fasthorse05 said:

---

I kind of figured they wouldn't comply.

Out of curiosity, what happens when a company tells the feds to kiss their ass? I would assume a fine, but that's it.

---

Yeah, just a fine. I'm not aware of any criminal penalties being suggested in this case, unless they have already pissed off the judge enough for him to impose them if they don't comply this time.

I forgot to mention I'm sure either Bill Clinton or Obama have had several conversations with the Google CEO since the judge issued his demand.

Judicial Watch should be used to it, so maybe they'll sue Google for redress, or something like that.

I will say if the judge is who I think it is, having Royce Lamberth does help. He's about the only one up there I remember.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hmmmm.... Who actually knows what's going on?

---

Barr can declassify them under his authority from Trump. If he refuses to declassify, ODNI can't release without obtaining some other authority to declassify them. So that's where I think the confusion arose.

Barr is wearing two hats here. One as a declassifying authority and the other as a prosecutorial authority. Grennel by bringing this to his attention is appealing to both in sort of a quasi criminal referral.

---

I thought Grenell could desclassify things. I'm assuming he gave them to Barr for investigation and didn't want to release them without Barr saying it was ok.

K188Ag said:

---

So, Obama hated Flynn, and he was being investigated since 2014, and the only thing in that entire time they could get him on was a "I don't remember" lie to the FBI?

Flynn must the the most Boy Scout Patriot on the planet.

And this is the guy they chose to destroy, and go after his family too.

There is some evil out there.

---

Reminds me of another General... whonloved his state... and people demonize...

fasthorse05 said:

---

Why is it a bad thing for the names of the unmasked individuals being released to the public?

I understand it would be bad if the DOJ decided to prosecute these individuals, but I don't understand why. First of all, the release is just the names of people who have been unmasked by Powers, or whomever. I've always been under the assumption that one person was responsible for that, albeit, someone else gave the order.

Personally, I just want to make my day better by knowing these crooks would be in deeper crap! Honestly, that's why I'm asking.

---

Actually, would this type of illegal breach fall under some of the data breach regulations where those whose data has been exposed must be notified? I know each state has a data breach notification standard but probably would not apply to the federal government. HITECH does force it for HIPAA regulated orgs around PHI.

Does anyone know of a federal privacy standard that this might fall under?

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Let me first remind everyone, I am not the other roscoe. I have followed this thread closely over the years and interjected with thoughts every now and then. I have believed that it is closer to your third alternative since the day it happened. I got the sense that Sullivan was trying to persuade Flynn to drop his plea at such time because Sullivan knew the dots were not connecting and something nefarious was likely happening on the DOJ side, and Sullivan's method of persuasion was to challenge Flynn directly by stating what the guilty plea potentially insinuates from the general public's perspective.

---

Maybe. My doubts about this scenario is because Sullivan hasn't been consistent on this score. Sydney's been on the case for nearly a year, repeatedly requesting for relief for Flynn. If Sullivan had such concerns about Flynn being railroaded I'd have expected him to look a little kinder towards those requests instead of with the jaundiced eye he exhibited.

Guess we'll both see if Sullivan was playing the long con here.

Thanks for posting and adding to the discussion.

---

Sullivan's erratic behavior is, in my experience, not atypical for federal judges. Some federal judges are great judges all of the time, some are horrible judges all of the time, and with some, it depends on the day. I have been in front of many emotional and temperamental federal judges.

When my clients would invariably ask me about their chances in court, I'd respond that I could tell them how their case should turn out, but that once they walked through the courthouse doors, all bets were off. And that's because judges and juries, even in federal court, are people with all of the usual emotional and temperamental problems of people.

---

Hhmm. Sullivan's "erratic behavior" may have had farther reaching consequences, than originally contemplated.

Quote:

---

The Dec. 18 hearing was where Judge Sullivan made the infamous "suggestion" via asking the prosecutor if the issue had been examined that maybe Gen. Flynn might have committed treason.

Later Judge Sullivan backtracked and offered a non-apology apology for his comments, and attempted to defend his motives for asking that loaded question. Yet even later in the hearing Judge Sullivan conceded that he didn't even know what the elements of an offense charging treason might be. He made comments that clearly suggested he had a "jaundiced eye" with regard to the plea agreement and sentencing recommendation regarding Gen. Flynn because he disagreed with the disposition of the criminal case brought against Gen. Petreaus where he escaped with a misdemeanor conviction for unauthorized distribution of classified information. But hey, what's the big deal over a bit of spiff-balling from the bench about "treason" even if you do happen to defame a retired 3 Star General with 33 years of uniformed service to his country?

So, I'm not of a mind to treat Judge Sullivan with any "deferential respect."

Judge Sullivan screwed up the factual basis of the guilty plea entered by Gen. Flynn, and the procedure he employed was unsound and violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. I think DOJ knows this to be the case, but given Judge Sullivan's unpredictability they have opted to not "call him out" on it at this point. Instead, I suspect there is a hope that he may recognize his error it's right there in the transcript and will instead grant the DOJ motion which solves his problem without him having to confront or be confronted on his own astonishing error.

Below are passages from the hearing transcript. I note the page number for each passage that instructs my conclusion.

Quote:

---

P. 5
THE COURT: And there are some questions that I'm going to ask Mr. Flynn, and because this is an extension, in my opinion, of the plea colloquy, I'm going to ask the courtroom deputy at that time to administer the oath, because normally when we have plea colloquies, we always require a defendant to be under oath, and that's what I'm going to do this morning, unless there are objections.

---

In this passage, Judge Sullivan admits that he believes a further "colloquy" is necessary with regard to Gen. Flynn's decision to enter a guilty plea. That means that as of this point in the transcript, he still has not found that all the necessary subjects have been addressed to his satisfaction, and he's not yet prepared to accept Gen. Flynn's guilty plea.

---

Quote:

---

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11(b)(3) states: Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea. Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. That means the Court must determine there are facts which satisfy each element of the charged offense before the Court can "enter judgment" against a defendant based on a guilty plea.

---

Quote:

---

Under Rule 11, before Judge Sullivan could "enter judgment" on Gen. Flynn, he needed to determine that there was a factual basis as to EACH element of the charged offense.
Here's the part where he screwed up.
He didn't do that which he confirmed with his own comments, not once, but twice.

Quote:

---

P. 19
Mr. Flynn admitted that his false statements or omissions impeded and had a material impact on the investigation, and when I ask questions of the government, I need to know answers about how he impeded the investigation and what the material impact on the investigation was.

---

Judge Sullivan states in open court and on the record he still does not know how the false statements were material. Without knowing that, he can't determine if there actually is a factual basis for Gen. Flynn's guilty plea because Judge Sullivan MUST KNOW that factual basis BEFORE he can adjudge Gen. Flynn to be guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
But Judge Sullivan didn't just say he didn't know if the statements were material one time he came back to it at the end of the hearing and confirmed a second time that he didn't know if Gen. Flynn's statements were material.

Quote:

---

P. 50
THE COURT: Let me just throw this out. Let me just share this with you. What I could do, and maybe it's not appropriate to do it now, and maybe it's not appropriate to do it in March. At some point it probably won't surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions, and at some point what I may do is share those questions with counsel so you can give some thought, maybe do some additional research to be prepared for an eventual sentencing. I'm not sure if I want to do that. I was not going to spend another hour and share those questions with you in open court today, had you decided to postpone sentencing, but I may do that. I'm not sure. These are questions that you would be prepared to answer anyway, such as, you know, how the government's investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the criminality? Things like that.

---

---

Ooops.

LINK

Quote:

---

I thought Grenell could desclassify things. I'm assuming he gave them to Barr for investigation and didn't want to release them without Barr saying it was ok.

---

He can, in theory. But he needs to check with a whole host of agencies under his umbrella. Barr is one stop shopping and also it can count as a criminal referral.

"Hey! Looky what I found! What do you think? Crime here?"

Shipwreckedcrew is the same author who lambasted Lawfare X 2 as well as McCord's OpEd.

drcrinum said:

---

Shipwreckedcrew is the same author who lambasted Lawfare X 2 as well as McCord's OpEd.

---

Yeah, I noticed that and was more intrigued to read their take. Thanks for bringing them to this thread. They are quite persuasive to me.

Uh-oh. Probably Lawfare.

Quote:

---

Actually, would this type of illegal breach fall under some of the data breach regulations where those whose data has been exposed must be notified?

---

Disclosure for thee but not for me. First rule of government is we aren't subject to the rules we make for everyone else.

Now that's just my cynical take as I have no freaking idea.

Needed to vent a bit.

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

Sidney Powell: Open Memorandum to Barack Obama.

aggiehawg said:

---

Andy McCarthy is writing up a storm today.

Quote:

---

The issue for the Justice Department is....

---

Quote:

---

.....

---

Quote:

---

......

---

....

Quote:

---

....

---

Quote:

---

....

---

Quote:

---

......

---

Quote:

---

....

---

Quote:

---

....

---

LINK

This "case" against Flynn was screwed up from the get-go, long before Mueller was appointed. Had Mueller had any honest prosecutors on his team, they would have recognized that and declined to raise the matter. But since Van Grack was in on some of the early DOJ meetings about Flynn, he was best positioned to take the case forward anyway. An egregious position knowing what we know now but what Van Grack likely knew back then, the very beginning.

That type of prosecutorial malfeasance cannot be condoned. He should be fired from DOJ and subject to disciplinary process for his massive ethical lapses and dare I say, crimes.

---

The second link you provided had this statement:
"In Flynn's case, the government could not conceivably have met its burden of proof. In dismissing the case on a legal rationale, the Justice Department avoided the potential of an ugly trial that would have damaged the FBI and DOJ."

This kind of pissed me off, if the corrupt POS in the DIJ & FBI are not brought to justice then the main reason to drop charges will have been to prevent damage to the FBI & DOJ.

When I say brought to justice I mean jail time not just slaps on the wrist.

To quote the insufferable Eric Holder (in a similar FRCP 48(a) motion);

Quote:

---

After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial.

In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.

---

Quote:

---

A week later, Sullivan dismissed the case but not without first dressing down the prosecutors involved. "In nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct I have seen in this case," he said.

Sullivan took it a step further, ruling that the missteps were too numerous and too egregious for an internal investigation within the DOJ to suffice. An outside attorney was appointed to review the case and determine whether any of the prosecutors involved should be held in criminal contempt.

---

But yes, Sullivan is a sad fraud, like so many of our black robed masters....

aggiehawg said:

---

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

---

My understanding of the rule is he doesn't really have a choice. The only reason he could deny it would be to prevent harassment from the government dismissing and refiling. This is with prejudice, so that's not an issue. I don't think he has any option but to dismiss.

Grassley's letter:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-12%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20ODNI%20%28Flynn%20Records%29.pdf

Quote:

---

...In February 2017, I requested records relating to the investigation into Flynn and the overall Russia investigation. In particular, I asked for the transcript of the call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and all records relating to his interview with the FBI, which I have yet to receive. In August 2017, I asked that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassify key pieces of information relating to the Flynn case. Moreover, as I noted yesterday on the Senate floor, I acquired an email sent from National Security Advisor Susan Rice that she wrote to herself on her last day in office. That email described a January 5, 2017, meeting between President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director Comey, Deputy Attorney General Yates, and Rice where they discussed the Russia investigation. That email, along with the DIA records, contains classified information that should be declassified because the public interest in the information outweighs the need to protect it. Accordingly, I request that those records be declassified.

And finally, public reports have indicated that the names of Obama administration officials who unmasked Flynn and others have been declassified....

---

More ammo for Grenell to declassify & release.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

---

My understanding of the rule is he doesn't really have a choice. The only reason he could deny it would be to prevent harassment from the government dismissing and refiling. This is with prejudice, so that's not an issue. I don't think he has any option but to dismiss.

---

Unfortunately that's not entirely accurate. He has already (perhaps against the federal rules) accepted Flynn's plea. He could still legally pronounce sentence on Flynn. Sure it would probably end his career if he does so but maybe he's ready to retire. Only recourse would be going after his pension at that point.

Barr might have some other ideas, however. If this really unprecedented action by Sullivan has pissed him of enough...that is. Barr has Article II powers, Sullivan has Article III. But that doesn't mean that Barr can't investigate whether Judge Sullivan is being blackmailed and unduly coerced, nor whether his mental acuity is...<ahem> compromised.

DOJ spokesperson on Martha MCallum that ODNI can unilaterally release the document without DOJ or other permission.

Edit to add - the spokesladies of the current administration/agencies are complete smokeshows.

Of course the final resort would be a presidential pardon. I cannot see that after all that has been exposed, Flynn would end up in prison.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

---

My understanding of the rule is he doesn't really have a choice. The only reason he could deny it would be to prevent harassment from the government dismissing and refiling. This is with prejudice, so that's not an issue. I don't think he has any option but to dismiss.

---

Not a lawyer...but it appears to me His Honor (lol) has taken another option. Personally, I hope HESAGC!

BuddysBud said:

---

Of course the final resort would be a presidential pardon. I cannot see that after all that has been exposed, Flynn would end up in prison.

---

As I said several weeks ago .. let it all play out ... then a week later, a Trump pardon to get another 1-2 weeks in the news cycle.

Congrats on page 1,100 guys!

I just want to make sure it registers in everybody's mind!

It really does!

If this is all open to 3rd parties, the can someone file a brief on how the Judge is a piece of crap?

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Congrats on page 1,100 guys!

I just want to make sure it registers in everybody's mind!

---

Not sure "Congrats" is the appropriate term here, And unless Trump is reelected the corruption and malfeasance exposed in this thread will end abruptly. Not that corruption will end , it will just stop being exposed.

Sad that there has been sooo much material to keep this thread going for as long as it has.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1260354263638781954.html

Very interesting thread with lots of circumstantial evidence to back it up. The author is a meticulous researcher.

Have not read it yet but.....He's after his pound of flesh. He does not like either side to play games with evidence. This is close to what I heard yesterday but also accepting outside letters/memorandum as well is a twist. I do think he may call prosecuting attorneys and investigators to be in attendance and be scolded

.....and the band played on

Rockdoc said:

---

.....and the band played on

---

Wake me when Nearer My God to Thee is playing so I know when the lifeboats are full. We are stuck on Orpheus right now.

aggiehawg said:

---

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

---

How is this different than when the SC ***** slapped the 9th circuit recently, unanimously and lead by RBG, for bringing outside organizations to submit arguments that the circuit felt should have been made.

Quote:

---

Ginsburg wrote that the Ninth Circuit's actions undermined the principle that parties and their counsels are responsible for presenting their own case.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-eviscerates-9th-circuits-handling-of-immigration-consultants-case

Adam Ag 98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Welp! Now we know for sure that Judge Sullivan is a lousy judge and/or seriously compromised. Most likely the latter.

ETA: Now I need a second martini to calm me down.

---

How is this different than when the SC ***** slapped the 9th circuit recently, unanimously and lead by RBG, for bringing outside organizations to submit arguments that the circuit felt should have been made.

Quote:

---

Ginsburg wrote that the Ninth Circuit's actions undermined the principle that parties and their counsels are responsible for presenting their own case.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-eviscerates-9th-circuits-handling-of-immigration-consultants-case

---

It was my understanding that amicus briefing was appropriate when the outcome of the case could impact other third parties, or be a matter of public interest. How does this case fit that standard?