Yep
My immediate feeling after reading Cleveland's piece is "Flynn didn't get his moneys worth" from his previous counsel. In fact, the actions of his counsel suggest they were fearful of the Special Counsel, or worse, were looking for a quid pro quo in some future case, or professional action.drcrinum said:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/18/5-ways-michael-flynns-new-lawyer-expose-spygate/
Good read. I think she (Cleveland) needs to consult with Aggiehawg though.
Why? I didn't disagree with anything she wrote. She properly has her eye on both prosecutorial misconduct and the potential misconduct/ineffectiveness of Flynn's former counsel. Questions that are likely to produce some answers at the July trial of Flynn's business partners.Quote:
Good read. I think she (Cleveland) needs to consult with Aggiehawg though.
Agree but that issue will likely be addressed at the trial of Flynn's partners next month. As for the wilfulness of the FARA violations when FIG (Flynn Intel Group) requested advice of counsel on which disclosures they needed to file.drcrinum said:
I think you could have added to her arguments. That business about Flynn's attorneys recommending not to file under FARA was a major deal IMO. Surely Team Mueller badgered Flynn over FARA filings prior to his guilty plea, not to mention possibly going after Flynn's son for FARA violations.
Quote:
Former aide Justin Cooper said in a Judicial Watch deposition created on March 19 and made public Tuesday that he worked with Huma Abedin in 2009 to set up the unsecured private email account used by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to conduct official U.S. diplomatic business.
Cooper's statement contradicts Abedin's claim in a 2016 deposition by the non-profit government watchdog that she only learned about the private email setup in 2015 by "reading in some news articles about a year, a year-and-a-half ago, when it was it was being publicly discussed."
Quote:
John Kerry, President Obama's secretary of state, seems to be having trouble staying within the legal bounds of the Logan Act, so it's not surprising that his State Department lieutenants were getting their hands dirty in the conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump.
Judicial Watch now has received more evidence of this anti-Trump conspiracy. With The Daily Caller News Foundation, they just released 16 pages of documents revealing senior State Obama officials Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer coordinated with incoming House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) national security advisor, Daniel Silverberg, to work on Russia dossier information provided by Christopher Steele.
Normally, acting on advice of counsel in such matters goes to the intent to break the law. Under FARA (until Mueller came along) these cases were handled administratively, allowing for supplemental filings and some fines. Most reputable firms would pony up for the fine instead of having their malpractice insurer involved if the client chose to sue.will25u said:
Wouldn't the lawyers shoulder the legality of it since they gave the wrong information, and not the person that had retained the lawyers?
ETA I guess it doesn't matter on this case, since they aren't going after Flynn for FARA
Flynn is a conundrum (to me). While holding top level security clearance (renewed Jan16) ... he was under a FISA warrant? What precipitated the FISA and when?aggiehawg said:
One additional observation, I now have no doubt that Flynn was under a FISA warrant as it usually takes DOJ many months, if not years to make FARA inquiries. Here they were on top of Flynn by November of 2016. Under the two hops, they also would have been able to surveil his business partners, which they apparently did.
The Mueller Report alluded to Flynn "being under investigation" starting in January 2016, after he made a condolence call to Kislyak who had just lost a close friend and aide.benchmark said:Flynn is a conundrum (to me). While holding top level security clearance (renewed Jan16) ... he was under a FISA warrant? What precipitated the FISA and when?aggiehawg said:
One additional observation, I now have no doubt that Flynn was under a FISA warrant as it usually takes DOJ many months, if not years to make FARA inquiries. Here they were on top of Flynn by November of 2016. Under the two hops, they also would have been able to surveil his business partners, which they apparently did.
Too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
cbr said:
When are we going to quit farting around the edges of little microscandal reporting and get to the maasive 'why' of it all
Anti american interests bribed and compromised politicians for decades to plant ****heads in bureacracies and political office and to sell out america on purpose, and to subvert american values, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of lives, tens of trillions of american wealth, and a permanent geopolitical shift away from american and western european enlightenment and exceptionalism.
Emailgate isnt some 'scandal,' it was one tiny tool of this whole process
I think the topic has wandered a little from Mueller dismissing an FBI agent from his probe.will25u said:
Abedin's Key Hillary Email Claim Contradicted by Top Clinton AideQuote:
Former aide Justin Cooper said in a Judicial Watch deposition created on March 19 and made public Tuesday that he worked with Huma Abedin in 2009 to set up the unsecured private email account used by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to conduct official U.S. diplomatic business.
Cooper's statement contradicts Abedin's claim in a 2016 deposition by the non-profit government watchdog that she only learned about the private email setup in 2015 by "reading in some news articles about a year, a year-and-a-half ago, when it was it was being publicly discussed."
ETA: I guess I'll leave it, but don't know why I put Hillary email scandal here. Sorry.
Does the DOJ have enough evidence of this to indict her and proceed to trial?captkirk said:
Yes, if the person subsequently breaks the conditions. But it is very unclear which form of immunity Mills obtained. It can be full-blown immunity, sanctioned by a federal judge or limited use immunity as to particular topics and time frames. Further, her capacity as Hillary's attorney, absence Hillary's waiver of attorney-privilege (unlikely) further complicates the depth of the questioning. There is always the crime/fraud exception to attorney-privilege of course.dreyOO said:
Can immunity deals be revoked?
Would not her fraudulent activity to conceal or destroy evidence toll limitations?aggiehawg said:Yes, if the person subsequently breaks the conditions. But it is very unclear which form of immunity Mills obtained. It can be full-blown immunity, sanctioned by a federal judge or limited use immunity as to particular topics and time frames. Further, her capacity as Hillary's attorney, absence Hillary's waiver of attorney-privilege (unlikely) further complicates the depth of the questioning. There is always the crime/fraud exception to attorney-privilege of course.dreyOO said:
Can immunity deals be revoked?
The biggest hurdle in regards to Hillary is the Statute of Limitations, IMO. She could have been held accountable in 2016. Most federal statutes have a five year limitations period. She's been out of the State Department since 2013 although most of her obstructive acts didn't occur until the 2015-2016 period of time. So there is a slim possibility she might still have some exposure.
If we didn't know about it, it could be argued that those were part of a continuing conspiracy to obstruct justice. But since prosecutors have known about the methods used to destroy evidence since 2015-2016, nothing is tolled.Quote:
Would not her fraudulent activity to conceal or destroy evidence toll limitations?
It is mostly a practicality in preserving resources. Cold cases are notoriously difficult to try as witnesses are lost or their memory fades, evidence gets misplaced or degrades and other factors. Our justice system is designed to utilize their prosecutorial power in the most effective manner possible. If a successful prosecution is very much in doubt, don't waste the resources on it.hawk1689 said:
I thought about starting a thread to discuss this, but I think it's relevant to the discussion. What are the societal benefits of statutes of limitation for criminal acts? I've all too often come across stories similar to the one discussed here where our system is hampered by these artificial time constraints to justice.