U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

It doesn't matter what you think of Comey's expertise as it pertains to foreign policy or how foreign policy might intersect with counterintelligence investigations. You are characterizing Comey's comments. For this purpose of this little sub-argument it's not necessary for Comey to be an expert on foreign policy. It has no bearing on how you are, inaccurately, trying to characterize Comey's comments.

Click to expand...

Comey had nothing on General Flynn but certainly wanted something.

In this case, there is enough publicly available information to conclude Obama deliberately stayed away from the investigation and any sort of decision-making process involved with it. I speak, specifically, of Crossfire Hurricane. There were some ancillary decisions Obama had to make in reaction to the information the USIC uncovered, but it's not if, as Trump supporters constantly suggest, that Obama somehow initiated or managed the investigation.

Click to expand...

That's not so. Obama admin discussed how much to share about Russia with incoming Trump team - CNNPolitics

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

Nope. If Flynn is lying about his conversations with Kislyak to Trump's administration he becomes a security risk. Russia's knowledge of the conversation and Flynn's lie about the conversation becomes a form of kompromat.

Click to expand...

If Flynn was ever a risk, or anyone on his campaign, Trump should have been informed.

That is not what the Rice memo states, and we also have publicly available information indicating that is not what Comey or the USIC believed. We also have specific facts in the public domain that indicate precisely what Comey and the USIC had on Flynn at the time, and it was not "nothing" as you allege.

Click to expand...

It was nothing. If you have good reason why Flynn was first questioned by the FBI then let's hear it.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

It doesn't matter what you think of Comey's expertise as it pertains to foreign policy or how foreign policy might intersect with counterintelligence investigations. You are characterizing Comey's comments. For this purpose of this little sub-argument it's not necessary for Comey to be an expert on foreign policy. It has no bearing on how you are, inaccurately, trying to characterize Comey's comments.

Click to expand...

Yes-- I am characterizing Mr. Comey's comments there are no facts to show that Mr. Flynn was breaking the law or was a national security threat as to mean Mr. Comey is saying he has no facts that would show that Mr. Flynn was breaking the law or was a national security threat.
How else ought his words be characterized?

Ug...This is not the purpose of a counterintelligence investigation. The purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is to identify, track, and possibly eliminate intelligence threats posed by foreign governments.

Click to expand...

Yes-- to provide information to the president so he can make informed decisions. if the president thinks it a waste of time to devote resources to investigate Mr. Flynn, he tells Comey to stop.

The FBI accomplishes its mission of hunting spies and preventing espionage through the use of investigation and interaction with local law enforcement and other members of the USIC.

Click to expand...

You are describing violations of law here. The object of counter-intelligence is not to gather evidence to for a prosecution. Its to gather information for the president about threats to the country.

The President delegates nearly all functions of the executive branch to his subordinates, and the various agencies tasked with implementing the duties of the executive branch. And the President is not sitting at his desk approving or disapproving each and every counterintelligence investigation.

Click to expand...

It is difficult to imagine that the president was not aware of a counter-intelligence investigation into Mr. Trump during the campaign.
Its difficult to imagine that Mr. Comey did this on his own initiative.

In this case, there is enough publicly available information to conclude Obama deliberately stayed away from the investigation and any sort of decision-making process involved with it.

Click to expand...

As the memo indicates, Obama asked Comey to let him know if anything changes. Because the decision whether to proceed is the president, not Comey's.

I speak, specifically, of Crossfire Hurricane. There were some ancillary decisions Obama had to make in reaction to the information the USIC uncovered, but it's not if, as Trump supporters constantly suggest, that Obama somehow initiated or managed the investigation.

Click to expand...

We already know from those texts between Page and Strok in the summer of 2016 that the White House wanted to be kept informed as to their activities.
Again, that is to be expected since they were investigating a presidential candidate as being part of a conspiracy with Russia. And it would reasonable that the president know what was going on in such an investigation.
But we also know from the various testimonies, none of the Obama DOJ and DNI guys saw any evidence there was such a conspiracy.
So we go back to what has been asked previously: What did Comey (but not McCabe because he testified he saw no evidence either) and the "White House" know that everyone else didn't know?

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

Nope. If Flynn is lying about his conversations with Kislyak to Trump's administration he becomes a security risk. Russia's knowledge of the conversation and Flynn's lie about the conversation becomes a form of kompromat.

Click to expand...

We have been through this: The FBI knew what was said. Flynn can't be blackmailed if there is no secret.

That is not what the Rice memo states, and we also have publicly available information indicating that is not what Comey or the USIC believed. We also have specific facts in the public domain that indicate precisely what Comey and the USIC had on Flynn at the time, and it was not "nothing" as you allege.

Click to expand...

The issue as is kept being stressed is the allegation that Trump and/or his campaign had conspired with Russia to fix the election. That is what Russia investigation was all about. That is what the the Rice memo is talking about. And what Comey is saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Mr. Flynn is breaking the law by sending Russia classified info and as such CANNOT be considered a security threat.

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

No, what Flynn did was not reasonable. Flynn was conducting U.S. foreign policy on behalf of the U.S. without authorization and on behalf of someone who had yet to hold official government power. Incoming administrations do not get to decide and execute policy until they are official in office.

Let's read specifically what Flynn did, let's read Flynn's guilty plea:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia

Click to expand...

a. On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").

b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.

c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT 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.

e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.

f. On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.

g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.

Click to expand...

All that the above states is that Flynn told Kisylak that Russia should not go apesh*t over the sanctions.
Why would anyone find that to be a problem? It seems quite reasonable and what we would expect any American to say. I mean, what is it -Obama policy that Russia should go apesh*t over it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

The baloney is the claim that Trump and/or his campaign had conspired with Russia to fix the election.
Its no longer subject to reasonable debate. The facts as stated by the Obama DOJ and DNI are that they saw no evidence that this had occurred. The Stone prosecution and now the Flynn information confirm this-- and the stuff from Flynn now show that the Obama folks knew the allegation was baloney. In other words, there was no good faith reason to think it true.

Say whatever you want about Trump policy toward Russia. But don't turn around and say the use of the surveillance power and authority of the USA is acceptable to stop the elected government from pursuing what it believes is correct.
That don't fly in America. Maybe in Russia, but not here. Dont bring it here.

Click to expand...

You've been framing these statements of your own triumph of the will campaign for nearly four years.

Precious few facts are agreed upon while the old fantasy facts keep getting recycled anew for six months or so then new "facts" are always dropped on the table and which while DoA get pushed for another six months or so of it. Then old and newest "facts" are mixed and bled for another six months or so. Rinse and Repeat.

The outstanding fact and the salient reality is that Flynn pleaded guilty and that the major project of Putin Trump & Rowers is to nullify the plea so that justice and the rule of law can be demolished by a thousand cuts to the Constitution on many fronts, Flynn being the neverending one -- until it ends in the triumph of the will.

After all it is clear and unmistakable the Rowers would rather be ruled by Putin's Russia than governed by elected Democrats under the Constitution. Indeed, the worst thing that can happen to the American Armband Right is to be governed by elected Democrats and under the Constitution. Nullifying Flynn's guilty pleas is seen as the strident breakthrough blow to the rule of law and as the Right's greatest success since Trump got elected via the ECV.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

Page 207-211 of the McCabe transcript. They all answer the same way: Nobody saw evidence of Trump or his campaign conspiring with Russia.

Click to expand...

You are confusing a lack of evidence sufficient to prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt with a total absence of any and all evidence.

Those two things are not the same thing.

I don't know if this is a mistake in you being unable to think logically, or if this is an attempt on your part to confuse people.

In any case, you are wrong.

This was the question I asked: "Who among the "Obama" DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?" This is not something McCabe said in his entire transcript. This is not someone anyone associated with the "Obama" DOJ or DNI ever said at any time. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. I took the time to read Page 207 to 211. And McCabe does not say, "Nobody saw evidence of Trump or his campaign conspiring with Russia."

Let's read the pertinent responses from McCabe that you referenced:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/05/am33.pdf

McCabe: Right, have I personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump's involvement in the DNC hack?

Gowdy: Yes.

McCabe: No, sir.

--

Gowdy: Is there any evidence, do you have any evidence that Donald Trump himself participated in the decision to disseminate or the timing of the dissemination of the information gleaned during either of those two criminal acts, the hacking of the server and the hacking of Podesta's email?

McCabe: I personally haven't seen information that would indicate that, that would indicate Donald Trump's personal involvement in those criminal actions.

--

Q: ...were you aware whether the FBI had knowledge that the Trump campaign itself had foreknowledge before these emails were published publicly, that they knew about the existence of these emails?

McCabe: No. I am not. I am not personally aware of whether or not the FBI had information that would indicate that the Trump campaign had foreknowledge. As close as I could get to that, and what I am aware of is the original statement referred to us attributed to Papadopoulos, which was that the Russians suggested that they could help with the anonymous release of information.

Click to expand...

These are very specific questions put to McCabe about very specific aspects of the investigation. They, in no way, indicate that McCabe thought there was no evidence Trump or his campaign was conspiring with Russia.

With respect to this last question, the Special Counsel was able to later connect the dots and prove the Trump's campaign had foreknowledge of when the e-mails would be published publicly.

To reiterate, my question was: "Who among the "Obama" DOJ and DNI have said there was no articulable factual basis to launch Crossfire Hurricane?"

And this is not something McCabe said in his entire transcript.

Athanasius68 said:

Which is an element of the crime.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that Barr doesn't think the FBI erred.

I am arguing that Barr is wrong about his thoughts about the FBI having erred.

Barr is wrong when he suggests that the lie was not material.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

The incoming NSC director talking to the Russian ambassador is not suspicious. He already knew there was no problem on the conversation and as per the Rice memo, he had no evidence of a crime.

Click to expand...

1. Comey thought the calls were suspicious. So with respect to your argument that "Comey is saying that he had no evidence that Mr. Flynn was committing a crime or was a national security threat", you're wrong. So when Comey says he has concerns about the frequency of the calls he is indicating what he considers evidence making him suspicious that Flynn might be a security threat.

2. The calls themselves are suspicious, objectively so, it's not normal for incoming administration officials to call the same foreign official over and over again.

He has no reason to suspect it either.

Click to expand...

This is not true.

Again, I repeat:

Comey also knew at the time that:

1. Flynn was connected to Trump's campaign which had become a target of a Russian intelligence campaign.

2. Flynn himself had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian government:

a) traveling to Russia as recently as December 2015
b) receiving payment from a Russian-funded organization in the amount of $45,000, income which he failed to report to the government in his financial disclosure forms.
c) Flynn also received large payments from the government of Turkey which he failed to report and which the FBI knew about at the time Comey had this discussion with

Yes-- and as the memo says flat out-- he is not sending classified information to Russia. We have been over this. In other words, there is no fact.

Click to expand...

No, this would be definitive evidence that Flynn is a national security threat. The FBI does not need to prove someone is a national security threat before investigating if someone is a national security threat. Otherwise, what is the point of having an investigation!

The things you are writing do not make any logical sense.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

Yes-- the Trump campaign was targeted by Russia. That is different than stating that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

Click to expand...

This is not something I have written, and that's not the reason why I am responding to your posts in this thread.

You and others are trying to say that there was not a reasonable basis to conduct an investigation of the Trump campaign, and no therefore no reasonable basis to prosecute Flynn for lying about things related to Crossfire Hurricane. This is FALSE. The FBI had sufficient reason to conduct the investigation. And because they could not find sufficient evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia that does not mean there was no evidence. The evidence that inspired enough suspicion to motivate the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign does not cease to exist. And if we already knew the outcome of an investigation before an investigation occurred there would never be any reason to conduct any investigation ever for any question law enforcement officials might be trying to answer.

The reason why we know the Trump campaign likely did not conspire with Russia is because there was a thorough investigation of whether or not the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

Lots of people have contacts with state entities connected with the Russian government.

Click to expand...

Look, Flynn was being paid by the Russian government and doing this within the context of working for the Trump campaign WHILE the Russian government was conducting an intelligence operation against the United States to help the Trump campaign and Flynn's conversations with Kislyak dealt with the single most important issue facing the Russian government, sanctions, the primary reason that motivated the Russian government to conduct the intelligence operation against the United States in the first place.

You write, "Well lots of people have contacts with state entities with the Russian government."

It is not a common thing for incoming national security advisors to be paid by the Russian government while the Russian government is conducting an intelligence operation against the U.S. and then to talk to Russia's main foreign policy official with respect to the U.S. about the topic the Russian government is so concerned about causing it to launch an attack on the U.S., to begin with.

The things you are writing do not make any logical sense.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Not to be a spoiler...bbbbuutttt...this is going to be moot in nine days. Sullivan is being called on the carpet to PERSONALLY defend himself for his actions. Clearly the appeals court is pissed off and unless he comes up with persuasive defense most expect he is going to be harshly spanked.

The man needs to get the message and retire.

Athanasius68 said:

Yes-- I am characterizing Mr. Comey's comments there are no facts to show that Mr. Flynn was breaking the law or was a national security threat as to mean Mr. Comey is saying he has no facts that would show that Mr. Flynn was breaking the law or was a national security threat. How else ought his words be characterized?

Click to expand...

That there were not enough facts to reach a definitive conclusion.

Yes-- to provide information to the president so he can make informed decisions. if the president thinks it a waste of time to devote resources to investigate Mr. Flynn, he tells Comey to stop.

Click to expand...

No, to provide information so the President can make an informed decision about what classified information to share with Flynn.

This is separate and distinct issue than whether to investigate Flynn, or what whether to continue to investigate him. You are confused about the context of the conversation, the purpose of it.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

You are describing violations of law here. The object of counter-intelligence is not to gather evidence to for a prosecution. Its to gather information for the president about threats to the country.

Click to expand...

I am describing the FBI's counterintelligence mission, which may or may not also involve criminal actions.

Here is the FBI's counterintelligence mission described by the FBI on the FBI's website:

Counterintelligence — FBI

Inside the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program

The FBI has been responsible for identifying and neutralizing ongoing national security threats from foreign intelligence services since 1917, nine years after the Bureau was created in 1908. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, which is housed within the National Security Branch, has gone through a lot of changes over the years, and throughout the Cold War the division changed its name several times. But foiling and countering the efforts of the Soviet Union and other communist nations remained the primary mission.

While the Counterintelligence Division continues to neutralize national security threats from foreign intelligence services, its modern-day mission is much broader. The FBI is the lead agency for exposing, preventing, and investigating intelligence activities on U.S. soil, and the Counterintelligence Division uses its full suite of investigative and intelligence capabilities to combat counterintelligence threats. While the details of the FBI’s strategy are classified, the overall goals are as follows:

Protect the secrets of the U.S. Intelligence Community, using intelligence to focus investigative efforts, and collaborating with our government partners to reduce the risk of espionage and insider threats.

Protect the nation’s critical assets, like our advanced technologies and sensitive information in the defense, intelligence, economic, financial, public health, and science and technology sectors.

Counter the activities of foreign spies. Through proactive investigations, the Bureau identifies who they are and stops what they’re doing.

Keep weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands, and use intelligence to drive the FBI’s investigative efforts to keep threats from becoming reality.

It is difficult to imagine that the president was not aware of a counter-intelligence investigation into Mr. Trump during the campaign. Its difficult to imagine that Mr. Comey did this on his own initiative.

Click to expand...

I never wrote, nor did I ever argue, that Obama was not aware of the investigation of Trump's campaign.

You are suggesting that Obama somehow instigated or somehow managed the investigation. It is that false assertion of yours that I am contradicting.

As the memo indicates, Obama asked Comey to let him know if anything changes. Because the decision whether to proceed is the president, not Comey's

Click to expand...

Read the memo:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-2e48-d57a-ad7b-7e6f97060000

The conversation was not about whether or not to proceed with investigating Flynn.

The conversation was about whether or not to share classified intelligence with Flynn.

Those are two entirely different things.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

We already know from those texts between Page and Strok in the summer of 2016 that the White House wanted to be kept informed as to their activities.

Click to expand...

This is not the same thing as Obama, himself, instigating, or somehow managing any of the Russia-related investigations. That is what you're arguing, and it's a false assertion.

Again, that is to be expected since they were investigating a presidential candidate as being part of a conspiracy with Russia. And it would reasonable that the president know what was going on in such an investigation.

Click to expand...

This is not an argument I'm making. I am not arguing that Obama would not have been aware of the investigation into Russia or the investigation into Flynn.

But we also know from the various testimonies, none of the Obama DOJ and DNI guys saw any evidence there was such a conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Again, you are making a false assertion.

There is a difference between not having enough evidence to prove a conspiracy, and not having any evidence at all.

You are suggesting, wrongly, that the USIC did not have any evidence at all and therefore the investigations were somehow bogus. This is a false statement.

So we go back to what has been asked previously: What did Comey (but not McCabe because he testified he saw no evidence either) and the "White House" know that everyone else didn't know?

Click to expand...

With respect to Flynn, the thing that compelled the FBI to interview Flynn was that he lied to Pence about his conversation with Kislyak. It was at that point that he became imperative to interview Flynn.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

All that the above states is that Flynn told Kisylak that Russia should not go apesh*t over the sanctions.

Click to expand...

The phrase you are using to describe Flynn's actions, however innocuous it may sound, still represents a U.S. citizen pursuing U.S. foreign policy when he has NO authority to do so.

Why would anyone find that to be a problem? It seems quite reasonable and what we would expect any American to say.

Click to expand...

I mean, what is it -Obama policy that Russia should go apesh*t over it?

Click to expand...

Within the context of Crossfire Hurricane, what the USIC suspected Flynn to have done is to counteract the foreign policy actions of the Obama administration by intimating to the Russian government that the sanctions would later be lifted. So, in doing so, Flynn is going against the stated policy of the incumbent administration. Flynn had no official authority to do anything of the sort.

Within the context of the UN vote on Israeli settlements (which you conveniently chose to ignore in your response), Flynn flat-out told Russia how to vote. Flynn had no official authority to do anything of the sort.

But that's not the only thing that happened. What caused the FBI to interview Flynn was that Flynn lied to Pence about the nature of the call. Flynn told Pence it had NOTHING to do with Sanctions. That was a lie. And when the FBI interviewed, Flynn, he continued to be deceitful, and he continued to lie.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

Comey had nothing on General Flynn but certainly wanted something. That's not so. Obama admin discussed how much to share about Russia with incoming Trump team - CNNPolitics

Click to expand...

There are two separate issues:

1. The investigation of Flynn.

2. Whether or not information should be shared with Flynn.

The fact that Obama asked Comey for advice on whether or not information should be shared with Flynn...DOES NOT indicate that Obama instigated or managed the investigation of Flynn.

They are two separate issues.

Yes, the information acquired from an investigation of Flynn would help Obama make a decision as it pertains to whether or not information should be shared with Flynn, but each thing represents two distinct things.

The fact that Obama asked Comey for advice on whether or not information should be shared with Flynn...DOES NOT indicate that Obama instigated or managed the investigation of Flynn

It's not that complicated, and I know you're trying to conflate the two in an attempt to defend Trump, but it's not going to work, because other people can read what you write and think logically.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

If Flynn was ever a risk, or anyone on his campaign, Trump should have been informed.

Click to expand...

1. Trump was informed that Flynn was a risk.



2. And the whole point of an investigation into Flynn is to find out if Flynn was a security risk.

If the FBI already knew Flynn was a security risk there would be no reason to investigate him. There would be no point in doing so. The whole point of an investigation is to find the truth about something.

It was nothing. If you have good reason why Flynn was first questioned by the FBI then let's hear it.

Click to expand...

I think it's suspicious that Flynn lied to Pence about the nature of his calls with Kislyak. It is suspicious that Flynn told Pence that the calls did not involve a discussion on sanctions, when they did, in fact, involve sanctions. That's strange, especially when Russia is attacking us, trying to interfere in our election, so they can sway the election in Trump's favor, a person they thought would be more likely to be helpful with respect to the sanctions on Russia.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

We have multiple 302's, non-FBI agent editing them, misstatements as to who wrote what... And we are supposed to accept their word as to what Flynn said? C'mon.

Click to expand...

That's for the jury to decide.

And Flynn made the whole process easier for everyone by simply admitting he lied instead of putting everyone through the aggravation of a trial. Flynn did this because he knew he would lose.

And Barr, instead of contradicting Flynn or the prosecution, did not argue that Flynn did not lie in the motion to dismiss. Instead, Barr argued that Flynn's lie was not material.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

There was no there there. The Rice memo confirms this. Basically what is being said here is the FBI can ask a person questions for no particular reason, and if the answer can be shown to be incorrect, hit that person with charges. Its nonsense.

Click to expand...

It does not confirm it. You are mistaken. You are not thinking logically.

Why do you think that because Comey did not list all the evidence he had when Obama asked for his recommendation on whether or not to share information with Flynn that means that the FBI had zero evidence?

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:

So Comey sent two FBI Agents to interview General Flynn for no known reason? Perhaps that's why Agent Priestap asked "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Seems they had no idea why they were interviewing Flynn, they felt he was telling the truth, and you don't seem to know either. Who would know then? Has all this order been worthwhile, even if it was 'legal'?

Click to expand...

The FBI interviewed Flynn AFTER Flynn lied to Pence about talking to Kislyak about sanctions. That was very suspicious.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:

The reason why Flynn matters is because the government had no evidence that Flynn had been part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election

Click to expand...

This is a false statement.

The government had some evidence of a conspiracy.

The government did not have sufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

You and others in this thread are arguing that the government should not have investigated the Trump campaign, Trump, or Trump associates because the government could not prove a conspiracy beforehand. But that's not the point of an investigation. The reason why investigations are conducted is to answer some question that is unknown. If the outcome of an investigation could be predetermined there would never be any reason to conduct an investigation into any matter.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

maxparrish said:

Not to be a spoiler...bbbbuutttt...this is going to be moot in nine days. Sullivan is being called on the carpet to PERSONALLY defend himself for his actions. Clearly the appeals court is pissed off and unless he comes up with persuasive defense most expect he is going to be harshly spanked.

The man needs to get the message and retire.

Click to expand...

Judge Sullivan needs to provide the appeals court with his own brief of the DoJ motion to dismiss, plus the how, what, why actions he has taken concerning the extraordinary (and bizarre) DoJ motion.

Fact is the appellate court has to accept a filing, which Flynn's RW lawyers have done, and the appellate court needs to order up a response filing, in this case by the judge. Anyone who might think the appellate court has rolled out the yardarm is engaging in accusatory hype against Sullivan and the appellate court besides.

In the whole of it Sullivan is acting on the DoJ extraordinary actions within his authority as a judge. Flynn's lawyers are trying instead to be defendant, judge and jury (although as we know there isn't a jury in this bench trial). Sullivan is throughout applying his discretionary authority, jurisdiction and options as a judge in an exceptional case, ie, to determine if the DoJ filing is political which is what the judge suspects is. There is no legal question before the appellate court which means Sullivan is not offering a defense. Sullivan is responding to the filing by Flynn's RW lawyers that the judge needs to be on trial instead of the defendant.

This is consistent with RBG and the Scotus opinion that lawyers need to lawyer and judges need to be judges. The computer selected three appellate judges are two Republican appointed and one Democrat. These judges know Sullivan well and the appellate judges know the DoJ well, ie, the appeals court knows it was Sullivan who dismissed the conviction of former Sen. Ted Stevens and that the then AG Eric Holder filed the motion to dismiss the whole of the Stevens fiasco, which is what occurred. Flynn and Barr are neither Stevens nor Holder however. Nor is Trump Obama eh.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

There are two separate issues:

1. The investigation of Flynn.

2. Whether or not information should be shared with Flynn.

The fact that Obama asked Comey for advice on whether or not information should be shared with Flynn...DOES NOT indicate that Obama instigated or managed the investigation of Flynn.

They are two separate issues.

Yes, the information acquired from an investigation of Flynn would help Obama make a decision as it pertains to whether or not information should be shared with Flynn, but each thing represents two distinct things.

The fact that Obama asked Comey for advice on whether or not information should be shared with Flynn...DOES NOT indicate that Obama instigated or managed the investigation of Flynn

It's not that complicated, and I know you're trying to conflate the two in an attempt to defend Trump, but it's not going to work, because other people can read what you write and think logically.

Click to expand...

You didn't appear to read even the first paragraph of the link.

It says "President Barack Obama met in January 2017 with then-FBI Director James Comey and other top national security officials to discuss sharing information related to Russia with the incoming Trump administration, where Obama stated that the Trump-Russia investigation should be handled "by the book," according to an email made public Monday and a source familiar with the matter".

You repeat that it was not sharing information with Flynn, which is ridiculous in itself, but with "the incoming Trump Administration". How can any outgoing Administration keep secrets from an incoming President and his people? You genuinely don't see how dangerous this is and what a precedent this would set?

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:

This is a false statement.

The government had some evidence of a conspiracy.

The government did not have sufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

You and others in this thread are arguing that the government should not have investigated the Trump campaign, Trump, or Trump associates because the government could not prove a conspiracy beforehand. But that's not the point of an investigation. The reason why investigations are conducted is to answer some question that is unknown. If the outcome of an investigation could be predetermined there would never be any reason to conduct an investigation into any matter.

Click to expand...

The government has some evidence of a conspiracy?? Where? And if they don't have evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' then they should just wait until they do have some evidence, and then they can take it to the new President.

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Tangmo said:

Judge Sullivan needs to provide the appeals court with his own brief of the DoJ motion to dismiss, plus the how, what, why actions he has taken concerning the extraordinary (and bizarre) DoJ motion.

Fact is the appellate court has to accept a filing, which Flynn's RW lawyers have done, and the appellate court needs to order up a response filing, in this case by the judge. Anyone who might think the appellate court has rolled out the yardarm is engaging in accusatory hype against Sullivan and the appellate court besides.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are engaging in denial and wishful thinking about the Force 5 storm looming, but if Sullivan does not get blown out the courtroom doors he will be very fortunate.

All the signs are there for those who understand how the winds of law are blowing. They are:

A writ of mandamus is very uncommon, even rare, and most don't have a chance. Most are dismissed outright, but the wording of the order for Sullivan to respond directly to the writ shows the court is deeply troubled.

And usually, when writ is not dismissed outright, the appellate court (Rule 21 (b)(4)) might invite the trial court judge or an amicus curiae to address the writ for him. It does not have to order the judge to respond. YET, they did.

And even if the appellate court orders the trial court judge to respond, it could avoid requiring the judge to personally defend the action under challenge by simply appointing a lawyer as amicus curiae to defend the judge's actions. They didn't. They didn't give him that courtesy or option. Why? Because they aren't interested in hearing an Amicus's legal arguments showing why the DOJ's motion should not be granted. Rather, they are interested in hearing directly, from the judge, why the hell he refused to grant the dismissal.

And, by the way, in Fokker at least they allowed the judge to have an amicus to do it for him.

Nope, the DC Circuit is thus making Judge Sullivan--a lifetime federal judge--publicly and directly explain his refusal to grant, personally to them in his own written brief. (Adding salt to the wound by also inviting the DOJ to add his own views of Sullivan's actions).

In short, of all the options available to the DC Circuit for ruling on the writ, the DC Circuit, chose the most extreme, rare, impolite and drastic of them.

They are pissed off. Sullivan better have a hell of a reason or his going to walk out humiliated.

In the whole of it Sullivan is acting on the DoJ extraordinary actions within his authority as a judge. Flynn's lawyers are trying instead to be defendant, judge and jury (although as we know there isn't a jury in this bench trial). Sullivan is throughout applying his discretionary authority, jurisdiction and options as a judge in an exceptional case, ie, to determine if the DoJ filing is political which is what the judge suspects is. There is no legal question before the appellate court which means Sullivan is not offering a defense. Sullivan is responding to the filing by Flynn's RW lawyers that the judge needs to be on trial instead of the defendant.

Click to expand...

Apparently he is on trial - all three are not happy and won't accept your narrative as sufficient. They aren't interested in hearing what he "could do" as judge, they want to know WHY he didn't do what he should have done.

In short, he's in trouble.