Marris, boy, I'd love to hear your perspective on the ass-whoppin the judge gave Kremlin Flynn - w/o citing the batshit crazy right-wing sources that you love to use
Alan Dershowitz: Michael Flynn now has three options to stay out of prison By Alan Dershowitz | Fox News Judge delays Flynn sentencing until investigation cooperation is complete U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s handling of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s sentencing hearing Tuesday on Flynn’s guilty plea to lying to the FBI was anything but exemplary. The judge – who has a well-deserved reputation as both tough and fair – made several fundamental errors right at the outset. First, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason. This reflects an abysmal ignorance of the governing case law. Nothing Flynn did comes even close to satisfying the strict definition of treason. The U.S. Constitution states: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same Overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Flynn admitted he represented Turkey – America’s NATO ally – before he became a federal employee as President Trump’s national security adviser, but said he failed to register until later under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Flynn for failing to register – let alone with the far more serious crime of treason. But Sullivan blundered by accusing Flynn of having been an unregistered foreign agent while he was serving in the White House, thereby having “sold your country out.” This was flat out wrong, since Flynn stopped working for any foreign government before he became President Trump’s national security adviser when Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017. During a recess, in the sentencing hearing, Judge Sullivan’s law clerks obviously set him straight on the law and the facts and the judge walked back his erroneous statements. But these statements reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error if Flynn’s lawyers appeal a sentence he eventually receives from Sullivan. The judge delayed sentencing for Flynn – a retired Army lieutenant general – until next year and gave each side until March 13 to file a status report with the court. I had a case much like this several years ago and the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded it for resentencing before a different and unprejudiced judge. Walking back erroneous statements cannot unring the bell of a judge’s prejudice. It is obvious that Judge Sullivan regards Flynn as guilty of far more serious crimes than he pleaded to or was even charged with committing. Sullivan probably came into the courtroom before the recess with his mind made up about the sentence he intended to impose based on his erroneous views regarding treason and Flynn’s supposed role as an agent for a foreign government while serving in the White House. The judge may even have written out the sentence in advance, as many judges do. Sullivan deliberately telegraphed his intention to impose a prison sentence in defiance of the joint recommendation of the Mueller and Flynn’s defense attorney, who agreed that Flynn should not serve any prison time. The Constitution limits the role of federal judges to actual “cases and controversies,” and there was no controversy regarding the appropriate sentence of probation for Flynn. To be sure, the courts have carved out an exception – erroneously in my view – to this constitutional restriction on the jurisdiction of judges when it comes to sentencing. But most judges abide by the spirit of the constitutional restriction by rarely, if ever, imposing their own view when the parties have agreed. Not Judge Sullivan, who knows far less about the facts and the defendant than do the parties, as evidenced by his serious misstatements. Now the sentencing has been postponed, giving members of Flynn’s legal team an opportunity to reconsider their strategy. There were serious issues surrounding the circumstances of Flynn’s questioning by the FBI and of the guilty plea he submitted. But Flynn’s lawyers understandably declined to raise challenges on these issues, because they expected a sentence of probation for their client – for which Flynn needed to show remorse, not contentiousness. But now that the judge has signaled his willingness to consider a prison sentence, Flynn has three options – none of them good. Flynn’s first option is to ask the judge to throw out his questionable guilty plea – but it will be difficult to do so in light of his statement at the sentencing hearing that he accepts his guilty plea and knew he was doing wrong when he lied to the FBI. Flynn’s second option is to cooperate even more, but there may not be much more he can say or do. If he admits he withheld some cooperation that would hurt him. The former national security adviser’s third option – a nuclear one – would be to seek to recuse Judge Sullivan because of the judge’s prejudicial misstatements about treason and about Flynn being a foreign agent while working in the White House. But this, too, may backfire, because judges often punish defendants for “judge shopping”. So the sentencing will go forward after a delay. In the meantime, President Trump has the power to pardon Flynn or commute his sentence, either now or after the sentence is imposed. Flynn can’t count on such executive action. But he also can’t count on Judge Sullivan to do what both parties recommended. Flynn shouldn’t have lied to the FBI. He has already paid a heavy price and will probably pay an even heavier one. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ala...n-now-has-three-options-to-stay-out-of-prison
Even if that were true, so what? It wouldn't make Flynn innocent. And let's be honest here - the worst that could happen is this judge will recuse from sentencing him, and a different judge will do it instead. barfo
Flynn reversal imminent... DOJ clashes with Flynn lawyers over bid to oust prosecutors and dismiss case By Brooke Singman | Fox News Former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn told special counsel Robert Mueller of multiple instances, before and after his guilty plea, where he or his lawyers got calls from individuals connected to the Trump administration or Congress; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports. Justice Department lawyers filed a fiery rebuttal in court Tuesday after former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s legal team leveled a host of allegations against them, amid an apparent bid to remove the prosecutorial team and get the case dismissed. FLYNN LAWYER CLAIMS DOJ WITHHOLDING CRITICAL FILES AMID SENTENCING DISPUTE Flynn fired his first team of lawyers—Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony—in June. Less than a week later, Flynn hired Powell, who had been a vocal critic of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. RECORDS RAISE NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT FBI'S MICHAEL FLYNN INVESTIGATION But in a separate filing on Monday, Powell claimed that Van Grack pressured Flynn to enter his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI and stick with that plea, by using the possibility of further prosecution of Flynn, or his son Michael Flynn Jr., as leverage. Powell also claimed that when the government charged Flynn’s ex-associates Bijan Rafiekian and Kamil Ekim Alptekin with making false statements and illegal lobbying on behalf of the Turkish government in the U.S., Van Grack tried to force Flynn to testify against his former business associates. “Mr. Van Grack was determined that Mr. Flynn would testify in the Rafiekian case that he had knowingly signed a false FARA registration, even though Mr. Van Grack knew that was not true and Mr. Flynn had not agreed to that in the course of his plea agreement,” Powell wrote in the filing. “Mr. Flynn’s refusal to get on the witness stand and lie for the government on that point prompted a heated tirade from Mr. Van Grack with Mr. Flynn’s lead counsel, in which Mr. Van Grack claimed Mr. Flynn had agreed to plead to a knowing and intentional false FARA filing.” Powell went on to claim that after Flynn rejected the government’s “demand to lie,” they “retaliated” with a gag order, and threatened to bring Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr., in as a witness in the Rafiekian trial. The filing said the government told Flynn’s counsel that it would indict the FARA case, and had “obtained authorization to target Michael Flynn Jr.—who had a newborn—and had seized all his electronic devices.” “In sum, however, the entire prosecution failed for lack of evidence of any conspiracy or anyone acting as a foreign agent,” Powell wrote. The flurry of filings has aired a variety of other allegations, including one pertaining to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Flynn’s legal team alleged that McCabe once said, “’First we f**ck Flynn, then we f**k Trump,’ or words to that effect,” and that ... McCabe pressured agents to change the January 24 interview report.” The alleged statement came after then-FBI agent Peter Strzok reported that Flynn had a “sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the interview.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/do...over-bid-to-oust-prosecutors-and-dismiss-case
Flynn was screwed, targeted to be the first casualty in the Trump administration. Targeted by the Coup and executed by listening to an American citizen on a phone call. No fucking way that was legal, it will not stand. No FBI agent still remains to say he lied to the FBI. He should be found innocent, and totally exonerated. His losses should be paid, his back pay, brought up to-date. Then we need to fix this shit so no administration can ever pull this crap again.
wow, the coup? You and maris just lap up whatever trump throws out as if it is fact. You guys really need to think for yourself. Trump play words: fake news, enemy of the people, witch hunt, coup and several other words that should never be used by a good president when relating to the American people.
I say covfefe to it all although I don't know the orange of the word. It's all of liddle' importance.
Barr defends DOJ decision to drop case against Flynn: 'A crime cannot be established here' By Andrew O'Reilly, Morgan Phillips | Fox News Attorney General William Barr called the Justice Department’s decision Thursday to drop the case against President Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI his “duty” – saying he wanted to “restore confidence in the system.” “I want to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There's only one standard of justice,” Flynn told CBS News’ Catherine Herridge. “And, I believe that... justice, in this case, requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.” When Herridge asked if Barr was doing the president’s bidding, he responded: “I’m doing the law’s bidding.” Barr added, “A crime cannot be established here.” The attorney general, speaking out for the first time since the bombshell development, said he was “prepared” for blowback from Democrats. “I also think it’s sad that nowadays, these partisan feelings are so strong, there’s no sense of justice,” he added. Barr made it clear his Justice Department would continue to investigate other aspects of the Russia investigation. Earlier on Thursday, the DOJ announced it had dismissed its case against Flynn, in a stunning development that came after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI. The announcement came in a court filing “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information,” as the department put it. DOJ officials said they 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 was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.” Flynn in January moved to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to the FBI in the Russia probe, citing “bad faith” by the government. That court filing came just days after the Justice Department reversed course to recommend up to six months of prison time in his case, alleging he was not fully cooperating or accepting responsibility for his actions. The case had been plodding through the court system with no resolution ever since his original plea, even amid speculation about whether Trump himself could extend a pardon. Reaction to the dismissal of Flynn’s case drew a sharp divide down partisan lines, with President Trump praising Flynn as “an innocent man” and an “even greater warrior.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., meanwhile, slammed the DOJ’s move as “outrageous” and said he would be calling for an inspector-general investigation into the matter. “The decision to drop the charges against General Flynn is outrageous,” Nadler said in a statement. “The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming. He pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. And now, a politicized and thoroughly corrupt Department of Justice is going to let the president’s crony simply walk away.” Flynn’s case stemmed from a 2017 FBI interview, in which he was asked about his conversations with former Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to making false statements regarding those conversations during his interview, as part of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Flynn resigned from his White House post in February 2017. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak. Pence, after being briefed by Flynn, had said in television interviews that Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador.
Mueller prosecutor withdraws from Flynn case after questions surface concerning his compliance with court order By Gregg Re | Fox News Brandon Van Grack, a top Justice Department prosecutor and former member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, is no longer handling the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, it emerged Thursday afternoon. Just minutes after that news surfaced, Justice Department sources told Fox News that the DOJ was dropping the Flynn case entirely. That move came on the recommendation of U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who served as an FBI agent for more than a decade and had been evaluating the Flynn case. Van Grack is also withdrawing from other unrelated cases as well, raising questions about his future at the DOJ. No explanation was given for Van Grack's abrupt withdrawal from the Flynn case, which was recorded in a brief filing with the court on Thursday. An administration official tells Fox News that Van Grack is still at DOJ and has not resigned. But Van Grack's removal from the cases came just days after Fox News reported that explosive, newly unsealed evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target Flynn -- including a top official's handwritten memo debating whether the FBI's "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- called into question whether Van Grack complied with a court order to produce favorable evidence to Flynn. Since February 2018, Van Grack -- who now heads the DOJ's Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) unit -- has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's standing 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.” The order also requires the government to submit favorable defense evidence to the court, including possible "impeachment evidence" that could undermine witnesses, even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.” (Sullivan still has the ultimate authority over what to do with Flynn's case, even after the DOJ withdrawal, given that a guilty plea has been entered.) Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.” In that same October 2019 motion, Van Grack elaborated on those claims, telling Sullivan that the government had not “affirmatively suppressed evidence” or hid Brady material. He denied that the government was “aware of any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.” WHO IS JOE PIENTKA, MYSTERY FBI AGENT AT CENTER OF FLYNN AND CARTER PAGE CASES? ... FBI SCRUBS HIM FROM WEBSITE Van Grack further dismissed arguments by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, that “General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes” as “conspiracy theories.” What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts." FILE - In this Dec. 1, 2017, file photo, Michael Flynn, center, arrives at federal court in Washington. A judge set a sentencing hearing for Michael Flynn after rejecting arguments from the former Trump administration national security adviser that prosecutors had withheld evidence favorable to his case. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) BOMBSHELL FBI MATERIALS REVEAL FBI DISCUSSED INTERVIEWING FLYNN TO GET HIM TO LIE, GET HIM FIRED Van Grack also failed to provide evidence to Flynn’s attorneys that anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok then immediately intervened and instructed the FBI case manager handling the Flynn investigation to keep the probe open, followed by indicators that the bureau would seek to investigate Flynn for possible violations of an obscure 18th century law known as the Logan Act -- which has never been utilized in a modern prosecution. Another Strzok text mentions that the FBI’s "7th floor" – meaning FBI leadership – may have been involved in the decision to keep the Flynn case alive. Instead, Van Grack characterized Flynn’s alleged false statements as critical to the FBI’s “legitimate and significant investigation into whether individuals associated with the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump were coordinating with the Russian government in its activities to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.” But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties, coordination, or communication with Russia. Just a day before Flynn's January 2017 White House interview, the Washington Post ran a story declaring that the FBI "had reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit," citing unnamed "U.S. officials." Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap -- written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told -- show discussions of whether their “goal” at the White House interview was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” HOROWITZ REPORT MAY INADVERTENTLY REVEAL PIENTKA'S ROLE IN PAGE, FLYNN MATTERS These unsealed notes further suggest that agents planned in the alternative to get Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act” when he spoke to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. The Logan Act has never been used in a modern criminal prosecution and has a questionable constitutional status; it was enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad. "Any criminal investigation grounded in Logan Act questions is an obvious political pretext to attack the Trump Administration," GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday, in a letter seeking in-person interviews and key documents. "FBI attorney Lisa Page admitted to Congress the Justice Department saw the Logan Act as an 'untested' and 'very, very old' statute." This new evidence puts Van Grack at risk for accusations that he was misleading Sullivan as to the materiality of Flynn’s statements to FBI agents Strzok and Joe Pientka when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017. DOJ regulations first spotted by the Twitter user Techno Fog state that prosecutors like Van Grack, "with limited exceptions ... should be granted access [by FBI agents] to the substantive case file and any other file or document" that they "have reason to believe may contain discoverable information related to the matter being prosecuted." The regulations state that prosecutors can "personally review the file or documents or may choose to request production of potentially discoverable materials from the case agents." Van Grack's withdrawal means he won't appear at the next hearing in the case -- unless Sullivan decides to order him to appear to explain himself. Flynn earlier this year moved to withdraw his guilty plea for making false statements to the FBI regarding his communications with Russia's ambassador. His legal team, at the time, said that the move was “because of the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement.” On Thursday, the DOJ concluded that Flynn's calls with the ambassador "were entirely appropriate on their face." In December 2017, and on the brink of financial ruin, Flynn was forced to put his home in Old Town Alexandria, Va.—located just outside Washington D.C.—on the market with an asking price of $895,000 to pay his mounting legal bills. According to Zillow, the townhouse sold for $819,995 in September 2018. Powell confirmed the sale of the house to Fox News. That financial pressure, coupled with the FBI's failure to turn over exculpatory evidence, may have contributed to his guilty plea. Flynn was accused of giving equivocal and evasive answers to FBI agents in the White House, but no transcript of the conversation exists. Instead, after-the-fact FBI notes of the interview with Strzok and Pientka were the primary evidence -- even though the notes indicated that Strzok and Pientka didn't think Flynn was lying. Strzok was later removed from Mueller's team when his anti-Trump text messages surfaced. Transcripts did exist, however, showing Flynn's conversations with Russia's ambassador. The FBI freely and publicly admitted to reviewing those transcripts and clearing Flynn of any wrongdoing, prior to the White House interview. Fox News' Jake Gibson and Wilson Miller contributed to this report.
Flynn reacts to DOJ dropping case against him: ‘Justice for all’ By Morgan Phillips | Fox News Former national security adviser Michael Flynn reacted to the news that the Justice Department has moved to drop its case against him by tweeting a video of his grandson reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. “And JUSTICE for ALL,” Flynn tweeted. Flynn pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI in late 2017, but the DOJ announced plans to drop the case Thursday after internal memos were released and raised serious questions about the nature of the investigation. “After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information," as the department put it, DOJ officials said they 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 was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the DOJ filing said. The federal judge overseeing the case still would have to make the final determination to dismiss it. The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case and conduct. But, the case has been plodding through the court system with no resolution ever since his original plea, even amid speculation about whether President Trump himself could extend a pardon. Earlier Thursday, the top prosecutor on the case, Brandon Van Grack, abruptly withdrew from the case, without explanation, in a brief filing with the court. Documents unsealed a week ago revealed agents discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing. The latest DOJ filing noted Flynn's false statement plea pertained to a crime that required a statement "to be not simply false, but 'materially' false with respect to a matter under investigation." The filing showed that the government "is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn's statements were material even if untrue."
Horowitz report spotlights little-known FBI agent's role in Russia probe, Flynn case By Gregg Re | Fox News Inspector General Michael Horowitz's long-awaited report this week on FBI and Justice Department surveillance abuses does not provide the name of an unidentified FBI supervisory special agent (SSA) who made a series of apparent oversights in the bureau's so-called "Crossfire Hurricane" probe into the Trump campaign. However, a review of Horowitz's findings leaves little doubt that the unnamed SSA is Joe Pientka -- someone who could soon play a prominent role in the ongoing prosecution of Michael Flynn, as the former Trump national security adviser fights to overturn his guilty plea on a single charge of making false statements. Specifically, Horowitz's report states that "SSA 1" was one of the FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017, in a seemingly casual conversation that would later form the basis for his criminal prosecution. It was previously reported that the interviewing agents were Peter Strzok, who was later fired by the FBI for misconduct and anti-Trump bias, and Pientka, whom Strzok previously identified as his notetaker for the Flynn interview. Flynn's attorney has also mentioned Pientka's role during past court proceedings. Of the two agents, only Strzok is openly named in the Horowitz report, which strongly indicates that the other is Pientka. "SSA 1," Horowitz's report states, may have helped mislead the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) about material facts concerning former Trump adviser Carter Page and British ex-spy Christopher Steele, whose unverified dossier played a central role in the FBI's warrant to surveil Page. Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing, even though the FBI flatly called him a foreign "agent" in its surveillance warrant application. And former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, which concluded earlier this year, found no evidence that the Trump campaign had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russians to influence the 2016 election, despite multiple outreach efforts by Russian actors. On Aug. 1, 2016, just after the official inception of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign, Strzok and Pientka traveled overseas to meet with the Australian officials who had spoken with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos in May of that year. The officials had overhead Papadopoulos mention his now-infamous conversation with Joseph Mifsud about suggestions of potential Russian leaks of Hillary Clinton’s emails, apparently touching off what would become the Russia probe. SSA 1 was given a supervisory role on the Crossfire Hurricane team, overseeing agents and reporting directly to Strzok. The special agent created the electronic sub-file to which the Steele reports would be uploaded and, according to Horowitz, these reports were used to support the probable cause in the Page FISA applications. Then, on Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News published an article describing U.S. government efforts to determine whether Page was in communication with Kremlin officials. The article seemed to closely track information from one of Steele’s reports. As a result, one FBI case agent who reported to SSA 1 believed Steele was the source, according to Horowitz. FBI AGENTS MANIPULATED FLYNN FILE, AS CLAPPER URGED 'KILL SHOT,' EXPLOSIVE FILING CLAIMS SSA 1 apparently thought the same, as his notes from a Sept. 30, 2016, meeting said: “Control issues -- reports acknowledged in Yahoo News.” When questioned by Horowitz's office, the agent explained he was concerned -- but not sure -- that Steele was the Yahoo News source. The drafts of the Page FISA application, however, tell a different story. Horowitz found that until Oct. 14, 2016, drafts state that Steele was responsible for the leak that led to the Yahoo News article. One draft specifically states that Steele “was acting on his/her own volition and has since been admonished by the FBI.” These assertions, which could have pointed to political motivations by their source soon before the 2016 presidential election, were changed to the following: Steele’s “business associate or the law firm that hired the business associate likely provided this information to the press.” Horowitz found no facts to support this assessment. Former Trump adviser Carter Page was falsely accused of being a "foreign agent" in the FBI's secret surveillance warrant. And, even after receiving “additional information about Steele’s media contacts, the Crossfire Hurricane team did not change the language in any of the three renewal applications regarding the FBI’s assessment of Steele’s role in the September 23 article," Horowitz found. On Oct. 11, 2016, Steele met with then-State Department official Jonathan Winer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kathleen Kavalec. Steele informed Kavalec that a Russian cyber-hacking operation targeting the 2016 U.S. elections was paying the culprits from “the Russian Consulate in Miami.” Kavalec later met with an FBI liaison and explained to them that Russia did not have a consulate in Miami. SSA 1 was informed of Steele’s incorrect claim about the Russian Consulate on Nov. 18, 2016, but the FISA court was never provided this information, according to the IG report. Additionally, the agent was aware of Page’s denials to an FBI confidential human source (CHS) that he knew Russian officials Igor Sechin and Igor Divyekin – officials that Steele alleged Page had secret meetings with in Moscow in July 2016. In fact, Horowitz found that SSA 1 “knew as of October 17 that Page denied ever knowing Divyekin." "This inconsistency was also not noted during the Woods Procedures on the subsequent FISA renewal applications, and none of the three later FISA renewal applications included Page’s denials to the CHS," Horowitz wrote, referring to the FBI's practice of reverifying facts in its FISA application before seeking renewals. SSA 1 also had the responsibility for “confirming that the Woods File was complete and for double-checking the factual accuracy review to confirm that the file contained appropriate documentation for each of the factual assertions in the FISA application," according to Horowitz. But Horowitz found numerous instances “in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application targeting Carter Page were inaccurate, incomplete or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed." In particular, the FBI misled the FISC by asserting that Steele’s prior reporting "has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.” Horowitz's review found there was no documentation to support this statement; SSA 1 told Horowitz they “speculated.” SSA 1 was also aware, according to Horowitz, that Steele had relayed his information to officials at the State Department, and he had documentation showing Steele had told the team he provided the reports to his contacts at the State Department. Despite this, the FISC was informed that Steele told the FBI he “only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI.” After Steele was terminated as an FBI source for leaking to the media, there was a meeting with Crossfire Hurricane team members and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife had been hired by Steele employer Fusion GPS. SSA 1 told Horowitz that Ohr likely left the meeting with the impression that he should contact the FBI if Steele contacted him; Ohr told Horowitz that SSA 1 became his initial point of contact when relaying Steele’s information to the FBI. Pientka was selected to provide an Aug. 17, 2016 FBI security briefing to the Trump campaign once the FBI was informed that Flynn would be in attendance. According to Pientka, the briefing gave him “the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly have some level of familiarity” with Flynn. He was there to “record” anything “specific to Russia or anything specific to our investigation.” CHAFFETZ: PEOPLE WILL END UP IN 'HANDCUFFS' OVER HOROWITZ REPORT Pientka found the opportunity to interact with Flynn “useful” because he was able to compare Flynn’s “norms” from the briefing with Flynn’s conduct at his Jan. 24, 2017, interview. It was this assessment that purportedly helped lead Pientka to conclude that Flynn was not lying when questioned about his interactions with the Russians after the election and his calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. With Strzok's termination from the FBI, Pientka is perhaps the only remaining FBI witness against Flynn. Horowitz's descriptions of SSA 1's conduct came as U.S. Attorney John Durham announced Monday that he did not "agree" with some of the inspector general's conclusions, stunning observers while also highlighting Durham's broader criminal mandate and scope of review. Durham is focusing on foreign actors as well as the CIA, while Horowitz concentrated his attention on the Justice Department and FBI. "Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened," Durham said in his statement, adding that his "investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department" and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S." Pientka is hardly the only bureau employee to come under scrutiny. Prior to the FBI's warrant application to monitor Page, the FBI reached out to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for information on Page, Horowitz discovered. The CIA responded in an email by telling the FBI that Page had contacts with Russians from 2008 to 2013, but that Page had reported them to the CIA and was serving as a CIA operational contact and informant on Russian business and intelligence interests. An FBI lawyer then doctored the CIA's email about Page to make it seem as though the agency had said only that Page was not an active source. And, the FBI included Page's contacts with Russians in the warrant application as evidence he was a foreign "agent," without disclosing to the secret surveillance court that Page was voluntarily working with the CIA concerning those foreign contacts. For several years, Democrats and analysts at The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN have repeatedly claimed that key claims in the Clinton-funded anti-Trump dossier had been corroborated and that the document was not critical to the FBI's warrant to surveil Page. Horowitz repudiated that claim, with the FBI's legal counsel even describing the warrant to surveil Page as "essentially a single source FISA" wholly dependent on the dossier. Among the unsubstantiated claims in the dossier: that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to conspire with Russian hackers; that the Trump campaign was paying hackers working out of a nonexistent Russian consulate in Miami; that a lurid blackmail tape of Trump existed and might be in Russian possession; and that Page was bribed with a 19 percent share in a Russian company. The FBI initially declined Fox News' request for an on-the-record comment. Late Friday, an FBI spokesperson contacted Fox News to repeatedly question why it was necessary to mention Pientka's name, saying that naming Pientka -- or any agent -- would endanger "operational security."
Is admitting that you are guilty and that guilt being confirmed by a qualified federal judge and the prosecution being signed off by the acting Attorney General seem too complicated for ordinary people to follow? Is lying about conversations with the Russians, while under oath to the FBI, somehow legal?
