drcrinum said:

---

---

File this under "a Federal Judge being really mad and lashing out" and don't give it too much weight.

Not sure I can buy this one...

drcrinum said:

---

---

...dems with consciences? Nah

Me either.

WHY would anyone stop a behavior if there's little blow back, retribution, or accountability. To date, and we've got a very long way to go, every single Dem involved in Sypgate or Ukraine has received nothing but a little conservative investigative spelunking, which the Left would never, ever, consider relevant.

I think Schiff did get a hit in the ass for the phone records, as even the Left seems to have taken notice. I'd be willing to bet the phone calls to the Dem House members in the last two weeks weren't terribly concerned about Nunes or Guilianni's phone records.

HTownAg98 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Can you tell me if what the prosecutor did was normal? I know you said it wouldn't change things but are huge "mistakes" like that normal and just part of being a lawyer?

---

What the prosecutor did wasn't normal. The problem is that the bar to prove misconduct by the government is so damn high it's almost not worth trying.

---

Thank you. So it's almost worth lying if you are the government.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Wasn't it about a year back when Sullivan made a comment with regards to Flynn being criminal or treasonous or something to that effect? He seems to pretty much have decided the safe play is to take the federal prosecutors at their word. It looks like he has long been decided that Flynn was in fact guilty in simple terms, and had ready pled, and wasn't asking to change, so he was really judging the viability of any additional evidence being likely to change that narrros conclusion, and without sufficient evidence that further exculpatory evidence existed, he was going to take the government at their word. When Flynn didn't change his plea, he probably pretty much assured this ultimate outcome.

---

The hard thing for me to wrap my head around is the number of ex parte and sealed filings that were submitted by the government in Flynn's case and in the Internet Research (Concord) cases. And you are correct that Sullivan went off on Flynn being "treasonous" to the country and later walking that back in a hearing nearly 2 years ago. That never sat well with me as it indicated there were more extensive ex parte contacts with the prosecution, too.

The problem with taking the government at their word in anything having to do with muh Russia and a Trump associate is proof that they lied, or omitted facts, or altered documents, or whatever you want to call it. Sure,Sullivan can view it that narrowly that since Flynn pled guilty to lying that nothing else could be exculpatory but within this context with what the IG's report laid out, I don't see where the government is entitled to be believed automatically anymore.

The government has always protected the government.

It is logically inconsistent to say "I'm guilty" in a sworn statement, and then in another, ask for exonerating evidence. If you admit you did the crime, how can there be ANY evidence that proves your innocence.

Unless Flynn wants to go down the road that his rights were violated. As in "I'm guilty" but the only reason I got caught was the government did something illegal to find out. Is now the time to really take that angle, or would that be better handled in appeals?

He made his plea and cut his deal. Its frustrating, but I can certainly see that position.

Quote:

---

The feds absolutely used aggressive threats and tactics to get him to plead guilty and cooperate, but that part is typical SOP.

---

To be precise, the tactics that the feds used included lying and withholding exculpatory evidence. That is indeed their SOP but it violates the oath of federal prosecutors to employ these tactics and the oath of judges like Sullivan who condone and sanction these tactics because they are seeking convictions in preference to seeking justice. These are exactly the type of statist bureaucrats hiding behind their interpretation of the law and the authority of the crown that the colonists tarred and feathered during the American Revolution.

captkirk said:

---

He made his plea and cut his deal. Its frustrating, but I can certainly see that position.

---

Unfortunately, I agree. I just wish his original choice of legal representation was better, and his plea may not have been "guilty".

Hopefully, there's still time to save "TARA", and "tomorrow is another day"!

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/17/judge-in-michael-flynn-case-decides-to-ignore-mounting-evidence-of-prosecutorial-abuse/

Quote:

---

.....That would be strong evidence for Flynn to cite should he decide to fight the charge -- or attempt to, as he initially must obtain leave of court to withdraw his plea. Instead, though, Powell may try one last time to highlight government malfeasance by filing a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, and citing the numerous examples included in the IG report that directly involve Flynn. However, given Judge Sullivan's reaction to date, it is likely going to take something more -- it is likely going to take Flynn telling him, "I'm not guilty and I only pled because they threatened my son."

---

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/flynn-judge-accuses-defense-counsel-in-curious-plagiarism-claim-in-flynn-case/

drcrinum said:

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/17/judge-in-michael-flynn-case-decides-to-ignore-mounting-evidence-of-prosecutorial-abuse/

Quote:

---

.....That would be strong evidence for Flynn to cite should he decide to fight the charge -- or attempt to, as he initially must obtain leave of court to withdraw his plea. Instead, though, Powell may try one last time to highlight government malfeasance by filing a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, and citing the numerous examples included in the IG report that directly involve Flynn. However, given Judge Sullivan's reaction to date, it is likely going to take something more -- it is likely going to take Flynn telling him, "I'm not guilty and I only pled because they threatened my son."

---

---

I am curious how many people are truly innocent if not for plea deals struck under stronf-arm government tactics.

Poor little corrupt POS, that's not point of sale!!

drcrinum said:

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/17/judge-in-michael-flynn-case-decides-to-ignore-mounting-evidence-of-prosecutorial-abuse/

Quote:

---

.....That would be strong evidence for Flynn to cite should he decide to fight the charge -- or attempt to, as he initially must obtain leave of court to withdraw his plea. Instead, though, Powell may try one last time to highlight government malfeasance by filing a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, and citing the numerous examples included in the IG report that directly involve Flynn. However, given Judge Sullivan's reaction to date, it is likely going to take something more -- it is likely going to take Flynn telling him, "I'm not guilty and I only pled because they threatened my son."

---

---

What is the likelihood he does that? Seems risky as hell

Quote:

---

Powell says that "the plagiarism accusation makes no sense." She maintains that she used her own prior briefings and a brief written by a friend who was in fact cited.

The criticism in the opinion will likely deepen the unease of Flynn in having the sentencing under Judge Sullivan. However, the court said that it will proceed with precisely such a hearing on January 28, 2020.

---

From Turley's article. When a judge so openly excoriates counsel, you're damn right the client gets nervous. And the fact that Sullivan had to go so far out of his way to do suggests personal animus rather than any actual wrong-doing by Powell.

We've debated the pros and cons for Sidney's legal strategy here in not quickly moving to withdraw the guilty plea after the change in counsel. Yes, doing so would open up Flynn and perhaps his son to other charges and apparently that very real threat was bolstered by the last minute tactics in the trial of Flynn's partner, Rafekian. (The government put his son on the witness list, dropped Flynn himself as witness which was specifically required under the plea deal and then designated Flynn as a so-called conspirator out of the blue.)

Sullivan should have taken judicial notice of those court proceedings, in my view.

drcrinum said:

---

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/flynn-judge-accuses-defense-counsel-in-curious-plagiarism-claim-in-flynn-case/

---

That seems really weird for the judge to do

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

Good read.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Powell says that "the plagiarism accusation makes no sense." She maintains that she used her own prior briefings and a brief written by a friend who was in fact cited.

The criticism in the opinion will likely deepen the unease of Flynn in having the sentencing under Judge Sullivan. However, the court said that it will proceed with precisely such a hearing on January 28, 2020.

---

From Turley's article. When a judge so openly excoriates counsel, you're damn right the client gets nervous. And the fact that Sullivan had to go so far out of his way to do suggests personal animus rather than any actual wrong-doing by Powell.

We've debated the pros and cons for Sidney's legal strategy here in not quickly moving to withdraw the guilty plea after the change in counsel. Yes, doing so would open up Flynn and perhaps his son to other charges and apparently that very real threat was bolstered by the last minute tactics in the trial of Flynn's partner, Rafekian. (The government put his son on the witness list, dropped Flynn himself as witness which was specifically required under the plea deal and then designated Flynn as a so-called conspirator out of the blue.)

Sullivan should have taken judicial notice of those court proceedings, in my view.

---

This why I made a C in Business Law, I always confused Justice with The Law, especially on essay questions.

Powell gave Sullivan the opportunity to rule in favor of justice, he chose the law as he sees it. It is patently obvious there was extensive prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of power, let alone malfeasance on the part of Flynn's original lawyers. The true criminals(re: the prosecution) will go unpunished and the innocent will pay the price.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

Good read.

---

TLDR Version.

1. Who is Mifsud
2. Brennan is a liar
3. Comey and McCabe are liars
4. Who is the Confidential Source providing info very early in Crossfire Hurricane
5. Were the Media complicit in the fake stories, or are corrections forthcoming

Quote:

---

I was pretty critical of Flynn when he was first charged. Now it is clear that he is a victim in this whole fiasco. That doesn't mean he should be absolved from his actions but I just hope that all the bad actors will pay for their actions.

---

Which raises the question of what happens if Stzrok and Pientka get indicted by Durham? Since apparently there was not a Title I FISA warrant on Flynn and thus the origin of the investigation of him didn't fall within Horowitz's purview, it is the focus of Durham's investigation.

Again the question becomes what was the predicate for opening an investigation against Flynn?

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/horowitz-report-russia-investigation-questions-remaining-928081/

Good read.

---

Matt Taibbi is putting out some good stuff.

Rolling stone has always been counter cultural. Crazy that counter culture now actually means listening to political ideology that isn't exclusively mindless leftism.

blindey said:

---

Rolling stone has always been counter cultural. Crazy that counter culture now actually means listening to political ideology that isn't exclusively mindless leftism.

---

Some hippies actually get a little wiser as they age.

Cates working on a new piece...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I was pretty critical of Flynn when he was first charged. Now it is clear that he is a victim in this whole fiasco. That doesn't mean he should be absolved from his actions but I just hope that all the bad actors will pay for their actions.

---

Which raises the question of what happens if Stzrok and Pientka get indicted by Durham? Since apparently there was not a Title I FISA warrant on Flynn and thus the origin of the investigation of him didn't fall within Horowitz's purview, it is the focus of Durham's investigation.

Again the question becomes what was the predicate for opening an investigation against Flynn?

---

Pg 51-52 of the IG Report:

Quote:

---

On July 26, 2016, 4 days after Wikileaks publicly released hacked emails from the DNC, the FFG official spoke with a U.S. government (USG) official in the European city about an "urgent matter" that required an in-person meeting. At the meeting, the FFG official informed the USG official of the meeting with Papadopoulos. The FFG official also provided [redacted] information from [redacted] FFG officials [redacted] following the May 2016 meeting (hereinafter referred to as the FFG information). [redacted] stated, in part, that Papadopoulos
suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of [sic] through other means. It was also unclear how Mr. Trump's team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team's reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr. Trump's cooperation.

---

The bolded-italicized paragraph above is offset & appears to be a direct quote from the FFG communication.
(FFG = Friendly Foreign Government)


Pg 56-57 of the IG Report:

Quote:

---

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a full counterintelligence investigation under the code name Crossfire Hurricane "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia." As the predicating information did not indicate a specific individual, the opening EC did not include a specific subject or subjects.....
.....
The opening EC describing the predication for Crossfire Hurricane relied exclusively on Papadopoulos's statements to the FFG [redacted] in the FFG information.

Crossfire Hurricane was opened by CD and was assigned a case number used by the FBI for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), Title 18 U.S.C. 951, which makes it a crime to act as an agent of a foreign government without making periodic public disclosures of the relationship.....

---

Pg 59-60 of the IG Report:

Quote:

---

After conducting preliminary open source and FBI database inquiries, intelligence analysts on the Crossfire Hurricane team identified three individuals Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn-associated with the Trump campaign with either ties to Russia or a history of travel to Russia. On August 10, 2016, the team opened separate counterintelligence FARA cases on Carter Page, Manafort, and Papadopoulos, under code names assigned by the FBI. On August 16, 2016, a counterintelligence FARA case was opened on Flynn under a code name assigned by the FBI. The opening ECs for all four investigations were drafted by either of the two Special Agents assigned to serve as the Case Agents for the investigation (Case Agent 1 or Case Agent 2) and were approved by Strzok, as required by the DIOG.178 Each case was designated a SIM because the individual subjects were believed to be "prominent in a domestic political campaign."179

As summarized below, the opening ECs for the investigations provided similar descriptions of the predicating information relied upon to open the cases. The ECs differed in their descriptions of the particular activities of the subjects that gained the FBI's attention.....

The opening EC for the Flynn investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn "may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security." The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.
.....
Footnote 179
179 We did not locate any records that indicated the FBI provided written notification to NSD about the opening of these cases. However, as we described earlier in this chapter, the FBI orally briefed NSD officials on at least two occasions in August 2016 about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation to include Papadopoulos, Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page.

---

.....

Quote:

---

Except for the fact that Flynn has not actually argued that he is innocent.

He was definitely set up, naively fell for it and was a target of a political hit job. However, he still lied to the feds during an investigation.

I was pretty critical of Flynn when he was first charged. Now it is clear that he is a victim in this whole fiasco. That doesn't mean he should be absolved from his actions but I just hope that all the bad actors will pay for their actions.

---

While Flynn hasn't argued that he is innocent in court, he also has not been found guilty in a trial, so saying definitively that he lied is a bit misleading. He plead to it, but given the activities of the government in getting that confession it is way more of a grey area than is typical.

The judge appears to be rigidly hanging on to the legal notion that the plea is an absolute admission of guilt rather than an agreement between the two parties based on what is in the best interest of each.

Quote:

---

On August 16, 2016, a counterintelligence FARA case was opened on Flynn under a code name assigned by the FBI.

---

What I thought.

Quote:

---

Aug. 9, 2016: Seven months after Flynn became an adviser to the Trump campaign, the Flynn Intel Group entered into a contract with Inovo owner Ekim Alptekin. Flynn Intel's task was to conduct research on Fethullah Glen, a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania who President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused of orchestrating a failed coup against him last year (the firm also pressured U.S. officials to take action against Glen as part of this work). Flynn's team would conduct research, contract a PR team and check in with Inovo weekly to discuss progress.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

1. Who is Mifsud
2. Brennan is a liar - we knew that before 2016
3. Comey and McCabe are liars - we knew that from the Mueller Report
4. Who is the Confidential Source providing info very early in Crossfire Hurricane
5. Were the Media complicit in the fake stories, or are corrections forthcoming - media were totally complicit in the fake stories, not even a question

---

Really only 2 questions

Sasappis said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

HExcept for the fact that Flynn has not actually argued that he is innocent.

He was definitely set up, naively fell for it and was a target of a political hit job. However, he still lied to the feds during an investigation.

I was pretty critical of Flynn when he was first charged. Now it is clear that he is a victim in this whole fiasco. That doesn't mean he should be absolved from his actions but I just hope that all the bad actors will pay for their actions.

---

While Flynn hasn't argued that he is innocent in court, he also has not been found guilty in a trial, so saying definitively that he lied is a bit misleading. He plead to it, but given the activities of the government in getting that confession it is way more of a grey area than is typical.

The judge appears to be rigidly hanging on to the legal notion that the plea is an absolute admission of guilt rather than an agreement between the two parties based on what is in the best interest of each.

---

Go read his plea agreement. He unquestionably admitted that he lied and committed a crime.

---

I've read it and Sasappis is correct. I've wondered if that has been reason Powell took the approach she did. Think about it.

Flynn says "Your honor I'd like to withdraw my plea for false statements."
Sullivan: "You admitted to the false statements in your plea deal."
Flynn (in effect). "My Statement that prior statements were false was in itself false".


Not exactly the best look.

Sasappis said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Except for the fact that Flynn has not actually argued that he is innocent.

He was definitely set up, naively fell for it and was a target of a political hit job. However, he still lied to the feds during an investigation.

I was pretty critical of Flynn when he was first charged. Now it is clear that he is a victim in this whole fiasco. That doesn't mean he should be absolved from his actions but I just hope that all the bad actors will pay for their actions.

---

While Flynn hasn't argued that he is innocent in court, he also has not been found guilty in a trial, so saying definitively that he lied is a bit misleading. He plead to it, but given the activities of the government in getting that confession it is way more of a grey area than is typical.

The judge appears to be rigidly hanging on to the legal notion that the plea is an absolute admission of guilt rather than an agreement between the two parties based on what is in the best interest of each.

---

Go read his plea agreement. He unquestionably admitted that he lied and committed a crime.

---

I have no doubt it says that, but you and I both know that he may not actually be guilty (at least enough to convict) but that people often accept a plea to reduce the risk of a severe sentence or to reduce the charge, or because the cost of on-going defense is prohibitive, or (as appears likely here), in order to prevent the government from going after his son and bankrupting him.

Yes, Flynn stated that he lied and committed a crime, and yes the judge can (and in this case is) treat that as a 100% factual statement. But the fact remains that there are any number of reasons people will plead guilty to a charge, and actually being guilty is often not the reason.

Let's pivot a bit.

I fear that Barr may not go after Comey because then he would have to go after Wray.