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

[easyt65]

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

'nuff said.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

The Attorney General is in agreement that correct FBI procedures weren't followed. So that is that. It really doesn't matter what Gen. Flynn said or not, it was fruit from a poisoned tree and the matter is being dropped as a matter of justice. Further, more importantly, this will free up Gen. Flynn to testify in the Obamabidengate Scandal. The conspiracy with Fake Dossier and lying about FISA warrants on loyal citizens like the Tremendous Carter Page and Fantastic George Papadopolous are being looked at. And if there are any discrepancies whatsoever, any lies, heads will rule. Maybe this fall, Sleepy Joe can follow in the footsteps of Eugene V Debs in 1920, and run for POTUS from his prison cell.

 

[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.

The Attorney General is in agreement that correct FBI procedures weren't followed. So that is that. It really doesn't matter what Gen. Flynn said or not, it was fruit from a poisoned tree and the matter is being dropped as a matter of justice. Further, more importantly, this will free up Gen. Flynn to testify in the Obamabidengate Scandal. The conspiracy with Fake Dossier and lying about FISA warrants on loyal citizens like the Tremendous Carter Page and Fantastic George Papadopolous are being looked at. And if there are any discrepancies whatsoever, any lies, heads will rule. Maybe this fall, Sleepy Joe can follow in the footsteps of Eugene V Debs in 1920, and run for POTUS from his prison cell.

The AG is corrupt. 2000 law enforcement officials are calling on Barr to resign. That's how we know that FBI procedures were followed in accordance to US law.

And as always, you take the opportunity to lie once again by fake dossiers and FISAc warrants, and nonexistent Biden Obama scandals. None of those things exist.https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-s-attorney-general-barr-called-to-resign-for-assaults-on-the-rule-of-law-83312197880

 

[BWK]

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

'nuff said.

There will be no prosecution, because no crime occured. And you do not have the proof. You are lying.

 

[BWK]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

 

[lennypartiv]

Trumpletons have been trained to immediately use unfounded character assassination against McCord and Kravis. Just as their Dear Leader does.
Because on the substance of what those two (and many more) are saying about Barr's abject corruption Trump cultists have nothing to say.

Liberals drink the Deep State Kool aid.

 

[lennypartiv]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

Liberals like you are naive, you don't realize the Deep State has become our enemy.

 

[BWK]

Trumpletons have been trained to immediately use unfounded character assassination against McCord and Kravis. Just as their Dear Leader does.
Because on the substance of what those two (and many more) are saying about Barr's abject corruption Trump cultists have nothing to say.

Liberals drink the Deep State Kool aid.

No such thing as deep state. You're a liar, and you cannot prove any such thing exists.

 

[BWK]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

Liberals like you are naive, you don't realize the Deep State has become our enemy.

If you could only prove such a thing existed, you wouldn't be found a liar.

 

[BWK]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

Liberals like you are naive, you don't realize the Deep State has become our enemy.

2000 law enforcement officials who are calling on Barr to resign, disagree with you. Why do you cheer on criminals in our DOJ? By the way, Flynn admitted to lying immediately. How is that entrapment or coercion?

 

[Polishprince]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

Liberals like you are naive, you don't realize the Deep State has become our enemy.

2000 law enforcement officials who are calling on Barr to resign, disagree with you. Why do you cheer on criminals in our DOJ?

2000 FORMER DOJ people, former being the operative words. These are people who washed out of the DOJ, or were fired for stealing pencils or taking a crap on the boss' desk. Total, and complete , pathetic losers.

 

[BWK]

Why do Trumpers suddenly always run from debates? What happened to Lennypartiv?

 

[Thinker101]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

 

[BWK]

Trumpers have totally lost this argument; Deadline: White House on MSNBC

Liberals like you are naive, you don't realize the Deep State has become our enemy.

2000 law enforcement officials who are calling on Barr to resign, disagree with you. Why do you cheer on criminals in our DOJ?

2000 FORMER DOJ people, former being the operative words. These are people who washed out of the DOJ, or were fired for stealing pencils or taking a crap on the boss' desk. Total, and complete , pathetic losers.

Are they? Then link the proof of that, if that is your claim. Telling us that is worth nothing. Dude, when you post claims, how about posting links proving what you are saying, instead of grabbing nonsense out of thin air. Are you capable of having an honest debate?

 

[BWK]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

There is no such evidence of a set up. Flynn immediately confessed to lying to the FBI. You are lying.

 

[lennypartiv]

Why do Trumpers suddenly always run from debates? What happened to Lennypartiv?

I'm still here, and you are still so naive when it comes to the Deep State.

 

[Thinker101]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

There is no such evidence of a set up. Flynn immediately confessed to lying to the FBI. You are lying.

You're just Too Damn Stoopid.

 

[BWK]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

There is no such evidence of a set up. Flynn immediately confessed to lying to the FBI. You are lying.

You're just Too Damn Stoopid.

JImmy Dore? That guy is a total conspiracy nut. Nothing he says has any credibility, and the fact that you watch him says more about you than him. Unbelievable! Jimmy Dore. Now that is a nut who can make up anything and have no proof of what he is telling you. THE IG was talking about errors, but the FISA warrants themselves were not handled corruptly. Do you understand the difference.? Pay attention how Dore slips in the comment about "we'll, they just lie." Really Jimmy? What lie? Lol! Dore is such a joke.

Ha buddy, post so more Jimmy Dore videos, and I'll slice them apart like hot butter. That guy is too easy.

 

[Polishprince]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

There is no such evidence of a set up. Flynn immediately confessed to lying to the FBI. You are lying.

Gen. Flynn didn't "immediately" do anything. The FBI agents threatened to destroy his son over nothing if he didn't plead. Any parent would have done it.

 

[Thinker101]

High profile DOJ alumni? More like fricken idiots that decided to crawl out from under their rock.

Deep State Skunk Mary McCord Worked to Set Up Flynn then Joined Schiff's Team in Trump Impeachment Hoax -- Now She's Whining That She's Innocent Flower

These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case

There is no such evidence of a set up. Flynn immediately confessed to lying to the FBI. You are lying.

You're just Too Damn Stoopid.

JImmy Dore? That guy is a total conspiracy nut. Nothing he says has any credibility, and the fact that you watch him says more about you than him. Unbelievable! Jimmy Dore. Now that is a nut who can make up anything and have no proof of what he is telling you.

Gee, I must have missed any links you posted to backup your BS.