Yep

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.

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.

---

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.

I'd rather have Casey Anthony baby sit my children than trust anything the Mueller/Weissman team "asks" me to to.

And yo, all attorneys on this thread, do any judges ever punish prosecutors, or defense for that matter, for withholding evidence? That seems to happen a hell of a lot, and the judges who oversee the attorneys conduct seem to give them a severe tounge lashing!

Just an observation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/448999-want-the-truth-put-your-money-on-bill-barr-not-jerry-nadler

Interesting read from:
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06-05%20State%20to%20CEG%20%28Security%20Investigation%20Follow-Up%29.pdf

So a minimum of 15 former & current DOS employees played loose with classified materials. I don't suppose the names Clinton & Winer are on this list....

You can utterly destroy a server, but it is much more difficult to destroy all the information it has exchanged with other servers it has communicated with. With sufficient effort, it should be possible to reconstruct significant portions of almost all the legally accessible inbound and outbound traffic to a destroyed server, provided such records are logged and retained.

Quote:

---

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.

She did reveal one very questionable thing that Flynn's former attorneys did however and that was running their pleadings by Team Mueller before filing them. That was odd to me. It's one thing to ask Team Mueller if there areas that are out of bounds due to ongoing investigations and compose accordingly, it's quite another to just hand the whole pleading over for editorial review. That's goes double for omitting the original 302 which is the sole basis for the charge against Flynn.

All of the drama surrounding the original 302 strongly suggests something hinky was going on. Something that Flynn's former counsel should have thoroughly investigated instead of just rolling over to have their tummies petted by Weissmann.

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.

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.

---

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.

By contrast, look at what Gregg Craig did at Skadden, Arps. He deliberately lied to his own partners about his activities that would require a FARA filing. His partners were trying to comply with the law and he thwarted them. Why Skadden, Arps only had to forfeit the 4.2 million in legal fees they had collected during the course of Craig's representation of Ukrainian interests and no further criminal actions taken against them.

The fact that Flynn's business partners are taking this to trial instead of trying to plead it out indicates to me they believe they did nothing wrong, other than have crappy counsel. I still smell something of a set-up as to how the whole Turkish deal went down. As the Mueller Report alludes, Flynn was likely under a FISA warrant when that deal happened, yet that wasn't included in the Flynn plea deal.

If Flynn had pled guilty to a FARA charge, that would have made the case against his partners and possibly his son rock solid. That's how prosecutors build cases against multiple defendants. Maybe Team Mueller was of the opinion that Flynn's cooperation was worth dropping the FARA but if they already had all of his communications what else would they have been looking for?

It goes back to Judge Sullivan unloading on Flynn at the sentencing hearing calling him "an agent of a foreign power". That's FISA talk. So much discovery was filed under seal with the court it is hard to piece together all of the facts. Also remember Flynn was not indicted, he was charged by information so there are no grand jury records nor witness transcripts. So when Sullivan is speaking about transcripts he's talking about communications, likely intercepted ones.

Lastly, exactly what is the harm in the Russians not retaliating to Obama's sanctions? Is what Flynn did really that bad? Might have saved a life or two of American intelligence agents in Russia for all we know, if Putin were really that ticked off by Obama's acts.

IMO, it's likely that Putin has/had so little respect for Obama, it would have taken quite a bit to piss him off.

It's kinda of the way I see Dick Durbin and John Kerry, it would be rare for either of them to have an original thought.

Abedin's Key Hillary Email Claim Contradicted by Top Clinton Aide

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."

---

ETA: I guess I'll leave it, but don't know why I put Hillary email scandal here. Sorry.

Not a problem. The same players were involved. Everyone around Hillary were allowed to get away with serious crimes while everyone around Trump was targeted for just stubbing their toes, getting a date wrong or something minor like that.

Notice the third paragraph on the first page. Lobbying disclosure (not FARA) was filed by FIG in September 2016 under Covington, Burling's representation. Flynn was shutting down FIG after he was named as Trump's National Security Advisor during the transition. He was trying to comply with the law but had received bad advice back in September. And DOJ was advised of the fact.

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

Fitton: Emails Show Obama State Department's Role in Anti-Trump Coup Cabal

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.

---

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

---

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.

This appears to be weak case on a willful violation, meaning it would not normally be seen as crime to be prosecuted to deter future lawbreaking. Handle it administratively.

But Flynn's lawyers, Covingon, Burling (where Eric Holder is a partner, BTW) truly did Flynn a disservice here.

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.

More on the Flynn matter

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.

---

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?

Too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

benchmark said:

---

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.

---

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?

Too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

---

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.

Flynn had always been a thorn in Obama's side, as well as McCabe's.

Circling back around on that. Look who signed that letter. Flynn's criminal attorney, Kelner. Now it is not that unusual for white collar criminal defense attorneys to be that familiar with laws such as FARA. But the conflict was evident early on.

Can immunity deals be revoked?

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

---

Unfortunately, this scandal is way over the intellect of most voters. I don't see it going anywhere.

will25u said:

---

Abedin's Key Hillary Email Claim Contradicted by Top Clinton Aide

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."

---

ETA: I guess I'll leave it, but don't know why I put Hillary email scandal here. Sorry.

---

I think the topic has wandered a little from Mueller dismissing an FBI agent from his probe.

captkirk said:

---

---

Does the DOJ have enough evidence of this to indict her and proceed to trial?

dreyOO said:

---

Can immunity deals be revoked?

---

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.

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.

aggiehawg said:

---

dreyOO said:

---

Can immunity deals be revoked?

---

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.

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.

---

Would not her fraudulent activity to conceal or destroy evidence toll limitations?

Quote:

---

Would not her fraudulent activity to conceal or destroy evidence toll limitations?

---

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.

ETA: Let me add that under Mueller's tortured legal theory of defrauding the federal government, Hillary could have easily been roped into an indictment. Problem is, Barr doesn't subscribe to the Mueller/Weissmann view of the intent of the obstruction laws.

Maybe the Aussie cable about Downer's meeting with Papadopoulos is the other?

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.

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.

---

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.