Politics MUELLER LIKELY TO LOSE FLYNN PROSECUTION

barfo · Feb 16, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

Based on not much else to investigate.
Click to expand...

Reports are he just talked to Bannon for 20 hours. Maybe Bannon only confirmed things he already knew... but maybe not.

Reports are that Gates has flipped. Maybe Gates didn't have any new information to proffer either?

And that's just what's been publicly reported this week...

barfo

Denny Crane · Feb 16, 2018

barfo said: ↑

Reports are he just talked to Bannon for 20 hours. Maybe Bannon only confirmed things he already knew... but maybe not.

Reports are that Gates has flipped. Maybe Gates didn't have any new information to proffer either?

And that's just what's been publicly reported this week...

barfo
Click to expand...

Bannon only answered 25 questions, according to your hero the whiny clown (Schiff).

Denny Crane · Feb 16, 2018

Sometimes the PRESIDENT tweets something spot on.

barfo · Feb 16, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

Bannon only answered 25 questions, according to your hero the whiny clown (Schiff).
Click to expand...

That's the intelligence committee. I was talking about Mueller.

barfo

Denny Crane · Feb 16, 2018

barfo said: ↑

That's the intelligence committee. I was talking about Mueller.

barfo
Click to expand...

And your imagination is running wild again.

barfo · Feb 16, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

And your imagination is running wild again.
Click to expand...

No, all I said is that it was reported that Bannon talked to Mueller for 20 hours. That it was reported is a fact, I could link it if you really need.

barfo

Denny Crane · Feb 16, 2018

barfo said: ↑

No, all I said is that it was reported that Bannon talked to Mueller for 20 hours. That it was reported is a fact, I could link it if you really need.

barfo
Click to expand...

Yes. According to source(s) familiar with the proceedings who refuse to be identified because they're not supposed to be talking about the proceedings.

Hmmmmm.... Sounds kinda unethical to me, if not illegal.

Hard to trust someone who is unethical and willing to break the law, isn't it?

barfo · Feb 16, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

Yes. According to source(s) familiar with the proceedings who refuse to be identified because they're not supposed to be talking about the proceedings.

Hmmmmm.... Sounds kinda unethical to me, if not illegal.

Hard to trust someone who is unethical and willing to break the law, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say I trusted them. I said it was reported. Which it was.

And now in the other thread you claim you know what Bannon talked to Mueller about, which is interesting...

barfo

Denny Crane · Feb 16, 2018

barfo said: ↑

I didn't say I trusted them. I said it was reported. Which it was.

And now in the other thread you claim you know what Bannon talked to Mueller about, which is interesting...

barfo
Click to expand...

You were going to provide me a link to what Bannon talked to Mueller about in the other thread.

LOL

I don't claim to know what they talked about. I do not think there's anything Bannon could say that would implicate anyone, short of him being personally involved in some conspiracy with the Russians to hack and distribute stolen data.

"Yeah, Trump was angry with Comey, even about the Russia nonsense, so he fired him."

I just pointed out how Comey himself says the president can fire the FBI director, FOR ANY REASON.

The more you let your imagination run wild, the more SAD you will be.

barfo · Feb 16, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

You were going to provide me a link to what Bannon talked to Mueller about in the other thread.
Click to expand...

You are getting confused again. My offer of a link is post #86 in this thread.

I don't claim to know what they talked about.
Click to expand...

You did, you said they talked about Comey's firing.

barfo

Denny Crane · Feb 17, 2018

barfo said: ↑

You are getting confused again. My offer of a link is post #86 in this thread.

You did, you said they talked about Comey's firing.

barfo
Click to expand...

That's what's reported. I don't KNOW what they talked about, I wasn't there.

MARIS61 · Feb 20, 2018

Denny Crane said: ↑

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...urn-in-the-michael-flynn-case/article/2649272

Byron York: An unusual turn in the Michael Flynn case?

First, there is some mystery surrounding the removal of Judge Rudolph Contreras from the case. Just days after accepting Flynn's guilty plea, Contreras was taken off the case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No reason was given.

...

On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "to produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner — including during plea negotiations — any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."

Sullivan also ordered Mueller "to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form." And he declared that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court forin camerareview." In other words, Sullivan declared that he, not Mueller, would be the judge of what evidence should be produced.

While the move could be simply standard procedure for Sullivan, it was nevertheless notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of [Flynn's] guilty plea."

"It certainly appears that Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt,"wroteNational Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor.

...

On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Click to expand...

With the Feds case against Cliven Bundy being thrown out due to the prosecution deliberately and illegally hiding evidence favorable to Bundy, a similar outcome is expected in the Flynn prosecution.

The strange conditions Mueller insisted on including in the agreement signal that he knew all along he built his feeble case on falsehoods, perjured testimony by government officials, and then withheld this evidence from Flynn's lawyers. Dismissing the charges is the only way Mueller avoids incriminating himself.

MARIS61 · Feb 20, 2018

barfo said: ↑

Reports are he just talked to Bannon for 20 hours.

barfo
Click to expand...

No report that Bannon talked to Mueller then?

barfo · Feb 20, 2018

MARIS61 said: ↑

With the Feds case against Cliven Bundy being thrown out due to the prosecution deliberately and illegally hiding evidence favorable to Bundy, a similar outcome is expected in the Flynn prosecution.

The strange conditions Mueller insisted on including in the agreement signal that he knew all along he built his feeble case on falsehoods, perjured testimony by government officials, and then withheld this evidence from Flynn's lawyers. Dismissing the charges is the only way Mueller avoids incriminating himself.
Click to expand...

Uhm, except that Bundy never pleaded guilty. That's kind of a big difference, as is pretty much every single other thing about the two cases.

Another right wing conspiracy theory based on misreading court documents, it appears.

barfo

barfo · Feb 20, 2018

MARIS61 said: ↑

No report that Bannon talked to Mueller then?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just a 20 hour lecture from Mueller. Something about shaving regularly and dressing appropriately.

barfo

Lanny · Mar 8, 2018

MARIS61 said: ↑

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...idnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers on the Trump-Russia investigation. One topic of intense interest was the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump White House national security adviser who resigned under pressure on Feb. 13 after just 24 days in the job.

There were widespread reports that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about telephone conversations that he, Flynn, had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in late December 2016. On Jan. 24, 2017, two of Comey's FBI agents went to the White House to question Flynn, and there was a lot of speculation later that Flynn lied in that interview, which would be a serious crime.
"The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy," the Washington Post reported in February. "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."

There was also a lot of concern in Congress, at least among Republicans, about the leak of the wiretapped Flynn-Kislyak conversation. Such intelligence is classified at the highest level of secrecy, yet someone — Republicans suspected Obama appointees in the Justice Department and intelligence community — revealed it to the press.

So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.

What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.

None of those congressional investigators has an answer; they're baffled by the turn of events. But they know they find the Flynn case troubling, from start to finish.

The questioning in that Jan. 24 interview apparently revolved around the Flynn-Kislyak phone conversations. The first thing to remember is that it appears Flynn did nothing wrong in having those talks. As the incoming national security adviser, it was entirely reasonable that he discuss policy with representatives of other governments — and Flynn was getting calls from all around the world.

So even if Flynn discussed the hot issue of U.S. sanctions against Russia with Kislyak, that was OK. "I don't have a problem with that," former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley said in February 2017. "I don't see what would be wrong if [Flynn] simply said, look, don't retaliate, doesn't make sense, it hurts my country, it makes it harder for us as an incoming administration to reconsider Russia policy, which is something we said we'd do. So just hold your fire and let us have a shot at this."

Indeed, it appears the FBI did not think Flynn had done anything wrong in the calls. On Jan. 23, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn-Kislyak calls and "has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government." (The calls had been intercepted by U.S. intelligence because the U.S. monitored the Russian ambassador's communications — something which Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, surely knew.)

Still, Flynn's conversation had the attention of the Obama Justice Department, and in particular of deputy attorney general Sally Yates, who reportedly believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act, a 218 year-old law under which no one had ever been successfully prosecuted. (Two people were charged in the 19th century, but the cases were dropped.)

Despite the high level of classification, word of the Justice Department's concerns got to the press. On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Flynn and Kislyak had talked. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius asked. "The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about 'disputes' with the United States. Was its spirit violated?"

Three days later, on Jan. 15, Vice President-elect Mike Pence (remember, this was all happening before the Trump administration took office) denied that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador. "They [Flynn and Kislyak] did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence told CBS.

On Jan. 20, Donald Trump became president. On Jan. 22, the Wall Street Journal reported that "U.S. counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Flynn and Kislyak. The investigation "aimed to determine the nature of Mr. Flynn's contact with Russian officials and whether such contacts may have violated laws."

On Jan. 24, the Justice Department — the Obama holdover Yates had become the acting attorney general — sent two FBI agents to the White House to question Flynn, who talked to them without a lawyer present.

It has sometimes been asked why Flynn, a man long familiar with the ways of Washington, would talk to the FBI without a lawyer. There seems to be no clear answer. On the one hand, as national security adviser, Flynn had plenty of reasons to talk to the FBI, and he could have reasonably thought the meeting would be about a prosaic issue involved in getting the new Trump National Security Council up and running. On the other hand, the media was filled with talk about the investigation into his conversations with Kislyak, and he might just as reasonably have thought that's what the agents wanted to discuss. In any event, Flynn went ahead without an attorney present.

In addition, it appears the FBI did not tell White House officials, including the National Security Council's legal adviser or the White House counsel, that agents were coming to interview the national security adviser over a potentially criminal matter.

Two days later, on Jan. 26, Yates and a high-ranking colleague went to the White House to tell counsel Don McGahn about the Flynn situation. "The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself," Yates testified in a May 2017 appearance before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee. That was an apparent reference to the Logan Act, although Yates never specifically said so. "We took him [McGahn] through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what Gen. Flynn had done."

Yates then explained to McGahn her theory that Flynn might be vulnerable to blackmail. The idea was that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, which of course the Russians knew. And then if Flynn lied to Pence, and Pence made a public statement based on what Flynn had told him, then the Russians might be able to blackmail Flynn because they, the Russians, knew Flynn had not told the vice president the truth.

It was a pretty far-fetched notion, but, along with the never-successfully-prosecuted Logan Act, it was apparently the basis upon which the FBI went inside the White House to do an unannounced interview of a key member of the new administration.

In their discussion, McGahn asked Yates: Even if one White House official lied to another, what's that to the Justice Department? "It was a whole lot more than one White House official lying to another," Yates testified. "First of all, it was the vice president of the United States and the vice president had then gone out and provided that information to the American people who had then been misled and the Russians knew all of this, making Mike Flynn compromised now."

Yates went to see McGahn twice, on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27. On Feb. 13, Flynn resigned. That same day, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had pursued Flynn on the grounds of a potential Logan Act violation.

"Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn's comments in the intercepted call to be 'highly significant' and 'potentially illegal,' according to an official familiar with her thinking," the Post reported. "Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country."

On Feb. 14, the New York Times reported that, "Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming [Trump] team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States." (The paper added that the Obama advisers asked the FBI if Flynn and Kislyak had discussed a quid pro quo, only to learn the answer was no.)

At that point, the public still did not know that the Jan. 24 FBI interview of Flynn had taken place. That report came on Feb. 17, when the Washington Post reported the interview in a story headlined, "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions." That was the piece that noted Flynn was in legal jeopardy, and that, "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."

Congress, in the meantime, was in the dark about what was going on. Given the intense discussion of the Flynn case in the media, there was no doubt lawmakers were going to want to know what was happening in the Flynn matter, as well as other aspects of the Trump-Russia investigation. (At that point, the FBI had never even publicly acknowledged that there was an investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.)

So Comey went to Capitol Hill in March to brief lawmakers privately. That is when he told them that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied, or that any inaccuracies in Flynn's answers were intentional. And that is when some lawmakers got the impression that Flynn would not be charged with any crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

There was still the possibility Flynn could face legal trouble for something else, like failing to register his representation of Turkey. But as far as the question of a "1001 charge" — a charge of lying to investigators, known by its number in the federal code — some lawmakers took that as a sign that Flynn was out of the woods.

On the other hand, the FBI does not make prosecution decisions. (That was not true, of course, in the case of the Clinton email investigation, in which the attorney general effectively gave Comey the decision of whether or not to prosecute.) It could be that the FBI agents who did the questioning were overruled by Justice Department officials who came up with theories like Flynn's alleged violation of the Logan Act or his alleged vulnerability to blackmail.

In any event, much happened after the FBI director's March briefings of Congress. In May, the president fired Comey. The Justice Department, under Trump-appointed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, chose Robert Mueller to be the Trump-Russia special counsel. Mueller gathered a number of prosecutors known for tough, take-no-prisoners tactics. And on Dec. 1, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Yates went on to become a heroine of the Trump resistance (and at least one of Mueller's prosecutors) after she refused to enforce the president's travel ban executive order, and Trump summarily fired her. Her legacy lives on in United States v. Michael T. Flynn.

But to outside observers, mystery still surrounds the case. To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. The Flynn matter is at the very heart of the Trump-Russia affair, and there is still a lot to learn about it.
Click to expand...

Too late, he's already been convicted. Yep, he's a felon.

Meanwhile, Hillary's gonna be indicted any day now.

Lanny · Mar 8, 2018

bodyman5000 and 1 said: ↑

Nu uh. Barfo thinks people make deals for fun.
Click to expand...

For fun? Hardly, since they often result in serious felony convictions as in this case.

Lanny · Mar 8, 2018

MarAzul said: ↑

Flynn is only on the hot seat because he was illegally unmasked and then that information was illegally leaked to the media.
Click to expand...

Oh, then it will all be overturned any day now.

Lanny · Mar 8, 2018

barfo said: ↑

Not sure what you mean by that. Denny Nunes seemed to be suggesting that it was improper to obtain Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI in exchange for not charging him for other crimes. However that's exactly what a plea bargain is, and it is obviously considered constitutional given the enormous number of plea bargains that occur daily. So I'm not clear on your objection, or Denny's.

barfo
Click to expand...

Look, no one is saying Nunes is the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Denny Crane · Mar 8, 2018

Nunes was highly regarded by members of both parties before the witch hunt began.

FWIW

Log in or Sign up

Politics MUELLER LIKELY TO LOSE FLYNN PROSECUTION

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

MARIS61 Real American

MARIS61 Real American

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Politics MUELLER LIKELY TO LOSE FLYNN PROSECUTION

Moderators

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

MARIS61 Real American

MARIS61 Real American

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

Share This Page

Useful Searches