Politics FBI handwritten notes to get Flynn fired

No, the testimony wasn’t the insubordination. It was not following “protocol” that he admitted in his testimony.

 

Okay, now you're losing me. What protocol violation?

 

I told you I would find it. I’ll have to dig through the testimony. I promise I’ll get it to you.

 

"Brandon Van Grack was removed from the Flynn prosecution today after it was revealed he lied under oath to Judge Sullivan, covered up evidence, and may have committed other crimes."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fl...s-by-former-special-counsel-brandon-van-grack

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...6o8jq9mGvJqgUBpSt1LTtqWBGNvcDOeDm7MgHde7ws4ho

Justice Dept dropping Flynn's criminal case after FBI notes revealed
The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI's Russia investigation.

The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview. Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press.

The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended the move to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

The decision is certain to be embraced by Trump, who has relentlessly tweeted about the case and last week pronounced Flynn “exonerated,” and energize supporters who have taken up the retired Army lieutenant general as something of a cause celebre. But it may also add to Democratic concerns that Attorney General William Barr is excessively loyal to the president, and could be a distraction for a Justice Department that for months has sought to focus on crimes arising from the coronavirus.

The Justice Department’s action comes amid an internal review into the handling of the case and an aggressive effort by Flynn’s lawyers to challenge the basis for the prosecution. The lawyers cited newly disclosed FBI emails and notes last week to allege that Flynn was entrapped into lying when agents interviewed him at the White House days after Trump’s inauguration. Though none of the documents appeared to undercut the central allegation that Flynn had lied to the FBI, Trump last week pronounced him “exonerated

The decision is the latest dramatic turn in a years-old case full of twists and turns. In recent months, his attorneys have leveled a series of allegations about the FBI’s actions and asked to withdraw his guilty plea. A judge has rejected most of the claims and not ruled on others, including the bid to revoke the plea.

The decision comes as Barr has increasingly challenged the Russia investigation, saying in a television interview last month that it was started “without any basis.” In February, he overruled a decision by prosecutors in the Roger Stone case in favor of a more lenient recommended sentence for the longtime Trump friend.

Earlier this year, he appointed Jensen, of St. Louis, to investigate the handling of Flynn’s case. As part of that process, the Justice Department produced to Flynn’s attorneys a series of emails and notes, including one handwritten note from a senior FBI official that mapped out internal deliberations about the purpose of the Flynn interview: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” the official wrote.

Other documents show that the FBI had been prepared weeks before its interview of Flynn to drop its investigation into whether he was acting at the direction of Russia. Later that month, though, as the White House insisted that Flynn had never discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, FBI officials grew alarmed by Flynn’s conversations with the diplomat and what he had communicated to the White House. The investigation remained open, and agents went to visit him in the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.

Justice Department officials visited the White House two days later to warn officials that they feared that Flynn was compromised and vulnerable to blackmail by Russia because of his account of what was said on the call. White House officials waited several weeks to oust him from the job, saying they’d concluded that Flynn had lied to them.

Flynn pleaded guilty that December, becoming among the first of the president’s aides to admit guilt in Mueller’s investigation. He acknowledged that he lied about his conversations with Kislyak, in which he encourage Russia not to retaliate against the U.S. for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration over election interference.

He provided such extensive cooperation that prosecutors said he was entitled to a sentence of probation instead of prison.

As it turned out, that sentencing hearing was abruptly cut short after Flynn, facing a stern rebuke from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, asked to be able to continue cooperating and earn credit toward a more lenient sentence.

Flynn’s misgivings about the case were already on display when his then-attorneys pointedly noted in their sentencing memo that the FBI had not warned him that it was against the law to lie when they interviewed him at the White House in January 2017.

Since then, though, he has hired new attorneys — including Sidney Powell, a conservative commentator and outspoken critic of Mueller’s investigation — who have taken a far more confrontational stance to the government. The lawyers have accused prosecutors of withholding documents and evidence they said was favorable to the case and repeatedly noted that one of the two agents who interviewed Flynn was fired from the FBI for having sent derogatory text messages about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

Glad he was finally able to get Justice. Now expect him suing the government for ruining his life. Multi-million dollar lawsuit.

 

They are busy hiring defense attorneys for lying to the courts.

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/...wJ6O57jbtdAz8EbJgM1C4uXpXXGvitjHd5a2p5M93KoYw

Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?


With the release of the new material from the case of Michael Flynn, an array of experts came forward to assure the public that it was all standard procedure for investigators to conclude that there was no criminal conduct uncovered and then prosecutors creating a crime (including the use of a clearly unconstitutional law never used to convict anyone since the start of the Republic). Many of these same experts who have been espousing untethered (and ultimately rejected) theories for criminal and impeachment charges for years. Yet, what was most striking is how many also rejected any claim that the undisclosed evidence, at a minimum, violated Brady, the case requiring the government to turn over exculpatory information. Indeed, Ben Wittes, a staunch defender of James Comey, assured readers “while you might not know much about federal law enforcement,” this is all “standard practices.” In fact, this is a clear and flagrant violation of the both Brady and the orders of Judge Emmet Sullivan. The fact that such violations are also dismissed by mainstream media and experts reflects how rage has distorted legal analysis in this Administration.


Brady v. Maryland is a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court that prosecutors must under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments disclose favorable evidence to defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either guilt or punishment. There are also due process rights requiring the disclosure of any evidence that would allow the defense to attack the reliability, thoroughness, and good faith of the police investigation or to impeach the credibility of the state’s witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

Courts like Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case issue standard orders under this and other cases requiring disclosure of evidence that are exculpatory or material to issues like impeachment.

Many of us who work on the criminal defense side have long frustrating histories with courts in dealing with violations of Brady and other cases. Often these violations are exposed after sentencing (unlike in Flynn). Courts often cite cases like Strickler v. Greene to decline to order a new trial unless “the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” That is a standard that is difficult to overcome. However, this case exposes a particularly obvious set of violations.

The Background


These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

Strzok also wrote FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the same person Strzok had referenced his “insurance policy” to in emails. Strzok texted Page: “Razor still open. but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

That exchange is not disconcerting as Strzok’s actions. After a finding of “no derogatory information,” Strzok reached for the Logan Act and sent a research paper on the notoriously unconstitutional law. Thus, faced with a lack of evidence of any crime, Strzok’s response was to order the investigation be kept open and then focused attention on an unconstitutional law never used to convict a single person. Its use against the incoming national security advisor to say it is a crime to discuss foreign relations with a Russian official during the transition would have been utterly absurd.

The same officials then sent two investigators into the White House, knowingly evading the long-standing rules of contacting the White House Counsel’s office in advance — something former FBI Director James Comey later bragged about and said that he “got away with it.”

So what happened then? We know that the investigators did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied to them about the sanctions discussion and told their superiors that they did not see evidence of a crime. Later Robert Mueller and his staff proceeded to charge Flynn with the single count. They then drained Flynn of millions and threatened to prosecute his son. He proceeded to take the plea.

Brady and the Sullivan Orders

Now back to Brady and the prior orders of Judge Sullivan (who is have practiced in front of for many years).

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

There are also new questions raised about Van Grack’s representations to the Court.

I have been a long critic of the failure of federal judges to sanction prosecutors for misrepresentations and withholding of evidence. That could prove the case here but that will not alter the fact that this is in open defiance of these orders. I have been counsel in cases where clear violations occurred, including a well-known case in front of Judge Sullivan that led to years of hearings before a Special Master and federal magistrate. This material was clearly within the court orders to be produced.

That brings us back to the reflexive response of these experts to assure the public that there is nothing to see here, or, as Wittes declared, this is all just standard practice. There was a time when media like CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post were outspoken critics of prosecutorial misconduct. Yet, in this age of rage, those principles are now inconvenient obstacles in an overriding narrative in the media. Many of these same experts have spent years advancing ridiculously twisted interpretations of the criminal code to claim “smoking gun” evidence of criminal acts by Trump and his associates. Those claims ranging from treason to bribery have been uniformly rejected by prosecutors as well as the House impeachment proceeding. Yet, it does not matter. Any sweeping legal theory or denial is replicated in the media to fit a carefully maintained narrative.

Yet, as the Supreme Court said in Brady, “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”

Even those saying that this is all “standard” stuff seem to suggest that “what is standard” is abuse. Wittes declared:


Putting aside the weird rationale of abuse as a victory for racial justice, the statement was widely and favorably cited despite the fact that it is the ultimate rationalization of abuse. This legal relativism is the touchstone of legal analysis in the Trump era.

We have long had echo journalism where networks pander to the desire (and fantasies) of viewers. However, it was only in the last few years that we have seen the systematic misrepresentation of core legal principles by legal experts, including constitutional rights, to fit such a journalistic and political agenda. To suggest that Flynn was abused or that the Mueller staff violated core rights is intolerable in this environment. Yet, Donald Trump will not be our last president. What will these experts and media outlets have when he leaves office other than a Pyrrhic victory based on the abandonment of these core principles? What will be left of legal analysis after years of grotesquely distorted interpretations?

 

Actually, this is justice prevailing. The plea was to protect his family. Now there is insurmountable evidence that investigation was corrupt, hiding evidence, entrapping, and lying to the courts. The final nail in the coffin would be seeing these prosecutors behind bars. Can’t wait for that shoe to drop

 

His lie does not become truth

 

wow..."echo journalism where networks pander to the desire and fantasies of viewers".
There is a whole lot in that comment! Maybe the media is the virus?

 

Fart on them Eric!