Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

Just last week, Justice Ginsberg and her eight fellow judges made it very difficult for Judge Sullivan to play this amicus brief game.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/amp/

So yeah, this amicus brief delay is a no go.


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Just last week, Justice Ginsberg and her eight fellow judges made it very difficult for Judge Sullivan to play this amicus brief game.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/amp/

So yeah, this amicus brief delay is a no go.


 

 

The amici is not based on the underlying matter. That's why he brought it to advise the court on the furthering issue of Flynn's change of plea and the Motion to Dismiss. This is what Powell brought into the case and the motion is an entirely separate issue that he could decline at his discretion. The question of his charging and sentencing is a different bag of worms as Flynn is already guilty. They're not asking for a dismissal of charges they're asking for a dismissal of a conviction.

He in fact is playing umpire fairly because he is bringing in the advise on that matter rather than ruling on it without the advise. It would be against precedent to include it in the underlying case.

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

Just last week, Justice Ginsberg and her eight fellow judges made it very difficult for Judge Sullivan to play this amicus brief game.

One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-disregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/amp/

So yeah, this amicus brief delay is a no go.


 

 

This is from Young vs US Vuitton which directly addresses the Court's direct authority to enforce punishment for contempt without interference or referral to the executive branch (DOJ). Ergo Amici regarding contempt for Flynn.  It's looking a lot like Powell has put her client into a really bad position. There's even been some debate that a president can't pardon someone who has been convicted of contempt of court as it unduly interferes with the Article 3 branch. Similar to State convictions. Interesting...

The  Court  held  that  the  “power  to  punish  for contempts  is  inherent  in  all  courts…and  may  be  regarded  as  settled  law.    It  is essential  to  the  administration  of  justice.”    Id.  at  795  (block  quotation  and  citation omitted).    “The  ability  to  punish  disobedience  to  judicial  orders  is  regarded  as essential  to  ensuring  the  Judiciary  has  a  means  to  vindicate  its  own  authority without  complete  dependence  on  other  Branches.”    Id.  at  796.    The  power  to appoint  private  attorneys  to  prosecute  contempt  of  court  “satisfies  the  need  for  an independent  means  of  self-protection.”    Id.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep politics: Why were Obama Administration officials determined to prevent Flynn from assuming position of National Security Advisor? Was it policy disputes or…?

Flynn CV includes

- director of intelligence, Joint Special Operations Command 2004-2007. Iraq

-  director of intelligence, International Security Assistance Force 2009-2010  Afghanistan

- Director, Defense Intelligence Agency 2010-2014

As Director of DIA, Flynn made waves by distributing memos warning that rebel groups in Syria, supported by the West, were far more radical and fundamentalist in orientation than acknowledged in public. He warned that the West was knowingly offering covert support to rebel forces allied with al Qaeda, and that allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were directly supporting these UN-designated terrorist groups. This created friction between him, the Obama State Dept, and the CIA. These policy differences led to Flynn’s firing in 2014. (Clapper personally fired him).

Flynn on why he was fired (NY Post July 2016):  I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department.”

Is Flynn a defense intelligence genius?  Hardly, Here is a general outline of his thinking ( NY Post 2016):

“We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.”

A global alliance between three small socialist states, Iran, and Sunni jihadist militias? There is obviously no such alliance, not least because the socialist states are poor and isolated while Iran and the Sunni militias hate each other and are constantly fighting each other in the Mid-East.

Flynn conflict with Obama-era policies:

-  disagreement over support for jihadist militias in Syria

- notably Flynn not on board with shift in focus to great-power rivalries i.e. Russia and China

Was Flynn a Russian operative?  Entirely cleared by 4 month FBI counter-intelligence investigation. Nothing at all controversial with conversation with Russian ambassador.

Flynn was a career military man with clean record, fired by Obama admin over policy differences.

Jan 5, 2017 - meeting in Oval Office, Obama / Comey. Decision to cut Flynn off from intelligence re: Russia. (note - Russia or Russiagate investigations?) Probable determination to disrupt / prevent Flynn from assuming position of NSA. Using selective leaks to friendly media, a firestorm of controversy is manufactured and capped by ambush interview and resulting perjury trap. Flynn out the door within a few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Deep politics: Why were Obama Administration officials determined to prevent Flynn from assuming position of National Security Advisor? Was it policy disputes or…?

Flynn CV includes

- director of intelligence, Joint Special Operations Command 2004-2007. Iraq

-  director of intelligence, International Security Assistance Force 2009-2010  Afghanistan

- Director, Defense Intelligence Agency 2010-2014

As Director of DIA, Flynn made waves by distributing memos warning that rebel groups in Syria, supported by the West, were far more radical and fundamentalist in orientation than acknowledged in public. He warned that the West was knowingly offering covert support to rebel forces allied with al Qaeda, and that allies such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were directly supporting these UN-designated terrorist groups. This created friction between him, the Obama State Dept, and the CIA. These policy differences led to Flynn’s firing in 2014. (Clapper personally fired him).

Flynn on why he was fired (NY Post July 2016):  I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department.”

Is Flynn a defense intelligence genius?  Hardly, Here is a general outline of his thinking ( NY Post 2016):

“We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.”

A global alliance between three small socialist states, Iran, and Sunni jihadist militias? There is obviously no such alliance, not least because the socialist states are poor and isolated while Iran and the Sunni militias hate each other and are constantly fighting each other in the Mid-East.

Flynn conflict with Obama-era policies:

-  disagreement over support for jihadist militias in Syria

- notably Flynn not on board with shift in focus to great-power rivalries i.e. Russia and China

Was Flynn a Russian operative?  Entirely cleared by 4 month FBI counter-intelligence investigation. Nothing at all controversial with conversation with Russian ambassador.

Flynn was a career military man with clean record, fired by Obama admin over policy differences.

Jan 5, 2017 - meeting in Oval Office, Obama / Comey. Decision to cut Flynn off from intelligence re: Russia. (note - Russia or Russiagate investigations?) Probable determination to disrupt / prevent Flynn from assuming position of NSA. Using selective leaks to friendly media, a firestorm of controversy is manufactured and capped by ambush interview and resulting perjury trap. Flynn out the door within a few weeks.

I definitely don't think his CV was the issue. Like Patreus, Flynn used poor judgement that the US can't afford with people so highly placed. I kind of have a pet theory that somebody in the CIA set Patreus up because he was an outsider (I'm sure several ppl in the CIA felt they should get the job) but I don't know that. Obama was trying to do the neophyte President a favor by warning him of Flynn. Of course Trump ignored it.

The IC take this stuff much more seriously than most people think. I gave you the example of my Uncle not being able to travel outside the US for 5 years. My grandfather, who was the CO at 3801 Nebraska Avenue (look it up if you're not familiar) at times traveled with a Marine with a forty-five strapped to his hip. It wasn't to fight off bad guys. It was to shoot my grandfather during a possible kidnapping attempt. That was when the KGB and CIA were doing all that stuff in Berlin and elsewhere. I don't know if they still do stuff like that (maybe with a Trident Captain??) but the seriousness of a compromised high level official is taken very seriously. It effects our allies, our national security our diplomats and everyone else.

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

I definitely don't think his CV was the issue. Like Patreus, Flynn used poor judgement that the US can't afford with people so highly placed. I kind of have a pet theory that somebody in the CIA set Patreus up because he was an outsider (I'm sure several ppl in the CIA felt they should get the job) but I don't know that. Obama was trying to do the neophyte President a favor by warning him of Flynn. Of course Trump ignored it.

Bob, can you then explain where Flynn used poor judgement and why you suggest he is a "compromised high level official"?

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

Bob, can you then explain where Flynn used poor judgement and why you suggest he is a "compromised high level official"?

Easily. I'll let him do it:

On March 7, 2017, filed multiple documents with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act pertaining to a project performed by him and his company, the Intel Group, Inc. for the principal benefit of the Republic of Turkey (Turkey project). In the filings, FLYNN made materially false statements and omissions, including by falsely stating that FIG did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, the Turkey project was focused on improving US business organizations confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and an op-ed by published in The Hill on November 8, 2016, was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project. Signed Michael T. Flynn, defendent.

I might note that his filing was done several months AFTER he was caught acting as a Foreign Agent, not before.  You'll note the Hill article is dated November 8, 2016 and his lawyers promptly had him file the FARA once it became public and after he joined the Trump team.

I don't need to go into him lying to the VP and staff do I? You know this Jeff and I shouldn't have to spell it out to you. Trump hitched his wagon to Flynn because Flynn showed proper deference to him during the campaign. It wasn't because there were no other qualified people.


 
Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob, can you then explain where Flynn used poor judgement and why you suggest he is a "compromised high level official"?

I might add in Flynn's defense that late FARA filings aren't that unusual. For instance if you asked me to contact Patty Murray on BC fishing rights in State boundries in regards to Federal tribal areas and I lobbied her on your behalf I could be violating Foreign Agent Registration rules. A federal agent could alert me to that and scold me but would be unlikely to charge me because I have a fair case that I was ignorant of the requirement. I could still be charged though. Flynn on the other hand has no such defense even in the most favorable review. Precisely because of the CV you have detailed it's incumbent on him to act in accordance with the law.

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

Easily. I'll let him do it:

On March 7, 2017,...

I might note that his filing was done several months AFTER he was caught acting as a Foreign Agent, 

I don't need to go into him lying to the VP and staff do I? You know this Jeff and I shouldn't have to spell it out to you. Trump hitched his wagon to Flynn because Flynn showed proper deference to him during the campaign. It wasn't because there were no other qualified people.



 

The Oval Office meeting targeting Flynn took place on January 5, 2017.  The items you cite occur after that date.  Obama and others are discussing how to neutralize Flynn on January 5. Why? It obviously has nothing to do with presumed Russians contact as he was entirely cleared. Turkey never comes up. The so-called lies to Pence have not yet occurred, and the leak responsible for the Pence controversy sources back to FBI/Clapper's DNI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Oval Office meeting targeting Flynn took place on January 5, 2017.  The items you cite occur after that date.  Obama and others are discussing how to neutralize Flynn on January 5. Why? It obviously has nothing to do with presumed Russians contact as he was entirely cleared. Turkey never comes up. The so-called lies to Pence have not yet occurred, and the leak responsible for the Pence controversy sources back to FBI/Clapper's DNI. 

The FARA registration was related to activities in 2016 on behalf of Turkey. He filed it in 2017 but the Obama WH/FBI were aware of it no later than November, 2016, and probably much earlier.

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

The FARA registration was related to activities in 2016 on behalf of Turkey. He filed it in 2017 but the Obama WH/FBI were aware of it no later than November, 2016, and probably much earlier.

But the Turkey thing comes up nowhere in any document or memo before the January 5 meeting. The FBI C/I team delivers an all clear the day before.

Are you suggesting Obama told Trump not to hire Flynn because he was concerned over a FARA registration? 

On the deep politics register, it seems far more likely Flynn's policy differences regarding use of jihadist militias, combined with Trump's friendly posture to Russia, was the motivation for the takedown. Concern Flynn would uncover / disrupt ongoing programs. Possibly meaning Syria/Iraq, or programs in Chechnya (which would interest Russia), or the drug/human trafficking concerns running through Kosovo. 

 

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

Are you suggesting Obama told Trump not to hire Flynn because he was concerned over a FARA registration? 

On the deep politics register, it seems far more likely Flynn's policy differences regarding use of jihadist militias, combined with Trump's friendly posture to Russia, was the motivation for the takedown. Concern Flynn would uncover / disrupt ongoing programs. Possibly meaning Syria/Iraq, or programs in Chechnya (which would interest Russia), or the drug/human trafficking concerns running through Kosovo. 

 

Possibly Jeff I don't know from what I've read what their motivations were. In my view they were justified and I'm sure they knew of his activities with RT and Turkey etc prior to the election that would have raised alarm bells. I doubt Flynn would be running Cowboy on US foreign policy although he could maybe influence some of it. I really think the Obama administration was telling Trump and his people "look out for this guy!"

Flynn is a bit of a loose canon and now is in a very weak position because of decisions he's made. He'll probably skate because Trump will do away with any conviction and so on but there's apt to be more revelations if Covington enters into the mix again. What will they be? Dunno. It's interesting for sure. I also don't know what charges may have been dropped due to his agreement to cooperate (other than his son's prosecution) as I haven't really looked into it. That's another question worth looking into I suppose although I doubt a future DOJ will be able to circle back around on it. If Trump commutes I believe it's possible but he hasn't been sentenced yet. If Trump pardons then he walks but is vulnerable to more investigations because he won't have the fifth to fall back on. If he lies again for something regarding the Trump administration for instance then the cycle starts again. Yuk.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

But the Turkey thing comes up nowhere in any document or memo before the January 5 meeting. The FBI C/I team delivers an all clear the day before.

That's from what has been disclosed. We don't know exactly what may have transpired regarding the other issues because they could very well have been investigating it or possibly closed it. Dunno.

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

That's from what has been disclosed. We don't know exactly what may have transpired regarding the other issues because they could very well have been investigating it or possibly closed it. Dunno.

There's a hundred pages of annexes attached to the M2D, collected from various official sources (testimony. memos, etc) where pretty much everyone involved describes events surrounding Flynn from January 2017 and Turkey never comes up. 

 

23 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Possibly Jeff I don't know from what I've read what their motivations were. In my view they were justified and I'm sure they knew of his activities with RT and Turkey etc prior to the election that would have raised alarm bells. I doubt Flynn would be running Cowboy on US foreign policy although he could maybe influence some of it. I really think the Obama administration was telling Trump and his people "look out for this guy!"

The FBI C/I Crossfire Razor team examines all relevant databases and comes up with zero derogatory info. Flynn long-serving military man, long time holder of security clearances.

No alarm bells other than what justified the C/I back in August. All matters given all clear. Obama et al can surely express their negative opinion, but there was op to neutralize Flynn i.e. prevent him from serving as NSA - cooked up between FBI and DNI, with possible Obama approval. Why? (I don't know that this will ever be explained).

My predict: Flynn charges will be withdrawn according to M2D. Much gnashing of teeth from other side. Flynn has future of lawsuits against FBI etc for his ordeal, and will be public speaker for hire once again. Will not be offered any position within fed gov, ever. The distaste for him by certain elements has been made clear. Go along to get along.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

There's a hundred pages of annexes attached to the M2D, collected from various official sources (testimony. memos, etc) where pretty much everyone involved describes events surrounding Flynn from January 2017 and Turkey never comes up.

You mean the janitor, Billy Barr (Shea), never brought up anything that could be inferred to go against this charade? Wow! What a revelation! This is getting boring Jeff.

This one's going to really floor you - Flynn failed to disclose being paid by Russia for his RT engagement in 2015! It is required for a security clearance. The time frame I'm referring to is when Obama officials were warning Trump about Flynn.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI C/I Crossfire Razor team examines all relevant databases and comes up with zero derogatory info. Flynn long-serving military man, long time holder of security clearances.

This is comparable to doing a Goggle search to find out the truth about somebody. The federal databases are useful to the extent that information may come up but if they were so good that's exactly where they would start. "Flynn, long-serving military man and holder of security clearances" had lied about being paid by Russia (RT) on his SF86 disclosure and can't claim ignorance about it. Even if YOU think that RT is an innocent privately held company and require Putin's notarized signed affidavit from him to conclude anything else the IC and Flynn never did and yet he "forgot" to include that information when renewing his clearance.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

No alarm bells other than what justified the C/I back in August. All matters given all clear. Obama et al can surely express their negative opinion, but there was op to neutralize Flynn i.e. prevent him from serving as NSA - cooked up between FBI and DNI, with possible Obama approval. Why? (I don't know that this will ever be explained).

The investigations, already reviewed by the IG for proper predication, were not closed. That would mean "all clear". You know this.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

My predict: Flynn charges will be withdrawn according to M2D. Much gnashing of teeth from other side. Flynn has future of lawsuits against FBI etc for his ordeal, and will be public speaker for hire once again. Will not be offered any position within fed gov, ever. The distaste for him by certain elements has been made clear. Go along to get along.

Possibly, we'll see. I doubt he would have a civil case. If Sullivan withdraws after finding irregularities I'm fine with that. I trust the process exactly because he's not simply dismissing the conviction. This sort of interference is unprecedented to my knowledge and don't know why you or others are celebrating it as some sort of vindication when in fact he's guilty of everything he's been charged with and probably more.

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...