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

[Dragonlady]

You know how we know that Flynn lying was significant, its because Trump fired him over it, my friends

Trump fired him because the FBI told him Flynn lied.... Now we find out it was the FBI that lied to Trump in an effort to get him fired.. The only thing significant was why would the FBI create a lie to disrupt the presidents team and agenda? What was their goal? It was obviously that Flynn knew what Obama was up too and this was the only way to discredit him and keep the Coup D'eTat hidden.

Light exposed the lies and deceptions... Now its time to deal with these traitors.

That’s a nice fantasy but Trump fired Flynn because Flynn lied to Mike Pence. It had nothing to do with the FBI. Trump said so.

 

[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.

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

G back

Trump fired him because the FBI told him Flynn lied.... Now we find out it was the FBI that lied to Trump in an effort to get him fired..

That isn't even close to the truth.

It all goes back to the FBI falsifying the 302's
I know that you are a troll
I know that you do not care.

Someone here might learn something, through all your trolling here
worth a chance.

The 302 was not falsified. Another bogus claim.

Your words are not true.
It's documented.
I dismiss you.

 

[Meister]

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

That's quite an opinion you have there, comrade. Also, I just love your left wing sites.
They can make all sorts of shit up and print them as fact for schills like yourself to use

 

[colfax_m]

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.

G back

Trump fired him because the FBI told him Flynn lied.... Now we find out it was the FBI that lied to Trump in an effort to get him fired..

That isn't even close to the truth.

It all goes back to the FBI falsifying the 302's
I know that you are a troll
I know that you do not care.

Someone here might learn something, through all your trolling here
worth a chance.

The 302 was not falsified. Another bogus claim.

Your words are not true.
It's documented.
I dismiss you.

Ha! Show me the documents.

 

[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.

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

G back

Trump fired him because the FBI told him Flynn lied.... Now we find out it was the FBI that lied to Trump in an effort to get him fired..

That isn't even close to the truth.

It all goes back to the FBI falsifying the 302's
I know that you are a troll
I know that you do not care.

Someone here might learn something, through all your trolling here
worth a chance.

The 302 was not falsified. Another bogus claim.

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Lisa Page and Peter Strozk both ADMITTED THAT THEY CHANGED THE 302 IN SWORN TESTIMONY!

I know
You literally can't make up how stupid some of these Leftists are.

 

[berg80]

That's quite an opinion you have there, comrade. Also, I just love your left wing sites.
They can make all sorts of shit up and print them as fact for schills like yourself to use

Is that what passes for factual refutation in Trumpworld?

Former Justice Department official says Barr 'twisted' her words to justify dropping Flynn case | CNN Politics

A former Justice Department official says Attorney General William Barr "twisted" her words to justify the decision to drop the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

www.cnn.com

 

[Meister]

That's quite an opinion you have there, comrade. Also, I just love your left wing sites.
They can make all sorts of shit up and print them as fact for schills like yourself to use

Is that what passes for factual refutation in Trumpworld?

It's as factual as what you're spewing, comrade. Mine is just the condensed version,
while yours is trying to baffle them with bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Perhaps that's true, and it needs to change. Plea bargains should be against the law. They are pure corruption. 90% of federal cases never go to trial.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yeah, the DOJ does have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Federal prosecutors almost never take their cases to trial. It's one of the dirty little secrets of the DOJ. It's a totally corrupt system that is stacked against anyone the FBI has in its cross hairs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

, the DOJ does have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which they know they can do, thus the attempt to dismiss "with prejudice", to keep the next AG from retrying Flynn's case. The judge's decision on that part of the request will be notable.

 

[bripat9643]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

No, it's a sign of how the deck is stacked.

You must have admired the Soviet system and Saddam's system of justice where the conviction rate was 100%.

 

[Polishprince]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

 

[Rambunctious]

The shenanigans were done under Obama and OBiden....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it's a sign of how the deck is stacked.

Yes, by overwhelming evidence of guilt. I already covered that.

 

[berg80]

It's as factual as what you're spewing, comrade.

So..........you believe your misinformed opinion is equivalent to the first hand account of Mary McCord? Can I get some of what you're smoking?

Former Justice Department official says Barr 'twisted' her words to justify dropping Flynn case | CNN Politics

A former Justice Department official says Attorney General William Barr "twisted" her words to justify the decision to drop the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

www.cnn.com

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's a sign of how the deck is stacked.

Yes, by overwhelming evidence of guilt. I already covered that.

Nope. As the case with Flynn, evidence isn't needed.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's as factual as what you're spewing, comrade.

So..........you believe your misinformed opinion is equivalent to the first hand account of Mary McCord? Can I get some of what you're smoking?

Former Justice Department official says Barr 'twisted' her words to justify dropping Flynn case | CNN Politics

A former Justice Department official says Attorney General William Barr "twisted" her words to justify the decision to drop the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

www.cnn.com

By the looks of it you don't need anything more to smoke....you are out there my friend...way out....

 

[berg80]

Yeah, the DOJ does have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even when the defendant confesses and pleads guilty?