For a sip Sperry has some great tweets tonight.

I didn't know he was that old. Comment withdrawn. Ban user.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I heard some jackass lawyer in TV say that the administration was following the unmasking law. I seriously doubt it was being used as intended and authorized by people that had a need to know the US Person Identity to understand the meaning of an intercept of a foreign person they were tasked with investigating for a specific reason. Yeah. I'm totally sure there was totally not a breakdown And change in approval Requirement standards that was totally exploited by the Obama administration for political reasons.

---

While I agree that the unmasking themselves were allowed under the law at the time, even the FISA Court found that up to 85% of 702 queries were improper. Just because you have the legal authority to do something doesn't mean you should.

It was the leaking of the content to unauthorized people (reporters) that's the felony with a heavy penalty. Although just leaking the names of the parties on the call could also suffice as felony under the right circumstances.

The predicate to capture that call and to unmask were completely fabricated.

I'm saying the vetting process for unmasking is basically an honor system the way it is described. You just have to document you did an extremely top secret thing and state who you are, what you are doing, and CLAIM you need to unmask to understand intel for an investigative purpose on record.

There doesn't appear to be any vetting of the actual validity of the claim, just the requirement that it be made in writing. I think once this very obvious giant gaping hole in the 4th amendment protection of US persons was discovered by those with clearance to access it and no qualms about grossly abusing it with very little concern about it ever being publicly known, the Obama administration went wild with it. Nobody questions if the claim to need the US person unmasked is plausibly legitimate. They just check that the claim is submitted it writing.

I think that was the way it was designed but Clapper made some changes that allowed the unmasking to grow wild. I can't find articles that detailed what changes he made though.

aggiehawg would probably know.

jdavault said:

---

---

Well done.

Quote:

---

Sundance makes a great point: There was no unmasking of Flynn between December 29, 2016 & January 4, 2017, yet they were scrutinizing his transcripts. How?

---

Because they didn't need to request an unmasking of an incidental capture. They had both ends of the call. Kislyak was under electronic surveillance by virtue of being a foreign national on U.S. soil. Flynn was also under a form of electronic surveillance, although without a warrant.

There is no other explanation.

Have we decided if the Dems had contact with Kislyak before his call with Flynn? I'm asking because there was some suspicion on a few posts suggesting the Dems not only set Flynn up, but even contacted Kislyak before the call.

And, I agree with you 100%, there's not another reason for no unmaskings during that time period. If evidence suddenly appears (Grenell) showing certain people unmasked Flynn for the Kislyak call, it shows culpability. With this EO, there's no proof, or at least evidence for an investigator to attach motive to actions.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they didn't need to request an unmasking of an incidental capture. They had both ends of the call. Kislyak was under electronic surveillance by virtue of being a foreign national on U.S. soil. Flynn was also under a form of electronic surveillance, although without a warrant.

---

There is no other explanation.

---

Title III is a 'wiretap' .... used in criminal investigations.

Link: 18 U.S. Code 2518.Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

Secolobo said:

---

jdavault said:

---

---

Well done.

---

I have no idea what this about. Seems like a threat of exposure of some sort. "Rod" is a reference to Rod Rosenstein who was appointed by W. Bush to be the US Attorney for the District of Maryland in 2005. He was the only US Attorney to be held over by Obama.

So it sounds like Sullivan's son got into a scrape with the law and Rod made it go away as a favor to Sullivan?

The Soros stuff is always interesting but suggesting a federal judge is on the take like that is...well...very dangerous for a licensed lawyer. You can get disbarred for denigrating a judge.

aggiehawg said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

jdavault said:

---

---

Well done.

---

I have no idea what this about. Seems like a threat of exposure of some sort. "Rod" is a reference to Rod Rosenstein who was appointed by W. Bush to be the US Attorney for the District of Maryland in 2005. He was the only US Attorney to be held over by Obama.

So it sounds like Sullivan's son got into a scrape with the law and Rod made it go away as a favor to Sullivan?

The Soros stuff is always interesting but suggesting a federal judge is on the take like that is...well...very dangerous for a licensed lawyer. You can get disbarred for denigrating a judge.

---

Parody....sarcasm....tongue in cheek.....something like that

Quote:

---

(a)
there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of this chapter;
(b)
there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;
(c)
normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(d)
except as provided in subsection (11), there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.

---

Still need probable cause. And a judicially approved wire tap would be on record somewhere. And that fact would also have to be specifically mentioned in the charge and plea deal, because such evidence was obtained pursuant to a judicially approved warrant.

It wasn't, ergo there was no Title III warrant, is my position.

Quote:

---

Parody....sarcasm....tongue in cheek.....something like that

---

My point remains. That guy better not be a lawyer.

It is an interesting theory that it would have been very easy for someone at state to mention to Kislyak that he should drop a line to Flynn to establish communications with the incoming administration. That may not have been necessary however as it was inevitable Kislyak would call the new cabinet as they were announced. That was his job after all, so pretty much those listening had only to wait. Now, pushing a topic of conversation is something else. It is arguable that the sanctions were made knowing that the Russians would inevitably inquire about them with their opposites in both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

aggiehawg said:

---

Still need probable cause. And a judicially approved wire tap would be on record somewhere. And that fact would also have to be specifically mentioned in the charge and plea deal, because such evidence was obtained pursuant to a judicially approved warrant.

It wasn't, ergo there was no Title III warrant, is my position.

---

Wouldn't rule it out looking at how they handled their FISA warrants. 'Common' wiretaps are a fairly low bar when combined with judge shopping.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It is an interesting theory that it would have been very easy for someone at state to mention to Kislyak that he should drop a line to Flynn to establish communications with the incoming administration. That may not have been necessary however as it was inevitable Kislyak would call the new cabinet as they were announced. That was his job after all, so pretty much those listening had only to wait. Now, pushing a topic of conversation is something else. It is arguable that the sanctions were made knowing that the Russians would inevitably inquire about them with their opposites in both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

---

Plus Flynn already knew Kislyak and had a preexisting relationship with him close enough where Flynn called to offer condolences when a relative of Kislyak's died. (Or it may have been the other way around. I just remember that in describing his contacts with Kislyak there was a condolence call in there somewhere.)

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Still need probable cause. And a judicially approved wire tap would be on record somewhere. And that fact would also have to be specifically mentioned in the charge and plea deal, because such evidence was obtained pursuant to a judicially approved warrant.

It wasn't, ergo there was no Title III warrant, is my position.

---

Wouldn't rule it out looking at how they handled their FISA warrants. 'Common' wiretaps are a fairly low bar when combined with judge shopping.

---

It wouldn't make sense to go to the FISA court for Page on the basis of the dossier, in which Flynn was also named I might add, but use a Title III warrant on Flynn. Although both require probable cause, in practice the FISA court's is much lower in practice.

If they had enough on Flynn to get a regular court approved wiretap, why not on Page too?

Unless...the whole Inovo deal was a set-up to be able to obtain a legal wiretap but they couldn't reveal that in the charging instrument/plea deal. There's always Holder in the mix at Covington & Burling, after all. Could he have been the mastermind behind this? I have serious doubts but this has been such a quirky set of events with little rational connection of the dots, it is hard to be absolutely confident that something like didn't and couldn't happen.

Flynn had long been a thorn in Obama's side. Maybe he enlisted the aid of his old wingman one last time?

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/judge-sullivan-ignores-shocking-record-of-false/91131/

Don't fall off the turnip truck.

So could Sullivan be doing this in order to prompt his removal from the case?

He seems to be hell bent on doing what he is expressly required by law to do, which is to allow the dismissal.

Assuming he (for whatever reason) just doesn't want to be the guy that does that, could he be doing crazy, blatantly improper things in order to force it out of his court/hands?

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/14/recent-decisions-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-dc-circuit-show-sullivan-must-dismiss-flynn-case/

Quote:

---

...........But in the final paragraph he will say that, notwithstanding everything he has found to be true as reflected in his opinion, he has no choice under the law but to grant DOJ's motion and dismiss the case.

He'll order that his opinion be published in the Federal Supplement, with the goal being that his account will be the definitive historical account of the Gen. Flynn saga.

He'll do what the law commands him to do, but he'll do it in such a way that he's a hero to all his left-wing legal cronies.

---

Very long legal read by Shipwreckedcrew. Conclusion above.

pagerman @ work said:

---

So could Sullivan be doing this in order to prompt his removal from the case?

He seems to be hell bent on doing what he is expressly required by law to do, which is to allow the dismissal.

Assuming he (for whatever reason) just doesn't want to be the guy that does that, could he be doing crazy, blatantly improper things in order to force it out of his court/hands?

---

If he wants out of this case that badly, here's a thought...he can recuse himself. he has lost his objectivity and allowed his personal animus towards Flynn, instead of the applicable law, to cloud his judgment. He can admit something similar to that and simply withdraw.

What he is doing now could end in his being tossed off of the bench entirely, or very strongly urged to retire.

What is your take on Sullivan's hostility to Flynn?

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

He'll do what the law commands him to do, but he'll do it in such a way that he's a hero to all his left-wing legal cronies.

---

Very long legal read by Shipwreckedcrew. Conclusion above.

---

That seems like a reasonable guess. Let's hope they mandamus the fool and prevent it from happening.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edny/legacy/2015/04/06/HSBC%20Memorandum%20and%20Order%207.1.13.pdf

Quote:

---

The government has absolute discretion to decide not to prosecute. ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270, 283 (1987) ("t is entirely clear that the refusal to prosecute cannot be the subject of judicial review."). Even a formal, written agreement to that effect, which is often referred to as a "non-prosecution agreement," is not the business of the courts.6 In addition, the government has near-absolute power under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) to extinguish a case that it has brought. See United States v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) ("Rule 48(a) provides that prosecutors may, 'by leave of court,' file a dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint. A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"). In my view, if the government were now moving to dismiss this case, it would be an abuse of discretion to deny that motion.

---

But read his preceding sentence!

His preceding sentence is also now invalidated thanks to subsequent higher court decisions anyhow.

Wildcat said:

---

What is your take on Sullivan's hostility to Flynn?

---

Judging from Sullivan's untethered screed against Flynn at the very first hearing, he either had formed his opinion from reading news reports or had multiple ex parte communications with the prosecutors. Both are bad looks for a federal judge as he is taking into consideration "evidence" that is not properly before him and largely hearsay evidence at that.

Suggesting that Flynn could be tried for treason, which can carry a death sentence was highly improper, as no such charges were before him.

Judges often go on rants as a venting and say some dumb crap that they really don't mean, just because they can get away with it. Some judges like to come down hard on the party in whose favor they intend to rule as a show of being a "fair judge". Seems stupid but there is that mindset.

All of that is to say, although Flynn's attorneys at the time had every reason to be alarmed that Sullivan's animus was real and not just an act, they also had reason to think it was just an act.

In the fullness of time, we see now that they guessed poorly.