Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
BTW-- how come the same FBI had decided a mere six months earlier that Mrs. Clinton's mishandling of classified information was not worthy of prosecution because it wasn't a big deal and nobody in the situation is generally prosecuted anyhow? But an innocuous conversation between the incoming NSC director and Russia requires full force investigation and prosecution?

Because Flynn lied to the FBI about it, that's why.

And the facts as it relates to the hypothetical felony charge right-wing partisans thought Clinton deserved life in prison for did not make any sense within the context of the facts of the case.

C'mon. It was politicized against Flynn.

That's not what the facts indicate, at all.

If you analyze your complaints about it, in great detail, your conspiracy theory that you've bought into, that this was some sort of deep-state operation to "get" Flynn just doesn't make any sense.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
That would be a policy issue. It has nothing to do with the FBI.

It's fine for Flynn to have a different opinion.

It's not fine for Flynn to interfere in U.S. foreign policy when he does not yet have the official authority to do so.

It's illegal according to the Logan act.

And because it's illegal it has everything to do with the FBI.

But that's not why Flynn got in trouble.

Flynn got in trouble because he lied about it.

First he lied about it to Trump White House officials, and then he lied about it to the FBI.

It's not that complicated. If you don't want to be charged with lying to the FBI then...drum roll please....don't effing lie to the FBI.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
This isnt Russia. We don't criminalize policy disputes.

It is very much in fact a criminal act to interfere in the foreign policy of the U.S. government.

Obama did not delegate to Flynn the authority to enact foreign policy.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
We don't use the surveillance authority against political opponents because they are political opponents.

The U.S. wasn't spying on Flynn.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak and dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak when dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak and potentially committed a Logan Act violation by interfering in the foreign policy of the Obama Administration, on behalf of the U.S. government, when he did not yet have official authority to do so.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak when dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak and potentially committed a Logan Act violation by interfering in the foreign policy of the Obama Administration, on behalf of the U.S. government, when he did not yet have official authority to do so within the context of a broader investigation into Russia's attack on the U.S. to interfere in our election, and the call concerned a topic of great interest to the Russians, and the topic was also the motivating force behind their attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.

Then dummy Flynn lied about the call to Trump White House officials.

Then dummy Flynn fessed up, and admitted in open court, under oath, before a judge, TWICE, that he lied.

I do not know why why you seek to defend such actions.

U.S. citizens do not have the right to act contrary to the interests of the Republic.

The most extreme example of doing this is treason, and the crime of treason is punishable by death.

It's that simple.

I am not saying that Flynn committed treason. I am saying Flynn did something suspicious which warranted scrutiny. And then when Flynn lied about it he put his own interests above that of the Republic. He became a national security risk.

This isn't a situation where Flynn is minding his own business.

This is a situation where Flynn is interfering in the operations of the Republic.

ALL Flynn had to do was WAIT until he had official authority.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
In response to what Kisylak is asking.

I've read that transcript, I've posted it for you to read...I can say definitively this was not in response to what Kislyak was asking.

At this point it's clear to me you are not well acquainted with the underlying material related to Flynn's case or the transcript itself, the topic of our present discussion.

My recommendation to you is to relieve yourself of this self-imposed ignorance and READ THE TRANSCRIPT

iguanaman · May 30, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
It's fine for Flynn to have a different opinion.

It's not fine for Flynn to interfere in U.S. foreign policy when he does not yet have the official authority to do so.

It's illegal according to the Logan act.

And because it's illegal it has everything to do with the FBI.

But that's not why Flynn got in trouble.

Flynn got in trouble because he lied about it.

First he lied about it to Trump White House officials, and then he lied about it to the FBI.

It's not that complicated. If you don't want to be charged with lying to the FBI then...drum roll please....don't effing lie to the FBI.

And by lying Flynn also acknowledged that he knew what he did was wrong and at the same time he looked like a fool for not knowing that all calls to the Russian ambassador are monitored by our intelligence agencies. I can only come to the conclusion that he decided that Trump would cover for him like he covered for Trump.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Or Pence misunderstood what Flynn told him.

Yes, and the FBI needed to find that out.

Or Pence lied to the media.

Yes, and the FBI needed to find that out too. And eliminate that as a possibility, however unlikely (note: at no point in time do I think the FBI has ever seriously thought Pence was involved in any of this).

Either way, its of no business of the FBI.

That is not true. It was entirely the business of the FBI to find out to what degree Flynn was a national security threat IN LIGHT OF THE NEW EVIDENCE.

They know there was no national security

The moment Flynn lied to Trump White House officials, he became a national security threat

quid pro quos

This is a strawman

or anything criminal in the conversation.

The FBI did not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed to justify the interview.

That's not how investigations work.

If investigations could be predetermined there would never be any investigations of anything, ever.

They were suspicious a crime had been committed and suspicious that there was a national security threat. And they could base these suspicions on an articulable factual basis.

And those suspicions, based on an articulable factual basis, was ALL they needed to justify the interview.

W_Heisenberg · May 30, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Not sure what that is supposed to show.

McCord had good reason to suspect Flynn lied to White House officials.

You should read McCord's interview, it will help you when you write your posts, because, at the very least, you would something to base your assertions on. Right now you just keep asserting, without evidence, the same things over and over again in a very poor attempt to defend your hero, Donald Jenius Trump.

Atomic Kid · May 30, 2020

Fishking said:
You don't get to rewrite what was said. The DOJ didn't pressure Sullivan to do anything. They went to the court to drop charges, which is fully within their rights. Sullivan not only disregarded that right but decided that being a judge wasn't good enough for him, that he wanted to not only be the judge but also the prosecution.

The DOJ only appealed that decision, which is their right. The Appeals Court took it upon themselves to handle it how they wanted to. The DOJ did not dictate anything to them. That you think somehow they made the Appeals Court give that order is ridiculous.

Below is the post by you to which I had responded.

Fishking said:
Nope...the judge is neither being pressured by the DOJ or asking the judge to pardon anyone. The DOJ is dropping the case against Flynn, due to recently discovered evidence. The court really plays no roll in thing beyond dropping the charges. Judges don't have the power to pardon, that belongs in the executive branch.

Below is my response.

Atomic Kid said:
Oh yes he is. The standard response time frame is 30 days, not 10. There is no newly discovered evidence.The DOJ already had everything, or access to, all the documents mentioned in the dismissal motion. Judges don't have the power to pardon and neither does the Attorney General. Whether Flynn gets sentenced or not isn't really an issue. Because no one doubts that Trump will pardon him. But at least Sullivan may force Trump to have to do so.

No rewrite needed. It's clear that the DOJ part of my response was in reference to your claim the DOJ is dropping the case due to recently 'discovered' evidence. Perhaps what is needed is a remedial reading course.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sit...05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

FLYNN: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I understand. Okay, um, okay. Listen, uh, a couple of things. Number one, what I would ask you guys to do - and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? - do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay? Um -

KISLYAK: We have conveyed it. And -

FLYNN: Yeah.

KISLYAK: It's, uh, ifs uh, very very specifically and transparently, openly.

FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they're looking like they're gonna, they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that~ that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not - is - is - if anything - because I know you have to have some sort of action - to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don't - don't make it- don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

KISLYAK: I understand what you're saying~ but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.

FLYNN: I know, I - believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don't want us to get into a situation where we're going, you know~ where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody's got to go back and forth and everybody's got to be the tough guy here, you know?

FLYNN: We don't need to, we don't need that right now, we need to- we need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common uh. threat in the Middle East right now

KISLYAK: We agree.

FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.

KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh~ does it mean that the United States isn't willing to work on terrorist threats?

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.

KISLYAK: Because that's the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.

KISLYAK: So that's something that we have to deal with. But I've heard what you say, and I certainly will try·-

FLYNN: Yeah.

KISLYAK: - to get the people in Moscow to understand it.

FLYNN: Yeah.

FLYNN: And please make sure that its uh - the idea is, be - if you~ if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we'll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we're not going to escalate this thing, where we~ where because if we put out- if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, means we have to get this to a -let's keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we're gonna go, uh~ regarding uh, regarding our relationship. And also, basically, we have to take these, these enemies on that we have. And we definitely have a common enemy. You have a problem with it, we have a problem with it in this country, and we definitely have a problem with it in the Middle East.

FLYNN: And we have to, we have to do something about it. So, um

KISL YAK: General, I completely agree with you.

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah. So anyway. Okay?

KfSLYAK: Thank you.

Yes-- Flynn said don't escalate. It continues to be mysterious why this is construed to be a problem.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
So in the above exchange what Flynn is doing is communicating to Kislyak to not worry about the punishment the Obama administration was inflicting on Russia in response to Russia's attack on the U.S.

Flynn thinks he had a good reason.

But Flynn had no official authority to do so.

Flynn thinks he had a good reason.

But this idea that working with Russia against terrorism is more important than our election security, and the ability for Americans to choose their own officials is FOOLISH. Flynn was stupid. It's not just a matter of interpretation.

He said not to overreact to the sanctions. It continues not to be explained WHY thats such a bad thing.
As far as terrorism vs election security-- that has nothing to do with the FBI. Its a policy decision.
We don't criminalize policy disputes in this country.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
First of all, it wasn't a personal connection. The Clinton Foundation was a charitable organization. Clinton wasn't paid personally.

My own view about the Clinton Foundation is that Clinton should not have done it precisely because it opened Clinton up to accusations or perceptions of corruption.

So when you pose the rhetorical question, "Is it okay for the Sec. of State to have personal connections with Russia, but a problem for an incoming NSC director?" my response is ABSOLUTELY NOT. I agree with you that it's a problem. BUT for the purpose of our discussion, it doesn't matter.

Whatever it is that Clinton did or did not do, has NO bearing on anything Flynn did. Flynn is responsible for his own actions. Clinton is not responsible for Flynn's actions. So talking about Clinton within the context our present discussion is non-sensical.

It bears to the arguments being weighed against Flynn-- connections and the like.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
It is very much in fact a criminal act to interfere in the foreign policy of the U.S. government.

Obama did not delegate to Flynn the authority to enact foreign policy.

Flynn did not engage in foreign policy.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
W_Heisenberg said:

The U.S. wasn't spying on Flynn.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak and dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak when dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak and potentially committed a Logan Act violation by interfering in the foreign policy of the Obama Administration, on behalf of the U.S. government, when he did not yet have official authority to do so.

The U.S. was spying on Kislyak when dummy Flynn spoke with Kislyak and potentially committed a Logan Act violation by interfering in the foreign policy of the Obama Administration, on behalf of the U.S. government, when he did not yet have official authority to do so within the context of a broader investigation into Russia's attack on the U.S. to interfere in our election, and the call concerned a topic of great interest to the Russians, and the topic was also the motivating force behind their attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.

Click to expand...

Well, even Mueller didn't find any justification to charge Flynn with a Logan Act violation.
So that hysteria is over,

We already know that the FBI had concluded that Mr. Flynn was not involved in the conspiracy theory they had.
We already know that Mr. Comey himself said that the transcripts did not show any violation of law or national security threat.
Those are simply the facts.

U.S. citizens do not have the right to act contrary to the interests of the Republic.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that is suppose dto mean.

I am not saying that Flynn committed treason. I am saying Flynn did something suspicious which warranted scrutiny. And then when Flynn lied about it he put his own interests above that of the Republic. He became a national security risk.

Click to expand...

We already have Comey himself saying it wasn't an issue.
And there we are.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

iguanaman said:
And by lying Flynn also acknowledged that he knew what he did was wrong and at the same time he looked like a fool for not knowing that all calls to the Russian ambassador are monitored by our intelligence agencies. I can only come to the conclusion that he decided that Trump would cover for him like he covered for Trump.

Fortunately, we now know there was nothing for either to cover: There was no conspiracy by Trump and/or his campaign to fix the election.
So the theory about "cover" is without factual basis.

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Yes-- Flynn said don't escalate. It continues to be mysterious why this is construed to be a problem.

From a national security perspective, it's a problem because Flynn had not yet been delegated any authority to conduct foreign policy, and he conveyed to Russia that the Trump administration would treat Russia differently than the Obama administration. Flynn's call completely destroyed any effect the sanctions might have had. That was WRONG for him to do,.

He compounded this problem by LYING about his call, first to Trump White House officials, and THEN to the FBI.

That's why it was a problem. The FBI did the right thing. Flynn was not treated unfairly.

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
He said not to overreact to the sanctions. It continues not to be explained WHY thats such a bad thing. As far as terrorism vs election security-- that has nothing to do with the FBI. Its a policy decision.

No. He said not to overreact to the sanctions because it would BOX in the Trump administration and it's goal of developing better relations with Russia to do other things, like fight terrorism. The action of doing so completely negated the effect of the sanctions. Obama was trying to punish the Russian government for interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn's actions negated that punishment.

Now, it's okay if Flynn thought Russia's interference in our elections wasn't a big deal. It would have been okay for Flynn to make public remarks on the subject. In my mind, that makes Flynn sort of disloyal, but it's okay for Flynn to disagree with the actions of the Obama administration. And, yes, it is a policy decision. But Flynn had not yet been delegated any official authority to act on behalf of the country. So his interference in U.S. foreign policy was illegal by telling Kislyak to do certain things was WRONG.

We don't criminalize policy disputes in this country.

1. This wasn't a policy dispute. Flynn acted in a way that was illegal - and at the very least improper -- because he had not yet been given official authority.

2. Flynn, ultimately, was charged and pleaded guilty to lying. And, yes, lying to the FBI is a crime, so tell Flynn not to do it. Flynn screwed over when he lied to the White House about his calls with Kislyak, and Flynn screwed up when he lied to the FBI about his calls with Kislyak.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
From a national security perspective, it's a problem because Flynn had not yet been delegated any authority to conduct foreign policy, and he conveyed to Russia that the Trump administration would treat Russia differently than the Obama administration. Flynn's call completely destroyed any effect the sanctions might have had. That was WRONG for him to do,.

He compounded this problem by LYING about his call, first to Trump White House officials, and THEN to the FBI.

That's why it was a problem. The FBI did the right thing. Flynn was not treated unfairly.

He said for Russia to not overreact. It continues to be mysterious why we would want any American in similar situation to say "Go batsh*t crazy."

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
It bears to the arguments being weighed against Flynn-- connections and the like.

Neither Flynn nor Clinton has the right to be immune from suspicion.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
W_Heisenberg said:

No. He said not to overreact to the sanctions because it would BOX in the Trump administration and it's goal of developing better relations with Russia to do other things, like fight terrorism. The action of doing so completely negated the effect of the sanctions. Obama was trying to punish the Russian government for interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn's actions negated that punishment.

Click to expand...

It negated nothing.

Now, it's okay if you Flynn thought Russia's interference in our elections wasn't a big deal. In my mind, that makes Flynn sort of disloyal, but it's okay for Flynn to disagree with the actions of the Obama administration. And, yes, it is a policy decision. But Flynn had not yet been delegated any official authority to act on behalf of the country. So his interference in U.S. foreign policy was illegal.

Click to expand...

Mr. Obama himself had said that Russia does this sort of stuff every election (BTW-- where was the punishment for such efforts in 2012?).
It only became an crisis because Trump won.

1. This wasn't a policy dispute. Flynn acted in a way that was illegal - and at the very least improper -- because he had not yet been given official authority.

Click to expand...

Well, Mueller dissagreed.

2. Flynn, ultimately, was charged and pleaded guilty to lying. And, yes, lying to the FBI is a crime, so tell Flynn not to do it. Flynn screwed over when he lied to the White House about his calls with Kislyak, and Flynn screwed up when he lied to the FBI about his calls with Kislyak. And Flynn is responsible for his own behavior. The FBI is not responsible for Flynn's behavior. Flynn was treated as fairly as anyone else who lies to the FBI.

Click to expand...

Lying to the FBI is a crime when it relates to a "material" fact. We now that the FBI had concluded Flynn was not a threat and that the FBI did not think the transcript showed anything different. As such, the whatever Flynn told the FBI was not "material" and thus the charges were properly dropped.

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Flynn did not engage in foreign policy.

This is a lie.

Flynn did engage in foreign policy, and he was successful. He told Kislyak to tell the Russian government to not overreact to the sanctions, implying the Trump administration would respond to Russia's interference in our election differently, and then the Russian government took Flynn's advice and followed it, and did nothing in retaliation.

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Neither Flynn nor Clinton has the right to be immune from suspicion.

Yep-- but the FBI didn't drag Clinton through the dirt...

Athanasius68 · May 31, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
This is a lie.

Flynn did engage in foreign policy, and he was successful. He told Kislyak to tell the Russian government to not overreact to the sanctions, implying the Trump administration would respond to Russia's interference in our election differently, and then the Russian government took Flynn's advice and followed it, and did nothing in retaliation.

Now we are trusting upon the good faith of Russia.
Give us a break.

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Well, even Mueller didn't find any justification to charge Flynn with a Logan Act violation.

It's quite simply poorly written law, and if you were to write it properly or if prosecutors construed it in a way that would be constitutional it would still be very difficult to prosecute, but that doesn't really matter. Even in a universe where the Logan Act was not on the books...Flynn still should NOT have done what he did. It was not proper. It was not appropriate. It ran contrary to the way our government operates. It was also contrary to U.S. national interests.

So that hysteria is over

Yes, there was hysteria. Let's examine the hysteria...

Flynn did something improper, possibly criminal. The FBI took note.

Flynn then lied about it. The FBI then decided it was time to interview him.

Flynn lied then lied to the FBI.

And then when Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, under oath, before a judge, in open court, Trump's supporters went apes***.

W_Heisenberg · May 31, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
We already know that the FBI had concluded that Mr. Flynn was not involved in the conspiracy theory they had.

That's correct and it's very common for the FBI and investigators, in general, to re-open old case sand examine old evidence in light of new evidence.

It simply does NOT matter that the FBI had concluded Flynn was not an agent of the Russian government prior to Flynn lying about his call with Kislyak.

We already know that Mr. Comey himself said that the transcripts did not show any violation of law or national security threat.

So, this is a lie.

Those are simply the facts.

Some of them, at least.

I have no idea what that is suppose dto mean.

U.S. citizens do not have the right to act contrary to the interests of the Republic.

So when the FBI notices a U.S. citizen doing something suspicious as it relates to national security and the FBI investigates that person the actions of the FBI in those instances are completely defensible with respect to individual rights of U.S. citizens. I would even go further and say every U.S. citizen has a moral duty, an obligation to refrain from interfering in U.S. national security without respect to potential criminal violations involving the Logan Act.

We already have Comey himself saying it wasn't an issue. And there we are.

That's not an accurate summary of Comey's thoughts on the issue. It's not even close.

You keep repeating propaganda. You are not actually involving yourself in discussing the actual facts.