Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Bob Ness]

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

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

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

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

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

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

This discussion occurred December 30 or 31st 2016. 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

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

This discussion occurred December 30 or 31st 2016. 

So how do you explain Flynn's allocution to the judge that they did? That is what's in his pleading twice.

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

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

This discussion occurred December 30 or 31st 2016. 

I might also add that you're attributing this to the New York Times which is convenient for you when they provide support for you're assertion but you rail against them at any other time. Perhaps the Times was quoting an FBI official on or off record? Either way it isn't a transcription only an informal conversation which doesn't carry much weight in a legal sense. That is aside from the established FACT that Flynn disputes it.

[Bob Ness]

11 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

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

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

From a recent Tweet.

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

---

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

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

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

 I don't know about that. Let's stand back and look at the facts.

Jeff quotes an unsourced NYT article to support his assertion about the FBI.

I support and provide the sworn statement of the person who is accused.

Really? Hahaha what joke!  Keep going Robert you'll kill me with laughter!

[Jeff Carter]

29 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I might also add that you're attributing this to the New York Times which is convenient for you when they provide support for you're assertion but you rail against them at any other time. Perhaps the Times was quoting an FBI official on or off record? Either way it isn't a transcription only an informal conversation which doesn't carry much weight in a legal sense. That is aside from the established FACT that Flynn disputes it.

I have to amend my previous speculation as I now understand that the “Obama officials” cited in the NY Times (Feb 14, 2017) represent the Director of National Intelligence Clapper’s office. This would indicate that the Crossfire Razor team was not in fact a part of the analysis or dissemination of the transcripts of the phone calls.

After realizing there was no quid quo pro or deal or negotiation over sanctions - I.e. nothing illegal or inappropriate with the phone calls -  the “7th Floor” of the FBI worked in conjunction with DNI to suggest a Logan Act predicate to DOJ, and then leak partial information to media to create pressure, which could be exploited by securing a “friendly” interview. The Motion To Dismiss is a repudiation of this effort. The complaint against the MTD is it reads as a defence rebuttal rather than a prosecutor’s brief.

[Bob Ness]

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I have to amend my previous speculation as I now understand that the “Obama officials” cited in the NY Times (Feb 14, 2017) represent the Director of National Intelligence Clapper’s office. This would indicate that the Crossfire Razor team was not in fact a part of the analysis or dissemination of the transcripts of the phone calls.

After realizing there was no quid quo pro or deal or negotiation over sanctions - I.e. nothing illegal or inappropriate with the phone calls -  the “7th Floor” of the FBI worked in conjunction with DNI to suggest a Logan Act predicate to DOJ, and then leak partial information to media to create pressure, which could be exploited by securing a “friendly” interview. The Motion To Dismiss is a repudiation of this effort. The complaint against the MTD is it reads as a defence rebuttal rather than a prosecutor’s brief.

And if I'm not mistaken that means an IC leak is what occurred and the FBI reacted to that to delay closing the investigation on either 1001,951 or Logan, or a combination of those, as they had no transcript of the conversations. Check.

What then accounts for Flynn's swearing at least twice under oath, and presumably to his defense counsel in lengthy deliberations and depositions with the DOJ, that he did violate 1001(I think that was the ultimate charge he pled to in this part) and was guilty of those charges?

I hope Sullivan allows Covington's amicus curiae into this mess (if that's what's happening) and we get to see what they say.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I might also add that you're attributing this to the New York Times which is convenient for you when they provide support for you're assertion but you rail against them at any other time. Perhaps the Times was quoting an FBI official on or off record? Either way it isn't a transcription only an informal conversation which doesn't carry much weight in a legal sense. 

I will criticize the NY Times when they publish unsupported assertions (i.e. Russia hacked DNC is “incontrovertible fact”) in their editorial section, but tend to respect their straight reporting - although Judy Miller…

The article in question “Flynn’s Downfall Sprang From ‘Eroding Level of Trust’” (Feb 14, 2017). Keeping in mind that “around the same time” refers to the immediate day(s) following Kisylak-Flynn convo, here is what is said:

-begin quote

Around the same time, Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.

The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

  end quote-

The Obama advisors/officials (the same) are clearly from Clapper’s DNI office, likely Clapper or Litt. Note that it is the officials in DNI who become suspicious of “a secret deal” in context of Logan Act. There is no suggestion that the Kisylak-Flynn conversations have relevance to the FBI’s Crossfire Razor counter-intelligence investigation. The central finding of the Motion To Dismiss is that there was no “articulable” reason to interview Flynn based on the counter-intelligence file, and that no criminal investigation based on Logan Act was ever opened. The Motion says the FBI’s lack of predicate means Flynn’s technical “false statements and omissions” were immaterial.

[Jeff Carter]

14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

And if I'm not mistaken that means an IC leak is what occurred and the FBI reacted to that to delay closing the investigation on either 1001,951 or Logan, or a combination of those, as they had no transcript of the conversations. Check.

The FBI did have the transcripts, according to the DNI office. The FBI was not reacting to a leak, the leaks came later. There was no articulable reason to delay closing the counter-intelligence file based on 1001 or 951, because Flynn had already been entirely cleared. Nothing about the Kisylak convos invoked 1001 or 951.The Logan Act was entirely separate matter. 

The Logan Act was a pretext, not a serious proposition.

 

21 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

What then accounts for Flynn's swearing at least twice under oath, and presumably to his defense counsel in lengthy deliberations and depositions with the DOJ, that he did violate 1001(I think that was the ultimate charge he pled to in this part) and was guilty of those charges?

This was shared on another thread and is entirely relevant to this discussion:

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

The Motion To Dismiss takes pains to note the ongoing discussions re: Flynn between DOJ officials and FBI top guns McCabe and Comey. The discussion is germane because the FBI ultimately defied the articulated requirement that Flynn be informed of the investigation and that an interview be arranged through White House Counsel. Defenders of Flynn's prosecution say that the FBI was ultimately not bound by law to follow these requirements and if his legal rights as a US citizen were effectively trampled on then that's too bad. The Motion To Dismiss is in part a defence of Flynn's rights as a private citizen - which is refreshing. 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI did have the transcripts, according to the DNI office. The FBI was not reacting to a leak, the leaks came later. There was no articulable reason to delay closing the counter-intelligence file based on 1001 or 951, because Flynn had already been entirely cleared. Nothing about the Kisylak convos invoked 1001 or 951.The Logan Act was entirely separate matter. 

The Logan Act was a pretext, not a serious proposition.

 

This was shared on another thread and is entirely relevant to this discussion:

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

The Motion To Dismiss takes pains to note the ongoing discussions re: Flynn between DOJ officials and FBI top guns McCabe and Comey. The discussion is germane because the FBI ultimately defied the articulated requirement that Flynn be informed of the investigation and that an interview be arranged through White House Counsel. Defenders of Flynn's prosecution say that the FBI was ultimately not bound by law to follow these requirements and if his legal rights as a US citizen were effectively trampled on then that's too bad. The Motion To Dismiss is in part a defence of Flynn's rights as a private citizen - which is refreshing. 

That's inaccurate. If Flynn was a private citizen then why would he be represented by WH counsel? I could request that too??? Why should he be warned, which he certainly knew when McCabe told him that they were questioning him about his conversations with Kislyak, that he was being investigated? This may hold a little H2O if Flynn was a little old lady darning sox all day but he was a thirty year veteran of the military and IC who held a TS/TSI security clearance. The FBI has no statutory obligation to inform targets of their plans or deliberations and everything revealed in the motion was known to defense when they pled guilty. You haven't responded to Flynn's allocution btw.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

That's inaccurate. If Flynn was a private citizen then why would he be represented by WH counsel? 

Sorry - rights as US citizen.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Why should he be warned, which he certainly knew when McCabe told him that they were questioning him about his conversations with Kislyak, that he was being investigated? ...The FBI has no statutory obligation to inform targets of their plans or deliberations 

You need to take this up with Sally Yates. It was the position of the DOJ through January 2017. One of the press leaks, which sourced to either FBI or DNI, appeared in Washington Post on Jan 23/17, the day before the Flynn interview. In an article titled "FBI reviewed Flynn's Calls With Russian Ambassador, But Found Nothing Illicit", there is the following false information: “Although Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were listened to, Flynn himself is not the active target of an investigation, U.S. officials said.”  Flynn referred to this article during that conversation with McCabe. This is the type of thing I refer to when suggesting that FBI were not acting in good faith.

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

You haven't responded to Flynn's allocution btw.

 I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Bob Ness]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Sorry - rights as US citizen.

He was a transition official and incoming NSA and therefore not entitled to White House Counsel just because he was a US citizen. He was entitled to his own counsel but declined having any there according to McCabe and Flynn. Flynn has not refuted that and either way could have declined the interview which took place in his office.

 

12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

You need to take this up with Sally Yates. It was the position of the DOJ through January 2017. One of the press leaks, which sourced to either FBI or DNI, appeared in Washington Post on Jan 23/17, the day before the Flynn interview. In an article titled "FBI reviewed Flynn's Calls With Russian Ambassador, But Found Nothing Illicit", there is the following false information: “Although Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were listened to, Flynn himself is not the active target of an investigation, U.S. officials said.”  Flynn referred to this article during that conversation with McCabe. This is the type of thing I refer to when suggesting that FBI were not acting in good faith.

But whether he was a target (which I'm not sure he wasn't) or a subject doesn't weigh in on whether he lied to investigators or not. Investigators can always be accused of not acting "in good faith", especially after deliberations are made public when in most cases they aren't. Flynn to date is getting the benefit of disclosure of the machinations of investigators that no one else would get simply because the Barr DOJ is trying to disassemble the prosecutions associated with his boss IMO. It's a political hack job and obviously so.

24 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

 I'm not sure what you are referring to.

That part of his plea wherein he admitted to the very thing you're saying he didn't do. I posted it for you to respond to.

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Obama advisors/officials (the same) are clearly from Clapper’s DNI office, likely Clapper or Litt. Note that it is the officials in DNI who become suspicious of “a secret deal” in context of Logan Act. There is no suggestion that the Kisylak-Flynn conversations have relevance to the FBI’s Crossfire Razor counter-intelligence investigation. The central finding of the Motion To Dismiss is that there was no “articulable” reason to interview Flynn based on the counter-intelligence file, and that no criminal investigation based on Logan Act was ever opened. The Motion says the FBI’s lack of predicate means Flynn’s technical “false statements and omissions” were immaterial.

I want to remind you that they already threw this against the wall earlier and the judge ruled against them and Neiderhut posted the entire article quoting McCord throwing this claim out the window. You can disagree of course but claiming it's immaterial is easy to dismiss if for no other reason Flynn put himself into a BAD CI situation by misstating his conversations which the Russians knew were untrue. He's not the White House Chef, he has access to the closest held secrets in the government and already had access to most of them I imagine. In case you're not aware: For instance my Uncle was prohibited from traveling outside the US for five years after he retired. He was not that highly placed exactly. This is really really serious stuff.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

I want to remind you that they already threw this against the wall earlier and the judge ruled against them and Neiderhut posted the entire article quoting McCord throwing this claim out the window. You can disagree of course but claiming it's immaterial is easy to dismiss if for no other reason Flynn put himself into a BAD CI situation by misstating his conversations which the Russians knew were untrue. He's not the White House Chef, he has access to the closest held secrets in the government and already had access to most of them I imagine. In case you're not aware: For instance my Uncle was prohibited from traveling outside the US for five years after he retired. He was not that highly placed exactly. This is really really serious stuff.

You are taking the position that the FBI and other players in the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella investigation - i.e. Steele dossier, Halper, Mueller, FISA malfeasance, deliberate leaks to the press, false representations by Schiff, etc - have operated an entirely good faith operation sincerely predicated on national security grounds. You are trying to justify a nasty little perjury trap which has been exposed. 

The dilemma Flynn found himself in - leading to his signing a plea agreement despite his expressed opinion he had done nothing wrong - is well described in the Findlaw link

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

[Bob Ness]

58 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

You are taking the position that the FBI and other players in the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella investigation - i.e. Steele dossier, Halper, Mueller, FISA malfeasance, deliberate leaks to the press, false representations by Schiff, etc - have operated an entirely good faith operation sincerely predicated on national security grounds. You are trying to justify a nasty little perjury trap which has been exposed. 

The dilemma Flynn found himself in - leading to his signing a plea agreement despite his expressed opinion he had done nothing wrong - is well described in the Findlaw link

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

That is your opinion Jeff and you're welcome to have it but I don't agree. I don't think I'm going to go through the scumbag material you're trying to defend such as Trump Tower, Russia collusion, Moscow Real Estate deals, Turkish kidnapping schemes and on and on. You're defending Stone for Christ's sake. No "perjury trap" has been exposed, he lied. That's it.