https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1133888675249606656.html

Techno_Fog wrote the above thread back in May based upon court records, speculating that the DOJ (under Obama) was using the FARA Law for surveillance (FISA) purposes; i.e., Flynn & Turkey.

Well, now according to the latest court filing, Techno_Fog believes there now is conclusive evidence to prove this speculation:

So if they were abusing the FARA Law for surveillance of Flynn & his Turkey dealings, think about who else falls into this same category:
Papadopoulos -- Israel
Manafort & Gates -- Russia, Ukraine
Page -- Russia
It wouldn't surprise me if they pursued Kushner, Cohen & Erik Prince in the same manner. Of course, they never would have used it against Podesta.

The paucity of criminal prosecutions for FARA violations (7 in 50 years) belies how the Obama administration weaponized it to use as a cudgel and threat for nearly every American having business with or just contact with foreign nationals. (Well, except for Democrats, that is.)

FARA wasn't designed to deter espionage although by filing under FARA a person gets on the radar of the government as being a potential spy. Conflating a FARA violation with espionage is a very distorted take, in my view.

Democrat Lawyers are sleazy and creative ( Weissmann ring a bell ? ) Just think how many other Federal Laws they abused. These scumbags are the equivalent of Fiction Novelists !

it feels like dc is just one big game of a bunch of lawyers playing "gotcha" with interpretations of the law.

don't want to pile on lawyers but some of y'all are really good at making messes.

ruddyduck said:

---

it feels like dc is just one big game of a bunch of lawyers playing "gotcha" with interpretations of the law.

don't want to pile on lawyers but some of y'all are really good at making messes.

---

Let's take another look at why FARA had never truly been enforced until the Obama administration (and even the one case that is actually being tried, Rafekian and Alpetkin case is in trouble) and that is the revolving door between government work and lobbying work. Not to mention how many members of Congress have spouses that work in the lobbying business.

DOJ was never going to "eat its own" so to speak.

Question

This may be a stupid question but here it goes.

Is the whole made up Russia collusion AND the extremely left position that part of the Democratic Party has taken (green new deal, free everything, open borders, etc....things that to me and every other rational American are just flat out dumb, extreme, makes no sense positions) just a distraction to cover up ALL of the corruption and abuse of power by the Democratic Party under Obama??

They got caught with their pants down when Seth Rich's emails came out and they used all this to turn the countries attention away from the substance of all the emails and into all the BS we see today? (Trump/Russia, extreme positions)

IMHO had everything come out, the DNC would have been on life support!?

The Democratic Party has a history of going far left for a Presidential cycle or (four in the case of FDR) and then the pendulum swings back. But that was also at a time when each party had conservative and moderate wings within them. That is increasingly no longer the case. And some Democrats are realizing that. Thomas Friedman for instance is convinced Trump will win reelection because of the left-ward lurch of the party abandoning the old Blue Dog Democrats.

The election of Obama was a watershed moment for many reasons. The old saying was without a Carter we wouldn't have had a Reagan.

Now it is without an Obama we wouldn't have had a Trump.

As for everything being some type of distraction, that's a yes and no type of situation.It certainly has had that effect but it wasn't exactly planned to do so. What was planned was to try to provoke Trump into doing something to support his impeachment.

That Obama to Trump swing was so dramatic because the media covered up sooooo much, and just ticked off a good portion of the country.

The media is now getting their payback, and the pendulum swing is hitting them right in the face.

It's good to see.

As long as we have a genuine free market, the media will get theirs. I know Trump must have, or is hopefully planning something for Youtube, Google, FB, etc., to even the playing field, so to speak.

Yes, I believe these guys have a monopoly, but I can't see the Feds doing anything about it unless the Reps control the House. Even then, I don't have much faith in those guys. However, if they can go after the "platform" thing, then it might be enough to change the direction.

The fact that these guys are effectively working, supporting, and backing, the DNC should be enough to get the FEC after them. Based on what I've read here, I don't have much faith in Nunes suit against Twitter, but I don't know why, because it seems like it would be pretty easy to prove.

Sorry for the derail, as this is one of my favorite threads here, but it's going to have to be addressed.

Staying on the topic of the thread, it's possible this entire Spygate issue may come out in our favor, but 40% of the nation would never know about the details, or the severity, of the crimes committed due to the social media overlords.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1152675120072314880.html

This case is going from bad to worse for the government.

Broken record on this but absent espionage or terrorism, counter-intel operations are lousy for making criminal cases.

https://quodverum.com/2019/07/201/the-swamp-meister-.html

Long entertaining read. Remember the plot from the Flynn FARA case: Flynn & his group had proposed kidnapping Gulen & returning him to Turkey? Turns out to be false. It was all an intentional smear on the part of former CIA Director James Woolsey who was competing with Flynn to obtain a contract with Alptekin, one of the defendants in the FARA case. Woolsey was the originator of the kidnapping plot, not Flynn.

I'm learing so many new tactics to enhance my business techniques.

aggiehawg said:

---

This case is going from bad to worse for the government.

Broken record on this but absent espionage or terrorism, counter-intel operations are lousy for making criminal cases.

---

I hope the case crumbles. What a **** show. Hopefully, Mueller's reputation will be destroyed when this is all over.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/did-flynn-just-call-out-mueller-on-under-the-table-plea-deal_3001928.html

We've suspected all along that Flynn pleaded guilty in order to protect his son from the financial burden of undergoing formal investigation by Team Mueller. Was that true? We don't know, but this article examines the peculiarities of Flynn's case and concludes that it is suspicious that some sort of an unofficial deal was in place but the government may have lost its advantage and is now on the short end of the stick.

More waiting.

will25u said:

---

More waiting.

---

If so, they're finding a lot more dirt.

I don't know what the IG report will have in it, but if they have enough to bury people under the courthouse what's a few more feet under that courthouse going to get anyone? Let's go!!

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/07/21/important-video-confirms-butowsky-lawsuit-claim-julian-assange-told-ellen-ratner-dnc-emails-received-from-seth-rich-not-a-russian-hack/

A lawsuit filed a week ago by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleged that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron. [Full Backstory Here]

Due to the scale of ramification, there was some valid skepticism about the Butowsky assertion. However, recently unearthed footage from Ellen Ratner talking about her visit with Assange in November of 2016 seems to validate what the Butowsky's lawsuit alleges.

In the video [Full Video Here] taken during a November 9th, 2016, Embry Riddle University symposium, Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner, representing the left, and former Congressman now Fox political analyst John Leboutillier, from the right, discussed the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.

I'm beginning to wonder if the entire DOJ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton/Obama. I know that's not the case, but there has to be a substantial group of folks, at least 100, who are considered to be "confidants" of those two above.

I'm certain, and have been for a while, that there are more than 100 in State that have proclivities to break the law for the Dems. Basically, they're gung ho to take one for the team, and based on actions from the last two years, are still quite active.

Starting in on the IG report. Obviously they know it will be bad for them.

Adam Schiff says DOJ inspector general's work is 'tainted' ahead of FISA abuse report

Quote:

---

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz got roped into a politically-motivated scheme to protect President Trump, laying the groundwork to discredit the government watchdog's work as he nears completion of a report on alleged surveillance abuses by the DOJ and FBI.

At the Aspen Security Forum this weekend, Schiff accused top Justice Department officials of pandering to Trump by instigating a "fast track" report last year about former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. His comments came as part of a broader answer to a question about whether he has concerns about Attorney General William Barr's review of the origins of the Russia investigation.

Schiff claimed the president wanted McCabe, who briefly took over as acting FBI director after Trump fired James Comey in May 2017, investigated and his pension taken away and suggested someone such as former Attorney General Rod Rosenstein obliged the president by making a referral.

"The inspector general found that McCabe was untruthful. He may very well have been untruthful," the California Democrat said, but noted that is not where main his concern lies.

---

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/22/comey_under_scrutiny_for_own_inquiry_and_misleading_trump_119584.html

Quote:

---

.....Now an answer is emerging. Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president. Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent.

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general's investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially "running a covert operation against" the president, starting with a private "defensive briefing" he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.

Although Comey took many actions on his own, he was not working in isolation. One focus of Horowitz's inquiry is the private Jan. 6, 2017, briefing Comey gave the president-elect in New York about material in the Democratic-commissioned dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Reports of that meeting were used days later by BuzzFeed, CNN and other outlets as a news hook for reporting on the dossier's lascivious and unsubstantiated claims......

---

Comey? A spy in the White House? Who would have guessed?
P.S. The mole is identified in the article.

LOL.

Quote:

---

The status of the Eastern District of Virginia case against former partner of Michael Flynn, Bijan Rafiekian is bizarre.

Apparently U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has not engaged into this case, and the current status is a mess.

The head-scratching FARA case was tenuous from the outset as the prosecution was arguing a rather odd legal interpretation of FARA statutes; and now the DOJ could be handed a dismissal, even if the jury returns a guilty verdict.

Yes, when you stretch legal interpretation beyond evidence, it's a mess.

The current arguments surround jury instructions where the DOJ is requesting their earlier claims of Rafiekian as an "agent of a foreign government" be dropped (because there is no evidence); and simultaneously arguing that Rafiekian didn't have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA.

Confused? You should be.

---

Quote:

---

Suffice to say the DOJ is arguing the Flynn Intel Group (FIG) is guilty of doing something even though the DOJ can't prove the FIG intended to do something unlawful.

The argument around "mens rea" is intent. "Mens rea" is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.
In oral arguments (about jury instructions) the DOJ says they don't need to prove the Flynn Intel Group was guilty of intent.

Indeed, the DOJ position is that Rafiekian did something wrong, without intending to do something wrong, in filing information about their Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) compliance forms.

The DOJ also admits the government took no action as an outcome of the accidentally wrong information; simply that the information itself was accidentally false and therefore unlawful.
So the judge ("The Court") is asking questions:

---

Sundance quotes technofog here:

Quote:

---

My biggest takeaway is the DOJ's position that the conduct need only be "prohibited."

I'm assuming this is consistent with how they've applied Section 951 in the past. (If the 951/FARA/FISA theory is correct.) That would have included all the lobbyists doing work on behalf of foreign countries, foreign individuals, or foreign corporations who didn't have airtight FARA paperwork. Not just the material omissions/lies alleged in the Rafiekian case.

The DOJ prosecutor basically admits this: "any conduct that was in violation of the FARA statute, whether or not prosecuted or prosecutable, renders that conduct not a legal commercial transaction." [Key point being "whether or not prosecutable"]

---

Now to the transcript of what is being argued in court over jury instructions.





You might ask yourself how can a FARA violation occur if FIG was not acting as an agent of a foreign government? And then further ask, how can a failure to file under FARA be a crime if FIG was not shown to be acting as an agent of a foreign government? Because they should have suspected or known doing business with an Turkish national who owns a Dutch company is automatically an agent of Turkey?

Is that DOJ's new theory now? And how could FIG (and by extension, Covington, Burling*, their lawyers) have anticipated that? "Significant notice concerns," is an understatement here. Either the FARA statute provides specific notice of what is prohibited conduct or it is too ambiguous and overbroad. That would make the statute itself unconstitutional. Surely DOJ doesn't intend to undermine the statute in that manner, do they?

DOJ has not thought that argument through.

Were I the judge in this case, I would just throw my hands up and dismiss the case at this point. Because even if the jury were to convict, these convoluted jury instructions, which even the DOJ lawyers can't defend nor articulate clearly, would easily be reversible error on appeal.

*This current argument by DOJ is a small ray of sunshine for Covington, Burling as far as malpractice goes. At least their actions wouldn't have landed one of their clients in jail.They'll still likely have to fork over a bundle of money for the conflicts however.

drcrinum said:

---

---

I wish there was the backbone to take down Comey and by extension, Mueller, who became an accessory after the fact. Even if Mueller is just labeled an unindicted co-conspirator, there is little question there was a conspiracy at the top of the FBI and it continued within the Office of Special Counsel.

When AG Barr speaks of a "proper predicate" for opening investigations and surveilling people, he's referencing such unprecedented actions taken by an FBI Director not named J. Edgar Hoover.

Quote:

---

"Between the election and April 2017, when Ferrante finally left the White House, the Trump NSC division supervisor was not allowed to get rid of Ferrante," he added, "and Ferrante continued working in direct conflict with the no-contact policy between the White House and the Department of Justice."

---

Can this guy be charged with a crime?

I don't understand about your "backbone" statement. I'm pretty sure the information revealed in the article will make it's way to proper investigative results. Assuming this is correct, then Comey's guilt will be black and white. I don't doubt your Mueller comment is correct, and believe there will be some evidence to connect him with the Comey affair, through Rosenstein, but probably tangential.

If this is correct, it would take an willful effort by the DOJ (Barr), to avoid indicting Comey. I can possibly see them not indicting Mueller, but missing out on the Comey indictment would seriously piss off a lot of American's, especially me.

Cassius said:

---

Quote:

---

"Between the election and April 2017, when Ferrante finally left the White House, the Trump NSC division supervisor was not allowed to get rid of Ferrante," he added, "and Ferrante continued working in direct conflict with the no-contact policy between the White House and the Department of Justice."

---

Can this guy be charged with a crime?

---

Well, he certainly was part of the conspiracy. Were I Durham, I'd give him a Queen for a Day hearing to find out what his marching orders were.

fasthorses05 said:

---

I don't understand about your "backbone" statement. I'm pretty sure the information revealed in the article will make it's way to proper investigative results. Assuming this is correct, then Comey's guilt will be black and white. I don't doubt your Mueller comment is correct, and believe there will be some evidence to connect him with the Comey affair, through Rosenstein, but probably tangential.

If this is correct, it would take an willful effort by the DOJ (Barr), to avoid indicting Comey. I can possibly see them not indicting Mueller, but missing out on the Comey indictment would seriously piss off a lot of American's, especially me.

---

My concern is based upon DOJ's continued declination of unsealing the Comey memos. Barr has declass authority but they are still fighting in court to keep those memos secret but not claiming they are part of an ongoing investigation, which would indicate Comey and/or McCabe are under grand jury investigation. That is confusing to me.

I hope I'm wrong but Comey appears to have testified so often before so many different authorities, wrote a damn book that there had to be many discrepancies, that is to say, perjury.

Cassius said:

---

Quote:

---

"Between the election and April 2017, when Ferrante finally left the White House, the Trump NSC division supervisor was not allowed to get rid of Ferrante," he added, "and Ferrante continued working in direct conflict with the no-contact policy between the White House and the Department of Justice."

---

Can this guy be charged with a crime?

---

There may be more to this than meets the eye. Per the article, Ferrante was replaced by another agent:

Quote:

---

Another FBI official, Jordan Rae Kelly, who worked closely with Mueller when he headed the bureau, replaced Ferrante upon his White House exit (though she signed security logs for him to continue entering the White House as a visitor while he was working for BuzzFeed). Kelly left the White House last year and joined Ferrante at FTI Consulting.

---

Was she also acting as a mole? Plus, when she vouched for Ferrante to enter the White House while he was working for BuzzFeed, what did he do? Was he continuing to relay info to Comey or the FBI investigative team via her? There's a lot we don't know yet? It seems there must be a significant paper trail, plus she may have been interviewed by Horowitz before she left...we don't have a timeframe to know.
As far as committing a crime...methinks both Ferrante & Kelly make good prospects for immunity deals.