High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

[Billiejeens]

I can't argue against their opinion.

Right, because you never read it and probably couldn't understand it if you did. Of course, the opinion is argued, and you would then argue that the opinion is false by attacking their arguments and by making your own.

Rational, educated adults can do this. That leaves you out. And, apparently, it also leaves out every other trump cultist in this thread.

Sorry i offended your delicate sensibilities by asking you to do something that adults can do. Lesson learned.

Go lookup what opinion means.
Learn that

 

[bripat9643]

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.

Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”

High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.

After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.


Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?

Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.

Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?

Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).

Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat.

Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?

No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.

And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.

Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.

Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?

No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.

More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.

Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.

Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?

No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

www.lawfareblog.com

A couple of Obama hacks? These are the people who partipated in the framing of Flynn. Why should anyone believe a word they say?

 

[bripat9643]

McCord..........."The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews."

The fly is stuck to the paper.

 

[Billiejeens]

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.

Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”

High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.

After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.


Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?

Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.

Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?

Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).

Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat.

Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?

No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.

And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.

Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.

Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?

No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.

More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.

Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.

Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?

No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

www.lawfareblog.com

A couple of Obama hacks? These are the people who partipated in the framing of Flynn. Why should anyone believe a word they say?

Is it that sheep are stupid?

 

[bripat9643]

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.

Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”

High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.

After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.


Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?

Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.

Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?

Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).

Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat.

Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?

No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.

And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.

Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.

Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?

No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.

More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.

Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.

Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?

No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

www.lawfareblog.com

What would you want Obama stooges like Travis and McCord to say? Right now, those 2 as well as a lot of other characters are being investigated and are looking at serious prison time. My guess is that they are pretty smart and will realize that the worm has turned and will drop a dime on Obama to save their own worthless behinds and made a deal. At which time, they will be condemned by the left.

Kravis and McCord are career prosecutors, not political stooges. What evidence do you have that they’re being investigated?

They're political stooges. We've heard all we need to hear from "career prosecutors." They are the biggest bunch of douchebags ever conceived.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately, the credibility of the DOJ and the FBI is in the shitter at this point.

Agreed. Ever since Barr took that position, career prosecutors have been heading for the hills.

All the dirty ones are headed for the hills, at any rate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go lookup what opinion means.

Go look up what an argued opinion is. And then maybe look up how middle schoolers present these arguments in debate club. And then get some shame, because you should be embarrassed of yourself right now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They're political stooges.

Right, just like anyone who argues anything remotely negative about your cult leader. You don't have to vomit your mindless cultism anymore. We know.

 

[Billiejeens]

Go lookup what opinion means.

Go look up what an argued opinion is. And then maybe look up how middle schoolers present these arguments in debate club. And then get some shame, because you should be embarrassed of yourself right now.

I laugh at you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go lookup what opinion means.

Go look up what an argued opinion is. And then maybe look up how middle schoolers present these arguments in debate club. And then get some shame, because you should be embarrassed of yourself right now.

I laugh at you.

So what? retards laugh at almost anything.

You never read the letter. You couldn't counter-argue against any of the arguments in it, if your life depended on it. Sad! Ballbaby Billiejeens, you're one sick puppy! True human scum!

 

[Markle]

From Kravis..........."The attorney general’s public comments worsened matters. William P. Barr gave nationally televised interviews in which he disparaged the work of prosecutors and agents who handled these cases, criticizing the Stone prosecutors for losing “perspective” and the Flynn team for becoming “wedded to a particular outcome.”
As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client. Barr’s decision to excuse himself from these obligations and attack his own silenced employees is alarming. It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents — if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus."

As you know, the prosecution is required (Brady rule) to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence they find. They did NOT. In fact, they (prosecution) did just the opposite, they concealed the evidence.

If they do that to a three-star general, what can they do to you or me? That doesn't disturb you?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Fun thread ..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As you know, the prosecution is required (Brady rule) to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence they find. They did NOT. In fact, they (prosecution) did just the opposite, they concealed the evidence.

Irrelevant, dimestore nonsense you grifted from an idiot blogger. Nowhere in the DOJ filing is this mentioned.

 

[Markle]

As you know, the prosecution is required (Brady rule) to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence they find. They did NOT. In fact, they (prosecution) did just the opposite, they concealed the evidence.

Irrelevant, dimestore nonsense you grifted from an idiot blogger. Nowhere in the DOJ filing is this mentioned.

Patience son, patience. That has already come out and there is more to come.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.

Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”

High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.

After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.


Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?

Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.

Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?

Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).

Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat.

Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?

No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.

And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.

Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.

Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?

No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.

More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.

Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.

Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?

No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

www.lawfareblog.com

You already posted this and now you’re posting it again. You’re a spammer.

 

[whitehall]

Pretty good news for Americans when former DOJ officials are on the defensive.

 

[Billiejeens]

is it weird that literally all of the criminal behavior was committed by democrats, yet the democrats think that they are the aggrieved party.

Not really. They are democrats.

 

[BWK]

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.

Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”

High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.

talkingpointsmemo.com

..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.

After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.


Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?

Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.

Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?

Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).

Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat.

Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?

No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.

And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.

Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.

Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?

No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.

More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.

Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.

Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?

No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.

www.lawfareblog.com

Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.

www.lawfareblog.com

Bill Barr has to resign; Trump's Attorney General Barr called to resign for 'assaults on the rule of law'

 

[BWK]

is it weird that literally all of the criminal behavior was committed by democrats, yet the democrats think that they are the aggrieved party.

Not really. They are democrats.

Especially when you can't prove that, while you tell lies.

 

[BWK]

From Kravis..........."The attorney general’s public comments worsened matters. William P. Barr gave nationally televised interviews in which he disparaged the work of prosecutors and agents who handled these cases, criticizing the Stone prosecutors for losing “perspective” and the Flynn team for becoming “wedded to a particular outcome.”
As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client. Barr’s decision to excuse himself from these obligations and attack his own silenced employees is alarming. It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents — if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus."

Swamp reptiles trying to cover their own asses....Big fat hairy deal.

A statement in search of an intelligent counter argument. Let us know when you come up with one.