W. Niederhut

Jim, I'm hardly an apologist for American Cold Warriors (and funders of the Third Reich) like the Dulles brothers. Far from it. Nor am I an apologist for the Soviet apparatchiks who desecrated and demolished Russian Orthodox Churches and turned Russian Orthodox monasteries like Solovki into concentration camps for priests and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. (That horrific chapter of 20th century history remains largely unknown in the West.) My experiences and direct relationships with the old ROCOR have been entirely spiritual-- with men who knew St. John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco and St. Philaret (Vosnesensky.) As for Putin's (KGB) Moscow Patriarchate, there's an entire chapter on the subject in the Mitrokhin archival material, published at Cambridge as The Sword and the Shield. The Moscow Patriarchate was taken over by the NKVD following the murder of Patriarch Tikhon (by arsenic) in 1921. It has been an apparatus of the KGB for a century now-- with all of the external trappings, vestments, and buildings, of the pre-Bolshevik Russian Orthodox Church.

My vote goes to Jimi Hendrix's recording of All Along the Watchtower. So many imitations during the past 50 years, but no one had ever played a guitar like that before.

I read Russia Today for perspective on things that our corrupt U.S. M$M isn't telling us-- e.g., our disastrous CIA Operation Timber Sycamore op in Syria and the false flag "chemical weapons" attacks in Douma, etc., that Trump used as a pretext (twice) to launch Tomahawks into Syria. But sometimes I get the impression that experts in U.S. Deep State chicanery fail to realize that Putin and his skilled FSB have their own ugly, black ops history. Putin is no saint. In fact, he and his FSB did serious, perhaps irreparable, damage to the United States in 2016. And I've, personally, lived through one of Putin's black ops involving the (White) Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR.) It was ugly. He, basically, destroyed and confiscated my ROCOR parish, and others around the world-- in Western Europe, North America, and Australia. Putin told TASS at the time (2007) that, "Religion is one of Russia's most important weapons of self defense." In other words, like his NKVD/KGB predecessors, he viewed the Russian Orthodox Church as a mere tool to advance the interests of the secular state.

Former U.S. Assistant AG Mary McCord just ripped Bill Barr a new one in this evening's NYT... 🤥 Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth. The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html

Ron, Have you seen this story? Hallelujah! Texas Knows How to Handle Armed Protesters https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/05/07/arrests-swat-team-armed-protesters-texas-bar-owner-reopens/ May 10, 2020 In Odessa, TX, a woman who owns a bar decided to "OPEN" in the face of a prohibition of bars being open in that state. Apparently, her decision inspired a group of gun-toters to show up and support her decision by parading around in their "tactical" gear and carrying their firearms. Not so fast, boys! Someone called the cops, and the SWAT team showed up. They're armed, too, apparently. They gave the order, and the Proud Boys doing the protesting laid down their arms and put their hands behind their backs to be arrested. They apparently weren't in the mood for a shootout with a SWAT team. It seems to me that the approach taken by the police in that town is the appropriate one for such armed protesters who are protesting protective measure to limit the spread of COVID-19. The overgrown boys doing the protesting don't really seem to be that committed to their cause. Just send out the SWAT team and let them disarm the morons and arrest them for whatever laws they're breaking. Some are probably convicted felons who aren't even allowed to possess firearms. Do this in a few cases and publicize it, and maybe the Proud Boys will reconsider their protests. They don't appear to really be brave men with guns. They don't really appear to be much of anything but a rabble in the first place. That'd be great!

This just in... Ouch, Jeff! I hope your medical insurance covers gonadal injuries... 🤪 Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth. The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html by Mary B.McCord May 10, 2020 At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.” The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security. That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence. But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.” I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly. I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publi Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office. Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime. The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time. Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place. The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews. Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him. The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him. This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat. That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office. The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in. The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. 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 B. McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice, is legal director for Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting law professor.

Didn't the judge in Michael Flynn's case directly reproach foreign agent Flynn for "selling out (his) country?" As for Barr's absurd "case" for dropping the charges, Jeff's arguments get pancaked again... 🤥 The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

One more appalling example of the Trump administration ignoring vitally important, scientific expertise in order to promote their economic and political interests. I'm not a lawyer, but this strikes me as a case of negligent (mass) homicide by the Trump administration-- deliberately ignoring the facts to send Americans to their deaths.

Jim, I'm not an attorney or a law enforcement officer, but this Lawfare analysis* thoroughly debunks Barr's legal case for dropping the charges against Flynn. It also debunks the M$M Trumpaganda about the FBI's "unfair" interrogation of Michael Flynn-- which seems like a variation on the same old Trump/Fox/GOP false counter-narrative about Russiagate. And, incidentally, the Trump administration explicitly asked the SCOTUS this week to block Congress from receiving the full Mueller Report. Any thoughts about why Trump and Bill Barr have been fighting tooth-and-claw for the past 14 months to prevent Congress from seeing the full Mueller Report-- after Barr went public with a blatantly false summary of Mueller's findings? *The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

This is the essence of the problem with public misconceptions about Russiagate and, now, Bill Barr's latest Michael Flynn travesty. The false Trump/Fox/GOP counter-narrative framing Russiagate as an "FBI coup," and dismissing the Mueller Report findings, (about systematic Russian election interference and the Trump cabal's recurrent obstruction of justice) have taken root in Trumptopia. It's classic Bernays Propaganda 101-- repeat the lie until people believe it is true. This false "Deep State coup" Trump/Fox counter-narrative about Russiagate being a "hoax" is analogous to the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" narrative about JFK's assassination. Turley, Dershowitz, and Giuliani have become the Vincent Bugliosies and Gerald Posners of the Russiagate cover up. No reputable judicial experts agree with Barr's outrageous dismissal of these charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn pled guilty because he is guilty. And he, himself, debunked Jeff Carter's claim that he "could not recall" his phone call to Kisylak.

Interesting blog posts, Pamela, written with due dylagence. I think you would find Sean Wilentz's book, Bob Dylan in America, quite interesting, especially with your experiences living in the Big Apple in the early 60s. Dylan is large-- he contains millions-- and I'm amazed by people's differing perceptions of the man and his life work. For example, you admire the Slow Train Coming album from Dylan' "Evangelical" period-- the only phase of Dylan's multi-faceted career with which I am unfamiliar. And you disliked Like a Rolling Stone and Rainy Day Woman-- the first two Dylan recordings that I ever heard, over and over, on a Columbia 45 rpm in the 60s. De gustibus non est disputandum! As I recall, Rolling Stone magazine has rated Like a Rolling Stone the greatest rock song in history, and not without reason, IMO. As for the rollicking "Salvation Army Band" single, Rainy Day Woman, from the Blonde on Blonde album, there is a terrific account of how it was recorded (in Nashville) in the Wilentz book. Al Kooper commented that "it's almost like Wilentz was in the room" during those all night recording sessions.

Good review of the flawed M$M response to Murder Most Foul at Russ Baker's Who What Why website today. Nothing new for those of us who have read the DiEugenio review at Kennedys and King, but it is good to see another honest, accurate critique. My only criticism of the piece is that they should have included a reference to the DiEugenio review of Murder Most Foul. The article includes several links to archival Who What Why articles about the JFK assassination. What Everybody Is Missing About Bob Dylan’s JFK Song https://whowhatwhy.org/2020/05/09/what-everybody-is-missing-about-bob-dylans-jfk-song/

I disagree with your take on the Michael Flynn case, Jim. Let's recall that Flynn lied to the FBI in January of 2017 about his December 29, 2016 phone call to Kislyak-- first denying that it happened, then denying that he discussed the Obama administration sanctions against Russia, imposed on December 29, 2016 in retaliation for the Russian interference in our 2016 elections. Flynn and his highly respected lawyers then entered guilty pleas to the accurate charges of making false and fraudulent statements to the FBI. The earlier claim that Flynn "did not recall" the December 29, 2016 phone call was later debunked by Flynn's own statements to the court. And why was the December Flynn-Kislyak phone call so important? Because Flynn well knew that Russia had hacked the 2016 election to put Trump in the White House, and he was trying to undermine the impact of the Obama administration sanctions against Russia imposed on December 29th. * Flynn was directly undermining an appropriate U.S. government response to a hostile foreign power that had directly subverted our democracy-- in coordination with Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign staff. It is now an established fact that Russia aggressively and systematically interfered in our 2016 U.S. elections-- and that Trump campaign staffers had multiple contacts with Russian officials and cut outs in 2016-- something that Trump has repeatedly lied about since 2016. Contrary to the incessant Trump/Fox propaganda of the past three years, "Russiagate" was not a "hoax." Secondly, it is an established fact that Donald Trump and his associates-- including Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Roger Stone, and Bill Barr-- repeatedly obstructed justice to cover up the Trump Russiagate scandal. Mueller was not permitted to indict Trump for obstruction of justice, but he explicitly stated that his investigation "did not exonerate" Trump. * On Dec. 29, a transition adviser to Mr. Trump, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an email to a colleague that sanctions announced hours before by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian election meddling were aimed at discrediting Mr. Trump’s victory. The sanctions could also make it much harder for Mr. Trump to ease tensions with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote in the emails obtained by The Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

Barr was confirmed as Trump's third AG by a close 3 vote margin -- along party lines. At the time, Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senate minority expressed grave concerns about Barr's refusal during the confirmation hearings to guarantee that, as AG, he would release the full Mueller Report to Congress. The Democrats, obviously, hit that crooked nail squarely on the head. The GOP Senators sold the country out. 15 months later, Barr is still fighting tooth-and-claw to prevent Congress from obtaining a copy of the unredacted Mueller Report. IMO, this will go down as one of the biggest cover ups in American Presidential history, and one in which an entire political party is complicit.

Rob, Huh? When did you start reading WaPo and the NYT? Didn't you say that you assiduously avoid reading America's two top-rated newspapers? But you, unwittingly, raise an important point here. To wit, when and how did the truly damning findings of the Mueller Report get lost in America's news cycle? IMO, it was mostly a result of Bill Barr's pre-emptive obstruction and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report findings last spring, with a major assist from Trump's repeated lies, and the Trumpaganda establishment in our mainstream media. Another problem was that Congress dropped the ball last summer on impeaching Trump for his multiple counts of obstruction of justice-- detailed in the Mueller Report-- perhaps partly because they got bogged down in the fight over their vote to subpoena the unredacted Mueller Report. Let's all remember that Congress has still not received a copy of the unredacted Mueller Report! In fact, the subpoena case has now gone to the SCOTUS, and the Trump administration called only YESTERDAY for the SCOTUS to block release of the Mueller Report to Congress! Why? What are Trump and Barr hiding? Meanwhile, Trump and his Trumpagandists have relentlessly repeated the lie that Trump's Russiagate scandal was a "hoax," and that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller Report! Special Counsel Mueller explicitly declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct •The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President (10) and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. (11) •The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President. •Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious: In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice; (12) months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue–all of which McGahn refused to do. (13) After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go; ”he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true. (14) In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” (15) In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an un-recused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.” (16) The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement. (17) (10) Id. at Vol. II, 8. (11) Id. (12) Mueller Report at Vol. II, 77-90. (13) Id. at Vol. II, 113-18. (14) Id. at Vol. II, 40-44. (15) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25. (16) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25. (17) Id. at Vol. II, 332-45.

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” •In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President. (5) Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent. •Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” (6) •Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.” (7) A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks. (8) •The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia.Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to Federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering. •The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election. •The Report raised questions about why Trump and associates repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia. (9) (5) Id. at Vol. I, 67-80. (6) Id. at Vol. I, 110-20. (7) Id. at Vol. I, 5. (8) Id. at Vol. I, 51-54. (9) Id. at Vol. II, 18-23.

Unreal. Nothing but ad hominem deflections and the same old shiny object Trumpaganda. So, I'll re-post the basic facts in the case that steam roll Jeff Carter's oft repeated, bogus arguments about Russiagate and Michael Flynn. I'll re-iterate that these facts about Flynn's conduct in December of 2016 are consistent with the FBI's damning K.T. McFarland Email about not antagonizing Russia... "which has just thrown the election to Trump." "Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election? In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary. The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation. How do we know that was Flynn’s intention? Because he said so in his Nov. 30, 2017, guilty plea admitting he had made false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. The “statement of the offense” that accompanied the agreement states that on Dec. 29, 2016, after discussions with another transition team official, Flynn “called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” Was Flynn improperly tricked in his Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI into misstating what he had told Kislyak? If so, why did he resign and later plead guilty? In Flynn’s Feb. 13, 2017, resignation letter, he admitted that he had made misleading statements to Vice President Pence about the Kislyak call. Here’s how he put it: “Because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding phone calls with the Russian ambassador.” That’s not the FBI talking, it’s Flynn. And the question, again, is why he misstated the facts. On the day he resigned, Flynn offered a more revealing account in an interview with the Daily Caller. He explained that the talk with Kislyak “was about the 35 guys who were thrown out. . . . It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ ” Why does this matter? Because the issue Flynn was discussing with Kislyak was so serious. Russia had secretly subverted our democratic elections. Obama, who had delayed sanctions far too long, finally took action with the Dec. 29 expulsions. He did so on behalf of the nation, whose election system had been attacked." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-michael-flynn-did-nothing-wrong-why-didnt-he-tell-the-truth/2020/05/07/d3188354-90ab-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

By the way, folks, DON'T GO TO HOME DEPOT! It's a death trap. (At least the one closest to my house.) I'm on DAY 4 after my Home Depot pit stop on Monday, and hoping I don't start coughing or spiking a fever. As for Joe's post-- Joe, for a guy who never had a chance to go to college, you are one intelligent, perceptive guy. The surge in the stock markets during the past month is truly baffling to me --and even to Warren Buffet. People, evidently, think that they bought the DIP, and that we're in for some sort of quick, V-shaped global economic recovery. WTF? This surge began with the corporate bailouts but doesn't seem to be based on any sound understanding of economic fundamentals-- earnings, consumer demand, employment, GDP, etc. I'm still standing on the edge of what I think is an economic abyss-- holding cash, bonds, and some gold-- waiting to see where the bottom is. And I'll be truly surprised if it happened in March. On the flip side, I thought the seven year Obama Bull Market was going to end in 2017, and I don't pretend to be a financial expert. Trump has goosed the markets for the past three years, and will do anything he can to keep equity asset bubbles inflated until November.

David Ignatius, who has been reporting on the Flynn case since January of 2017, pretty much steam-rolls Jeff Carter's flimsy arguments about the Flynn case this evening. Among other problems for Jeff's arguments, Ignatius thoroughly debunks Flynn's "I don't recall" claims-- using his own words from later court proceedings. Instead of "the Russian Pretzel," we may have to start referring to Jeff as the "Russian Pancake." 🤥 (Re-printed for WaPo non-subscribers.) If Michael Flynn did nothing wrong, why didn’t he tell the truth? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-michael-flynn-did-nothing-wrong-why-didnt-he-tell-the-truth/2020/05/07/d3188354-90ab-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html by David Ignatius May 7, 2020 With the Justice Department’s move Thursday to drop its case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, it’s useful to go back to a basic question: If Flynn did nothing wrong when he called the Russian ambassador on Dec. 29, 2016, the day President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the presidential election, why did he conceal it? One issue from the beginning was whether Flynn’s call to Ambassador Sergey Kislyak violated the Logan Act, which bars private U.S. citizens from trying to influence another country about “disputes” with the United States. But that was always a somewhat shaky legal argument. As I noted in my Jan. 12, 2017, column, which first disclosed Flynn’s call, the Logan Act has never been criminally enforced. I wrote on Feb. 11, two days before he resigned: “Michael Flynn’s real problem isn’t the Logan Act, an obscure and probably unenforceable 1799 statute that bars private meddling in foreign policy disputes. It’s whether President Trump’s national security adviser sought to hide from his colleagues and the nation a pre-inauguration discussion with the Russian government about sanctions that the Obama administration was imposing.” In that column, I quoted a question posed to me by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee chairman who would later lead the impeachment investigation of Trump. “Why would [Flynn] conceal the nature of the call unless he was conscious of wrongdoing?” There was always a deeper problem, one that still isn’t resolved. Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election? In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary. The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation. How do we know that was Flynn’s intention? Because he said so in his Nov. 30, 2017, guilty plea admitting he had made false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. The “statement of the offense” that accompanied the agreement states that on Dec. 29, 2016, after discussions with another transition team official, Flynn “called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” Was Flynn improperly tricked in his Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI into misstating what he had told Kislyak? If so, why did he resign and later plead guilty? In Flynn’s Feb. 13, 2017, resignation letter, he admitted that he had made misleading statements to Vice President Pence about the Kislyak call. Here’s how he put it: “Because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding phone calls with the Russian ambassador.” That’s not the FBI talking, it’s Flynn. And the question, again, is why he misstated the facts. On the day he resigned, Flynn offered a more revealing account in an interview with the Daily Caller. He explained that the talk with Kislyak “was about the 35 guys who were thrown out. . . . It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ ” Why does this matter? Because the issue Flynn was discussing with Kislyak was so serious. Russia had secretly subverted our democratic elections. Obama, who had delayed sanctions far too long, finally took action with the Dec. 29 expulsions. He did so on behalf of the nation, whose election system had been attacked. The intelligence community had first disclosed Russia’s meddling on Oct. 7, 2016, in a statement that charged that “Russia’s senior-most officials” had conducted a cyberattack “intended to interfere with the US election process.”That initial damning assessment was amplified in a Jan. 6, 2017, report, in which the intelligence community said Russia had tried to “denigrate” the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and “harm her electability and potential presidency” and that Moscow had a “clear preference” for Trump. The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by a Republican, spent the past three years investigating whether our spy chiefs’ finding was correct. Its judgment: “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.” We know the FBI made some serious mistakes in the Russia investigation. The misstatements and omissions by FBI officials in their applications for surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page were egregious. The recent disclosures about how they prepared to question Flynn in 2017 should trouble anyone who worries about abuse of power by federal investigators seeking damning information from a suspect. But none of that addresses the fundamental question that got this story rolling in the first place: Why was the incoming national security adviser telling the Kremlin’s man in Washington not to worry about the expulsion of 35 of his spies, because when the new administration took office, “we’ll review everything”? That was the wrong message to be sending in December 2016. And with the accumulation of evidence since then about the scope of Russian subversion, it’s even more troubling.

Not sure what Jeff will have to say about those "flying" Russian doctors, but my hunch is that his explanation will include one or more of the following premises. 1) Doctors often fall to their deaths from windows in all countries. Nothing to see here! Move along now! 2) Since Russia did NOT meddle in U.S. elections on behalf of Donald Trump--as determined by Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee -- claims about flying Russki doctors are, obviously, part of a partisan Democratic plot to discredit Putin and Trump. 3) Witnesses do not recall seeing any Russian doctors flying out of windows, therefore it did not happen.

It's outrageous, almost surreal... Crooked Bill Barr, GHWB's CIA-trained Iran-Contra-Pardoner and Trump's Russiagate Cover Up AG, creates a bogus pretext to drop charges against a paid foreign agent who pled guilty to lying to the FBI about violating the Logan Act. And the lead prosecutor in the case, apparently, resigned in disgust. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole crooked Trump/Barr cabal belongs in prison.

Rob, How can you continue to make these bogus Trump/Barr/GOP propaganda claims about the Mueller Report and the Steele Dossier when you haven't even read them? Bob Ness is right. It's a waste of time to discuss these issues with you and Jeff. You both persist in ignoring the data, while repeating your bogus Trump/GOP "talking points." I do agree with you about Rod Rosenstein's dubious handling of Trump's Russiagate chicanery-- especially after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG by that fateful, disastrous 53 GOP Senate vote.

Two critical references documenting the 2016 Russian op to sabotage Hillary Clinton and put Donald Trump in the White House. 1) Key Findings from the Mueller Report https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ACS-CREW-Final-Mueller-Report-Highlights.7.19.pdf 2) Bipartisan Senate Intel report backs intelligence assessment of 2016 Russian interference https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-intelligence-committee-report-2016-russian-interference-assessment/?fbclid=IwAR2UByv2EF-tzXCwak9Nnosb9zN6qAin_g6q3OvoU_7AokCZYgOcxEPhBLA

Frankly, I'm amazed that so many people have been bamboozled by the false Trump/Barr/GOP counter-narratives about Russiagate, the Steele Dossier, and the Mueller Report. Gas-lighting is the one thing that Donald Trump does very well. I'll assume that we all know by now that Donald Trump and Bill Barr both have extensive experience obstructing justice, pardoning criminals, and covering up crimes. Have people here studied Trump's truly bizarre legal history, going back to his early experiences with Roy Cohn? A) Everyone also knows by now that Putin and the FSB were involved in a sweeping, systematic 2016 op to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy and elect Donald Trump. The main Kremlin objective in supporting Trump was to weaken the U.S/NATO alliance and U.S. opposition to Russian hegemony in Ukraine, and to reverse the Obama administration sanctions that were imposed in response to Russian annexation of the Crimea. B ) Most people know that the essential details of the 2016 Steele Dossier have been confirmed, and that the U.S. MSM (including Dean Baquet at NYT) put the kibosh on any news coverage of Donald Trump's Russia connections prior to the 2016 election-- while focusing extensively on anonymous "leaks"/rumors about Hillary's Emails* (see charts below.) (The NYT Trump/Russia censorship story was divulged by Jill Abramson and the NYT editorial staff in 2017. C) Surprisingly few people seem to grasp the basic, damning facts about the Mueller Report.** (See link to Mueller Report FACTS below.) I will request in advance that any replies focus on the facts here, rather than ad hominem deflections from these facts. * Study: Hillary Clinton’s emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69 https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails ** Key Findings from the Mueller Report https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ACS-CREW-Final-Mueller-Report-Highlights.7.19.pdf

Anyone who claims that Michael Flynn "could not recall" his illegal December 29, 2016 phone call with Kisylak-- and their discussion about the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions against Russia-- is not worthy of respect.