FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

First we f*** Flynn, then we f*** Trump.

Andrew McCabe

---

---

she got that from someone

Is that supposed to be a real quote by McCabe?

drcrinum said:

---

Lisa Page edited Flynn's 302.

I assume Sidney's Powell's latest has been approved for release, & that Techno_fog has it in hand.

---

How on Earth did she get this information? The Dam has broken

4stringAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

MOCO9 said:

---

BillYeoman said:

---

I like the NYtimes spin about "political payback."

Here we go....about time...

---

Writes "which is likely to raise alarms of political payback" in order to raise alarms of political payback.

---

Well said. It'll be parroted by Dems starting immediately.

---

Right on cue, According to Ingrahams show, Schiff and Nadler have released a statement claiming Durham's probe is political retribution.

---

So what if it is? Suck it

I tend to agree. Why in the world do the Dems think that after hounding Trump with a 2+ year Mueller investigation there shouldn't be any consequences?

And the fact that they are making these statements indicates that they know hell is coming. It's effectively a cry for mercy.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1187695891714658304.html

Here's the first (short) thread out on Flynn/Powell's latest. Nothing earth-shattering...obviously there are still Strzok-Page texts that have not been made public as well as additional details behind the ambush interview of Flynn, but most important: the unauthorized NSA searches that were going on in the background, not only of Flynn but likely Judge Sullivan.

Quote:

---

.....Is it just a coincidence that someone was conducting non-compliant FISA searches the day Gen. Flynn plead guilty? Is it also a coincidence that another set of queries was conducted from the day Judge Sullivan was appointed but stopped when his Brady Order was issued on 12/12/17?.....

---

We know Flynn was under a FISA. Would they have been surveilling (via the 2 step rule) Flynn's defense attorneys as well as Judge Sullivan during the trial? Desperate people do desperate things.

Wildcat said:

---

Is that supposed to be a real quote by McCabe?

---

Yes, supposedly he said that in a staff meeting. Someone said that under oath, I believe. Maybe someone can help with my recollection.

Rockdoc said:

---

Trying to remove Barr and Durham because they have evidence against you? Not a good look.

---

Smells like obstruction

Quote:

---

We know Flynn was under a FISA? Would they have been surveilling (via the 2 step rule) Flynn's defense attorneys as well as Judge Sullivan during the trial? Desperate people do desperate things.

---

We do not know for a fact that Flynn had a Title I FISA warrant on him currently. But there are very strong indicators that such was the case at some point. Then again, using 702 to/from queries could also reveal a ton of communications.

Guess what I am saying is that the time frame that is under consideration could change the answer to that question. Started out as 702 queries, then morphed into a Title I FISA during the transition, or something along those lines. Flynn was hated by certain members of the Obama administration as was Admiral Rogers at NSA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We know Flynn was under a FISA? Would they have been surveilling (via the 2 step rule) Flynn's defense attorneys as well as Judge Sullivan during the trial? Desperate people do desperate things.

---

We do not know for a fact that Flynn had a Title I FISA warrant on him currently. But there are very strong indicators that such was the case at some point. Then again, using 702 to/from queries could also reveal a ton of communications.

Guess what I am saying is that the time frame that is under consideration could change the answer to that question. Started out as 702 queries, then morphed into a Title I FISA during the transition, or something along those lines. Flynn was hated by certain members of the Obama administration as was Admiral Rogers at NSA.

---

I believe Mueller has unlimited power to authorize FISA surveillance as well as 702 queries, but I assume that activity would have ceased when he closed down shop...or would it?

Quote:

---

I believe Mueller has unlimited power to authorize FISA surveillance as well as 702 queries, but I assume that activity would have ceased when he closed down shop...or would it?

---

Mueller would still have had to go to a FISA court to get a Title I FISA. But he likely had 702 authority as his investigation was still a counter-intel one at inception. (Although it quickly morphed into a baiting-Trump-to-try-to-get-him-to-obstruct-justice operation.)

(Short video) I probably should have posted this on the Funny Political Tweet Thread.

Another Deep Stater who had his fingers in the pie & is worried.

drcrinum said:

---

(Short video) I probably should have posted this on the Funny Political Tweet Thread.

---

Anderson Cooper is stumped about what this could possibly be about? WTF?

Clapper seemed pretty puckered up

drcrinum said:

---

Another Deep Stater who had his fingers in the pie & is worried.

---

Obstruction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

drcrinum said:

---

---

And the Dems, hypocrites they are, used "Mueller is a Republican!! He can't be questioned!!!"

Circling back to Flynn for a moment. I was confused about which James Baker was the leaker. The Baker in the FBI? Or the Colonel James Baker at DOD. According to Sidney, it was the latter. And that Baker is tied to both Halper and Ignatius. (Although, the FBI's Baker also knows Ignatius and David Corn at Mother Jones.)

Quote:

---

On Jan. 12, 2017, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that "According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking."
Powell suggests that Pentagon official James Baker may have committed the felony leak, possibly with director of national intelligence Clapper telling Ignatius to "take the kill shot."
"Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn's calls to Ignatius," Powell wrote. "The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatiusespecially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on Flynn.'"

---

LINK

And I'm glad that Sidney finally pulled the trigger on requesting for dismissal of the entire case and for criminal contempt against Mueller toadie Van Grack.

Col. James Baker was the alleged leaker per another section of Powell's memo.:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.129.0_1.pdf

Quote:

---

.....Neither Mr. Flynn nor his former counsel had any of these documents or knowledge of the plethora of information discussed above when Mr. Flynn entered his plea. However,one of the government's chief arguments is that because Mr. Flynn was represented by counsel (Covington & Burling) at all stages of the proceedings, and because counsel was present at all interviews and other critical events including his plea and concomitant Brady waiver, that either excuses the government's failures or renders his waiver of them conclusive.

The government fails to acknowledge, however, that Covington & Burling was the very firm that Mr. Flynn paid more than $1 million to investigate, prepare, and then defend the FARA registration in response to NSD/FARA section's and David Laufman's demands. Seen.9 supra. By August 2017, when the government threatened Mr. Flynn with criminal charges related to the same FARA registration, former counsel were immediately caught in the vice of an intractable conflict of interest that they never escaped until Flynn engaged new counsel. By no later than August 2017, the conflict between Mr. Flynn and his former lawyers was non-consentable and not subject to waiver. Even if Mr. Flynn had been fully informed in writing of the conflict at that time, the lawyers were obligated to withdraw from the representation without regard to his wishes......

---

Read pages 16-18 (20-22 of 37) in Powell's memo above of which I've extracted a portion. You'll love how Flynn's former lawyers are addressed. Just as you said they should have been.

Makes me wonder if Durham had the wrong James Baker? Or were there two separate leak investigations happening at the same time?

Anyway, anytime I see "James Baker" pertaining to the muh Russia stuff, I automatically assume it is the Comey toadie at the FBI. I'll have to read much more closely now that second guy with same name is in play.

LOL.

Question for the lawyers...

IF Flynn had a part to play. And that was to get information into the public sphere through his proceedings...

Can the government drop the case at any time? Or since he has plead guilty, are they stuck?

Sorry if this is getting too far into the fringe.

will25u said:

---

Question for the lawyers...

IF Flynn had a part to play. And that was to get information into the public sphere through his proceedings...

Can the government drop the case at any time? Or since he has plead guilty, are they stuck?

Sorry if this is getting too far into the fringe.

---

I believe technically he would have to withdraw the plea first, but not positive.

BMX Bandit said:

---

will25u said:

---

Question for the lawyers...

IF Flynn had a part to play. And that was to get information into the public sphere through his proceedings...

Can the government drop the case at any time? Or since he has plead guilty, are they stuck?

Sorry if this is getting too far into the fringe.

---

I believe technically he would have to withdraw the plea first, but not positive.

---

Not quite that simple. The acts of pleading guilty and not demanding exculpatory evidence while Flynn was represented by Burling, Covington still happened and can be held binding against him. (That is Van Grack's primary argument for the prosecution.)

Sidney is appealing to the sensibilities of the court as Sullivan should be shocked enough at the prosecutorial misconduct that he should dismiss the case. Failing that, she is establishing the foundation for revocation of his guilty plea and, if granted, proceed to trial. Going to trial on this case at this late date would put DOJ in a very untenable position.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

will25u said:

---

Question for the lawyers...

IF Flynn had a part to play. And that was to get information into the public sphere through his proceedings...

Can the government drop the case at any time? Or since he has plead guilty, are they stuck?

Sorry if this is getting too far into the fringe.

---

I believe technically he would have to withdraw the plea first, but not positive.

---

Not quite that simple. The acts of pleading guilty and not demanding exculpatory evidence while Flynn was represented by Burling, Covington still happened and can be held binding against him. (That is Van Grack's primary argument for the prosecution.)

Sidney is appealing to the sensibilities of the court as Sullivan should be shocked enough at the prosecutorial misconduct that he should dismiss the case. Failing that, she is establishing the foundation for revocation of his guilty plea and, if granted, proceed to trial. Going to trial on this case at this late date would put DOJ in a very untenable position.

---

Seems he should be able to withdraw his plea because he had ****ty and conflicted counsel when he made it.

Dan Bongino on fire today in his pod cast.

Rush was doing a good recap on the radio naming all the names we've been discussing here for nearly 3 years (Halper; Pappa, Mifsud, etc)

Also; it may be time to migrate discussion to the "Criminal Investigation" thread

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3070654

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/25/michael-flynn-sidney-powell-dismissed-contempt/

Fairly good summary of Sidney Powell's filing.

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

will25u said:

---

Question for the lawyers...

IF Flynn had a part to play. And that was to get information into the public sphere through his proceedings...

Can the government drop the case at any time? Or since he has plead guilty, are they stuck?

Sorry if this is getting too far into the fringe.

---

I believe technically he would have to withdraw the plea first, but not positive.

---

Not quite that simple. The acts of pleading guilty and not demanding exculpatory evidence while Flynn was represented by Burling, Covington still happened and can be held binding against him. (That is Van Grack's primary argument for the prosecution.)

Sidney is appealing to the sensibilities of the court as Sullivan should be shocked enough at the prosecutorial misconduct that he should dismiss the case. Failing that, she is establishing the foundation for revocation of his guilty plea and, if granted, proceed to trial. Going to trial on this case at this late date would put DOJ in a very untenable position.

---

Seems he should be able to withdraw his plea because he had ****ty and conflicted counsel when he made it.

---

Maybe I didn't phrase my question correctly?

Essentially...

If Van G. or whoever think this is going completely sideways, can the Government drop its case vs. Flynn after he plead guilty? Or is it now that he has plead guilty, the Government is stuck until the sentencing hearing?

Just wondering about the Government side of things. NOT Flynns' side.