Hardest working man on the internet.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Well, he does get credit for one thing, he seems to dig and distribute relentlessly, even if he doesn't attribute sources ethically.

---

Thats the thing. If he'd just call himself and aggregator it would be fine. If this thing starts to actually happen, rest assured, the twitter feeds that are from fraudulent people will be doxxed in an effort to slow this down. And he is Exhibit A.

---

First thing I thought of.

I'm not angry, just a little disturbed. It does remind me of the dangers of the internet.

https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=WWO9211818304&start=3529.82

Not anything really knew, except that next Friday's filling is supposed to be another blockbuster. Sidney begins at near the 59 minute mark which is where the link is set to begin.
She did make a strong plea for donations to the Flynn Defense Fund. I made the decision today to make a donation.
https://mikeflynndefensefund.org/

BuzzFeed News article on document dump:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/mueller-report-secret-memos-4

Document dump at:
https://buzzfeed.egnyte.com/dl/QOyOORUMxw/

The document dump contains a number of interviews between the FBI & both Carter Page & Papadopoulos, many of which contain few or minimal redactions -- versus some are heavily/completely redacted. There are also some interesting interviews with Russians involved with Page's talk in Moscow in July 2016, all of which are totally benign/exculpatory regarding Page. In Papa's interviews, the FBI spends considerable time querying about Mifsud. Millian surfaces several times in the Papa interviews, which Papa relates exculpatory info about Millian not being a source for the Dossier.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1219294376544931849.html

Short thread by Professor Cleveland. I believe it further illustrates that Flynn didn't comprehend legal lingo, although I have problems understanding the argument...perhaps one of our legal experts could explain it in clearer terms.

Quote:

---

Thus, if Flynn told Covington he could not honestly say he knew the statements in the FARA filings were false at the time they were submitted, he simply wasn't guilty of that offense and could not legally say he was. Nor could Covington ethically permit him to do so. Nor could (or would) Sullivan have permitted Flynn to admit culpability in that circumstance had that issue been brought to his attention, which it wasn't.

While the question remains as to whether Flynn received correct and ethically sound advice from Covington, there are some other possibilities. It is conceivable the Covington attorneys simply didn't drill down on exactly when Flynn knew the FARA statements were false. This is probably unlikely, and Flynn's current counsel claim in their pleadings that Flynn was clear about "what he knew when" in sessions with the prosecutors attended by Covington.

Another possibility is that Covington did correctly advise Flynn about the import of the revised Statement of Offense, and that Flynn nonetheless decided to "hold his nose" and agree to it as part of the plea deal because the prosecutors had allegedly otherwise threatened to indict both him and his son for other reasons. If that's what happened, Flynn misled the government and would also have no basis now to withdraw his plea. If that were the case, however, there would seem to be no reason for Flynn to change strategies and put in jeopardy the things he gained from accepting the plea by blowing up the plea.

At this point, Judge Sullivan will have to sort out what actually happened to decide whether Flynn should be permitted to withdraw his plea or whether the case should proceed to sentencing. To properly resolve that dilemma, one of the central issues in this unfolding drama will need to be the actions of the Covington attorneys in advising Flynn during the negotiation of the Statement of Offense and the inclusion of the FARA statement as "relevant conduct" in his plea.

---

From the McAdoo article. Unfortunately for Flynn, my gut tells the bolded paragraph is likely what happened and further explains why Powell took so long to withdraw his plea. Calculated risk.

Weaponizing FARA in this manner meant that if Flynn knew the FARA filing was false at the time he made them, would make it more likely that other people at Flynn Intelligence Group did too. Flynn was operating under that assumption and wasn't not disabused of it. He thought he had removed the problem with the deletion of the "then and there" language. It didn't.

Does that help clear some of it up?

Please read Cleveland's thread reader. That's what I have problems with.

drcrinum said:

---

Please read Cleveland's thread reader. That's what I have problems with.

---

Agree that thread reader is confusing, even to me which is why I went to the article she cited to get some perspective and posted what I consider the relevant possible explanation of what transpired with Flynn, unintentionally and misguidedly on his part.

I still think Flynn was set up with that Inovo deal, though.

Haha.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2020/01/21/inenglish/1579611351_198492.html

Quote:

---

...The obsession over any Russian visit or sign of a link between Assange and Russia was also reflected in the photographs that were taken of the passport visas of some visitors....

---

Also a threadreader of the article with commentary:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1219648206696599552.html

Interesting account. The CIA hired a private security outfit to spy on Assange while he was held in the Ecuadorian Embassy. They utilized video cameras, hidden microphones, & recorded photographs of the passports of all visitors received by Assange. The info was flown to Alexandria, VA, once/twice a month and hand delivered to CIA personnel. There are email exchanges with the CIA (& DOJ) as well. To quote the threadreader commentary:

Quote:

---

...Seems the CIA was desperate to connect Assange to Russia!...

---

Hmmm. I wonder if any references/info/communications involving Adam Waldman appeared in any of the materials made available to the CIA. Remember, he was the Russian lobbyist who was texting Senator Warner about potential meetings with Assange & Steele in 2017.

Did we ever ask staff about renaming the thread? Since it's a bit more all encompassing now.

https://www.scribd.com/document/443906635/US-v-Flynn-Flynn-Sentencing-Memo


New Sentencing Memo from Sidney Powell.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.scribd.com/document/443906635/US-v-Flynn-Flynn-Sentencing-Memo


New Sentencing Memo from Sidney Powell.

---

So this is in addition to withdrawing guilty plea?

So is this a matter of "in case" my withdrawing of guilty plea is struck down?

Quote:

---

So this is in addition to withdrawing guilty plea?

So is this a matter of "in case" my withdrawing of guilty plea is struck down?

---

Judge Sullivan issued a Minute Order that set out a briefing schedule relative to the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Powell is following the judge's order. There will be another hearing in February once the briefing schedule is complete.

Aggiehawg is correct as usual.

What happens if the judge decides to reject the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and accepts the sentencing plea of community service? Quit & go home? Or fight/appeal?

will25u said:

---

---

That picture is over the top cheesy. Just right for the political junkie industry.

will25u said:

---

---

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-01-22%20CEG%20to%20ONA%20%28Halper%20Follow%20Up%29.pdf

Notice to whom Grassley's letter is directed: James Baker of DOD, the same James Baker who Sidney Powell suspected of leaking the transcripts of General Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak to the Washington Post (David Ignatius). Makes one suspect that there is far more to the relationship between Halper & Baker than meets the eye -- I'm thinking there are ties to the CIA, plus links between Halper & Steele.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/25/pentagon-accused-leaking-flynn-phone-calls-washing/

captkirk said:

---

---

Uhhh... THIS IS YUGE!

House of cards should really be falling down right about now.

Impeachment! Look over here! We have Impeachment!

Quote:

---

The Justice Department said in a December letter to the secret court that oversees surveillance of suspected foreign spies that it lacked probable cause to continue surveillance of Mr. Page in two of the four surveillance applications it sought against him.

The government began surveillance of Mr. Page in late 2016, after he left the Trump campaign. It ultimately obtained a warrant and three subsequent renewals.

The Justice Department now appears to have concluded that there was "insufficient predication to establish probable cause" in the last two renewals in 2017. Probable cause is the legal standard to obtain a secret warrant against suspected agents of a foreign power. The letter is classified, but is referenced in a new order declassified by a judge on Thursday. The Justice Department said it would sequester all the material it collected against Mr. Page pending further internal review of the matter.

---

So the two applications specifically cited a being invalid are the second & third renewals, the other two still being in limbo.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

So when does Carter Page sue the DOJ and the individual agents, and superiors who approved the application, for Nick Sandman type money?

---

He has sued pro se. But with this finding, I'm sure he'll be besieged by attorneys willing to file a Bivens action on a contingency fee basis.

Quote:

---

So the two applications specifically cited a being invalid are the second & third renewals, the other two still being in limbo.

---

What that means is there was no additional information that justified new probable cause on the last two.

Then the question becomes if there was new information sufficient to justify the first renewal. If not, it fails.

They could still find that the original warrant was sufficiently predicated but I doubt it at this point.

Now, is there any overlap between the Page warrant and Flynn?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So the two applications specifically cited a being invalid are the second & third renewals, the other two still being in limbo.

---

What that means is there was no additional information that justified new probable cause on the last two.

Then the question becomes if there was new information sufficient to justify the first renewal. If not, it fails.

They could still find that the original warrant was sufficiently predicated but I doubt it at this point.

Now, is there any overlap between the Page warrant and Flynn?

---

According to the WaPo, Flynn's calls with Kislyak in December 2016 were monitored as part of the FBI's routine surveillance of Russian officials. I can't read WaPo as they are paywalled, but per The Hill:
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/315793-fbi-found-no-wrongdoing-in-flynns-calls-with-russian

Quote:

---

...According to the Post, the calls in question were obtained by the FBI as part of routine surveillance of Russian officials in the U.S., and the review was conducted in late December. Flynn is not the target of an investigation, the Post reported....

---

But the above can't be accurate since there was a CI investigation begun on Flynn in August 2016. So it remains to be seen how & under what authority Flynn's telephone calls were being monitored.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

So when does Carter Page sue the DOJ and the individual agents, and superiors who approved the application, for Nick Sandman type money?

---

He has sued pro se. But with this finding, I'm sure he'll be besieged by attorneys willing to file a Bivens action on a contingency fee basis.

---

what does that mean in non lawyer speak ?

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

So when does Carter Page sue the DOJ and the individual agents, and superiors who approved the application, for Nick Sandman type money?

---

He has sued pro se. But with this finding, I'm sure he'll be besieged by attorneys willing to file a Bivens action on a contingency fee basis.

---

what does that mean in non lawyer speak ?

---

Page filed suit without benefit of counsel a/k/a "pro se." One suit in Oklahoma was dismissed but I believe he filed a second suit in DC.

A Bivens action is also called a 1983 action and is one where a person can sue the federal government for violation of their due process and civil rights. Like say,the most intrusive surveillance possible on him without legal authority.

Better?