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

[Sun Devil 92]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

You are pretty astute.

When did that dawn on you ?

 

[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.

Please, post more Jimmy Dore videos. Nothing more fun than debunking that clown and his lies. That guy is straight full of shit.

 

[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.

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

I didn't have to. I used yours. OldJimmy put it out there especially for me to destroy. Have you ever watched that IG report in its entirety? Yea, neither has Jimmy. Lol! You and him are a pair. Jimmy Dore!

 

[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.

I didn't have to. I used yours. OldJimmy put it out there especially for me to destroy. Have you ever watched that IG report in its entirety? Yea, neither has Jimmy. Lol! You and him are a pair. Jimmy Dore!

What a shock, ya got nothing but BS.

 

[BWK]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

You are pretty astute.

When did that dawn on you ?

It's not hard actually! Republicans and their non-abilities to debate, engage, or provide intelligent counter information or relevant arguing points is so common on this forum, you almost have to bunch them up by the case.

 

[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.

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

I didn't have to. I used yours. OldJimmy put it out there especially for me to destroy. Have you ever watched that IG report in its entirety? Yea, neither has Jimmy. Lol! You and him are a pair. Jimmy Dore!

What a shock, ya got nothing but BS.

You aren't countering my argument. The IG report explicitly announced there was zero nefarious activities by the FBI as it related to the FISA warrants. You lose.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

You are pretty astute.

When did that dawn on you ?

It's not hard actually! Republicans and their non-abilities to debate, engage, or provide intelligent counter information or relevant arguing points is so common on this forum, you almost have bunch them up by the case.

When the premise is poisoned to begin with, there is no sense in developing a rebuttal. Why would you rebutt a dumbassed premise like the ones you present ?

Answer: you wouldn't. There is no reason to as there is nothing on the other side that makes any sense.

 

[BWK]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

You are pretty astute.

When did that dawn on you ?

It's not hard actually! Republicans and their non-abilities to debate, engage, or provide intelligent counter information or relevant arguing points is so common on this forum, you almost have bunch them up by the case.

When the premise is poisoned to begin with, there is no sense in developing a rebuttal. Why would you rebutt a dumbassed premise like the ones you present ?

Answer: you wouldn't. There is no reason to as there is nothing on the other side that makes any sense.

Especially for those who believe nonsense equates to sense. Lol! That's your Republican party all in one nice package.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

TDS thread 1,535

Another non-argument.

You are pretty astute.

When did that dawn on you ?

It's not hard actually! Republicans and their non-abilities to debate, engage, or provide intelligent counter information or relevant arguing points is so common on this forum, you almost have bunch them up by the case.

When the premise is poisoned to begin with, there is no sense in developing a rebuttal. Why would you rebutt a dumbassed premise like the ones you present ?

Answer: you wouldn't. There is no reason to as there is nothing on the other side that makes any sense.

Especially for those who believe nonsense equates to sense. Lol! That's your Republican party all in one nice package.

Your stupid overgeneralizations define you. Not that you really know what anyone believes. They simply won't give you the time of day since your premise threads generally start out attacking your opposition and trying to put them on their heels.

They don't bite and you claim victory. I guess it must do something for you. It just makes me laugh.

 

[theHawk]

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

The swamp is squealing. Barr is doing something right.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Maybe. But then again half of Trump’s cabinet and his SCOTUS appointees should be in jail too.

As difficult as it is, my humble advice is to try not to go down the whataboutism rabbit hole.

It's just another in the endless attempts by Trump cultists to change the subject.

The real problem these "alumni", these people that got fired from the DOJ have, is that they have read Trump's 10 rules for living, and #9 is "Get Even".

They tried to sabotage their President, tried to destroy him and failed. Now, there will be Heck to pay.

Indeed, there will be hell to pay . Just think of just a few of the vicious lies the left , dnc, and their right arm the msm have been screaming about trump , his family , ag barr, and general flynn. . . Now it is only my opinion , but if i were a gambling man i would bet that these tree fellas will be looling to set things straight . I dont think they will be turning the other cheek . And they sure dont have to make stuff up because real proof documents are surfacing every day . Dirty obama n company may actually be going down for their obvious crimes. . Dont forget lefty loves epstein . . . More to come...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They also didn't mention that he as to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Some things don't need to be mentioned unless you're a retard.

 

[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?

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 DOJ just submitted 6000 pages of proof, you fucking dumbass. The fake news sure keeps you TDS retards in the dark.

 

[easyt65]

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

Amazing what threatening to jail your son if you don't plead guilty can do....

 

[Polishprince]

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

Amazing what threatening to jail your son if you don't plead guilty can do....

Threatening people's children is the very definition of "duress". If Gen. Flynn did NOT plead guilty after that threat, I would have doubts about his paternity to the junior Flynn.

 

[berg80]

the DOJ and FBI are given full authority to conduct, interpret, entrap, manufacture evidence as they themselves see fit with absolute impunity?

We need to be clear about this. Nothing about your comment is accurate.

FBI agents interviewed Flynn regarding his prior conversation with Kislyak. A conversation during which Flynn advised Russia not to respond to the sanctions Obama had imposed. Flynn did so before he had the authority to discuss American foreign policy with an agent of another country since the Obama admin was still in power. In answering the question Flynn lied about what he said. Lying to the FBI is a felony. He was not entrapped. He did in fact lie. A crime he confessed to.

The use of Flynn's son as leverage to get Flynn to cooperate with the government is not at all unusual or unethical.

Exculpatory evidence was not withheld from Flynn's defense team.

Documents were not altered by FBI agents.

The counterintel investigation conducted by the FBI on Flynn was entirely warranted given that the Russians knew he had lied to VP Pence and therefore could be compromised as the incoming national security adviser.

However, Billy the Bagman has made a number of allegations designed to confuse Trumpletards and muddy the waters.

Those allegations have resulted in a participant in Flynn's investigation, Mary McCord, asserting that Barr purposefully twisted here words, one DOJ prosecutor withdrawing from the case in protest (all he can do because DOJ employees are prohibited from speaking publicly about a case), and over 200 former DOJ and FBI employees calling out Barr for his partisan hackery on behalf of Big Fat Don.

 

[berg80]

Threatening people's children is the very definition of "duress". If Gen. Flynn did NOT plead guilty after that threat, I would have doubts about his paternity to the junior Flynn.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about government prosecutors using leverage to get a defendant to admit to a crime.

The crime Flynn committed is on tape. He confessed because he is guilty.

 

[Polishprince]

Threatening people's children is the very definition of "duress". If Gen. Flynn did NOT plead guilty after that threat, I would have doubts about his paternity to the junior Flynn.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about government prosecutors using leverage to get a defendant to admit to a crime.

The crime Flynn committed is on tape. He confessed because he is guilty.

Just because there is "nothing unusual" about the tactic doesn't mean it wasn't duress.

Why didn't government persecutors just try Gen. Flynn on the charges instead of pushing for a guilty plea, if it was such a slam dunk? Because it wasn't a slam dunk

 

[berg80]

The most obvious lie Barr told during an interview was that the DOJ could not prove a crime had been committed by Flynn. They didn't have to prove it. Flynn had confessed and had been convicted. He had the right to ask that his guilty plea be withdrawn. But the arguments his new attorney was making about prosecutorial malfeasance were total, fabricated horseshit.

 

[Polishprince]

The most obvious lie Barr told during an interview was that the DOJ could not prove a crime had been committed by Flynn. They didn't have to prove it. Flynn had confessed and had been convicted. He had the right to ask that his guilty plea be withdrawn. But the arguments his new attorney was making about prosecutorial malfeasance were total, fabricated horseshit.

Flynn made a plea, the DOJ didn't prove a dam thing.