Merged: Justice Deparment Drops Case Against M. Flynn

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

He didn't plead guilty to talking to the Russian Ambassador.

He plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his foreign connections, including the discussion with said Russian Ambassador.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

He plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his foreign connections, including the discussion with said Russian Ambassador.

Which happened after the FBI decided to interview him. So they could not have been trying to investigate that crime when they decided to interview him.

Do you see how causality works?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which happened after the FBI decided to interview him. So they could not have been trying to investigate that crime when they decided to interview him.

Do you see how causality works?

are you arguing from a legal, moral or counter-intelligence perspective?

because you are setting up the strawman that the FBI was after Flynn and not foreign agents in contact with him.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

are you arguing from a legal, moral or counter-intelligence perspective?

because you are setting up the strawman that the FBI was after Flynn and not foreign agents in contact with him.

Like I said, they already had the transcript, there was nothing Flynn could tell them about his conversation with the ambassador that they didn't already know. And it's not a straw man that they were after Flynn, they basically said they were.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's because they are targeted for crimes.

Can you point to anything in the Martha Stewart case that shows she got a lesser sentence, or that the court even considered a lesser sentence, because of the lack of underlying crimes?

Quote:

Why was Flynn targeted? His phone call with the Russian ambassador, the subject of the interview, wasn't criminal, and the FBI knew it wasn't when they interviewed him. In fact, the interview served no legitimate purpose at all. They had the transcript already, there was no actual information they needed from Flynn.

Let's assume that there was no Logan act issue with the call. Are you forgetting that Flynn was being investigated as part of a counter intelligence operation? "Wasn't criminal" doesn't mean "wasn't justifed." They needed his accounting to resolve the potential security threat arising from his lying to Pence.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which happened after the FBI decided to interview him. So they could not have been trying to investigate that crime when they decided to interview him.

Do you see how causality works?

Flynn was interviewed several times, including in January 2017. That particular discussion happened on or around December 29, 2016.

I'd have to double check my calendar, but I'm pretty sure January 2017 came after December 2016. Let me know what your calendar says.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And it's not a straw man that they were after Flynn, they basically said they were.

Except that they didn't. You are stretching one comment on one page of hand-written notes with very little context a long way to match your preferred theory.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Beeyon

Can you point to anything in the Martha Stewart case that shows she got a lesser sentence, or that the court even considered a lesser sentence, because of the lack of underlying crimes?

She was suspected of an underlying crime (insider trading). Flynn wasn't. Get the difference? And I've got no idea what the judge considered in making their sentencing decision.

And BTW, that prosecution was a farce too.

Quote:

Let's assume that there was no Logan act issue with the call.

Let's not. Let's actually argue that out, if you think the Logan act might apply.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Flynn was interviewed several times, including in January 2017. That particular discussion happened on or around December 29, 2016.

I'd have to double check my calendar, but I'm pretty sure January 2017 came after December 2016. Let me know what your calendar says.

It doesn't matter what the date was, absent time travel, you cannot decide to interview someone because they lied in the interview that you are deciding to have. You have to decide to do the interview first, so any crime that happens in the interview has to happen after the decision to interview.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

She was suspected of an underlying crime (insider trading). Flynn wasn't. Get the difference? And I've got no idea what the judge considered in making their sentencing decision.

Flynn was an undisclosed foreign agent (crime) and potentially compromised (security threat).

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It doesn't matter what the date was, absent time travel, you cannot decide to interview someone because they lied in the interview that you are deciding to have.

They decided to interview him for other reasons. But he subsequently did lie to the FBI about that conversation.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have to decide to do the interview first, so any crime that happens in the interview has to happen after the decision to interview.

Are you under the impression that the FBI can only interview someone for one reason at a time and that subsequent broken laws must be ignored?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Flynn was an undisclosed foreign agent (crime)

The term is "unregistered foreign agent", and that had no role in their decision to interview him.

Quote:

and potentially compromised (security threat).

Everyone is "potentially compromised". The FBI had investigated already, and had found no evidence to support that conclusion. Which is why they were going to close the investigation, until Comey stepped in.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The term is "unregistered foreign agent", and that had no role in their decision to interview him.

Do you really want to contend that the FBI didn't want to talk to Flynn about his contacts with hostile foreign nations?

You have got to get your head out of those conspiracy theory websites.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Like I said, they already had the transcript, there was nothing Flynn could tell them about his conversation with the ambassador that they didn't already know. And it's not a straw man that they were after Flynn, they basically said they were.

We out here in the peanut gallery don't have the full picture. Flynn must have known he was dead to rights guilty of something for him *and his legal team* to have pled down to a criminal charge. Let's not leave out of the picture what his lawyers will have known in order to follow this path.

Their current course is based purely on the signals Trumpco have been sending. Without that, Flynn would have quietly taken his lumps.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Like I said, they already had the transcript, there was nothing Flynn could tell them about his conversation with the ambassador that they didn't already know.

Except they didn't know if that was everything, who knew about the meeting, and who had directed Flynn to have it. Those were things they didn't already know, or know for sure.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Lurch

We out here in the peanut gallery don't have the full picture. Flynn must have known he was dead to rights guilty of something for him *and his legal team* to have pled down to a criminal charge. Let's not leave out of the picture what his lawyers will have known in order to follow this path.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the conflict of interest that his previous counsel had. That's understandable, it hasn't gotten a lot of press coverage, and Flynn himself probably didn't appreciate it at the time either.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

She was suspected of an underlying crime (insider trading). Flynn wasn't. Get the difference?

She was incorrectly suspected of an underlying crime, similar to how Flynn behavior raised red flags in terms of national security. Are you really willing say that lying to the VP about a call with a foreign official isn't a cause for investigation?

Quote:

Let's not. Let's actually argue that out, if you think the Logan act might apply.

Why didn't you address the core of the post? It addresses a crux of your argument.

Originally Posted by Beeyon

Are you forgetting that Flynn was being investigated as part of a counter intelligence operation? "Wasn't criminal" doesn't mean "wasn't justifed." They needed his accounting to resolve the potential security threat arising from his lying to Pence.

Lest you accuse me of an analogous cowardice, I think there's insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion as an outsider re: the Logan act issue.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Perhaps you aren't aware of the conflict of interest that his previous counsel had.

That reads like the author didn't actually hear/read Flynn's trial where he plead guilty.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Beeyon

Why didn't you address the core of the post?

Because I've already addressed it elsewhere.

Quote:

Lest you accuse me of an analogous cowardice, I think there's insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion as an outsider re: the Logan act issue.

That's where you're wrong. The Logan Act is an easy call. Nobody in the entire history of the US has ever been convicted of it. Its original purpose is now completely outdated. Any attempt to apply it to this case or similar ones would be flagrantly unconstitutional violations of the 1st amendment. And applying it to Flynn and not to, say, John Kerry would be transparently political.

The Logan Act is merely a pretense. There was never any possibility that Flynn would be prosecuted under it.

[Beeyon]

Alvarez v. City of Brownsville is an interesting case.

Some kid was arrested, and while the offers were moving him around he attacked an officer. Except that the period where they were moving him around was recorded, and conclusively shows that the officers had made up the attack. The state didn't provide this video, and when it came out the kid was released, because, well, he hadn't committed the crime.

In the ensuing lawsuit, the Trump administration (late 2017) filed an amicus brief arguing that the kid had no right to the video.

Barr could implement a federal policy at DOJ of providing Brady material prior to plea bargains if he wanted. Instead he is spending time intervening in a case involving the president's political associates.

I don't see how anyone could believe his is actually interested in the "injustice" of the Flynn case when he hasn't lifted a finger for this gaping wound in the justice system.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because I've already addressed it elsewhere.

Post #?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Beeyon

Alvarez v. City of Brownsville is an interesting case.

True enough. And it's a good demonstration of why people could plead guilty despite being innocent, and why it's hard to fight a prosecutor when it's only your word against the cops without any recording. Recall that there is no recording of what Flynn actually said to the FBI. In fact, there isn't even the original 302's, only revised versions.

Quote:

I don't see how anyone could believe his is actually interested in the "injustice" of the Flynn case when he hasn't lifted a finger for this gaping wound in the justice system.

What Barr is or is not interested in doesn't really address the merits of Flynn's defense.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What Barr is or is not interested in doesn't really address the merits of Flynn's defense.

What defense? Flynn doesn't have a defense. He plead guilty under oath in a court of law. The only reason there is anything to discuss is because Barr is directing the DOJ to drop the case despite already having a conviction.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What defense? Flynn doesn't have a defense. He plead guilty under oath in a court of law. The only reason there is anything to discuss is because Barr is directing the DOJ to drop the case despite already having a conviction.

That's not true either. Flynn has been trying to withdraw his plea for some time now. And he has good reason to, because his prior counsel was conflicted and the prosecution acted unethically. There have also been multiple new pieces of information recently about how the investigation of Flynn proceeded. These would all be worth talking about even absent the DOJ motion to dismiss.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's not true either. Flynn has been trying to withdraw his plea for some time now. And he has good reason to, because his prior counsel was conflicted and the prosecution acted unethically.

*sigh* No, he doesn't and no they didn't. This just more deep state CT nonsense taking details of how the justice system normally works and blowing them up out of context to fit the conspiracy de jour.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There have also been multiple new pieces of information recently about how the investigation of Flynn proceeded. These would all be worth talking about even absent the DOJ motion to dismiss.

We can talk about it, if you like, but none of it was out of the ordinary, with the exception of the recent Trump/Barr intervention.

ETA: Flynn's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea isn't even because he's saying he is now innocent.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What Barr is or is not interested in doesn't really address the merits of Flynn's defense.

No, but it may have an impact on how Sullivan reacts to the motion to dismiss.

---

Off the dying thread here, but do we have any conclusive evidence that the Jensen disclosures were not provided to the judge during the in camera reviews? I haven't seen anything that indicated either way.

Edit: to be clear, I'm referencing the recent disclosures based on the USA EDMO Jeffery Jensen review. Prior to the results of that review, the government provided a bunch of material for the judge to personally review in response to Flynn's request to additional material under Brady. The judge decided that none of the additional stuff was Brady material. If the Jensen disclosures were part of the material provided to the judge, it'd be a bit silly to say any Brady material was withheld.



P.S. lack of post # noted.

[tyr_13]

Flynn's criminal lying about his being a twice over agent of foreign governments created a national security threat. His lying to the FBI while they were investigating another national security threat about conversations he had with Russia created another national security threat in and of itself because Russia knew he lied. In the notes of the interview, they even quoted what he said to the Russian ambassador asking if he had said that, and he was dumb enough to still deny the conversation. And the entire point of the conversation was to ensure the Russians knew that their attack on our elections wouldn't be punished for long.

The GOP cares nothing for justice, protecting the US, punishing Russia, or even basic rule of law. They simply want power and they don't care how they get it, or how it is used once they have it. None of the arguments they put forward defending it have been consistent with their stances in other cases, or their claimed ideology. It's all bad faith, and it's pathetically transparent.

You have to remember that when engaging them. They're not being honest and will not be shamed to it. They want their lying, traitorous, morons to escape justice and they don't much care how.

Every time I think I can't be more disgusted by them, they sink further.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Flynn's criminal lying about his being a twice over agent of foreign governments created a national security threat.

Oh please. It wasn't a national security threat. Moreover, it's never been established that it was criminal lying. Flynn's position is that the FARA disclosure errors were inadvertent, and the government has never proven otherwise or even presented evidence to that effect. This is at the heart of the conflict of interest with his previous counsel.

Quote:

His lying to the FBI while they were investigating another national security threat about conversations he had with Russia created another national security threat in and of itself because Russia knew he lied.

His phone call wasn't a national security threat.

Quote:

In the notes of the interview, they even quoted what he said to the Russian ambassador asking if he had said that, and he was dumb enough to still deny the conversation.

Show me the interview transcript.

Quote:

And the entire point of the conversation was to ensure the Russians knew that their attack on our elections wouldn't be punished for long.

Now you're just making **** up.

Quote:

The GOP

... isn't the subject of this thread.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh please. It wasn't a national security threat.

Ziggurat here tries to defend his position not with support, but by pretending to be ignorant. Klynn's being paid by foreign powers and hiding it is, obviously, as evidenced by his policy changes on Erdewan of Turkey and the simple fact that they had the leverage of outing him. This is basic, and Ziggurat pretending not to know it is dishonest.

Quote:

Moreover, it's never been established that it was criminal lying. Flynn's position is that the FARA disclosure errors were inadvertent, and the government has never proven otherwise or even presented evidence to that effect. This is at the heart of the conflict of interest with his previous counsel.

Ziggurat knows that the government didn't do that because he plead guilty and promised to cooperate with the government. In his guilty plea Flynn admits to lying about exactly this. He admits to lying by falsely stating that (a) FIG did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, (b) the Turkey project was focused on improving U.S. business organizations' confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and (c) an op-ed by Flynn published in The Hill on Novermber 8, 2016 was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project.

But Ziggurat knew this already and just doesn't care about the harm to the US this caused and could have caused if Flynn had not been caught.

Quote:

His phone call wasn't a national security threat.

This is an especially dishonest argument from Ziggurat. The national security threat being investigated was Russia's attack on the US (which he doesn't care about), but not only did he pretend here that the phone call was what was being argued to be the threat under investigation when the call was found, he phrased it in a way where he can later claim he wasn't talking about that! And a way in which even if corned on the fact that the lying about the call created a national security threat, that he can claim 'Woe and bother! I never claimed it wasn't! I said the call wasn't!'

Edited by Agatha:

edited to remove breach of rule 12

but you'll see other Trump GOP tribals use the same technique of purposefully communicating badly, or other grievance claims, and keep shifting the focus to those. It gives the impression of a robust defense and an actual point of contention, when in reality it doesn't support their arguments. They don't care though, because it's about making lurkers and common people throw up their hands and say, 'Well, I guess all sides have a point and all sides suck just as bad!'

Note that he didn't even argue against the leverage lying about the call gave to Russia being a national security threat. It's too obviously true, so if he doesn't mention it people might lose it in the rest of the smoke screen.

Quote:

Show me the interview transcript.

This is essentially the same trick as above. I said 'notes', but he's decided to say 'transcript' because then when I supply the notes, he can claim he wanted the transcript.

Too bad. For those curious, they have already been linked to in an earlier article posted here. Here is a more direct link.

Quote:

Now you're just making **** up.

This again is shown in the guilty plea documents, which Ziggurat wants us all to believe he's ignorant of, or that they don't say that, to extend the argument longer. Again, this is to give the appearance of a robust defense when it is of zero value. *

Quote:

... isn't the subject of this thread.

I think everyone can see this handwave for what it is.

On evidence, reasoning, and facts, others in the thread have been doing a great job of putting up information that disproves the nonsense. However, I wanted to remind people what the Trump GOP are actually doing doesn't care, nor need, any of that. They're playing the reef. It's narrative building, and they just don't care about anything else but power.

Remember that we can't just counter their lies, but their tactics.

*EDIT: To be more clear, this tactic is making noise that just extends the argument, hoping to exhaust people's attention, and hope the truth can't shine under all the ********, that they also hope people think is coming from all sides and not just them.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh please. It wasn't a national security threat.

Congratulations. You now have the same moral high ground as a Clinton-Email-Server apologist.

Sure, it's no big deal for you to lie to your boss about a conversation with a competitor. Just like maybe it's not a crime for you to email yourself work files to your personal address. The standards of normal life do not apply to the sphere of national security. The National Security Advisor lying to the Vice President about a conversation with a Russian official is a security issue whether or not it makes sense to you personally.

[The Great Zaganza]

Flynn's defenders equate legallity and national security concerns about Flynn.
But they are quite distinct.
The FBI wasn't very much worried about Flynn's foreign contacts, but by the fact that he tried to hide them from US law enforcement.
There would have been no issue if he had be open and honest.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Short Lawfare article about the lack of merit in the DoJ's position

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, I'm not. What's the supposedly controversial topic? Sanctions. Obama imposed some on Russia, Flynn didn't want Russia to retaliate. Guess what? That's in America's interests. It benefits us if Russia doesn't retaliate.



Democrats do that **** all the time, whether I like it or not. And that's even when they aren't in office and haven't won an elections. If Biden wins the election, then I fully expect him or his team to be in contact with the Chinese in December/January to talk about trade. If you think he will hold off on even any discussions until after inauguration, you're not only naive, you're impractical. Why wouldn't you start to talk before inauguration so that you can hit the ground running?

Flynn had no position in the administration at the time of those discussions.
Therefore he was not authorized by the federal government to make US government commitments to Russia. And he knew this. And he lied about it.
And pled guilty to lying about it.

There is a huge difference between discussions and making deals.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's because they are targeted for crimes. Why was Flynn targeted? His phone call with the Russian ambassador, the subject of the interview, wasn't criminal, and the FBI knew it wasn't when they interviewed him. In fact, the interview served no legitimate purpose at all. They had the transcript already, there was no actual information they needed from Flynn.

If the contents of that phone call included deal making or commitments, then it was criminal.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

He didn't plead guilty to talking to the Russian Ambassador.

He pled guilty to lying to investigators about it.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which happened after the FBI decided to interview him. So they could not have been trying to investigate that crime when they decided to interview him.

Do you see how causality works?

Flynn was questioned regarding collusion with the Putinistas. And he lied about it. And he pled guilty to lying about it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Ziggurat here tries to defend his position not with support, but by pretending to be ignorant. Klynn's being paid by foreign powers and hiding it is, obviously, as evidenced by his policy changes on Erdewan of Turkey and the simple fact that they had the leverage of outing him. This is basic, and Ziggurat pretending not to know it is dishonest.



Ziggurat knows that the government didn't do that because he plead guilty and promised to cooperate with the government. In his guilty plea Flynn admits to lying about exactly this. He admits to lying by falsely stating that (a) FIG did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, (b) the Turkey project was focused on improving U.S. business organizations' confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and (c) an op-ed by Flynn published in The Hill on Novermber 8, 2016 was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project.

But Ziggurat knew this already and just doesn't care about the harm to the US this caused and could have caused if Flynn had not been caught.





This is an especially dishonest argument from Ziggurat. The national security threat being investigated was Russia's attack on the US (which he doesn't care about), but not only did he pretend here that the phone call was what was being argued to be the threat under investigation when the call was found, he phrased it in a way where he can later claim he wasn't talking about that! And a way in which even if corned on the fact that the lying about the call created a national security threat, that he can claim 'Woe and bother! I never claimed it wasn't! I said the call wasn't!'

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for breach of rule 12

, but you'll see other Trump GOP tribals use the same technique of purposefully communicating badly, or other grievance claims, and keep shifting the focus to those. It gives the impression of a robust defense and an actual point of contention, when in reality it doesn't support their arguments. They don't care though, because it's about making lurkers and common people throw up their hands and say, 'Well, I guess all sides have a point and all sides suck just as bad!'

Note that he didn't even argue against the leverage lying about the call gave to Russia being a national security threat. It's too obviously true, so if he doesn't mention it people might lose it in the rest of the smoke screen.





This is essentially the same trick as above. I said 'notes', but he's decided to say 'transcript' because then when I supply the notes, he can claim he wanted the transcript.

Too bad. For those curious, they have already been linked to in an earlier article posted here. Here is a more direct link.





This again is shown in the guilty plea documents, which Ziggurat wants us all to believe he's ignorant of, or that they don't say that, to extend the argument longer. Again, this is to give the appearance of a robust defense when it is of zero value. *




I think everyone can see this handwave for what it is.

On evidence, reasoning, and facts, others in the thread have been doing a great job of putting up information that disproves the nonsense. However, I wanted to remind people what the Trump GOP are actually doing doesn't care, nor need, any of that. They're playing the reef. It's narrative building, and they just don't care about anything else but power.

Remember that we can't just counter their lies, but their tactics.

*EDIT: To be more clear, this tactic is making noise that just extends the argument, hoping to exhaust people's attention, and hope the truth can't shine under all the ********, that they also hope people think is coming from all sides and not just them.

Zig is following party line. We should thank him for presenting it.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by fishbob

If the contents of that phone call included deal making or commitments, then it was criminal.

It would be interesting if this was enforced. If I read this correctly, anybody who advised or attempted to influence any government or foreign official in opposition to Trump would be guilty under this act? You absolutely don't have to imply you are acting on behalf of the US government.

I wonder if Michael Moore's Tweet to Iran isn't edging a little close. I bet there are a lot of Tweets from celebrities that would fall foul of the letter of it.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Flynn had no position in the administration at the time of those discussions.
Therefore he was not authorized by the federal government to make US government commitments to Russia. And he knew this. And he lied about it.
And pled guilty to lying about it.

There is a huge difference between discussions and making deals.

Indeed. The notion that it's just dandy for the incoming Admin to conduct discussions with a foreign Power that are at odds with the policies of the current Admin is just freaking insane.

If for no other reason than that it signals a lack of coherence, a goddamned dangerous state of affairs to communicate to even an ally, let alone an adversary. But it's worse than that, for it gives away real leverage that imperils national security.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Flynn's lawyers have filed a petition with the Appeals Court to have Sullivan removed from the case, and to allow the DoJ to drop the charges