Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[W. Niederhut]

27 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

We'll see what Sullivan says... they're so crooked it's unbelievable. Hey W! Have you found out what Jeff's excuse is for the flying doctors?

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.

Edited May 7, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Bob Ness]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

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 ploy to discredit Putin and Trump.

3)  Witnesses do not recall seeing any Russian doctors flying out of windows, therefore it did not happen.

Haha I'm thinking door number three, they don't recall it so it couldn't have happened.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

This just out from Bmaz at emptywheel:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/07/trump-pride-and-doj-prejudice-the-flynn-volume/

Edited May 7, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

As with everything else in this case, once the actual details are released the conduct is much worse that anticipated. 

The outrageous conduct provision for withdrawing the charges was fully met. It is Comey who is responsible. There is jaw-dropping new information. FBI's conduct was in defiance of DOJ in particular, and other agencies.  The predicate to keep Flynn file opened confirmed as Logan Act. 

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/michaelflynn_gov_motion_dismiss.pdf

[Bob Ness]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

As with everything else in this case, once the actual details are released the conduct is much worse that anticipated. 

The outrageous conduct provision for withdrawing the charges was fully met. It is Comey who is responsible. There is jaw-dropping new information. FBI's conduct was in defiance of DOJ in particular, and other agencies.  The predicate to keep Flynn file opened confirmed as Logan Act. 

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/files/michaelflynn_gov_motion_dismiss.pdf

The Judge has seen everything unredacted and has already ruled on these issues previously.

[W. Niederhut]

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.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.

David Ignatius is fully a player in this little web of intrigue.  Despite the furious pushback - versions of the "why did he lie" lament - the actual content of the Motion To Dismiss is devastating. Here's the money, absolutely hugely relevant exculpatory information which had been withheld from Flynn's legal teams until yesterday or today:

-start quote -

Around this time, FBI Director James Comey advised DOJ leadership of its investigation into Mr. Flynn, and senior officials at both the FBI and DOJ had concerns that the incumbent White House officials’ descriptions of Mr. Flynn’s calls with Kislyak were not accurate.

FBI Director Comey took the position that the FBI would not notify the incoming Trump administration of the Flynn-Kislyak communications.

Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior DOJ officials took the contrary view and believed that the incoming administration should be notified.

Deputy Attorney General Yates and another senior DOJ official became “frustrated” when Director Comey’s justifications for withholding the information from the Trump administration repeatedly “morphed,” vacillating from the potential compromise of a “counterintelligence” investigation to the protection of a purported “criminal” investigation.

The Deputy Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency all agreed that the FBI should notify the incoming Trump administration of what had actually been said on the calls.

On January 23, 2017, then Acting Attorney General Yates met with senior DOJ officials, and they again discussed the need to press the FBI to notify the White House.

Matters came to a head on January 24, 2017. That morning, Yates contacted Director Comey to demand that the FBI notify the White House of the communications.

Director Comey did not initially return her call.

When Director Comey called her back later that day, he advised her that the FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn.

Acting Attorney General Yates was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded,” and other senior DOJ officials “hit the roof” upon hearing of this development, given that “an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.”

In advance of the interview, Director Comey determined that they would go interview Mr. Flynn the following day without notifying either DOJ or the White House.

-end quote - 

there is speculation that this description of events might be generous to individuals in Dept Justice (i.e. Yates) 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

"I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign"- per House Intel transcript

Thanks for clarifying that it was properly predicated! Appreciate it...

[W. Niederhut]

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

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

James Clapper - “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

James Clapper - “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

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.

[Bob Ness]

36 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

What time does the crow caw?

The crow caws on January 20, 2017, the last day Clapper had access to information from the intel community. The testimony Jeff refers to, much older than Mueller's report, is post Flynn firing derived from the Republican led investigation into the 2016 election. Just thought you'd both want to know. No full throttle investigation had been started at that point beyond CI by the FBI which was flying alone. Just to let you know - the FBI doesn't require permission from DOJ to investigate or continue an investigation.

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Niederhut, you must be the only person left citing the Mueller Report.

The WAPO, the NY Times, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the talking heads on CNN and even Rachel Maddow don't even bother.

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.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Just to let you know - the FBI doesn't require permission from DOJ to investigate or continue an investigation.

The controversy, as outlined in the timeline from the Motion To Dismiss, is over the appropriate protocol to arrange the interview. The FBI acted in defiance of the correct protocol so as to set a perjury trap, as the timeline and FBI notes demonstrate. It doesn't matter that the exculpatory information the timeline describes was known by the prosecution or the judge, as empty wheel argues, it's that it needed to be shared with the defence as it was entirely relevant to Flynn's legal position. If Flynn was properly represented at the interview in the first place, as was required, he would not have faced any exposure to legal jeopardy. 

Lost in the hysterical fears that the Republic and the rule of law are forever damaged in light of this Motion, is that the charges against Flynn were fully part of the "nickel and dime process crimes" which were the hallmark of Mueller's indictment record. Not remembering details of phone calls discussing a UN Security Council Israel vote has nothing whatsoever to do with Russian election interference. The leak to the Washington Post which brought the Kisylak/Flynn phone call to public attention in mid-January 2017 was itself an illegal act far more serious than anything pinned on Flynn. That leak generated the questions to Pence which began the process ending with Flynn's dismissal. The leak was likely initiated by Comey or McCabe. Instead of interviewing Flynn after declaring it a priority, senior FBI officials initiated an illegal leak which created a disruptive furore around the incoming administration. There was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the Flynn/Kisylak phone calls - this fact too is being heavily downplayed. 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI acted in defiance of the correct protocol so as to set a perjury trap, as the timeline and FBI notes demonstrate. It doesn't matter that the exculpatory information the timeline describes was known by the prosecution or the judge, as empty wheel argues, it's that it needed to be shared with the defence as it was entirely relevant to Flynn's legal position. If Flynn was properly represented at the interview in the first place, as was required, he would not have faced any exposure to legal jeopardy. 

 

Please enlighten me on the laws regarding a subject or target of an investigation who agrees to be interviewed by federal investigators. You're making a giant leap here that there was "exculpatory information" because there isn't - you're making that up. "Correct protocol" is not a legal requirement. I guarantee you it is not the investigator's job to provide defense to the person they are interviewing. Flynn's decision to do the interview was his not anyone else's and he can hardly claim ignorance like my 90 year old Aunt Millie. The Judge has already ruled on that and Flynn has plead guilty.

Is this the sort of thing you think they do with Gotti or Cartels operating in the US? Give em a call say "Hey! We're coming over to have a chit chat make sure your lawyer is there?" This is why it is hysterical to me you're pushing this. Multiply that by ten because he's pled guilty to the charges several times and at the end of the day it's like a six month beef! Which he's already served! It's a joke.