Finn said:
Would be clutch if it comes out they were spying on Bernie or some Dems. To see the mental gymnastics would be great.
Quote:
Senate Republicans are vowing to haul James Comey and James Clapper back before Congress to ask which one committed perjury about briefing then-President Barack Obama on Michael Flynn's calls with Russia's ambassador.
Comey, the fired former FBI director, said in newly released congressional testimony that Clapper, the former US intelligence chief, briefed Obama. Clapper testified, however, that he did not.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told The Post, "You don't have to be a senior at city college to realize one of them is lying. I think we ought to call them both back in and ask them: Which one of you guys is lying to Congress?"
"If you or I lie to Congress, it's supposed to be a felony," Kennedy said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told The Post he plans to hold hearings about a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting in the Oval Office where Obama startled then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who ran day-to-day operations at the Justice Department, by informing her about two December 2016 calls between Flynn, a campaign adviser and transition aide to incoming President Trump, and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
LINKQuote:
"We'll have hearings about the Jan. 5 meeting," Graham told The Post. Comey and Clapper "definitely" would be invited, he said.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SC) noted the Judiciary Committee's role to The Post, saying that "these guys can't seem to shoot straight. Clearly there were a lot of misstatements and everything else that need to be researched and further investigated."
Reps for Comey and Clapper who are among the top officials who tried to "unmask" Flynn's identity during the Russia probe, according to a report by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The FBI under Comey routinely bypassed Justice Department leaders, including in announcing a decision not to criminally charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information.
Remember Samantha Powers' testimony according to Gowdy's interview by Bret Bier.Secolobo said:
Quote:
"Her testimony is they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests" .... "I think if she were on your show, she would say those requests to unmask may have been attributed to her, but they greatly exceed by an exponential factor the requests she actually made," Gowdy said. "So, that's her testimony, and she was pretty emphatic in it."
From the Hans thread further down.drcrinum said:That's why I suggested on our previous page that Team Mueller was blackmailing Covington & Burling over the FARA issue.VaultingChemist said:
Nice little racket he has set up. Advises his clients, gets them into trouble and then bills to defend them. That's hyperbole of course but this guy has been in intractable conflict cases many times before, apparently.Quote:
Robert Kelner is the chair of Covington's nationally recognized Election and Political Law Practice Group. He counsels clients on the full range of political law compliance matters, and defends clients in civil and criminal law enforcement investigations concerning political activity. He also leads the firm's prominent congressional investigations practice.
Mr. Kelner's political law compliance practice covers federal and state campaign finance, lobbying disclosure, pay to play, and government ethics laws. His expertise includes the Federal Election Campaign Act, Lobbying Disclosure Act, Ethics in Government Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
In your years of practice, how many times have you seen this level of unethical behavior by a defendant's legal representation, particularly from such a "prestigious" law firm?Quote:
Did Flynn really understand any of that? Likely not since the side agreements (and it's plural now because it's more than just Flynn's son) were not specified in the written memorialization of the guilty plea.
Covington & Burling helped their clients, the tobacco companies, "deceive smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about the hazards of smoking and second-hand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine."Quote:
But the Court also directly addressed the law firm Covington & Burling specifically: "Covington & Burling was counsel for the Tobacco Institute and was also described as counsel for the 'industry'. ... An attorney from Covington & Burling attended every meeting of the Committee ... also cleared press releases issued by the Tobacco Institute. ... Covington & Burling, became the guiding strategists for the Enterprise and were deeply involved in implementation of those strategies once adopted." Along with two other firms, which helped create the Tobacco Institute in 1958, and served the industry for the next 50 years came this condemnation:Quote:
"Finally, a word must be said about the role of lawyers in this fifty-year history of deceiving smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about the hazards of smoking and second-hand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine. At every stage, lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the Enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes. They devised and coordinated both national and international strategy; they directed scientists as to what research they should and should not undertake; they vetted scientific research papers and reports as well as public relations materials to ensure that the interests of the Enterprise would be protected; they identified 'friendly' scientific witnesses, subsidized them with grants from the Center for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research, paid them enormous fees, and often hid the relationship between those witnesses and the industry; and they devised and carried out document destruction policies and took shelter behind baseless assertions of the attorney-client privilege. What a sad and disquieting chapter in the history of an honorable and often courageous profession."
No, not really. I've seen dirty prosecutors because they are elected but not defense counsel.VaultingChemist said:In your years of practice, how many times have you seen this level of unethical behavior by a defendant's legal representation, particularly from such a "prestigious" law firm?Quote:
Did Flynn really understand any of that? Likely not since the side agreements (and it's plural now because it's more than just Flynn's son) were not specified in the written memorialization of the guilty plea.
However, the Clinton email scandal illustrates the unequal treatment by the FBI towards Clinton and Trump.nortex97 said:
No, that immunity cannot be revoked, period.
The 'obamagate' focus though needs to not be the Clinton server, but rather the massive state police apparatus used to spy on and prosecute the Trump campaign/administration.
Quote:
......but the evidence strongly suggests FLYNN PARTICIPATED IN OVERT INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES.....
Quote:
....Two big Q's:
1. Why was the first unmasking on 30 Nov 16 when Grenell provided a list going back to 8 Nov 16? (Early transition activities were intense -- this doesn't make sense.)
2. How is the 30 Nov 16 unmasking connected to the last DIA email occurring on the same day?
Those answers may depend on whether Flynn was also providing DIA clandestine HUMINT collection services for foreign counterintelligence, and had consented to having his communications monitored until 30 Nov 16.
Was Flynn also working for the DIA's Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) and/or the Office of Counterintelligence, Special Activities Division?...
Quote:
Significantly, Flynn also told Covington in their first meeting, that he briefed DIA before meeting the Turks in New York in September 2016.
Unfortunately, I have seen this behavior personally.aggiehawg said:No, not really. I've seen dirty prosecutors because they are elected but not defense counsel.VaultingChemist said:In your years of practice, how many times have you seen this level of unethical behavior by a defendant's legal representation, particularly from such a "prestigious" law firm?Quote:
Did Flynn really understand any of that? Likely not since the side agreements (and it's plural now because it's more than just Flynn's son) were not specified in the written memorialization of the guilty plea.
Quote:
In a remarkable twist, it was agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who discovered that the head of the CIA was conducting an affair during an inquiry into possible email security breaches.'
Yeah, a 'remarkable twist'.
SURE.
3. Check out this timeline, knowing what we now today.
Nov 6 2012 - Obama wins POTUS election.
Nov 7 - 'FBI officials' brief DNI Clapper.
Nov 8 - Clapper tells Petraeus to resign.
Nov 9 - CIA Director Petraeus resigns.
NOW - what was CIA Director Petraeus schedule for Nov 14?
4. 'Petraeus was to testify before a congressional panel..on what the CIA knew about the September 11 attack on US installments in the Libyan city of Benghazi, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American personnel.'
Thoughts?Quote:
Back to Petraeus.
The 'evidence' used to take him out were emails between him and his lover that were 'accidentally' discovered by 'FBI agents' conducting a 'cyber stalking investigation'.
Have you ever heard such utter bs?
The 'FBI officials' briefed DNI Clapper.
. Director of the FBI?
Robert Mueller.
Any bets that one of the other officials heavily involved was none other than Andy McCabe.
Also, McCabe was one of the lead FBI agents 'investigating' Benghazi.
It gets better than that. Prior to the civil suit, this same attorney colluded with a large land owner, who was the president of the local Crimestoppers, to have my father indicted for theft. The local prosecutor tried to coerce my father into pleading guilty, which he refused because he was innocent. They went as far as picking the jury, before they dismissed the charges.aggiehawg said:
WOW! I've seen some shenanigans where a firm represents a partnership and then chooses sides when the partnership breaks up, to the detriment of the other partners before. BTW, that little scenario cost Vinson & Elkins about 3 million dollars when my favorite legal malpractice attorneys were finished with them.
But I've never seen a criminal defense attorney sell their client down the river like C&B did to Flynn in colluding with prosecutors. They are supposed to adversaries, not allies.
Sorry your Dad had to go through that.
Quote:
First things first: Understand Obama's Surveillance Operation HERE. Michael Flynn wasn't under a FISA (Title-1) HERE . that's the background.
The riddle of how the White House discovered the telephone call and subsequent content between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak appears to have been solved. The FBI used a "Pen Register." There was no unmasking, and no warrant.
A pen register is a device/process which records the telephone numbers of outgoing calls. Monitoring outgoing call numbers does not require a search warrant or FISA.
Quote:
After the 2016 election Lt. Gen Flynn was given a government issued secure cell phone; a blackberry device for use. However, with Flynn under a preexisting FBI investigation the phone numbers Flynn was calling in December '16 and January '17 were being monitored.
A review of prior testimony by former FBI Director James Comey HERE; prior testimony by former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Here; and a cross-reference of recent releases of Flynn unmasking documents Here tells the full story.
In December of 2016 incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was under a sketchy FBI Counterintelligence investigation for possible coordination with Russia. According to recent documents and the Comey transcript, the Flynn investigation began in the summer of 2016; that investigation was ongoing in late December.
After President Obama initiated sanctions against Russia on December 29, 2016. The Obama administration was trying to figure out why Russia was not reacting. According to James Comey testimony the intelligence community, writ large, was tasked to find out why Russia was not reacting more severely. See Transcript:
Quote:
SUMMARY: Flynn was under FBI investigation. Per the IG report there was no FISA on Michael Flynn. In the document generated by James Comey to share with DNI James Clapper, to brief President Obama Michael Flynn's name was not masked. The document was generated as a result of a pen register monitoring the outgoing contacts and phone numbers of Michael Flynn's phone.
- Flynn's call was the subject of a "pen registry".
- Flynn's device was government issued.
- Flynn's "outgoing" calls monitored without warrant.
- Kislyak's number was known.
- The pen registry identified the specific calls from Flynn to Kislyak.
- An "agency" provided the FBI with call content.
- Comey provided call content (w/ a document) to James Clapper.
- Clapper shared with White House during briefing.
- No unmasking, no warrant, no FISA.
Quote:
Minimization, Tech Cuts, Unmasking -- A Guide
What follows is a thoroughly revised version of my post from yesterday: The Flynn Case: Unmasking, Pen Registers, Tech Cuts. Although I call this a "guide," it's actually tailored specifically to the Flynn case because that's the context in which most of the public discussion of "unmasking" has arisen......
My initial thought .... anything's possible given what we've learned the last 3 yrs. Public trust in our gov is at Chapter 7 Bankruptcy levels.aggiehawg said:
Well, this is kind of out there but posting here anyway. Was Petraeus framed?
Thoughts?
That explains a lot, thank you.drcrinum said:
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/05/minimization-tech-cuts-unmasking-guide.htmlQuote:
Minimization, Tech Cuts, Unmasking -- A Guide
What follows is a thoroughly revised version of my post from yesterday: The Flynn Case: Unmasking, Pen Registers, Tech Cuts. Although I call this a "guide," it's actually tailored specifically to the Flynn case because that's the context in which most of the public discussion of "unmasking" has arisen......
Required reading. I'm afraid most of what we know about and have been reading about regarding unmasking in the Flynn case is erroneous. Even DOJ people like Sally Yates didn't understand it. This is an article written by a chap who actually performed this type of work, & he explains everything.
Nope. I did file a grievance against the attorney, which went nowhere. I also talked to the FBI about the bankruptcy fraud. At that time in the early 90's, they wouldn't investigate bankruptcy fraud unless it exceeded $75,000 in value. It was difficult to prove the value of my father's partner's real estate that he assigned to his adult children (while retaining power of attorney by virtue of an agreement signed by them). Needless to say, the partner was investing in risky real estate ventures under an assumed name shortly after his bankruptcy was finalized.fasthorse05 said:
Damn Chemist, did your father's neighbor live in DC once?
That's pretty impressive skullduggery by that attorney. What an *******!
BTW, does anyone know who Sundance is? It's one thing to have experience, but he must have spent quite a bit of time in DC. A fertile mind doesn't come up with that much quality information---normally.
Good. Probative of a conspiracy case.Quote:
This area is somewhat arcane for most people. As you saw, only the two bureau people really had a handle on it--even Sally Yates was pretty fuzzy, as she admitted, although she knew that Senator Graham was off base.
1) Use of what was gathered would have been limited by the facts--and imagination. The 7th floor was looking for anything that could be used against Flynn, but they couldn't share that intent even with Pientka at WFO (or so it appears at this point). The fact that Trump and Flynn were so clean musta been terribly frustrating.
2) Exactly. And that's why the large volume of unmaskings is probative in a conspiracy case like this.
3) I can only speculate here, but I'd look in the direction that the Flynn/PTT situation worked off the Carter Page FISA somehow--since there doesn't appear to be a nexus to Kislyak in terms of the actual phone connections. However, there is a nexus in the content and context, and that may be how it worked. If so, we can get an idea of how useful that Page FISA was. To be sure, we need more detail.
CAVEAT: The "2 hop rule" is after my time, so I'm not totally clear how it would work in practice. The fact that there were so many unmaskings of Flynn (let alone others) would seem to indicate that "2 hop" wasn't as blanket in application as we often read.
you didn't have access to some domestic hogs?VaultingChemist said:It gets better than that. Prior to the civil suit, this same attorney colluded with a large land owner, who was the president of the local Crimestoppers, to have my father indicted for theft. The local prosecutor tried to coerce my father into pleading guilty, which he refused because he was innocent. They went as far as picking the jury, before they dismissed the charges.aggiehawg said:
WOW! I've seen some shenanigans where a firm represents a partnership and then chooses sides when the partnership breaks up, to the detriment of the other partners before. BTW, that little scenario cost Vinson & Elkins about 3 million dollars when my favorite legal malpractice attorneys were finished with them.
But I've never seen a criminal defense attorney sell their client down the river like C&B did to Flynn in colluding with prosecutors. They are supposed to adversaries, not allies.
Sorry your Dad had to go through that.
The attorney was also my father's next-door neighbor, which had previously caused animosity between them (my father had purchased the property, which the attorney had wanted to buy). After the law suits, we parked a couple of old beat-up trucks on our property closest to his house.
Edit. I know this sounds like a M.F. Barnes story, but it is not.
Bingo. My antennas went up too. We mostly know what happened ...I don't envy Durham's job stitching it all together coherently..aggiehawg said:Good. Probative of a conspiracy case.Quote:
2) Exactly. And that's why the large volume of unmaskings is probative in a conspiracy case like this.
