Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Your argument relies entirely on a portrayal of the FBI as good faith actors, but this position is undermined and contradicted by the timeline of events in January 2017:

January 4 - FBI Washington Field Office Crossfire Razor (Flynn) team announces closure of 4 1/2 month investigation due to lack of “derogatory information”. Within 20 minutes, Strzok responds with request to keep file open based on redacted predicate, probably Logan Act, based on Flynn-Kisylak intercepts. Notably, the Crossfire Razor team is from this point not involved with the counter-intelligence investigation, and Comey/McCabe/Strzok assume control.

January 5 - Comey meets with Obama and DOJ’s Yates to discuss Flynn. Comey refers to Logan Act.

January 12 - Flynn-Kisylak conversations leaked to Washington Post. Possible sources are limited to Obama, Yates of DOJ or her deputy, or Comey or his deputy McCabe of FBI. References in article to Logan Act indicates the source was FBI. This leak is directly responsible for media questions to VP Pence and presidential spokesperson Spence which are said to initiate renewed concern within DOJ and FBI over Flynn’s presumed compromised position.

Jan 13-23 - A debate ensues between the DOJ and FBI over procedure with informing the incoming Trump administration of  inconsistencies in the Flynn record. The FBI refuses to accede to established protocol, insisting on keeping Flynn in dark that he is subject to C/I investigation. The C/I investigation is at this point predicated on the Logan Act.

January 24 - The FBI openly defy the DOJ  and send agents to an interview arranged by McCabe, following his active discouragement of Flynn accessing counsel. Long established protocol held that the Flynn interview should have been arranged through White House Counsel. The interviewing agents engage a perjury trap as discussed and anticipated in FBI records from the two days previous.

All of this garbage has been addressed by the judge and to some extent me. It is the justification for picking apart an investigation post facto and is ridiculous. The Logan Act is on the books. Ask Congress to remove it.

The FBI were engaged in a serious and warranted investigation of a campaign which had requested assistance from Russia (Trump quote, Trump Tower meeting etc etc - remember those?) and were responding to an attack on our election system. Those facts are non-negotiable, we've seen them on TV and they're well reported and admitted to by the Trump Campaign, both Congressional Intel Committees and Mueller's report. Those are facts Jeff and your persistence at flying in the face of those facts is childish.

That's good faith and if the Logan Act is used to pursue those efforts I'm fine with that. End of story. Over and out.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

All of this garbage has been addressed by the judge and to some extent me. It is the justification for picking apart an investigation post facto and is ridiculous. The Logan Act is on the books. Ask Congress to remove it.

The FBI were engaged in a serious and warranted investigation of a campaign which had requested assistance from Russia (Trump quote, Trump Tower meeting etc etc - remember those?) and were responding to an attack on our election system. Those facts are non-negotiable, we've seen them on TV and they're well reported and admitted to by the Trump Campaign, both Congressional Intel Committees and Mueller's report. Those are facts Jeff and your persistence at flying in the face of those facts is childish.

That's good faith and if the Logan Act is used to pursue those efforts I'm fine with that. End of story. Over and out.

The MSM and the Bob's of the Trump Derangement Crowd tend to get "hoist by their own petard" in matters like this, and I can't help but hope that the DOJ actually charges someone with a Logan Act violation.

The theory behind the Logan Act does not seem all that unreasonable, though presumably it has always been impracticable and made irrelevant by better communication and redundant by other laws. The original idea was probably to prevent hucksters and con-men from acquiring some guano filled Island in the South Pacific by signing a fake treaty in the name of the United States, with natives that had no written language.  (The story of William Walker and his attempted takeover of Nicaragua might be partially relevant, and it is certainly entertaining.)

Even if the Logan Act was used semi-regularly, and General Flynn actually violated the law as written, one would think that the DOJ/FBI even misapplied the "spirit of the law." I can't imagine the intent of the law was to prevent diplomats from establishing lines of communication during transition periods. 

The Trump Derangement Sufferers astronomical level of hyperbole are probably, in some corners, inviting a Logan Act charge to effectively, once again, destroy their hypocritical narrative.  If Trump's DOJ charges John Kerry with a violation of the Logan Act,  for meeting the Iranians as a private citizen, to revive the Obama weapons transfer deal, it will be fun to read the cognitive contortions here.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the reason the Obama team felt it imperative to prevent Flynn from serving as National Security Advisor, once Flynn was fired they had achieved their mission. For the Mueller prosecutors to later press a legal case via a “nickel and dime” process charge, was a move both arrogant and stupid. Flynn’s “lies” were clearly equivocal and largely irrelevant, and would not have occurred at all if he had counsel with him as was tradition and protocol. Surely Flynn exhibited poor judgment by letting the FBI in the door, but the FBI’s bad faith and scheming was obvious. For the prosecutors to later use crude and heavy-handed tactics to work a plea deal, while Flynn’s downfall was celebrated in the press, this was bound to create a backlash. And it did.

This was a big lose for the RussiaGate true believers, and a big lose for the D.C. people who thought it a good idea to use the federal legal apparatus to take out their political opponents. Now the momentum has swung and future revelations will be controlled by the Republicans in context of an election campaign. The Democrat’s base allowed themselves to be completely distracted for three years by an obviously phony story, and they are now stuck with a compromised leadership who can be tagged with promotion of a bogus “witch-hunt”. That can be described as an “own goal”, and it was entirely predictable as far back as the autumn of 2017 when the first rumblings of the FISA abuses were sounded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

    1,956 former DOJ prosecutors have now signed a letter calling for Bill Barr's resignation for his misconduct in the Michael Flynn case.

     The lead prosecutor in the Flynn case resigned shortly before Barr dismissed the charges against Flynn last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    1,956 former DOJ prosecutors have now signed a letter calling for Bill Barr's resignation for his misconduct in the Michael Flynn case.

     The lead prosecutor in the Flynn case resigned shortly before Barr dismissed the charges against Flynn last week.

The lead prosecutor resigned because he is a criminal.

He is in contempt of Judge Sullivan's standing Brady order.

Roger Stone is the next to walk.

I would get a head start on excuses. Try not to just repeat the 5:00 AM talking points.

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The MSM and the Bob's of the Trump Derangement Crowd tend to get "hoist by their own petard" in matters like this, and I can't help but hope that the DOJ actually charges someone with a Logan Act violation.

The theory behind the Logan Act does not seem all that unreasonable, though presumably it has always been impracticable and made irrelevant by better communication and redundant by other laws. The original idea was probably to prevent hucksters and con-men from acquiring some guano filled Island in the South Pacific by signing a fake treaty in the name of the United States, with natives that had no written language.  (The story of William Walker and his attempted takeover of Nicaragua might be partially relevant, and it is certainly entertaining.)

Even if the Logan Act was used semi-regularly, and General Flynn actually violated the law as written, one would think that the DOJ/FBI even misapplied the "spirit of the law." I can't imagine the intent of the law was to prevent diplomats from establishing lines of communication during transition periods. 

The Trump Derangement Sufferers astronomical level of hyperbole are probably, in some corners, inviting a Logan Act charge to effectively, once again, destroy their hypocritical narrative.  If Trump's DOJ charges John Kerry with a violation of the Logan Act,  for meeting the Iranians as a private citizen, to revive the Obama weapons transfer deal, it will be fun to read the cognitive contortions here.

 

All of this garbage has been addressed by the judge and to some extent me. It is the justification for picking apart an investigation post facto and is ridiculous. The Logan Act is on the books. Ask Congress to remove it.

The FBI were engaged in a serious and warranted investigation of a campaign which had requested assistance from Russia (Trump quote, Trump Tower meeting etc etc - remember those?) and were responding to an attack on our election system. Those facts are non-negotiable, we've seen them on TV and they're well reported and admitted to by the Trump Campaign, both Congressional Intel Committees and Mueller's report. Those are facts Robert and your persistence at flying in the face of those facts is childish.

That's good faith and if the Logan Act is used to pursue those efforts I'm fine with that. End of story. Over and out.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

He is in contempt of Judge Sullivan's standing Brady order.

Please source this I wasn't aware that Sullivan issued a contempt order. If that's not true you can say that also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

End of story. Over and out.

What's the matter Bob? Feeling the heat?

7 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Please source this I wasn't aware that Sullivan issued a contempt order. If that's not true you can say that also.

That is just stupid.

Do I need a judges order to assert LHO is innocent of killing the President?

It either happened or it didn't.

Van Graak did not deliver all of the evidence to Flynn, as required, under Sullivan's standing Brady order.

I thought you we're quitting these arguments.

Why don't you?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

CrowdStrike Had No Evidence of Russians Stealing Emails From DNC, Declassified Transcript Shows
 

https://m.theepochtimes.com/crowdstrike-had-no-evidence-of-russians-stealing-emails-from-dnc-declassified-transcript-shows_3346901.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true
 

Separately, it turns out Republican Trey Gowdy was playing for the Swamp Team. 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

What's the matter Bob? Feeling the heat?

That is just stupid.

Do I need a judges order to assert LHO is innocent of killing the President?

It either happened or it didn't.

Van Graak did not deliver all of the evidence to Flynn, as required, under Sullivan's standing Brady order.

I thought you we're quitting these arguments.

Why don't you?

 

Right. Your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

All of this garbage has been addressed by the judge and to some extent me. It is the justification for picking apart an investigation post facto and is ridiculous. The Logan Act is on the books. Ask Congress to remove it.

Bob - you are addressing procedural issues which have been superseded. The reasoning that the Brady issues were settled in court last December has been entirely undermined by the release of highly relevant material over the past two weeks not only covered by Brady, but which served to entirely transform the understanding of what had occurred in January 2017.

Van Grack resigned several hours before the release of DOJ’s Motion To Dismiss. No contempt order.

The memo by the Washington Field Office team assigned to investigate Crossfire razor (Flynn) was Exhibit 1 of the Motion To Dismiss. I am almost certain this team handled the Kisylak-Flynn telephone transcripts on the day after the call, and served as liaisons to representatives of the Obama administration at that time.

The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no… The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.”   (NY Times, Feb 14, 2017)

5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The FBI were engaged in a serious and warranted investigation of a campaign which had requested assistance from Russia (Trump quote, Trump Tower meeting etc etc - remember those?) and were responding to an attack on our election system. Those facts are non-negotiable, we've seen them on TV and they're well reported and admitted to by the Trump Campaign, both Congressional Intel Committees and Mueller's report.

Strzok does not take over the file until a week later. The Crossfire Razor team ended its investigation after finding “no derogatory information”  including the phone calls in question. This undermines the theory later offered by McCabe, that “senior FBI officials” only found out about the calls in early January and felt they needed to be clarified - not least because the calls had already been clarified by the designated team, nothing untoward was uncovered, and the file was being closed. Senior FBI then intervened with a Logan Act predicate, but never opened a criminal case based on that. A crucial (and illegal) media leak, followed by defiant responses to DOJ’s request to follow protocol, and evidence of the meetings strategizing the eventual interview - all combine to establish that the interview was a rogue operation untethered to a functioning counter-intelligence investigation. That’s certainly the conclusion of the Motion, and the reason the charges were withdrawn.

NY Times - “Mr. Trump, while annoyed at Mr. Flynn, might not have pushed him out had the situation not attracted such attention from the news media.” The situation gained media attention solely through the deliberate use of leaks about the Flynn-Kisylak phone calls to Washington Post on Jan 9 (published Jan 12), January 23, and February 9.

 

No evidence of Russian election meddling other than supposition centred around Internet Research Agency. Mueller Report relied entirely on Crowdstrike for Russian hacking - turns out Crowdstrike doesn’t actually know. No evidence of collusion, as the report itself clearly states.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob - you are addressing procedural issues which have been superseded. The reasoning that the Brady issues were settled in court last December has been entirely undermined by the release of highly relevant material over the past two weeks not only covered by Brady, but which served to entirely transform the understanding of what had occurred in January 2017.

Van Grack resigned several hours before the release of DOJ’s Motion To Dismiss. No contempt order.

The memo by the Washington Field Office team assigned to investigate Crossfire razor (Flynn) was Exhibit 1 of the Motion To Dismiss. I am almost certain this team handled the Kisylak-Flynn telephone transcripts on the day after the call, and served as liaisons to representatives of the Obama administration at that time.

The memo is deliberative and in no way effects whether Flynn was guilty or not. It is not a Brady issue which has an extremely high bar although I'm sure they'd like the Judge to see it that way. There will be Covington materials out also because he's voided his own AC privilege by accusing them of incompetent counsel. If they so care to they will filet him with his own deliberations with his attorneys if Sullivan demands their attendance, which is possible.

Van Grack could of just as easily resigned because he was tired of Barr's interference and he didn't want to put his name on the motion. We don't know and anything else is speculation.

To my knowledge nobody has seen unredacted versions of the transcripts but if they had that means Barr has had them for months prior to this point.

The "no derogatory information" was pre-Kislyak/Flynn transcripts or notifications to the FBI and doesn't take into account that the Russians knew very well Flynn had lied and could leverage him with at least that and possibly other issues. That's a BIG problem with a person as high up in the food chain as Flynn was. Again:

"And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose. - Mary McCord  AAG/DoJ

No evidence of Russian election meddling other than supposition centred around Internet Research Agency. Mueller Report relied entirely on Crowdstrike for Russian hacking - turns out Crowdstrike doesn’t actually know. No evidence of collusion, as the report itself clearly states.

There are something like 28 other sources for this other than CrowdStrike including videos from Danish Intel, Roger Stone's attorney, Senate Intel, House Intel, the Five Eyes on and on and on and on. And those are the sources made public. There are more I'm sure but are not likely to be made public.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The "no derogatory information" was pre-Kislyak/Flynn transcripts or notifications to the FBI and doesn't take into account that the Russians knew very well Flynn had lied and could leverage him with at least that and possibly other issues. That's a BIG problem with a person as high up in the food chain as Flynn was. 

The Flynn-Kislak phone calls were dealt with by the Crossfire Razor FBI team within a day of their occurrence (i.e Dec 30), and this team briefed representatives from the Obama administration at that time. They were able to confirm that no quid pro quo was discussed and no deal was struck re: sanctions. The CR team then finished their report on Flynn and started to close the file. Their finding that there was “no derogatory information” was post Flynn-Kisylak convos. The revisionist line that FBI only aware of convos on or after January 4 is simply not true - this was a CYA ploy introduced by McCabe well after the fact.

The only controversy about these calls is Flynn’s alleged “lies”, and the matter is entirely equivocal and semantic. As reported at the time, Flynn’s position to other members of the administration was he discussed the “expulsions” not the sanctions (separate in his mind), while to the media, and apparently members of DOJ (McCord) the term “sanctions” referred to both the economic measures and expulsions. Trump people made a rookie mistake in not really clarifying this distinction amongst themselves before addressing the media, but the only reason Pence and Spicer even had to respond in the first place is because someone from either senior levels of FBI or from Clapper’s DNI illegally and deliberately leaked that Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador about “sanctions” without clarifying that “no derogatory information” resulted from these calls.

And the leak helped reinforce a growing atmosphere of hysteria because the ICA had been released and the Steele dossier was public. These were all dirty tricks by senior intelligence/FBI officials, coordinated with their media allies, designed to upend the incoming democratically-elected administration. All of this context is being disregarded by the people at Lawfare/emptywheel, which is why their arguments and talking points are merely a version of a prosecutor’s brief. Their concepts fall apart under examination.

The idea that there are some “unredacted” transcripts of the Flynn-Kisylak convos hidden somewhere is just a completely made-up controversy. Clearly the FBI combed through these transcripts in late December, and the transcripts were with people in DOJ in early January. Nothing illegal or inappropriate ever occurred during these conversations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

No evidence of Russian election meddling other than supposition centred around Internet Research Agency. Mueller Report relied entirely on Crowdstrike for Russian hacking - turns out Crowdstrike doesn’t actually know. No evidence of collusion, as the report itself clearly states.

Aaron Mate (twitter = @aaronjmate) has done solid work on "Russiagate" and he is no fan of Trump and can not be accused of being a partisan hack. He is often on the Jimmy Dore Show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRoTGlQ4JMA

In the episode linked, he (and Dore) points out how the MSM and Adam Schiff (among others) made sure the Russian Collusion Delusion was on the front page day and night for months at a time. In any event, I am just calling attention to him because he does real journalism even if his personal politics lean more towards Bernie and less towards Trump.

From a recent Tweet.

Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated."

EXdYnVkXgAEmDiz.jpg.54096ebdbdd2d1f03bfaa5e1b6fe2344.jpg

---

EXdZCp-XQAESZrr.jpg.142af9ae4b8aa119912846f321b1fc8b.jpg

Jeff obviously has a lot more patience for you Bob, and even though I know the story, I like how he explains it to you, so thanks Jeff.

Unlike me Bob, I don't get the impression Jeff has a partisan bias in this narrative, so his explanations are especially insightful. 

That being the case, and in lite of the actual facts behind the effort to frame General Flynn for a crime, we can ponder what the motivations of the top people in the FBI, DOJ, and Clapper, Brennan, Biden, Obama, actually were.

Obviously it was to take out Trump, and obviously they thought Hillary would win; nevertheless, election losers (like Hillary) don't usually go to such extremes to take out the winner, and outgoing Presidents, even ones we might view as utterly void of redeeming qualities, do not get involved in destroying the new guy. Carter ceded control to Reagan graciously even though they were at opposite ends of the political spectrum; Bush to Clinton (right to left), Clinton to Bush (left to right), Bush to Obama (right to left). At each transition, the outgoing President, by all appearances, took the high road and did not try to make life difficult for the incoming President.

That Obama would spend his final few weeks on the job, undermining the guy who half the country voted for is pretty disturbing. From the point of view of the conspirators (DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc.) it is extremely risky; not just from a personal liability point of view (getting caught committing a crime) but for the country. They accused the Russians of all sorts of nefarious activities. The Russians might not be the threat they once were, but they still have nukes and can muster a giant conventional Army, so why risk backing them into a corner with accusations that might provoke an "incident" that kills a lot of people?

There is a bigger story here. I have a decent idea where we are in the story. The important takeaway is that the actions of the FBI/DOJ, Obama Admin, etc. were extreme in any historical context, and no one has to like Trump to see that.

Finally, Flynn said in the meeting with McCabe, "What a beautiful black sky", three times. It's meaning is very important.

 

 

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Flynn-Kislak phone calls were dealt with by the Crossfire Razor FBI team within a day of their occurrence (i.e Dec 30), and this team briefed representatives from the Obama administration at that time. They were able to confirm that no quid pro quo was discussed and no deal was struck re: sanctions. The CR team then finished their report on Flynn and started to close the file. Their finding that there was “no derogatory information” was post Flynn-Kisylak convos. The revisionist line that FBI only aware of convos on or after January 4 is simply not true - this was a CYA ploy introduced by McCabe well after the fact

I can't find you assertion here anywhere. Maybe I'm missing it? Specifically where it says the FBI confirmed a "no quid pro quo" or no deal was struck. Here's what Flynn thinks:

 

 

flynn-3.jpg

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...