioned so they (the person being questioned) can make an informed decision. You know what - I think that's nonsense.
You are completely throwing out the context of the law.
Authority is derived from actual law, not from entities who claim to have authority. That's settled case law in the SCOTUS.
Now I'll agree... being a lowly citizen fighting back against actions taken under of color of law, is no small task. The underlying dynamics of the Flynn case are not, in fact, very complex.
The liability to many of the players, once the blowback gets underway, including Flynn's previous counsel submitting to blackmail and threats by the prosecution, leading them to throw Flynn under the bus by convincing him to take a plea, leaves them ripe for blowback as well.
There was no crime here... there was no legitimate investigation... there was illegal activity taking place that even the FISC head justice outlined in the FISA Court investigation memo from April 2017, that found massive illegal surveillance of Americans.
That declassified memo should have been screaming headlines. No left leaning media even bothered to present it to the public.
Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the journalistic malpractice being committed today in the U.S.
You know, you're right. The original plea bargain he signed involved spending 10 years in jail and having 'I love Obama' tattooed into his forehead. Wait, I just checked, and I may have got it slightly wrong. Turns out he was just getting probation. By that time he'd already spent the bulk of the money due his lawyers, any of the draconian threats against his son were done, he'd provided Mueller all the info they wanted and he was pretty much home free. But then Trump started musing he might pardon the man that he himself had fired and some loony right-wing lawyers started to sing in his ear so he decided simple probation was unbearable and it was time to spend even more money on lawyers and just generally f his life up. On the positive side it did give the Trump-cult an excuse to feel persecuted, by proxy, if not directly.
This is actually a pretty good explanation of why Flynn did lie ... https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3
Pfffffffttttt!
You wish.
Flynn told Russian Amb. "...hold up on your reaction."
Remember, the charge was "lying to the FBI".
Where's the original FD-302?
The existing FD-302 was edited by Strzok and Page. To say that is unusual, is an understatement... I also believe it is against FBI rules
That is not my point -- you appear to have misread my comment.
Whether an investigation is legitimate -- i.e., whether the relevant facts establish cause to infer the commission of a crime -- is determined objectively, not by what any participant may think or believe. If a person making a false statement believes the investigation is illegitimate and decides to lie, s/he is gambling that a court will ultimately agree. Likewise, the investigators are gambling that a court will conclude the contrary. One virtue of our system is that investigators, prosecutors and their targets are not the judges of their own cases. Further, and this is important, there should be no presumption of legitimacy -- i.e., the state should be required to prove that its investigative powers have been employed based on objective cause.
Whether an investigator decides to disclose details or circumstances to the person being questioned is a matter of tactics, not law. I know of no such requirement, although it is the case that an investigator cannot mislead the person through false statement or half-truth.
The question in Flynn's case is whether the objective circumstances at the time made an investigation of his call with Kysliak legitimate -- i.e., whether there was cause to believe the call involved the commission of a crime. The objective facts of which I am aware suggest it was not, and that the investigative power was abused.
To be clear, I do not like or defend Flynn, much less Trump. However, I am generally very skeptical of state power, especially when it comes to organs like the FBI (you can read all the history you want on that), and thus believe that doubts should be resolved in favor of individual protection, not the state's police power.
At the point when Flynn was being interviewed the FBI knew Russia had intervened in the 2016 election of the side of Trump and that Flynn was lying about what he discussed with the ambassador. They also knew Russia had acquiesced to Flynn's request to not expelled Americans from Moscow. They would have been derelict if they had not had a chat with Flynn. Certainly if I was responsible for protecting the country from a predatory, quasi-criminal enterprise like Putin's I'd like to know what Flynn was up to. I don't understand why he lied to everyone. His conversations with the ambassador could easily have been framed as a win for the US. Flynn couldn't unilaterally waive the Magnitsky Act, even if he wanted to, so any promised he made would have been worthless.
"... it is the case that an investigator cannot mislead the person through false statement or half-truth."
I don't think that's accurate, although I also don't think that's what the FBI did
https://www.lernerandlerner.com/blog/2018/01/deceit-during-interrogations-when-can-police-lie-to-you/
One problem with discussions like this is that they involve selective and subjective evaluations. For every "fact" you have cited, there is a "counter-fact." For example, the recently released transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee investigation show that it was by no means certain the Dem emails were exfiltrated, as opposed to being copied to an external drive.
The U.S. Attorney for D.C. has concluded that the interview of Flynn did not involve a "material" false statement. This is another way of saying that there was no legitimate basis for the interview. The question is whether that conclusion is within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion. I think it is.
I have practiced law for 39 years, and have been involved in a number of cases in which confessions and/or statements have been suppressed as a consequence of official lying. That is not always the result because the analysis focuses on voluntariness, coercion, etc., but it is common. The FBI's own manual instructs agents (or used to) that they risk having statements disqualified if they lie to an interview subject.
Again, the issue revolves around the extent to which you are willing to grant extraordinary authorities to the government -- the authority to lie, to interview on hunch or mere suspicion, to employ power for political ends. I'm not.
So John it appears that you would be just fine with the FBI coming to your house, telling you you didn't need a lawyer because you weren't under investigation and then questioniing you about a converstation you had weeks ago and useing any discrepancy they might find, no matter how small or innocuous, to charge you with lying and bankrupt you with legal fees before blackmailing you with a threat against your family all on the basis of not actual criminal investigation? And if you later found that the reason they came in the first place was that you had been critical of one of your local politicians you'd be OK with that still?
This is the stuff that in other countries ultimately leads to death squads.
I'm sure that Mr. Taibbi appreciates your input which demonstrates the point of his article.
What was his point - that suspects are allowed to determine whether the questions asked of them are legitimate and if they don't think so, then they can freely lie?
You are deluded and paranoid.
I'm firing my therapist and hiring you. Do you do remote sessions? I'd like to start by reviewing my childhood - years 2 though 5. I assume you accept Paypal, although I must tell you I only pay after the session is over.
What was the lie? They haven't said exactly what it was, and the initial report from the agents who interviewed him didn't say anything about lies. It was edited later to say he lied. And the lie itself? Could be as simple as him misremembering something, and the FBI catching it and calling it a lie. That, along with pressure to prosecute his son, is enough coercion to make anyone plead guilty when being railroaded. If this wasn't a Republican, if it was some normal person who was railroaded into confessing to a murder under pressure from prosecutors, you'd be all against these sort of tactics. You're not just a hypocrite, you're a fool for thinking the "authorities" always do good and never lie or cheat.
...actually, the original remarks by the interviewing agents were that he appeared to have answered truthfully.
Where oh where is the ORIGINAL FD-302 memo? Well darn... it seems to have gone missing.
Any Judge worth their salt would have cried foul right there.
As an outsider its amazing to observe America,a country that I love and admire BUT when it comes to 'political crimes',be they real ones or imaginary ones,almost all Americans simply retreat to the bunker where their tribe is hanging out-its virtually formulaic at this stage.
Surely America is far better than this endless hackneyed game of tit for tat?
Paradoxically the unconscious wished outcome by both sides is ending up as a one party state-for that's the logical extrapolation from believing the narrative as laid down by each side.
If the FBI asks you what color the sky is and you say gray, its a crime? You fucking idiots are reprehensible losers that don't deserve America. How about lying to Congress? Or at the Impeachment hearings? I mean hell how Dmeocrats are now proven liars after the transcripts of their interviews has been released...is Yovanovich going to be prosecuted for lying about Burisma? You hypocrites are a joke...."bull pucky"...LOL
Remember when the Central Park Five all plead guilty....but then they were said not be guilty? Odd how that worked, huh?
How about obstruction? If you delete 30,000 emails, that were under subpoena, that's not obstruction. However, if you claim executive privilege when under a bogus investigation, That somehow is obstruction. If claiming executive privilege is obstruction, then Obama, should have been charged a long time ago. So hypocritical!. But it takes a lot of useful idiots to keep the Russia hoax narrative alive and I must say,I'm amazed at just how many there are out there.
Keep your pity, you'll need it.
Morty. You’re bringing a squirt gun to the OK Corral. I pity you isn’t an argument. It’s weak and worthless. And you’re demonstrably wrong.
I pity you for not even being able to read something as simple as a Wikipedia page and see the problem with the FBI method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Well, there is the materiality question.
There's also RGB's SCOTUS criticism of this criminalizing of the "exculpatory denial" as being a very shaky idea that might fall if every really challenged.
There's also FBI dept. policy about using this law (probably for fear of breaking it if overused/abused).
One must admit that the circumstances are a bit concerning - going around Sally Yates' direction (Obama's acting AG); no notification/reminder that this was a formal interrogation; no counsel present.
I think the point of all this is - would you consider this acceptable if deployed against you (Biden's "ordinary people")? If the answer is "no", you should think twice before cheering it on.
"I think the point of all this is - would you consider this acceptable if deployed against you (Biden's "ordinary people")? If the answer is "no", you should think twice before cheering it on. "
For all the dimwits who try to argue a lie is a lie is a lie, [extraordinary proposition, really] I wonder what there take would be if Obama or Yates or Brennan or Clapper/Comey/Strojk/Page/van Grack et al were brought up on such flimsy crap and treated exactly the same by the Trump Justice department. Anyone think they'd say, "Ya that's fine."?
We do not even know if he lied - FBI does not record the conversation - it refused to provide the original 302 and now claims the 302 was lost. So the only evidence is that the original team said that they did not think he lied. The FBI after refusing to provide the original 302 - produced new versions and got caught due to metadata - i.e. writing it 7 months later - not original team,etc - So what evidence??? Why does the FBI not record ?? - Police in many places are required body cams. Let me guess - they never make mistake and they are always truthful at the FBI - so their word is enough to convict an otherwise innocent man. (No other crime charged).
-Actually, the original 302 is confirmed (created Jan 24, 2017) and the contents described (tangentially) in several of the HPSCI transcripts that Schiff has been withholding for the last 3 years.
-Educated guess is that the CIA/FBI had been illegally bugging Flynn's phone, and the FBI re-wrote the 302s based on post Jan 24, 2017
illegal tapping of Flynn's phone
-There are no "UNMASKING" requests for the Flynn-Kislyak phone call, yet Obama knew the details of the Flynn phone call BEFORE any US intelligence agency had transcribed Kislyak's side of the call.
-My educated guess is that the FBI re-wrote 302s about Flynn-Kislyak based on illegal wiretaps of Flynn's later conversations, but ONLY recently found out that both Flynn and Kislyak was OUTSIDE the US when the calls were made, so that the FBI could not capture "legal" versions of those phone calls.
Adam Schiff very clearly doesn't think Russiagate is as big a deal as he makes it out to be as he just voted- again- lol- to hand over even more vast surveillance powers over to Trump.
Adam Schiff is a sociopath.
Absolutely!
It's a distraction... and the giant hump under the rug is growing bigger and bigger.
Hey there, Scott! How've you been?
You obviously are oblivious to the law. By the way, the agents — including Peter Strzok — didn’t believe he lied. Hence we have the edited 302. A 302 is supposed to be filed within 5 days of an interview by the agent. Flynn’s was filed weeks later. It had been edited by multiple people who were not at the interview, including Lisa Page who was not an agent. She’s a lawyer.
You’re wrong Marty. It is NOT a crime if the lie is immaterial to the “crime”. Not bullpucky. FACT. And an easily verifiable fact if you care to spend 1 minute on Google.
It's not a crime. Liberals reveal their ignorance every time they post. It's a crime to make a MATERIALLY false statement.
It is a crime to lie to a Federal Agent in the course of the person doing an official business. I.e. if an FBI agent asks how much is that fruit cost, and you lie and tell her it is $2 versus the actual price. You can not be charged with Lying to an FBI agent (1001), unless the person was investigating price gauging (there is an official investigation opened). In Flynn's case the Investigation termed January 4th, but was left unclosed.
The plea was withdrawn when the Feds broke their part of the deal. There is no evidence he lied, or it would be cited. The only evidence is he was set up. The FBI notes show they never asked Flynn about sanctions at all, so how could he have lied about it?
No, Flynn attempted to withdraw his plea when he got a new, crazy lawyer. The judge threw it out since he had no legitimate basis for doing so. There is no evidence he was set up, the FBI even went out of its way to prod his memory during the interview. He was under no government compulsion to lie, he just did. And yes, the interview notes clearly show he was asked about sanctions. From the FD-302: "The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if recalled any
conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian
diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian
hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he
did not. "
That "new crazy lawyer" has brought the US Government to its knees in both the Ted Stevens case and the Enron case. There is a reason Flynn sought her out. She is the best appellate lawyer in the country.
The evidence of the setup ABOUNDS.
From the legal proceedeings:
"...the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words,
prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.”
You can't say "the interview notes clearly show he was asked about sanctions" because A) The interview notes have been lost ohidden. B) The one who wrote them has been isolated from Fynn's legal team, and everyone else for that matter, and C) the word "sanctions" does not appear even once in the re-written 302 that Strozk and Paige conspired to fabricate. In your own quote, the word sanctions does not appear. Sanctions are not the same as expulsions of diplomatic personnel, which Flynn admitted to possibly discussing.
FBI is so keen on the truth that it does not allow recordings. Even original 302 they lost so what he said is well, somewhere in the universe's memory -
I do not share your faith in the FBI - and others do not - well before Flynn case - and based on real cases of lies by FBI>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
The Gestapo had the exact same policy.
Define 'lie.' There is a legal definition in the US Code that has to be met for anyone to charge Flynn with lying. Has the charge met that standard?
Wrong. Exclamation point.
Wrongo ... try again.
Now you're just showing how gratuitously ignorant you are. Just give it up.
Your 70 IQ isnt up to this.
Democrats love to lick the boots of the intelligence ghouls like Clapper and Brennan- Russiagaters who are without a doubt guilty of lying to Congress yet they walk free to spread Russiagate conspiracy theories on MSNBC and CNN. Like all conspiracy theorists, they dig in further the more evidence is presented that debunks their conspiracy theory.
Sorry what crime occurred after they decided to close the case on Jan 5th, after they found nothing wrong with the call? Sad how a person like yourself can not comprehend what legal actually means. Maybe we can start listening in on your conversations and then question you later to see if you remember everything correctly, in case you lie, we will prosecute you in case Russians want to blackmail your wife. You are a moron.
You’re not even trying to understand what I am saying. Just calling me a moron. So I’m done with this.
It's hard to understand morons... so, why try understanding you?
No one asked you
Truth hurts, I know... but buck up, buttercup, you only have the rest of your life to be a moron.
You're done with this because you know nothing and blindly hold to your unfounded beliefs, therefore people pointing out your ignorance hurts your feelings. Now, put on some pants and go upstairs and see what your mother made you for lunch.
Wow, you have me all figured out. It’s amazing you can infer so much from a few comments about an issue that is so unclear that no one on this site can come close to knowing the full picture of. It’s not about my beliefs it’s about not wasting my time trying to learn from people who harbor so much animosity for opposing views.
Apparently you don't understand the fact that Flynn's Miranda rights were violated, the FBI broke numerous laws in its pursuit of Flynn, and then threatened Flynn in order to get him to plead guilty. Now the prosecutorial misconduct is clear, and the prosecutors themselves have dropped the case b/c in a fair courtroom, the judge would throw the case out. The fact that the original 302 is missing from the file is damning in and of itself - and like Taibbi says, it's the 21st century, why didn't they record the interview instead of taking notes afterward? Post-interview note-taking is a highly inaccurate way to handle interviews.
Well Wikipedia has a very good description of how the legal system work -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_forms#FD-302
Under 302 – Criticism -
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informan.
Oh and for the record, the item Flynn discussed as the INCOMING National Security Advisor to the President elect is and was and always will be legal. It was Michael Flynn's job to do exactly that.
There was no crime in the beginning and there was no crime at the end, nor was there one in the middle. So please list the crime Flynn supposedly committed with a timeline. So I can promptly show you he was: A.) not under investigation, b.) never informed of his rights, or even c.) coerced into pleading, all of which are criminal acts by the FBI. Especially since this all occurred against an opposition party and an incoming duly elected President. Sit back and hang on to your boyfriends thong and watch how fast the Appeals court slaps this judge and his corrupt way down.
Nice straw man ... that's not Barr's logic. Try again.
What proof is there that Flynn was undermining US foreign policy. First of all, the transcript of the call has gone missing. Second, the FBI had no such finding, and third, it is generally known that Flynn merely asked the Russians not to escalate. Is it interference to try to get an enemy to not escalate or was it US and Obama policy to escalate the confrontation. No blackmail was possible, pure nonsense. A valid check on possible political motivation would require amicus briefs presented by non partisans. Not people who already consider Flynn guilty of something they’re making up. How will it be determined who is politically motivated doing it as Sullivan has required?
Actually, it's well within the rights of an incoming president to reach out to other nations like Russia in an attempt at deescalation by promising a different course, if said nation didn't escalate things.
Carter did this kind of thing with the Russians in 76. Bill Clinton did it with European allies. Obama did it with Muslim countries.
Suddenly it's only wrong when Trump does it via Flynn? I think not.
It was well with Trump's right to tell the Russians through Flynn that he didn't want to escalate the situation. Change my mind.
I think the one thing you miss is that the FBI had been investigating Flynn for a while, listed to that call, and concluded that there was "no derogatory information" in that call or anywhere else. They had decided to close the investigation based on that call. But Strock intervened and said keep it open as a pretext to do the interview. So there was no real legitimate investigation going on. Also, it is hard to believe that Flynn really "lied" in the sense of *knowingly and willfully* stating something untrue about the call. The guy was the former director of national intelligence, he absolutely knew they had the transcript. If you read the reporting, on at least a couple of occasions he said "I am not sure but you guys should have that" or "I dont think so, but maybe, you guys can check that". So, just makes no sense that he would have willfully and knowingly said anything untrue about the call. Clearly he must have misspoke.
The other thing is the idea of undermining US policy. The Trump won the election on a platform of improving Russia relations. That transition period should be coordinated, but Obama decided to drop a giant sanctions bomb to create a foreign policy mess to upend one of Trump's initiatives. Flynn who was the incoming National Security Director, not some random citizen (like John Kerry trying to undermine US sanctions on Iran) asked the ambassador, less than a month before Trump's inauguration, not to overreact to the sanctions. I cant see any world where that is actionable, and the FBI concluded that the substance of the call was not "no derogatory information"
Flynn was representing the new Admin coming in. He had every right to contact the Russians and start working on the next Admin's ideas. Obama and his ilk were a cabal of loathsome characters. The massive amounts of unmasking being done by anyone and everyone in the last few days of the campaign stinks to high heaven.
Flynn was not told he was under investigation and there was no evidence he committed a crime. Add to that the contents of his phone call were not illegal, but the leaking of the details by law enforcement of that call was a felony. The FBI used the conversation to coerce him into a plea deal because they thought he would uncover a Russian plot that didn't exist.
And he didn't even lie. Strzok and Page rewrote the 302's - the original taken at the time has mysteriously "disappeared"
Both facts can be true at the same time. Flynn didn't lie and didn't lie about anything material.
You lose on the facts AND on the law. You are a major loser.
“ Flynn was undermining US foreign policy by taking a different position on sanctions.”
Flynn was the National Security ADVISER. The fact that you (or others) don’t agree with his advice is not a sufficient reason to send the man to jail.
“And he lied to the FBI during one of the biggest assaults by Russia on our democratic process.”
Russia’s “assault on our democratic process” was routine and trivial – the kind of thing great powers do to each other as a matter of course – and the political impact of its facebook postings was negligible.
On the other hand, the political impact of Flynn’s legal keelhauling was enormous.
Judge Sullivan’s blocking of the AG’S dismissal is a political act, having nothing to do with the legaloid excuses offered for it.
Flynn may we’ll have deserved to be fired.. but prosecuted? You’ve got to be joking. He was targeted maliciously by an out of control FBI that manufactured cause, manufactured and or hid evidence over a pretext that these vindictive government officials k ew to be false. Taking away a mans liberty is one thing. Depriving him of due process over a vendetta by officials under color of state law is an entirely different matter.
The strzok/page memos show that the FBI was considering acting to get Flynn fired, which is a violation of US statutory law against interfering with officials in the performance of their duties.
Core takeaway:
"Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect."
Sad but, in my opinion as well, true.
I used to think it was a joke when the right accused the left of supporting tyranny. Now I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't always true and I just hadn't noticed it before.
Matt Taibbi is one of the few journalists remaining on the left with any ethics and integrity. The NYT, WaPo, and major TV networks are revealed as partisan hacks who don’t do their homework and can’t be counted on to stand up for what’s right and just.
Alert: the NYT and Wapo are not left. They are neoliberal corporate coldwarrier complex shills, just like Repugs. Lots of good real media out there, like Democracy Now!, Real News Network, Common Dreams, Truthout.
This might be the most important piece of the author's acclaimed career. When the facts came to light, I expected Democrats to admit that, even if Trump is the worst president in history, what happened was not only illegal, but dangerous for our democracy. Instead, no Democrat came close to condemning the multiyear witch hunt, before this writing. A two party system cannot continue if one side chucks the rules because, they believe, a bunch of hick voters chose poorly. Like many suburban woman, I did not vote for Trump. My lack of support doesn't prevent me from understanding what really transpired. Career politicians and law enforcement officers decided the American voters made a mistake and they decided to rectify the situation by destroying the new administration. Calling the whole thing a distraction is an insult to any average person's intelligence. Now the 302 form is missing? Joe Biden unmasked Flynn eight days before retirement? A judge that lacks a criminal complaint has conscripted another Judge to play the part of Prosecutor? Loathe Trump all you want, an inept President is not nearly as terrifying as an unpunished attempted coup or the refusal of the Press to call it out. The behavior of Blue States regarding the coronavirus is fueled by the same hubris as the Flynn debacle . Tell me what public health policy is served by preventing a family of four, residing in the same house, from enjoying their boat together? Many counties in this country have yet to experience a single virus death. Why should they be shuddered like NYC?
Well the unfortunate truth is we're going to learn the Obamunists were deep into their Stasi state tactics well before 2016 against candidate Trump. There were others and the list is thought to including Paul Rand, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.
They were "at it" almost as soon as Donald J. Trump came down the escalator. It's what THEY do.
President Trump is going down as the greatest US President in living history. He was right about everything: immigration, supply chain security, trade and pointed the big finger of concern at Communist China.
Which for a Leftist is a grave sin. After all, they already weeped heavily with the fall of the Soviet Union. Look comrade, don't ask political questions or you'll be gulaged.
What brilliant comments Rhonda. Thanks.
Very well said!
Hey Matt,
You are one of the few real journalists left out there. It is a dying trade and is extremely concerning. You do not let your own personal biases affect your analysis and discussion of serious issues and maintain a consistent criteria to conduct your evaluation. Keep up the good work!!!
As a Democrat who has walked away, I think you hit the nail on the head here. The left has lurched so far into state-worship and anti-Trump derangement (and I'm no Trump supporter) that it borders on suicidal. It pains me, but we're watching some terrifying trends emerge.
It's Watergate alright. And Andrew McCabe is G. Gordon Liddy.
Actually, it's far, far, worse than Watergate.
I think the direct equal to Liddy is Peter Strzok.
Ok. I'll go with that.
We have been disenfranchised. Our votes don't matter. They will use any means necessary to squash the will of the people.
YES! I organized for both Obama Campaigns..... got Christmas cards from the White House...... with Bo’s paw print. When I see what happened to the working man, what has slowly happened to unions, 4 states went right to work under Obama, the standard of living, I feel betrayed which is worse than disenfranchised.
Each day we move closer to the SHTF