McCabe gets off on the leak charge because it was weak to begin with simply because it was arguable that in his acting role at the time he had the authority to make press releases and statements. It may have been unethical, but that's not illegal.

In case anyone was wondering(Like myself).

From 8a yesterday till now(7:20a) there were:

14,000+ views on this thread
250+ replies

Big day for the Mueller thread.

Bigger day to come, based on Shannon Bream's tweet from last night.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/rosenstein-scope-memo-confirms-baselessness-of-trump-russia-probe/

McCarthy is awesome.

Bottom line ... grounds for appointing a SC really boils down to what's in the 6 lines of redacted text (5th person) .... because a SC wan't needed to investigate Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos, or Flynn since all of them could've been investigated under the normal course of business.

Rockdoc said:

---

A very sad part of all of this is that it's not going to stop now or in the future. The Democrats have accepted the fact that lying is ok and facts, citations, and just plain ole truth just don't matter to them or most of their constituents. Convictions and jail time is the only thing that will make them blink and I think most on here realize that's not likely to happen.

---

Realize? No. Assume? Suspect? Yeah.

But "realize" is too definite for me. And we know based on pretty much everything these days that making a definitive statement is not a good idea.

Quote:

---

So, we have the Coverup operation, which is the personal destruction of Flynn, which was to conceal the illegal spying actions by the Inama administration and federal bureacracy, in turn being covered up by cooperative actions between bad actors in the DOJ, the house and probably senate intelligence committees, and allies in the press via a false narrative and numerous Unfounded investigations used to bury records and prevent testimony and investigations by other government entities.

---

The military industrial complex has nothing on the unholy alliance between LOE, MSM and Pols.

I know little to nothing about the law so hoping that hawg or others can chime in. So what actual crimes are capable of being charged here regarding Flynn, and others if more of the things noted on this thread do come out?

Reason I ask is because Ingraham had on this guy, Saul something??, last night and he was insistent that things like Comey sending over agents to entrap Flynn was highly unethical but not necessarily a crime. I do believe the FISA falsifications to a judge qualifies as criminal. But on the whole, does it have to be shown ultimately that this was a conspiracy or some kind of organized effort to get some real jail time for some of these higher ups? Like could a RICO type case be brought?

Again, I may be talking out of my ass about all this but curious what the real criminal prosecutions Durham could be looking at.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What galls me is the Republicans, many of them at least, seemed to want to ignore this with the apparent hope that it would be successful and that would suppress or remove Trump quickly and restore the normal order of underhanded business dealings between the two political parties with the "right" Republicans running the party again. There were fortunately too many people in the know that wouldn't be silenced and too many people got out just enough information to motivate more digging.

---

And too many people in the know that thought she wouldn't lose so they got careless.

I forget that factor. They ALL presumed a Hillary win and 4-8 years to bury this forever or even keep it running in the background, hence the panic when Flynn got the nomination.

I suspect "the lesson we've all learned" is that most (if not all) politicians are corruptible and as a sad consequence, the US Government is MORE corrupt than it is benevolent. Few elected officials run for office to help you and I but run instead, for personal gain.

Hope we all learned a hard lesson and begin to actually "vet" political candidates. Be damned "family name", "appearance/good looks", "profession" and "catchy phraseology". Instead, voters need to measure "character", "integrity", "honesty" and "exhibited compassion" for others.

Hopefully, we step back and truly evaluate those we choose to lead us. Personally, I'm not very hopeful.

4stringAg said:

---

I know little to nothing about the law so hoping that hawg or others can chime in. So what actual crimes are capable of being charged here regarding Flynn, and others if more of the things noted on this thread do come out?

Reason I ask is because Ingraham had on this guy, Saul something??, last night and he was insistent that things like Comey sending over agents to entrap Flynn was highly unethical but not necessarily a crime. I do believe the FISA falsifications to a judge qualifies as criminal. But on the whole, does it have to be shown ultimately that this was a conspiracy or some kind of organized effort to get some real jail time for some of these higher ups? Like could a RICO type case be brought?

Again, I may be talking out of my ass about all this but curious what the real criminal prosecutions Durham could be looking at.

---

Sol Wisenberg. Sharp guy and pretty straight shooter. He made some good points about how some things were unethical, but not criminal, and how difficult it could be to prosecute some of the crimes.

Definitely cold water on the round 'em up crowd.

John Eastman was on with Wisenberg and was livid about the FBI's actions and argued for conspiracy charges.

Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.

Quote:

---

Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.

---

It is hard to prove but I would submit that the text messages and notes are sufficient to show intent and conspiracy. I do not recall a single instance wherein someone, anyone said, "We can't do that, It's illegal."

Do you?

4stringAg said:

---

I know little to nothing about the law so hoping that hawg or others can chime in. So what actual crimes are capable of being charged here regarding Flynn, and others if more of the things noted on this thread do come out?

Reason I ask is because Ingraham had on this guy, Saul something??, last night and he was insistent that things like Comey sending over agents to entrap Flynn was highly unethical but not necessarily a crime. I do believe the FISA falsifications to a judge qualifies as criminal. But on the whole, does it have to be shown ultimately that this was a conspiracy or some kind of organized effort to get some real jail time for some of these higher ups? Like could a RICO type case be brought?

Again, I may be talking out of my ass about all this but curious what the real criminal prosecutions Durham could be looking at.

---

I watched Laura's program the other night and believe Sol's argument was "in effect"...yes, laws exist that may have been broken, BUT naming and proving who exactly that person is isn't an easy task. Sol went so far as to challenge the other guest to name names and provide proof.

I posted a cpl of days ago that "entrapping a lawyer" is practically impossible. They know where the snares are and when to go silent. Barr, Durham et al have their work cut out for them and IMHO, that's why it's taking so long. Obviously, I'm no lawyer but I've watched and worked with enough of them to know how slippery (sorry Mrs. Hawg) they can be. Oh, and yes...I give them credit that most are smarter than I.

Edits-name corrections

Quote:

---

And one of the jewels better damn be some indictments and soon because the fallout will require a good amount of time to show the American public exactly what transpired (especially as we know Schiff will be running around screaming his "truth").

---

To just go out and indict people, even though guilty, will cause some to be enraged. They won't have the same awareness of the perp's transgressions of laws.

So, if the underlying evidence, even if only part of the whole body of evidence, is dropped in the public domain before LE actions, then the sting of surprise will not be as great, and not cause so much outrage across the country.

We got a few more weeks of evidence drops before indictments begin to surface. I haven't watch CNN or Other cable channels (except for FNC...sorry) recently, but it would be interesting to see how many minutes of broadcast time they have spent on the Flynn, Schiff stuff...because there is lots more to come...

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Quote:

---

And one of the jewels better damn be some indictments and soon because the fallout will require a good amount of time to show the American public exactly what transpired (especially as we know Schiff will be running around screaming his "truth").

---

To just go out and indict people, even though guilty, will cause some to be enraged. They won't have the same awareness of the perp's transgressions of laws.

So, if the underlying evidence, even if only part of the whole body of evidence, is dropped in the public domain before LE actions, then the sting of surprise will not be as great, and not cause so much outrage across the country.

We got a few more weeks of evidence drops before indictments begin to surface. I haven't watch CNN or Other cable channels (except for FNC...sorry) recently, but it would be interesting to see how many minutes of broadcast time they have spent on the Flynn, Schiff stuff...because there is lots more to come...

---

Any time they have spent on it was accusing Barr of political hit jobs at the behest of his master Trump. They are taking the angle that it is Barr who is corrupting and politicizing the DOJ, not that the very reason he is investigating and overturning cases is precisely because of how politicized the DOJ had become under Obama.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.

---

It is hard to prove but I would submit that the text messages and notes are sufficient to show intent and conspiracy. I do not recall a single instance wherein someone, anyone said, "We can't do that, It's illegal."

Do you?

---

In the presence of (a) Lawyer? Doubt it.

Those that do, generally try to return to their office 2 floors below via Fire Stairwell...where they usually slip and stumble on the first step, falling the remaining 4 flights to their "accidental" deaths.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-lokhova/

Quote:

---

Christopher Steele told a longtime aide to John McCain in 2016 that he believed Michael Flynn was having an extramarital affair with a Russian woman, showing for the first time that the former British spy peddled an unsubstantiated rumor that later appeared in the media and made its way to the FBI.

Steele shared the allegation with David Kramer, a longtime associate of McCain's, according to a transcript of Kramer's House Intelligence Committee testimony released Thursday.

Kramer met with Steele in London in November 2016 at McCain's direction to discuss Steele's work on the Trump dossier. Kramer later gave the salacious document to a reporter from BuzzFeed News.

Kramer told House investigators in his Dec. 19, 2017, interview that Steele shared one allegation with him regarding Flynn that was not included in the dossier.

"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K.," Kramer testified.

Kramer revisited the rumor later in the testimony. Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who "may have been a dual citizen," he said....

---

IMO Halper was one of Steele's sub-sources.

Prosperdick said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Interview: Barr on Flynn

Quote:

---

HERRIDGE: President Trump recently tweeted about the Flynn case. He said, "What happened to General Flynn should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again." Were you influenced in any way by the president or his tweets?

BARR: No, not at all. And, you know, I made clear during my confirmation hearing that I was gonna look into what happened in 2016 and '17. I made that crystal clear. I was very concerned about what happened. I was gonna get to the bottom of it. And that included the treatment of General Flynn.

And that is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham's portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this.

This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct.

---

Real jewels in Barr's last sentence. Translation .... Flynn's case is only one piece of Durham's conspiracy related investigation.

---

And one of the jewels better damn be some indictments and soon because the fallout will require a good amount of time to show the American public exactly what transpired (especially as we know Schiff will be running around screaming his "truth").

---

That all assumes the MSM will cover it and want the truth to reach the public. The MSM could make the public attitude turn on a dime regarding this coup if they wanted to....but they don't.

Jonathan Turley has some choice words for Van Grack, the FARA Hack.

Quote:

---

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

---

Quote:

---

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller's staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government's possession "that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment." There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence "not to be material."

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was "any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing."

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation "did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts." In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment"? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

---

Read the rest