January 302

Quote:

---

You are arguing what the law should be. Not what it is. He either intentionally or negligently mislead the public on the meaning of the word material. Flynn's lie was material. There is no question about that under current law.

---

You mean the Logan Act? LOL? That is the only "color of law" here even justifying the criminal underpinnings of legitimately questioning Flynn under the circumstances back then. And that was a load of crap.


Let's go back and discuss the setting. There is a news article that publishes the illegal leak of Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. That should have been the crime the FBI was on like a duck on a june bug but no, they that used that leak (probably McCabe or his minions) as a pretext to interview Flynn. (McCabe hates Flynn because of the Robin Gritz matter.)

If they chose to ask Flynn if he had leaked the existence/contents of the conversation, that would have been arguably okay.

So yes, there are still questions under existing law.

Fido04 said:

---

January 302

---

I was expecting nothing but a blacked out blank pages.

Rapier108 said:

---

Fido04 said:

---

January 302

---

I was expecting nothing but a blacked out blank pages.

---

And once again, dated February 15th, three weeks later? Outside of the five day protocol for the FBI? That's either an indication of fabrication or how non-seriously Strzok took that interview.

I'm extremely interested in something. It is obvious now that McCabe, Comey, Powers, Lynch, Rice, Clapper, Strozk, Page, Rosenstein, and Yates conspired to take down Trump. What I am interested in is why they targeted Flynn. What did Flynn do to become the tip of the spear? It cannot be his conversations with Russia. Obama sent an entire team to liaise with Russia during his transition. What did Flynn do that required he be marginalized immediately? Does it have something to do with him and Adm. Mike Rodgers knowing where the bodies are buried in the Obama regime? I hope we get some answers.

Here's Steele's testimony:
https://twt-media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2018/12/13/Steele_August_filing.pdf

Quote:

---

...
Fusion's immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie LIP. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as "Hillary for America") could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election....

---

This is very revealing info. Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in early March 2016 regarding research on Presidential Candidate Donald Trump:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2017/images/10/25/fusion.perkins.coie.pdf

This places HRC's contingency plan about Russian interference in the Election to a time period that predates the 'hack' of the DNC server, the latter first reported on June 14, 2016, as well as the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane the end of July 2016. Even Brennan's briefings to Congress about Russian interference in the Election didn't begin until August 2016.

Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016. The first memo on the Dossier was dated June 20, 2016.

While y'all knit pick over the peas, you are missing the steak and potatoes

Notice what I have highlighted in Green and think back to the July 302



"After learning the identities & the interviewing agents & the nature of the interview"

That's a direct contradiction to the other 302's that said they didn't want to tell him the nature of the interview to keep him calm.

Both versions in today's filings

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

While y'all knit pick over the peas, you are missing the steak and potatoes

Notice what I have highlighted in Green and think back to the July 302



"After learning the identities & the interviewing agents & the nature of the interview"

That's a direct contradiction to the other 302's that said they didn't want to tell him the nature of the interview to keep him calm.

---

And what Comey stated on national television earlier this month.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

I'm extremely interested in something. It is obvious now that McCabe, Comey, Powers, Lynch, Rice, Clapper, Strozk, Page, Rosenstein, and Yates conspired to take down Trump. What I am interested in is why they targeted Flynn. What did Flynn do to become the tip of the spear? It cannot be his conversations with Russia. Obama sent an entire team to liaise with Russia during his transition. What did Flynn do that required he be marginalized immediately? Does it have something to do with him and Adm. Mike Rodgers knowing where the bodies are buried in the Obama regime? I hope we get some answers.

---

He worked in Obama's DIA. He left and was vocally critical of Bam-Bams giving billions in cash to Iran.

He violated the code of not sucking Bam-Bam's secret money-maker. And I mean that in the $$$$$ sense. Obama has always been rich for no reason but now he's mega-wealthy and it has little to do with book deals. Sixty mill for him and Michelle? Psshaw! Just her mad money.

Obama has hundreds of millions stashed away and is getting richer by the day.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You are arguing what the law should be. Not what it is. He either intentionally or negligently mislead the public on the meaning of the word material. Flynn's lie was material. There is no question about that under current law.

---

You mean the Logan Act? LOL? That is the only "color of law" here even justifying the criminal underpinnings of legitimately questioning Flynn under the circumstances back then. And that was a load of crap.


Let's go back and discuss the setting. There is a news article that publishes the illegal leak of Flynn's conversation with Kislyak. That should have been the crime the FBI was on like a duck on a june bug but no, they that used that leak (probably McCabe or his minions) as a pretext to interview Flynn. (McCabe hates Flynn because of the Robin Gritz matter.)

If they chose to ask Flynn if he had leaked the existence/contents of the conversation, that would have been arguably okay.

So yes, there are still questions under existing law.

---

Respectfully, now you are falling into the same trap Dershowitz is of arguing what you want the law to be as opposed to what the law is. There did not have to be a criminal underpinning to meet a "color of law" requirement.

Again, if you want to prognosticate about how you think the law should be that's fine (and I might likely agree with you). But, make it clear because other people here latch onto your words as an attorney and you are giving them incorrect information. Don't be a Dershowitz

https://quodverum.com/2018/12/352/letter-to-judge-sullivan-in-support-of-general-michael-t-flynn.html

Quote:

---

Dear Judge Sullivan:

I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn's attorney has refused to submit it as well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally and internally......

---

This thread is the best source for the truth of this investigation.

Thanks to all who contribute to placing sources and the deeper digs here.

Good stuff.

Coincidence? Not likely

Feb 13, 2016 Flynn resigns
Feb 14, 2016 McCabe Oks the 302
Feb 14, 2016 Page texts Strzok to launch the 302
Feb 15, 2016 The 302 is entered into SIPRNet




May 9th, 2017 "James Comey is Fired"
May 9th, 2017 Text "We need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting

May 10th, 2017, Text "We need to lock in [Flynn] in a formal chargeable way. Soon."
May 10th, 2017 Text "I agree. I've been pushing and I'll reemphasize with Bill."




May 17th, Mueller appointed SC.



May 31st, Flynn edited 302 is entered into SIPRNet

Robyn Gritz brought down the thunder in that scathing letter.

The Logan Act is widely regarded as being unenforceable in general, and inapplicable to members of an elected administration in formation during post-election period. It was absolute trash as any pretext for an investigation of Flynn.

What is clearly unlawful is the leak of a secretly recorded conversation as part of an FBI investigation.

The non-crime was "investigated" while the actual crime was ignored.

How can something be "material" to a non-crime? Logan Act? What trash. An absolute joke. High legal comedy. Empty useless words on paper. Yes, it is "law", but it might as well be the Alien & Sedition Acts: one SCOTUS hearing away from being struck.

Quote:

---

Respectfully, now you are falling into the same trap Dershowitz is of arguing what you want the law to be as opposed to what the law is. There did not have to be a criminal underpinning to meet a "color of law" requirement.

Again, if you want to prognosticate about how you think the law should be that's fine (and I might likely agree with you). But, make it clear because other people here latch onto your words as an attorney and you are giving them incorrect information. Don't be a Dershowitz

---

Lawyers disagree on the interpretation of the law all of the time. Dershowitz has his view which I find persuasive.

But there is no getting around the fact that Judge Sullivan has serious questions about how the Flynn situation went down. I don't think he throws out Flynn's guilt plea today but I think he'll have some choice words of the scathing variety for the now-fired FBI personnel who maneuvered this and for Team Mueller's handling of it as well.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The Logan Act is widely regarded as being unenforceable in general, and inapplicable to members of an elected administration in formation during post-election period. It was absolute trash as any pretext for an investigation of Flynn.

What is clearly unlawful is the leak of a secretly recorded conversation as part of an FBI investigation.

The non-crime was "investigated" while the actual crime was ignored.

How can something be "material" to a non-crime? Logan Act? What trash. An absolute joke. High legal comedy. Empty useless words on paper. Yes, it is "law", but it might as well be the Alien & Sedition Acts: one SCOTUS hearing away from being struck.

---

Find the leaker, put David Ignatius in jail for contempt if necessary, just like they did Judith Miller in Plamegate. Once that leaker is identified, all will become clear. My guess is McCabe or his flunky, Page.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The Logan Act is widely regarded as being unenforceable in general, and inapplicable to members of an elected administration in formation during post-election period. It was absolute trash as any pretext for an investigation of Flynn.

What is clearly unlawful is the leak of a secretly recorded conversation as part of an FBI investigation.

The non-crime was "investigated" while the actual crime was ignored.

How can something be "material" to a non-crime? Logan Act? What trash. An absolute joke. High legal comedy. Empty useless words on paper. Yes, it is "law", but it might as well be the Alien & Sedition Acts: one SCOTUS hearing away from being struck.

---

Hint: there doesn't have to be a criminal investigation for 18 USC 1001 to apply. There is no absolute need for the DOJ to hang its hat on the Logan Act. Let's stipulate the Logan Act is not enforceable - Flynn's statement was still material.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully, now you are falling into the same trap Dershowitz is of arguing what you want the law to be as opposed to what the law is. There did not have to be a criminal underpinning to meet a "color of law" requirement.

Again, if you want to prognosticate about how you think the law should be that's fine (and I might likely agree with you). But, make it clear because other people here latch onto your words as an attorney and you are giving them incorrect information. Don't be a Dershowitz

---

Lawyers disagree on the interpretation of the law all of the time. Dershowitz has his view which I find persuasive.

But there is no getting around the fact that Judge Sullivan has serious questions about how the Flynn situation went down. I don't think he throws out Flynn's guilt plea today but I think he'll have some choice words of the scathing variety for the now-fired FBI personnel who maneuvered this and for Team Mueller's handling of it as well.

---

We absolutely disagree on the interpretation of law regularly, but we should not misrepresent the law as it stands. You can find Dershowitz's view persuasive - and I could agree - but that is not the law. That's the only point I'm making - don't misrepresent the law.

And we'll have to wait to see what Judge Sullivan does. I would not be surprised if his ire, if any, is not directed at the party you think . . .

Could his be what the Swamp feared about General Flynn?
Where did the money go?

Being no legal expert, I will take your word for it. I think it is odd we can not determine if the FBI told Flynn he was being questioned or not as part of an investigation based on conflicting testimony and documents, but I think what we all know now is to NEVER talk to a government law enforcement agent without your lawyer present.

These systematic abuses of policy, procedure, and ethical treatment of witnesses are going to have a chilling effect regarding any future voluntary cooperation with investigations of any sort.

Each are going to interpret this situation based on your political prism. No different then you completely minimizing Obama campaign finance issues and totally misrepresenting them. It's your view just like hawgs view.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Coincidence? Not likely

Feb 13, 2016 Flynn resigns
Feb 14, 2016 McCabe Oks the 302
Feb 14, 2016 Page texts Strzok to launch the 302
Feb 15, 2016 The 302 is entered into SIPRNet




May 9th, 2017 "James Comey is Fired"
May 9th, 2017 Text "We need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting

May 10th, 2017, Text "We need to lock in [Flynn] in a formal chargeable way. Soon."
May 10th, 2017 Text "I agree. I've been pushing and I'll reemphasize with Bill."




May 17th, Mueller appointed SC.



May 31st, Flynn edited 302 is entered into SIPRNet

---

What am I looking at with the 302s?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Respectfully, now you are falling into the same trap Dershowitz is of arguing what you want the law to be as opposed to what the law is. There did not have to be a criminal underpinning to meet a "color of law" requirement.

Again, if you want to prognosticate about how you think the law should be that's fine (and I might likely agree with you). But, make it clear because other people here latch onto your words as an attorney and you are giving them incorrect information. Don't be a Dershowitz

---

Lawyers disagree on the interpretation of the law all of the time. Dershowitz has his view which I find persuasive.

But there is no getting around the fact that Judge Sullivan has serious questions about how the Flynn situation went down. I don't think he throws out Flynn's guilt plea today but I think he'll have some choice words of the scathing variety for the now-fired FBI personnel who maneuvered this and for Team Mueller's handling of it as well.

---

And even if he did toss the case, we know what Mule Head will do.

He'll hit Flynn and his son with FARA and FCPA violations before the ink dries on Sullivan's orders.

Seems to me to be the formalizing of pretext to ramp up the Russia Russia Russia investigation to something criminal, as versus it being counterintelligence, so they could start investigating Americans directly.

Why wouldn't Flynn's lawyers have submitted her letter to the judge in his case?

I am surprised there is no FBI "miranda" equivalent to conducting an interview.

"You are being interview by a Federal Agent, and are subject to criminal charges should you be found to be lying, shielding the truth, omitting facts, or otherwise deceiving a federal agent.

You have a right to have an attorney present during this interview, in which case the interview will be postponed until your counsel is present. Should you wish to forego representation, we can proceed immediately with the interview.

You have a right to make a recording of this interview, in which case the interview will be postponed until you are prepared to record the conversation. All recordings are subject to certain classification levels and, potentially, may not be shared with anyone other than your counsel. Should you wish to forego recording, we can proceed immediately with the interview.

Do yo understand the rights and penalties as addressed by this previous statement?

Do you wish to have counsel present?

Do you wish to make a recording of this interview?"

Quote:

---

And even if he did toss the case, we know what Mule Head will do.

He'll hit Flynn and his son with FARA and FCPA violations before the ink dries on Sullivan's orders.

---

That would be unwise on Mueller's part. Very unseemly. His investigation is losing public support as it is. Going knee jerk reaction just to get Flynn again would appear to be a personal vendetta.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/17/prosecutors-michael-flynn/

Interesting read by Sidney Powell, former Assistant US Attorney & author of 'Licensed to Lie'.

AG 2000' said:

---

Why wouldn't Flynn's lawyers have submitted her letter to the judge in his case?

---

Probably too many 'inflammatory' statements/claims against the Prosecution & affiliates (McCabe).