Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Bob Ness]

18 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

BFD? 
look what I just posted.

Nixon thinks Obama is diabolical.

Kinda cutting a fine line there aren't ya Robert? Is this illegal?

Apparently all manner of illegal sh!t by Trump is no problem but really, really gets your dander up? You and now Jeff are so ridiculous trying to take down this stuff it's laughable. He swore on oath several times he done what he done over and over, again and again and again and you guys are trying to say it was a frame up he lied under oath to the Judge! But it was his lawyers fault! BS! You think this guy is 12 years old? He knew exactly what he was doing. Why did he lie to the judge then?

It's weird bc Flynn was working for the government of Turkey, which he admitted under oath and to a grand jury, at the same time he was working for Trump with a TS-TSI security clearance. That's pretty inconvenient isn't it? Wouldn't ya say?

He was a national security threat and was going to be treated as such until such time as he either proved them wrong or stepped into the noose. That's how it is done all the time! Get real!

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

I've read the Mueller Report. As per Flynn, at no point does it refer to "inappropriate" or "illegal" activity as you characterized.

[Jeff Carter]

Bob

I’m not sure there is a legal doctrine which holds that an innocent person striking a plea deal with US federal or state officials has committed a crime of lying or perjury. Can you explain? Does this mean that the persons released as part of the Los Angeles Ramparts scandal should have been held in jail because they “lied” on their lawyer’s advice to accept the plea?

Bob and W. -

here is the information from Flynn’s indictment:

1) Flynn “made materially false statements and omissions during an interview” with FBI officials on January 24, 2017.

2) His “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on FBI’s ongoing investigation”  (note: on January 24 the FBI had transcripts of the phone calls in question and had the January 4 report of the Crossfire Hurricane team investigating Flynn which stated that nothing of relevance had occurred and the investigation should be closed).

As to 1) - the false statements amount to: “falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions” and “false stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response.” As well, “FLYNN made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council…Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia’s response to FLYNN’s request…”

Can you guys explain the “crime” you think was committed here, and how it could have had a “material impact” on the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation?

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I've read the Mueller Report. As per Flynn, at no point does it refer to "inappropriate" or "illegal" activity as you characterized.

Poppycock, Jeff.

If Flynn was not charged with any illegal activities, to what charges did he plead guilty?!

Flynn was a bad actor long before he got caught lying to the FBI about his December 29, 2016 discussion of U.S. sanctions with Kisylak-- a direct violation of the Logan Act!  (Flynn lied about the fact that the sanctions were discussed, after he lied about the fact that the discussions ever took place.)

He also concealed the fact that he was working as a paid foreign agent of the Turkish government in 2016, in addition to receiving payments from Russia Today.

Flynn was previously fired by Obama as Director of the DIA due to concerns about his suspicion relations with Kremlin officials and the GRU.

Both Obama and Chris Christie warned Trump about Flynn's shady history shortly after the November 2016 election, but Trump still hired him as NSC Chief, later claiming that no one had warned him about Flynn!

[Jeff Carter]

48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Poppycock, Jeff.

If Flynn was not charged with any illegal activities, to what charges did he plead guilty?!

You yourself have characterized Flynn’s contacts with the Russian Ambassador as “inappropriate” and “illegal” based on the Logan Act, referring  to the Mueller Report as your source. The Mueller Report nowhere describes these contacts as either “inappropriate” or “illegal”, and never invokes the Logan Act. The Mueller Report also never refers to paid activity with the Turkish government, “suspicious relations” with Kremlin officials, or payments from Russia Today.

The record now shows that an FBI investigation team believed on Jan 4, 2017 that Flynn had done nothing illegal or inappropriate, and that the investigation directed to his activity should be closed.

Flynn’s “illegal activity” consists entirely of alleged misrepresentations / errors / memory lapses during a January 24, 2017 interview which had no bearing or relevance to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, an interview conducted by agents who had previously lobbied that Flynn’s case not be closed and who previously held discussions which infer that entrapping Flynn in misrepresentations was the intent of the interview.

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob

I’m not sure there is a legal doctrine which holds that an innocent person striking a plea deal with US federal or state officials has committed a crime of lying or perjury. Can you explain? Does this mean that the persons released as part of the Los Angeles Ramparts scandal should have been held in jail because they “lied” on their lawyer’s advice to accept the plea?

Bob and W. -

here is the information from Flynn’s indictment:

1) Flynn “made materially false statements and omissions during an interview” with FBI officials on January 24, 2017.

2) His “false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on FBI’s ongoing investigation”  (note: on January 24 the FBI had transcripts of the phone calls in question and had the January 4 report of the Crossfire Hurricane team investigating Flynn which stated that nothing of relevance had occurred and the investigation should be closed).

As to 1) - the false statements amount to: “falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions” and “false stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response.” As well, “FLYNN made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council…Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia’s response to FLYNN’s request…”

Can you guys explain the “crime” you think was committed here, and how it could have had a “material impact” on the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation?

I'm not discussing this any more with you or Wheeler. It's like arguing with toddlers. Read his fing plea end of story.

[W. Niederhut]

12 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

You yourself have characterized Flynn’s contacts with the Russian Ambassador as “inappropriate” and “illegal” based on the Logan Act, referring  to the Mueller Report as your source. The Mueller Report nowhere describes these contacts as either “inappropriate” or “illegal”, and never invokes the Logan Act. The Mueller Report also never refers to paid activity with the Turkish government, “suspicious relations” with Kremlin officials, or payments from Russia Today.

The record now shows that an FBI investigation team believed on Jan 4, 2017 that Flynn had done nothing illegal or inappropriate, and that the investigation directed to his activity should be closed.

Flynn’s “illegal activity” consists entirely of alleged misrepresentations / errors / memory lapses during a January 24, 2017 interview which had no bearing or relevance to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, an interview conducted by agents who had previously lobbied that Flynn’s case not be closed and who previously held discussions which infer that entrapping Flynn in misrepresentations was the intent of the interview.

Jeff,

       Huh?   You and Rob need to take a few minutes to study Chapter One of the Mueller Report Illustrated.

       Michael Flynn's December 29, 2016 phone call to Kisylak is central to Chapter One.

       Of course, Flynn lied to the FBI about making the phone call, then he lied about the fact that he had discussed the new sanctions with Kisylak.

       Enjoy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/mueller-report-illustrated/chapter-one/

[Jeff Carter]

41 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       Huh?   You and Rob need to take a few minutes to study Chapter One of the Mueller Report Illustrated.

       Michael Flynn's December 29, 2016 phone call to Kisylak is central to Chapter One.

       Of course, Flynn lied to the FBI about making the phone call, then he lied about the fact that he had discussed the new sanctions with Kisylak.

       Enjoy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/mueller-report-illustrated/chapter-one/

Yes, but the Mueller Report Illustrated is at this point rather outdated. It is now known that:

1) the phone call was not a “violation” of the Logan Act, and the invocation of the Logan Act was and is a red herring because senior officials in both DOJ and FBI - at the time - felt that criminalizing Flynn’s activity using the Logan Act would be a largely dubious and unsuccessful effort.

2) the original FBI team looking into Flynn’s activity decided rather swiftly that he was not engaged in legally compromised activity and that his file should be closed

3) a small faction of FBI officials  including Strzok and McCabe decided on their own initiative to set up an interview with Flynn, to not follow protocol which required Flynn be told he was under investigation, and to try to entrap Flynn over inconsistencies in what he might tell them.

The Brookings guy who wrote the NY Times op-ed you shared concedes the FBI officials were engaged in what amounted to a perjury trap, but he defends their tactics because they allegedly had “serious evidence of wrongdoing” which, if you unpack what he is saying, amounts to violations of the Logan Act. Which, as is now known, was never seriously considered and in fact had been dismissed by senior DOJ officials as a dubious and far-fetched proposal.

So there never was any “serious evidence of wrongdoing”  or “grave crimes”, just a shoddy perjury trap which is now unraveling. The reason you are so confused is that there has been a determined effort by the legacy media and “senior fellows” at Atlanticist think tanks to mislead you.

[Jeff Carter]

Well known legal analyst Jonathan Turley has weighed in and believes the Flynn case reveals serious misconduct by the FBI:

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/495405-michael-flynn-case-should-be-dismissed-to-preserve-justice

[W. Niederhut]

Jeff,

Explain why Flynn calling Russian Ambassador Kisylak on December 29, 2016 to undermine the impact of President Obama's newly-imposed sanctions against Russia for hacking our 2016 elections was not a violation of the Logan Act.

Was Flynn an authorized agent of the U.S. government at the time?

BTW, are you aware that the U.S. Senate Intel Committee has finally released a bipartisan consensus declaration confirming that Russia hacked our 2016 elections to put Trump in the White House?

[Jeff Carter]

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jeff,

Explain why Flynn calling Russian Ambassador Kisylak on December 29, 2016 to undermine the impact of President Obama's newly-imposed sanctions against Russia for hacking our 2016 elections was not a violation of the Logan Act.

No serious effort was made to invoke the Logan Act because it is a poorly written 200 year old law which has never been used. While it was cleverly seeded into the public discourse in form of a leak to WaPo's Ignatius, no one in authority in FBI or DOJ ever considered it a viable legal path. Strzok may have referenced the Logan Act as a reason to keep Flynn's file active (the reference is redacted), it was otherwise a non-starter - except for the rubes.

Turley - "It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. "

Flynn was indicted for "lying" based on failing to recall specific information about sanctions and failing to recall specific information about a UN vote on Israel. Neither topic related to the interests of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and neither topic revealed specific information of interest to the interviewing agents, who already knew the content of the phone calls. 

[W. Niederhut]

"Failing to recall. "  Of course!   Calling the Russian Ambassador on December 29, 2016 to discuss the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions against the Putin regime was, obviously, not a very memorable event in the life of Michael "Lock Her Up" Flynn, eh?

Donald Trump also experienced a severe "failure to recall" problem in his written responses to Robert Mueller's questions about the Russia-gate scandal-- which was a bit of an anomaly for a "stable genius" who claims to have "one of the great minds" in U.S. Presidential history.

The only thing weirder is a guy with militarily disabling bone spurs claiming to be "probably the healthiest Presidential candidate of all time."

Edited May 3, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

"Failing to recall. "  Of course!   Calling the Russian Ambassador on December 29, 2016 to discuss the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions against the Putin regime was, obviously, not a very memorable event in the life of Michael "Lock Her Up" Flynn, eh?

But what do you think transpired? The FBI had the transcripts of the calls and Flynn remarked that he expected there were transcripts. He's not overtly hiding anything. 

Bob Ness is correct that Flynn is surely guilty of withholding information from FBI agents, whether he was conscious of this fault or not. What Bob does not address is whether laying the charges in the first place was fair practice or prosecutor abuse. As the law stands, if Flynn had said during the interview that he arrived at the White House that morning in a Yellow Cab, but his credit card records  later show that he had instead arrived in a Black Top cab, then that could technically be determined as a “lie”, or false statement which, if an agent subjectively determined had impeded or had “material impact” on the investigation, could be indictable. If I understand Bob’s position - he is placing more weight on the actual material commission of a false statement, regardless of the context or relevance (like Yellow Cab / Black Top Cab).

Flynn certainly didn’t understand why he was indicted in the first place, but his lawyers would have explained that to be successful with a “not guilty” plea he would have to challenge and upend the interviewing agent’s determination that his false statements impeded the investigation, and there was no reason to be confident of success doing that. (The agent is not required to explain or justify his/her subjective opinion). The current attempt to withdraw his plea deal is not based on making a “not guilty” claim, but on challenging the indictment itself as a form of prosecutor abuse. That is the reason for all the interest in how the FBI handled the Flynn docket in January 2017.

About fifteen years ago I read an interview with a civil liberties expert who advised that individuals should never engage or converse with law enforcement personnel, ever, without a lawyer present. I thought such advice to be rather extreme, not least because such condition was in effect an acknowledgment that one did not live in a functioning democracy. In the last two days I have seen exactly the same advice expressed matter-of-factly in the legacy media (WaPo and CNN), in response to the latest Flynn info. It is apparently mainstream thinking now.

[W. Niederhut]

Get real, fellas.  

Michael Flynn lied about MANY things...

1)  The fact that he spoke to Kisylak on December 29, 2016.

2)   The fact that he and Kisylak discussed the sanctions on December 29, 2016-- in violation of the Logan Act.

       (This was also confirmed by his associate K.T. McFarland's Email at the time.)

3)  The fact that he was being paid (since 2015) by Kremlin-affiliated agencies, including Russia Today.

4)  The fact that he was an unregistered, paid foreign agent in 2016.

 

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Get real, fellas.  

Michael Flynn lied about MANY things...

I hope your clavicle is improved and your recovery is going well. But you are consistently the most ill-informed contributor on these issues. 

1)  The fact that he spoke to Kisylak on December 29, 2016.

Not exactly correct. He could not remember specifically talking with Kisylak on this exact date, but freely acknowledged multiple conversations with Kisylak during the transition period.

2)   The fact that he and Kisylak discussed the sanctions on December 29, 2016-- in violation of the Logan Act.

Not exactly correct. Flynn told his interviewers he could not remember this conversation, but conceded “it was possible” that it occurred. There was no violation of the Logan Act, because the Logan Act was never remotely considered as an actionable legal strategy beyond Strzok. Flynn was never charged with violations of the Logan Act.

3)  The fact that he was being paid (since 2015) by Kremlin-affiliated agencies, including Russia Today.

Not exactly correct. Flynn told his interviewers that he was not paid directly by “media entities”, including Russia Today, Sky, and MSNBC, because he had a speaker’s agency which handled such matters. The media work came to him through the agency, not directly from the outlets. Attributing a personal direct connection is not accurate.

4)  The fact that he was an unregistered, paid foreign agent in 2016.

 

Not exactly correct. Inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies were found in Flynn’s FARA registrations, but he was registered. In context, probably 80-90% of D.C.’s lobbyist community would be responsible for inconsistent or inaccurate FARA registration. Prior to becoming a useful cudgel directed at persons like Manafort and Flynn, insisting on accurate FARA registration was not even close to a D.C. priority. Most persons who today get in a snit over FARA registrations or possible violations of the Logan Act had never heard of either three years ago.