Michael Flynn expected to plea GUILTY! LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,941
Reaction score
2,056
Points
113
Barr is sleazy like drumpf, brokenbrain. Swamp creatures. You love your swamp creatures. You and CRRRRGGGGGG.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Flynn case gone.
Obama proven to be a fraud and liar. Adam Schiff, Strzoker s brother.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,950
Reaction score
5,320
Points
113
Game.
Set.
Match.
Flynn case gone.
Obama proven to be a fraud and liar. Adam Schiff, Strzoker s brother.

Fylnn case thrown out based on nothing. Brokenbrain likes that he lied to FBI.

Loves lying trump and crooked Barr. Obama not proven or shown to have done anything.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
698
Points
113
Fylnn case thrown out based on nothing. Brokenbrain likes that he lied to FBI.

Loves lying trump and crooked Barr. Obama not proven or shown to have done anything.

Rough week for ya, demtard!
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,272
Reaction score
249
Points
63
Didn't think it was going here, but Obama may want to purchase an estate on Corsica. Uncle Dementia may be ucky that Obama didn't trust him enough to be involved. For ats, Flynn was at least as big a target for Obama as Trump. Obama hated him with a passion over his Islam Terrorism Protection Plan Obama was runnng. Flynn although a lifetime Democrat (he thought he was safe from everyone except Obama) is still more American Patriot than Democrat. Democrat in the terms of JFK.

BTW, if you want a better Minnesota you should draft CRG for governor. He is nlt your typical fool.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113

This is very important and one of the reason I follow Aaron Mate. I don't always agree with his politics but he's a principled progressive, who does not change his belief system based on partisan politics.

The Crowdstrike story has smelled rotten from the get-go. I pointed out back when the story first broke that their report never said anything conclusively. What they said was the DNC "hack" looked similar to other hacks that Russia was alleged to have done. Let that sink in. They weren't even sure the "hacks" they were comparing the DNC server to were committed by the Russians. In the end they claimed to have a "high degree of confidence" that it was the Russians.

I remember at the time saying how irresponsible it was of the Obama Admin to expel their diplomats, confiscate their embassies & enter us into a new Cold War without having verified proof the Russians were behind it.

Of course we later found that Crowdstrike's two main operators Shawn Henry & Steven Chabinsky were former FBI officials promoted by Robert Mueller, who'd served under James Comey & then the red flags really went up.

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Steven Chabinsky:
Security startup CrowdStrike hires one of FBI's top lawyers

FBI Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Service Branch Shawn Henry:
Top FBI cyber cop joins startup CrowdStrike to fight enterprise intrusions
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
There's a nonzero chance Obama gets brought up on bogus charges even before the election.

Fingers crossed. His illegal surveilance of the press, Congress, foreign leaders, every day Americans, and his political rivals, was right out of the Soviet handbook. Absolutely unprecedented criminality. Now the pieces are starting to become evident to the uninformed about his involvement in pushing the Flynn case for political reasons.

The shadow government he set up to undermine our democracy these past four years is nothing short of seditious.

His panic over the Flynn case shows where his mind is at. He should be scared.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
Fingers crossed. His illegal surveilance of the press, Congress, foreign leaders, every day Americans, and his political rivals, was right out of the Soviet handbook. Absolutely unprecedented criminality. Now the pieces are starting to become evident to the uninformed about his involvement in pushing the Flynn case for political reasons.

The shadow government he set up to undermine our democracy these past four years is nothing short of seditious.

His panic over the Flynn case shows where his mind is at. He should be scared.
Just spitballing here, I doubt that Obama was at the head of this scheming, but there is evidence to suggest that he was quite aware of the attempt to get Flynn. I suspect that McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Rice, Powers, and their underlings were doing what they thought was in Obama’s and the Democrats interests, while some others were asleep at the wheel, maybe Lynch.

If you didn’t see Maria Bartiromo this morning, watch it online when it’s available. It summarizes the situation quite well. The House Republicans 2018 report on Russia collusion has proven to be true as other narratives have crumbled (Nunes interview), the attempt to get Flynn started in August of 2016 (Sidney Powell interview), and the link between the Dems and the media in promoting the Dem narratives regarding Flynn and Russia via “leaking” (Trey Gowdy interview).
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Banned
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,190
Reaction score
5,847
Points
113
Go for it Lyin' Bill. Nothing would drive Dem turnout better.
And give ammunition to throw Bill Barr in prison, when Dems take control.

End of the day, Obama free and name cleared, Barr in prison where he belongs. Sounds like a win!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
Just spitballing here, I doubt that Obama was at the head of this scheming, but there is evidence to suggest that he was quite aware of the attempt to get Flynn. I suspect that McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Rice, Powers, and their underlings were doing what they thought was in Obama’s and the Democrats interests, while some others were asleep at the wheel, maybe Lynch.

If you didn’t see Maria Bartiromo this morning, watch it online when it’s available. It summarizes the situation quite well. The House Republicans 2018 report on Russia collusion has proven to be true as other narratives have crumbled (Nunes interview), the attempt to get Flynn started in August of 2016 (Sidney Powell interview), and the link between the Dems and the media in promoting the Dem narratives regarding Flynn and Russia via “leaking” (Trey Gowdy interview).

They all wanted Flynn gone. Obama wanted him gone for his vocal opposition to the Iran deal & Obama's battlefield policies regarding Afghanistan & ISIS. Moreover, he knew Flynn was one of the few people who understood the corruption Obama had installed in the IC & the extent of the illegal spying his admin had committed. McCabe had a revenge motive against Flynn for blowing the whistle in the sexual discrimination lawsuit against McCabe. The entirety of the Obama IC hierarchy wanted Flynn gone because he'd vowed reform the various intel agencies & downsize them.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
698
Points
113
And give ammunition to throw Bill Barr in prison, when Dems take control.

End of the day, Obama free and name cleared, Barr in prison where he belongs. Sounds like a win!

Obama could stab 10 people to death in broad daylight, and they wouldn't air it or hold him accountable.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
32,272
Reaction score
249
Points
63
They all wanted Flynn gone. Obama wanted him gone for his vocal opposition to the Iran deal & Obama's battlefield policies regarding Afghanistan & ISIS. Moreover, he knew Flynn was one of the few people who understood the corruption Obama had installed in the IC & the extent of the illegal spying his admin had committed. McCabe had a revenge motive against Flynn for blowing the whistle in the sexual discrimination lawsuit against McCabe. The entirety of the Obama IC hierarchy wanted Flynn gone because he'd vowed reform the various intel agencies & downsize them.
Much more personal with Obama than just that. Enough so Obama was willing to chance this. He had fully counted on a Hillary win to protect his evil misdeeds. Bill Clinton was much smarter in that way.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113

Nunes, who's been proven right 100% to this point on all things Russiagate, says Congress was briefed on the original FBI 302's of the Flynn interview & that they said he did not lie. Andrew McCabe testified the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn lied. Comey testified that he'd seen the original 302. No fair minded person could believe Flynn lied to the FBI, or that the FBI "lost" the exculpatory Flynn 302 notes. Anyone still pushing that is knowingly & willfully lying.
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
577
Points
113
From Trump’s Instagram account tonight:
D79946DC-6768-45E4-BCC8-5ED276E496B2.jpeg
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
577
Points
113
This should be a great episode Monday at 2:00 pm on AM 1280 or FM 107.5
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.


At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.
The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.
Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.
The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.


Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.


The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.
The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.
In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.


 

OldBob53

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
236
Points
63
Our prisons are full beyond capacity. Let him go I says, he's not a murderer.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
Just spitballing here, I doubt that Obama was at the head of this scheming, but there is evidence to suggest that he was quite aware of the attempt to get Flynn. I suspect that McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Rice, Powers, and their underlings were doing what they thought was in Obama’s and the Democrats interests, while some others were asleep at the wheel, maybe Lynch.

If you didn’t see Maria Bartiromo this morning, watch it online when it’s available. It summarizes the situation quite well. The House Republicans 2018 report on Russia collusion has proven to be true as other narratives have crumbled (Nunes interview), the attempt to get Flynn started in August of 2016 (Sidney Powell interview), and the link between the Dems and the media in promoting the Dem narratives regarding Flynn and Russia via “leaking” (Trey Gowdy interview).

In a RICO case, he'd be equally as guilty as everyone else in the indictment.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.


At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.
The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.
Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.
The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.


Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.


The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.
The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.
In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.



Lawyers gonna lawyer. They're in panic mode now & for good reason. I would have been shocked if Yates & Co DIDN'T try to spin their illegal activities. USAG Jensen says there was no legal predicate to interview Flynn, so he recommended dismissal.

What's really telling about the character & ideology of JTF & Co. is how they're willing to overlook the vast amounts of obvious corruption by law enforcement in this case, in search of a technicality to "get" Flynn on.

The FBI 302 notes from the Flynn interview alone should be the end of this conversation & those notes are just the tip of this corrupt iceberg:

- Where are the original FBI 302 notes that interviewing agent Joe Pientka filed after the Flynn interview? The one that people have testified under oath contained exculpatory evidence for Flynn? We know they exist because James Comey testified that he'd seen them in the file. Andrew McCabe testified the interviewing agents did not believe Flynn had lied to them.

- Why did Peter Strzok, who was not the note taker at the Flynn interview, rewrite Joe Pientka's notes? Especially considering Joe Pientka still worked for the FBI? Moreover, why did he rewrite them so completely that FBI Attorney Lisa Page discussed with him the need to "preserve the original voice" of the actual author Joe Pientka? Doesn't sound like Strzok just corrected a couple typos, does it?

- Why was Lisa Page, a lawyer who wasn't even at the Flynn interview, tasked with writing the final draft of the Sztrok rewrite of Pientka's 302 notes?

- Why, four days after Lisa Page finished rewriting the Flynn interview notes that she did not attend, would Strzok, who also did not write the 302 notes, have to submit them to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for approval before entering them into the case file? It shouldn't matter what those notes say. McCabe was not at the meeting & is not an editor. Q: "Is Andy good with the F 302?" A: "Launch on the F 302".
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.


At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.
The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.
Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.
The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.


Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.


The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.
The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.
In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.


McCord, fellow coup participant, squirming....
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
They all wanted Flynn gone. Obama wanted him gone for his vocal opposition to the Iran deal & Obama's battlefield policies regarding Afghanistan & ISIS. Moreover, he knew Flynn was one of the few people who understood the corruption Obama had installed in the IC & the extent of the illegal spying his admin had committed. McCabe had a revenge motive against Flynn for blowing the whistle in the sexual discrimination lawsuit against McCabe. The entirety of the Obama IC hierarchy wanted Flynn gone because he'd vowed reform the various intel agencies & downsize them.

Flynn's brother....
 
Top Bottom