Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Bob Ness]

On 4/24/2020 at 6:08 PM, Jeff Carter said:

CBS' observation that the report is "largely redacted" is an understatement. 

They should probably use black paper and save money...

[W. Niederhut]

16 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

...and Flynn walks.
 

Just days after the FBI belatedly produced possible evidence of innocence to Flynn's new legal team led by Attorney Sidney Powell, his old law firm on Tuesday informed the judge it had located 6,800 documents that it failed to turn over as required by a court order in 2019.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tuesday-surprise-rocks-flynn-case-former-lawyers-failed-produce-another-pile-evidence

 

Rob,

Why did Flynn plead guilty, if he wasn't guilty?

Explain.

Second question.  Did you ever take half an hour to finally read WaPo's illustrated Mueller Report?

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Why did Flynn plead guilty, if he wasn't guilty?

His Covington lawyers told him to. Did you happen to catch yesterdays news that his original Covington lawyers withheld 60K documents from the judge when he got a new lawyer.

It looks like Covington was on the Govs. payroll and never told Flynn. Go figure.

Re: Mueller Report WAPO.

No. It would be a half hour I would never get back.

Makes no sense.  Why would Flynn have plead guilty if he wasn't guilty?

As for reading the Mueller Report, it would be well worth your while.

The WaPo illustrated format is a useful, concise summary of the damning details-- including Flynn's role in trying to undermine the Obama administration's sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation in late 2016, in retaliation for Russian meddling in our 2016 elections.

[Jeff Carter]

On 4/29/2020 at 11:20 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Why did Flynn plead guilty, if he wasn't guilty?

Explain.

 

Included with the Covington stash of documents is the outline of the plea bargain deal which saw a prospective prosecution of Flynn's son dropped. Prosecutors threatening excess jail time, excessive fines, and prosecutions against family members if defendants take their cases into court has been pretty standard in USA for a long time. Inner city kids have been advised to plead guilty regardless of the facts for several decades now - there is plenty of academic and journalistic work on that.

Another example is the collegel admissions scandal which has roped in many high profile persons: they have all been offered a set punishment for pleading guilty, with the promise of far steeper punishments if they try to have their day in court. This has been in the news cycle for over a year and is easily confirmed. For example, the actress Lori Loughlin has been offered a 2-3 year prison sentence and a six figure fine for a guilty plea, but if she goes to court the prosecutors have said they will be adding numerous other charges and looking for up to 20 years in prison, seven figure fine, and they start looking at prosecuting her daughters too. The main prosecution witness is the guy who actually concocted and facilitated the scheme. 

There was bad faith on display throughout the Mueller proceedings, if you cared to look for it.

[W. Niederhut]

Just for the record, Jeff and Rob, are the two of you arguing that;

1)  Michael Flynn did not lie to the FBI about his inappropriate, illegal contacts with Kremlin officials in December of 2016?

2)  Michael Flynn was not trying to undermine the Obama administration sanctions imposed on Putin's Russian Federation for actively interfering in our 2016 elections?

Please clarify.

[W. Niederhut]

Rob,

     Read the Mueller Report already.   1) and 2) definitely happened.

     I'll assume for now that you know that Michael Flynn was working as a paid foreign agent in 2016, eh?

     He filed that paperwork, himself, after he got caught lying about his illegal contacts with Kremlin officials.

     As for your latest Michael Flynn "bombshell"...

Right Wing 'Bombshell' On Michael Flynn Is A Nothingburger

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/04/rightwing-bombshell-michael-flynn

Edited April 30, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Just for the record, Jeff and Rob, are the two of you arguing that;

1)  Michael Flynn did not lie to the FBI about his inappropriate, illegal contacts with Kremlin officials in December of 2016?

2)  Michael Flynn was not trying to undermine the Obama administration sanctions imposed on Putin's Russian Federation for actively interfering in our 2016 elections?

Please clarify.

I agree that neither 1) nor 2) actually happened. There was nothing inappropriate or illegal with Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador, and neither was it an effort to specifically undermine the ill-considered sanctions which were administered in the sole interest of sabotaging policy that the then President-elect had campaigned on.

[W. Niederhut]

I'm re-posting today's analysis of the Trump/Flynn nothing burger, by Norman Eisen, for NYT non-subscribers.

Rob doesn't want to read the Mueller Report, but he needs to read this.

And let me say, in advance, that Rob needs to eschew his standard logical fallacy that, "Because NYT (WaPo, etc.) SOMETIMES publishes Deep State disinformation, EVERYTHING it publishes is Deep State disinformation."  It's the fallacy of over-generalization and all-or-nothing thinking.

It's like arguing that, "Because SOME Republicans nowadays are Neo-Nazi skinheads, ALL Republicans nowadays are Neo-Nazi skinheads."

Why Trump Is Obsessed With the Flynn Case

It’s the perfect combination of distraction, fear-mongering and red meat for his base.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/trump-flynn-fbi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

by Norman L. Eisen

May 1, 2020

In the middle of the coronavirus crisis, a cratering economy and plummeting approval ratings, perhaps it’s not surprising to see President Trump return to a favorite theme: abusing the rule of law.

Of course, it’s a bit of luck for Mr. Trump, too, that on Wednesday evidence emerged from the case against Michael Flynn, his disgraced former national security adviser, providing a new glimpse into the F.B.I.’s investigation of him. To Mr. Trump and his allies, it reveals a deep state intent on taking down his administration right as it began. “What happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again!” Mr. Trump tweeted.

To Mr. Trump, trumpeting about maleficent federal agents must feel like slipping on a comfortable old shoe. A review of these internal F.B.I. communications, however, shows none of the wrongdoing that Mr. Trump would like to see. But no matter: The mischaracterization of these documents as evidence of F.B.I. misconduct — and by extension, absolution of Mr. Flynn — signals that the president will escalate his abuses of power in the run-up to the 2020 election.

The Michael Flynn scandal was one of the first to reveal the pattern of lawlessness that has characterized the Trump administration. In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Flynn dissembled about the call, and his lies were made public, exposing him to potential blackmail by Russia. He then lied to the F.B.I. about it, was indicted and ultimately entered a guilty plea in December 2017 for those false statements. He is now seeking to withdraw that plea, resulting in the release of this new material.

Three of the pages of new material released this week show the F.B.I. discussing at what time in their conversation with Mr. Flynn they should warn him that lying is a crime. They are balancing his rights with the need to learn the truth and assessing how to do so without rattling him. Far from entrapment, that is standard operating procedure.

The fourth page of the documents consists of notes debating precisely the issues that Mr. Trump accuses the F.B.I. of barreling past. The notes include the question of “What’s our goal” and query whether it is “Truth/admission or get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Given the gravity of the situation, it would have been malpractice not to at least ask those questions as they prepared. The F.B.I. agents were confronted with a senior national security official who had already had a conversation with Russia that raised serious legal issues and had already lied about it. The notes are examining the two basic options in the situation: Mr. Flynn can tell the truth or lie, with consequences flowing accordingly.

When the F.B.I. has serious evidence of wrongdoing, it is normal to put targets in this bind. Law enforcement seldom puts all its cards on the table when questioning a suspect. This is not “entrapment,” where one is induced to commit a crime. Rather, the F.B.I. was trying to elicit the truth of whether a crime had already been committed. The alternative would be to lay out all the evidence (which the notes also discuss). But that would have put accountability and our national security at risk by possibly discouraging Mr. Flynn from talking.

So why the fuss over the past day by Mr. Trump, echoed by his usual enablers in Congress and on Fox News? I have spent years observing Mr. Trump’s abuse of power and attempts to obstruct investigations — a recurring pattern that resulted in his impeachment — and to me the answer is clear: He can’t help it. Abuse and obstruction is his standard operating procedure. He is also returning to form to distract from his latest blunder, his botched response to Covid-19, and to provide red meat to his base as part of his re-election strategy.

By this point in the Trump presidency, we can anticipate some of the specific threats that lie ahead.

First, we should look no further than Mr. Trump’s attorney general, Bill Barr. He recently said that the Russia investigation was “one of the greatest travesties in American history.” Never shy about responding to dog whistles, Mr. Barr’s powers include filing or joining in a motion to set aside the guilty plea and for dismissal of the charges against Mr. Flynn. True, it is baseless, but so was Mr. Barr’s conclusion that the president had not obstructed justice when the Mueller Report established multiple instances of that offense.

Unfortunately, Mr. Barr has found company in doing Mr. Trump’s bidding, including the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, who is conducting a review of the origins of the Russia investigation. Mr. Durham has already shown his fealty to Mr. Trump’s “alternative facts,” startling observers when he attacked the conclusion by his own department’s inspector general that early F.B.I. steps in the Trump-Russia investigation were properly predicated. Mr. Durham’s continuing review and eventual report is a second vehicle for Flynn-related mischief.

But perhaps the greatest looming rule-of-law risk with respect to Mr. Flynn comes from the president himself. The Mueller Report suggested Mr. Trump’s willingness to dangle pardons to those who do his bidding. In Mr. Flynn’s case the president has since said he is “strongly considering” a pardon. The president has limbered up with a series of dubious pardons and commutations for malefactors or allies ranging from Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Scooter Libby to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Indeed, it is fair to ask whether Mr. Flynn’s abandonment of cooperation with the government was motivated by the hope of obtaining similar relief.

So we can expect that the Flynn drama will continue. At this point in the Trump presidency, who can believe that the president will resist the temptation to put his personal interests above those of the public? He did that when he said Russia would be rewarded for interfering in U.S. elections. He did it again when he fired the F.B.I. director James Comey, obstructed the Mueller investigation and pressured another foreign nation, Ukraine, to interfere in our elections. Indeed, his initial refusal to admit the seriousness of the coronavirus demonstrates that same elevation of his selfish interests in avoiding obstacles to his re-election.

The good news is that in every prior example, both our institutions and individual patriots stepped forward to respond to the harms that came out of the president’s pathological selfishness and disdain for the public interest. As the president continues his attacks on the rule of law in the Flynn case, here too there is a remedy. It is one that every American has the power to administer come November.

Norman Eisen is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment and trial of President Trump.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm re-posting today's analysis of the Trump/Flynn nothing burger, by Norman Eisen, for NYT non-subscribers.

Rob doesn't want to read the Mueller Report, but he needs to read this.

And let me say, in advance, that Rob needs to eschew his standard logical fallacy that, "Because NYT (WaPo, etc.) SOMETIMES publishes Deep State disinformation, EVERYTHING it publishes is Deep State disinformation."  It's the fallacy of over-generalization and all-or-nothing thinking.

The New York Times article is an obvious deflection, designed to keep the NYT readership in a state of delusion over the developing confirmation that Flynn had been deliberately targeted in a perjury trap.

The article enlists a red herring - the Logan Act - which was never at play and never featured in the FBI’s internal deliberations. The notion that members of an incoming administration are prohibited by law from talking to ambassadors or representatives of other countries is absurd and without precedence. Note that the Mueller Report’s brief discussion of Flynn never uses the words “inappropriate” or “illegal” in reference to his communications with the Russian ambassador.

The NYT article, using this red herring, then asserts that “F.B.I. agents were confronted with a senior national security official who had already had a conversation with Russia that raised serious legal issues” and that there was “serious evidence of wrongdoing.” But that is completely incorrect. The FBI agents who were tasked with originally investigating Flynn stated unambiguously in a January 4, 2017 memo that Flynn had committed no wrong. The agents and senior FBI officials who decided to set up a Flynn interview never discuss “serious legal issues” or “serious evidence of wrongdoing”. Their motivation, as is clear in their internal deliberations, is the hope of entrapping Flynn over inconsistencies in his account of matters they already knew everything about as they already possessed the transcripts of the telephone calls.

I would suggest the NY Times editorial board are fully committed conspirators to the Trump takedown, just as they were committed conspirators to the JFK post-assassination coverup.

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The New York Times article is an obvious deflection, designed to keep the NYT readership in a state of delusion over the developing confirmation that Flynn had been deliberately targeted in a perjury trap.

The article enlists a red herring - the Logan Act - which was never at play and never featured in the FBI’s internal deliberations. The notion that members of an incoming administration are prohibited by law from talking to ambassadors or representatives of other countries is absurd and without precedence. Note that the Mueller Report’s brief discussion of Flynn never uses the words “inappropriate” or “illegal” in reference to his communications with the Russian ambassador.

The NYT article, using this red herring, then asserts that “F.B.I. agents were confronted with a senior national security official who had already had a conversation with Russia that raised serious legal issues” and that there was “serious evidence of wrongdoing.” But that is completely incorrect. The FBI agents who were tasked with originally investigating Flynn stated unambiguously in a January 4, 2017 memo that Flynn had committed no wrong. The agents and senior FBI officials who decided to set up a Flynn interview never discuss “serious legal issues” or “serious evidence of wrongdoing”. Their motivation, as is clear in their internal deliberations, is the hope of entrapping Flynn over inconsistencies in his account of matters they already knew everything about as they already possessed the transcripts of the telephone calls.

I would suggest the NY Times editorial board are fully committed conspirators to the Trump takedown, just as they were committed conspirators to the JFK post-assassination coverup.

With all due respect, Jeff, that's complete bunk.  (Where I come from, we refer to it as horse excrement.)

If you look at the data from 2016, Dean Baquet and the NYT played a HUGE role in sabotaging Hillary Clinton and electing Trump.

Not only did Baquet expressly put the kibosh on any NYT stories about the Trump campaign's numerous meetings with Russians, he ran weekly front page stories-- based on anonymous FBI "leaks"-- about Hillary's Emails.

I remember it well, because my friends and I wondered at the time (2016) why Sulzberger was sabotaging Hillary.

Edited May 2, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Dennis Berube]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/fbi-documents-mention-israel-link-donald-trumps-campaign-2016

 

I think the conversation is changing from Russia to Israel. I haven't read about this in depth, but prima facie it is easier to swallow than Russagate and actually includes some very direct details. I assume a full Senate investigation into Israeli covert operations will be launched and aid temporarily halted with possible economic sanctions to follow.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Dennis Berube
sanctions

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

With all due respect, Jeff, that's complete bunk.  (Where I come from, we refer to it as horse excrement.)

If you look at the data from 2016, Dean Baquet and the NYT played a HUGE role in sabotaging Hillary Clinton and electing Trump.

Not only did Baquet expressly put the kibosh on any NYT stories about the Trump campaign's numerous meetings with Russians, he ran weekly frobt page stories-- based on anonymous FBI "leaks"-- about Hillary's Emails.

Clinton's email problems were fully part of her known and acknowledged "negatives" which the Dem Party chose to ignore. The emails did in fact exist, so complaints that they were discussed in the media at all amount to a wish that the factual baggage not be discussed. Which amounts to a generalized denial of Clinton's negatives. As far as who published what and when during 2016, it all occurred within an overall conviction that Clinton was a sure thing. The Times has, since the stunning Trump victory, been right in the middle of promoting false stories to sabotage the Trump administration.

Dennis - yes, Israel by far has enjoyed the most influence over the Trump administration. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/fbi-documents-mention-israel-link-donald-trumps-campaign-2016

 

I think the conversation is changing from Russia to Israel. I haven't read about this in depth, but prima facie it is easier to swallow than Russagate and actually includes some very direct details. I assume a full Senate investigation into Israeli covert operations will be launched and aid temporarily halted with possible economic sanctions to follow.

O.K., that last sentence was funny, Dennis.   🤪

I needed a good laugh today.

As for the Michael Flynn/Russia/FBI case, it sounds like we need some sort of consensus here about the basic facts-- but that's hard to do if people refuse to even read the Mueller Report.

[Bob Ness]

24 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

O.K., that last sentence was funny, Dennis.   🤪

I needed a good laugh today.

As for the Michael Flynn/Russia/FBI case, it sounds like we need some sort of consensus here about the basic facts-- but that's hard to do if people refuse to even read the Mueller Report.

Forget it WN. The wing nuts are screaming bc their boy got caught. Powell's been posing for a pardon all along. He lied when he made the plea or he lied when he interviewed with the FBI. End of story. You can fool the fans but not the players and in this case the judge will be bored.

[Bob Ness]

On 4/29/2020 at 5:22 PM, Robert Wheeler said:

#FLYNN docs just unsealed, including handwritten notes 1/24/2017 day of Flynn FBI interview.

Transcript:

“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

BFD. Zzzzzzzz....