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

[BWK]

"In both cases (Flynn's and Stone's), the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.
Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Op-ed from Washington Compost.

Sewage in, sewage out.

Another non-argument from a guy who wishes he had one.

 

[BWK]

Thank you Mr. Barr. This is the first piece of justice coming out of the Justice Dept. since before the Obama Presidency. But it's time to finish for once. People need to be charged, many with treason, and that includes the crooked media who have aided this coup from the start.

Explain in detail how this is justice, by way of documented evidence.

 

[BWK]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

 

[BWK]

You little fairies think it's bad NOW? wait until Ginsberg croaks and Trump names Barr to the Supreme Court!

So, you could care less for the rule of law right?

 

[BWK]

Make no mistake: The Department’s action is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it.

It wasn't a "properly predicated" investigation, that's exactly the point.

How exactly?

 

[Oddball]

"In both cases (Flynn's and Stone's), the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.
Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Op-ed from Washington Compost.

Sewage in, sewage out.

Another non-argument from a guy who wishes he had one.

Giving a counter-argument to blatant hackery give it validity, hack.

 

[BWK]

You bet they want Barr gone. They are the onion he is peeling back. Go Barr!

Barr is working for Trump, not us. Why would you cheer for Barr?

 

[Oddball]

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.

There's nothing remotely intelligent about either of you sub-cretin nose pickers.

 

[BWK]

"In both cases (Flynn's and Stone's), the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.
Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/

Op-ed from Washington Compost.

Sewage in, sewage out.

Another non-argument from a guy who wishes he had one.

Giving a counter-argument to blatant hackery give it validity, hack.

We always welcome non-debate from you.

 

[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.

There's nothing remotely intelligent about either of you sub-cretin nose pickers.

You have nothing intelligent to offer. I will leave you to your misery.

 

[Oddball]

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.

There's nothing remotely intelligent about either of you sub-cretin nose pickers.

You have nothing intelligent to offer. I will leave you to your misery.

Pearls before swine, Babe.

 

[BWK]

Nobody cares among Trumplenuts. But then they wouldn't care if Barr used the Constitution to start a bonfire of the Bill of rights.

How does dropping charges against Gen. Flynn destroy anyone's "rights"?

Barr is destroying the rule of law by letting a treasonous criminal go free.

 

[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

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

BWK posting in his own OP site. Wow. Using both identities together.

 

[BWK]

Fact is the career nonpartisan prosecutors have been bailing out while Trump’s hand selected appointees have been doing the dirty work.

This last motion to withdraw the charges from Flynn is a joke.

At the end of the day, Flynn may very well be guilty of something, or maybe not. Regardless, it's evident a lot of seriously dirty shit went on behind closed doors at the highest levels of our government that should have never happened nor happen again and anybody denying that at this point is an abject liar. If you want to be bitter at someone be bitter at the people who tainted the investigation, not that I suspect you'll really care. You all seem to be about party over country these days.

Exactly how was the investigation tainted? I mean seriously, Michael Flynn was caught conducting foreign policy business with a country we had sanctions against for interfering in our election, behind a sitting president, and you think the investigation was tainted? Now this is one excuse I've just got to hear. Please indulge us.

 

[BWK]

www.lawfareblog.com

Reported. Stop page-pushing, asswipe....we ain't interested in all your stupid text and graphics.

The truth is a terrible thing to witness huh?

 

[BWK]

Make no mistake: The Department’s action is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it.

Comey admitted he setup the perjury trap for Flynn, see the video.
There was no properly predicated reason to question (perjury trap) General Flynn, period.
There was no "lie" either, there was an "I don't recall" like Hillary always says.

How is this a perjury trap exactly?

 

[Staidhup]

So the rule of law doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
the DOJ and FBI are given full authority to conduct, interpret, entrap, manufacture evidence as they themselves see fit with absolute impunity?
Who the hell do you think your kidding?
We are a nation of laws designed to protect all citizens from the abuse of others and those working for the government. Only a blue blooded fascist, or communist, would venture to argue the ends justify the means.
Let us not forget this is a government founded on the principle of the people for the people not one to serve the bureaucracy at the expense of justice and freedom.
Truth and justice for all, what happened to that moral standard?

 

[BWK]

So the rule of law doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
the DOJ and FBI are given full authority to conduct, interpret, entrap, manufacture evidence as they themselves see fit with absolute impunity?
Who the hell do you think your kidding?
We are a nation of laws designed to protect all citizens from the abuse of others and those working for the government. Only a blue blooded fascist, or communist, would venture to argue the ends justify the means.
Let us not forget this is a government founded on the principle of the people for the people not one to serve the bureaucracy at the expense of justice and freedom.
Truth and justice for all, what happened to that moral standard?

Where is the entrapment? Republicans are having a real problem here in spitting that information out. Crying wolf everytime without showing us the wolf, and you all are just liars.

 

[Dragonlady]

So were to take the word of two people facing criminal prosecution for coercion and fraud on the FISA Court as gospel?

I see no evidence that anyone is facing prosecution for coercion and fraud. However, I believe the FBI people over the convicted felon who admitted to lying, on more than one occasion.

 

[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

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

No one has yet been able to prove there was any framing or entrapment by the FBI. The Right is having an off night for sure.