Crime Appeals Court to rehear Michael Flynn case

[Ophydian]

Sure, there is a thread all about it. His name is Stephan Halper, this is his second time being caught spying on a presidential campaign. Feel free to read all about his first adventure in both the New York Times and the Washington Post. The articles are in the thread.

Enjoy.

And who’s been indicted or brought up on charges over something so detrimental to the country? Half of Trump transition team plead guilty for one thing or another. You’d think since Trump owns the DoJ and Barr being his new fixer that we’d see something before Trump is booted from office.

 

[bobgeese]

And who’s been indicted or brought up on charges over something so detrimental to the country? Half of Trump transition team plead guilty for one thing or another. You’d think since Trump owns the DoJ and Barr being his new fixer that we’d see something before Trump is booted from office.

Concession accepted.


Trump walked, Flynn will walk, the left will cry about it and scream how they were actually right...

 

[BFoe]

In the pre interview notes, the question was posed "what is our goal?"
One of the following bullet points was "get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

That it took so long for this to be turned over to Flynn's defense is telling.



This. No one knows what Flynn said to these agents during the interview. There is no recording and no transcript.

The evidence we have, the 302 written by the interviewing agents, was edited extensively several weeks later. So extensively that Strzok mentions he struggled trying to retain Priestap's voice in the document. And he says he included edits by an FBI lawyer not present during the interview. The edited 302 has no value as evidence in a criminal trial, and the unedited 302 has never been presented to the court or to the defense.

There’s nothing wrong with posing that question, or discussing how an interview should be handled or what its goal is. The notes say a lot more than that, and indicate the FBI was moving away from simply letting Flynn lie, but rather showing him evidence of his lies if they occur.

Spoiler: Flynn interview goal notes

“What’s urgent?”
“Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The notes go on:

• We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
• I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
• If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give this to DOJ and have them decide
• Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] and he admits it, document for DOJ, and let them decide how to address it
• If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious
• Protect our institution by not playing games

Source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show
Flynn was asked very specific questions about discussing the Israeli settlement UN vote and Russian response to sanctions with Kislyak, and Flynn lied. If Flynn played the “I don’t recall” card, the FBI asked pointed follow up questions using Flynn’s own words—such as when they asked if he told Kislyak not to engage in a “tit for tat.” The FBI used that specific term because Flynn had used the term in his call. And Flynn still lied, and admitted in court (multiple times IIRC) that he lied, and admitted he knew it was a crime to lie. No one forced him not to be truthful. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he was entrapped in any way.

TLDR: He was interviewed in a fully predicated, open investigation with material relevance to counterintelligence operations and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and he committed the crime of lying to the FBI during that interview.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

There’s nothing wrong with posing that question, or discussing how an interview should be handled or what its goal is. The notes say a lot more than that, and indicate the FBI was moving away from simply letting Flynn lie, but rather showing him evidence of his lies if they occur.

Spoiler: Flynn interview goal notes

“What’s urgent?”
“Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The notes go on:

• We regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
• I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
• If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give this to DOJ and have them decide
• Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] and he admits it, document for DOJ, and let them decide how to address it
• If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious
• Protect our institution by not playing games

Source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show
Flynn was asked very specific questions about discussing the Israeli settlement UN vote and Russian response to sanctions with Kislyak, and Flynn lied. If Flynn plaid the “I don’t recall” card, the FBI asked pointed follow up questions using Flynn’s own words—such as when they asked if he told Kislyak not to engage in a “tit for tat.” The FBI used that specific term because Flynn had used the term in his call. And Flynn still lied, and admitted in court (multiple times IIRC) that he lied, and admitted he knew it was a crime to lie. No one forced him not to be truthful. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he was entrapped in any way.

TLDR: He was interviewed fully predicated, open investigation with material relevance to counterintelligence operations and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and he committed the crime of lying to the FBI during that interview.

you’re ignoring the part where both agents who interviewed him didn’t think he lied or was being deceptive. Kind of hard to have a lying to the feds charge if the feds don’t actually think you lied to them. Until the agent taking the notes about it has his notes edited by another agent a few weeks later, with the help of that agents lover/lawyer friend (both of whom have demonstrated their clear disdain for Trump and “stopping” him from being President) who wasn’t even present for the interview.

And they didn’t present him with the transcript in the interview. They could have. They chose not to. Flynn actually mentions to them that the call was recorded and tells them they can review the recording if they want to be sure of what was said.

you’re ignoring copious amounts of information to present your side of the argument in the best light possible.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Flynn was asked very specific questions about discussing the Israeli settlement UN vote and Russian response to sanctions with Kislyak, and Flynn lied. If Flynn played the “I don’t recall” card, the FBI asked pointed follow up questions using Flynn’s own words—such as when they asked if he told Kislyak not to engage in a “tit for tat.” The FBI used that specific term because Flynn had used the term in his call. And Flynn still lied, and admitted in court (multiple times IIRC) that he lied, and admitted he knew it was a crime to lie. No one forced him not to be truthful. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he was entrapped in any way.

1. There is evidence of an intent to entrap. Denying that is ridiculous at this point. It is in writing.
2. The idea that Flynn pleading guilty means he must have been guilty is flimsy. Defendants plead guilty all the time in court to things they never did. Some estimates are that as many as 25% of guilty pleas are from innocent people.
3. You are giving an account of the interview that was edited by the FBI agent long after the interview, and after the decision to prosecute, and including edits by an FBI lawyer. It simply isn't good evidence to go on. So maybe it went down that way. But we don't really know. The recent revelations related to the editing of the 302 alone should be enough to have this case tossed and Page and Strzok fired.
4. Again, it's important to know that other than allegedly lying to the FBI, Flynn did nothing criminal. He was the subject of an intensive investigation by multiple US agencies and they all cleared him. There's a background narrative that he was a traitor, something Sullivan absurdly shouted at him during the trial, or that he had committed many crimes but the process charge was the only thing they could nail him on. All untrue.

This prosecution is the equivalent of arresting someone for resisting arrest with no other basis for ever attempting an arrest to be resisted. Given the misconduct by the FBI and the DOJ after deciding to prosecute him, dropping the case is a no brainer at this point. That hasn't happened because the prosecution of Flynn has political motives.

 

[BFoe]

you’re ignoring the part where both agents who interviewed him didn’t think he lied or was being deceptive. Kind of hard to have a lying to the feds charge if the feds don’t actually think you lied to them. Until the agent taking the notes about it has his notes edited by another agent a few weeks later, with the help of that agents lover/lawyer friend (both of whom have demonstrated their clear disdain for Trump and “stopping” him from being President) who wasn’t even present for the interview.

And they didn’t present him with the transcript in the interview. They could have. They chose not to. Flynn actually mentions to them that the call was recorded and tells them they can review the recording if they want to be sure of what was said.

you’re ignoring copious amounts of information to present your side of the argument in the best light possible.

And you are missing several things.
1. Flynn’s crimes of lying were never construed as the biggest, most horrible crimes in the world—it was a (very very generous) plea deal. Barr’s argument that “sometimes people admit to things that turn out not to be crimes” is laughable in light of Flynn’s admissions that he did lie and he knew it was a crime.
2. The DOJ’s case for dismissal is flawed and wrong. Their application and argument under 18 USC 1001 is wrong.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case
It is probably unprecedented to have the DOJ move to dismiss a case against someone that they themselves prosecuted and has already plead guilty. It’s insane. This is probably why no one who prosecuted this case signed on to the government’s motion.

Spoiler: Sample quotes from above article

It’s telling that no career prosecutor was apparently willing to sign the department’s motion, which was signed only by interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea. The department’s arguments in this case fit a disturbingly partisan pattern of distorting long-standing legal doctrines in the service of protecting the president as an individual rather than the national interest.”

“The attorney general and his minions are making the astounding argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat. This cannot be right. Even if the prior investigation into Flynn had been closed, which it had not, these circumstances at a minimum justified an assessment under standard FBI policy.”

3. The good news for Flynn is, the burden for a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is fairly low. So he may well get out of this, although there’s no reason whatsoever to dismiss without prejudice. However, what should follow is an aggressive prosecution for the much larger crimes from which he had been protected by his plea deal.
The bad news for Americans is that our current DOJ doesn’t seem keen to prosecute anyone involved in the investigations into election interference. Barr and his DOJ are shockingly corrupt, and that’s the real scandal here—not the very generous plea deal that Flynn voluntarily accepted.

 

[ka pow]

Flynn discussed the expulsion of diplomats with the Russian ambassador but not sanctions. The FBI did not even ask Flynn about sanctions. According to the heavily edited 302, Flynn said he didn't remember discussing the expulsion of diplomats but Flynn also said it was possible that he did. That's not "lying to the FBI about discussing sanctions." This case is completely political bullshit.

 

[Rek Rekington]

Concession accepted.


Trump walked, Flynn will walk, the left will cry about it and scream how they were actually right...

Interesting that a "patriot" would be thrilled by criminal activity going rewarded and unpunished, especially at the government level.

 

[BFoe]

Flynn discussed the expulsion of diplomats with the Russian ambassador but not sanctions. The FBI did not even ask Flynn about sanctions. According to the heavily edited 302, Flynn said he didn't remember discussing the expulsion of diplomats but Flynn also said it was possible that he did. That's not "lying to the FBI about discussing sanctions." This case is completely political bullshit.

Not this again, Ka Pow...
Expulsion of diplomats is a sanction. You cannot separate expulsions and sanctions, it makes no sense, and is such a ridiculous thing to say that it doesn’t even constitute an argument.

 

[ka pow]

Not this again, Ka Pow...
Expulsion of diplomats is a sanction. You cannot separate expulsions and sanctions, it makes no sense, and is such a ridiculous thing to say that it doesn’t even constitute an argument.

Sanction is not the same as expulsion of diplomats.

Admitting to not remembering the details of a phone call from 3 weeks prior is not a crime. Flynn even said it was possible those things were discussed. The case was bullshit from the beginning.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

And you are missing several things.
1. Flynn’s crimes of lying were never construed as the biggest, most horrible crimes in the world—it was a (very very generous) plea deal. Barr’s argument that “sometimes people admit to things that turn out not to be crimes” is laughable in light of Flynn’s admissions that he did lie and he knew it was a crime.
2. The DOJ’s case for dismissal is flawed and wrong. Their application and argument under 18 USC 1001 is wrong.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case
It is probably unprecedented to have the DOJ move to dismiss a case against someone that they themselves prosecuted and has already plead guilty. It’s insane. This is probably why no one who prosecuted this case signed on to the government’s motion.

Spoiler: Sample quotes from above article

It’s telling that no career prosecutor was apparently willing to sign the department’s motion, which was signed only by interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea. The department’s arguments in this case fit a disturbingly partisan pattern of distorting long-standing legal doctrines in the service of protecting the president as an individual rather than the national interest.”

“The attorney general and his minions are making the astounding argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security adviser requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat. This cannot be right. Even if the prior investigation into Flynn had been closed, which it had not, these circumstances at a minimum justified an assessment under standard FBI policy.”

3. The good news for Flynn is, the burden for a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is fairly low. So he may well get out of this, although there’s no reason whatsoever to dismiss without prejudice. However, what should follow is an aggressive prosecution for the much larger crimes from which he had been protected by his plea deal.
The bad news for Americans is that our current DOJ doesn’t seem keen to prosecute anyone involved in the investigations into election interference. Barr and his DOJ are shockingly corrupt, and that’s the real scandal here—not the very generous plea deal that Flynn voluntarily accepted.

nope.

1. Flynn accepted the plea deal to spare his son being targeted by the prosecutors and because he was getting bankrupted trying to fight the case. The prosecutors then hid that agreement not to prosecute his son from the court and explicitly lied to the court when asked if there were any deals or agreements in place that would be influencing the plea deal and they told the judge there were not. We know this now because of some of the recently released documents included an email from Flynn’s former defense firm which talked about it.

He “admitted” to lying because of course. It was a plea agreement. What would you expect? Flynn to say I plead guilty to these crimes but I’m not actually guilty of them in reality? The court wouldn’t accept the plea if he insisted he didn’t actually lie to the FBI while pleading to lying to the FBI.

2. It is absolutely not unprecedented for the DOJ to dismiss a case even after obtaining a plea deal.

“Even following a guilty plea, a Government motion to dismiss is neither rare nor suspect," the brief said, citing a statistic that 20 percent of former defendants listed in the National Registry of Exonerations pleaded guilty.

The brief even noted that dismissing high-profile cases after guilty pleas is not unusual where "prosecutors 'persuaded' defendants to plead guilty for conduct that was not criminal," citing the vacated pleas of former Enron and Arthur Andersen executives.

“The Government has the right to dismiss at any time
—
even after sentencing (Rinaldi v. United States,
434 U.S. 22 (1977))”

3. By all means, spell out these other serious crimes you believe he is guilty of.

 

[Leisure_Force999]

All I want to know is how liberals can praise songs like Fuck the police
Demand that police be defunded
Yet they are perfectly ok with bad cops setting up innocent people

Get a fucking clue libs, you're quickly becoming the laughing stock of the country

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

1. Flynn’s crimes of lying were never construed as the biggest, most horrible crimes in the world—it was a (very very generous) plea deal. Barr’s argument that “sometimes people admit to things that turn out not to be crimes” is laughable in light of Flynn’s admissions that he did lie and he knew it was a crime.

1. Can you explain how you think this is a very, very generous plea deal? It isn't. The DoJ was aware they had little chance of winning in court if they were ever forced to finally give all the evidence to the defense, which ultimately they were. So they pressured Flynn, including reportedly threatening to go hard on his kids in unrelated cases, to secure a deal that gave them a conviction, and a much needed political victory. The deal is a generous one for the prosecutor, not for Flynn.

2. Flynn's crimes were construed as very terrible. The judge in the case suggested that Flynn sold out his country and repeatedly asked the prosecutor, openly in court, whether he had considered charging Flynn with treason. Lefty commentators spent months in numerous publications and broadcasts suggesting Flynn was corrupt and treasonous.

Now we know that the FBI all along had cleared Flynn of all those accusations.

 

[James Bomb]

The FARA issues were for his work with a Turkish firm. Turkey, not Russia. He was not an “agent” for Russia lol...

And his great “undermining” of Obama policy was asking the Russian ambassador to try to avoid throwing out a higher number of US diplomats in a tit for tat retaliation as doing so would effectively shutdown the US embassy in Russia. The horror.

I thought you knew everything about this case and Flynn would be free of charges by July 4th weekend.

Whoops.

These threads are steadily devolving into you and @IngaVovchanchyn just making shit up and a bunch of dumb goose flapping.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I thought you knew everything about this case and Flynn would be free of charges by July 4th weekend.

Whoops.

These threads are steadily devolving into you and @IngaVovchanchyn just making shit up and a bunch of dumb goose flapping.

I do. You are still wrong. Just rejoice that you have another couple weeks where you can pretend not to be before the case is ultimately dismissed.

 

[Lord Coke]

This is incredibility rare to be heard en banc. The D.C. Court of appeals hears almost nothing en banc.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The bad news for Americans is that our current DOJ doesn’t seem keen to prosecute anyone involved in the investigations into election interference. Barr and his DOJ are shockingly corrupt, and that’s the real scandal here

This is nonsense. Here's two reasons why:
1. The DoJ isn't keen to prosecute anyone involved in the investigations into election interference because that investigation concluded that no Americans had cooperated or coordinated with the Russians in their attempt to influence the US election of 2016. Since Mueller determined that no Americans were involved in that crime, who exactly should the DoJ prosecute? I remember they tried to bring charges against some Russian nationals, which makes sense, but that was never going to come to anything.

The idea that Americans helped Russians hack the US election is a conspiracy theory. It was always clear that there wan't anything to it, and the investigation turned up nothing related to Americans helping the Russians in their relatively petty attempts to influence the election.

2. Barr's main contribution to the Flynn case has been to force the DoJ to release evidence to the defense that ought to have been disclosed years ago. That's not corruption; it is the reversal of corruption. The withholding of that evidence that was corrupt, and the political motivation behind continuing the FBI investigation was corrupt. So yes, DoJ corruption is very much the scandal here, but Barr is bringing it to light and righting it.

 

[BFoe]

1. There is evidence of an intent to entrap. Denying that is ridiculous at this point. It is in writing.
2. The idea that Flynn pleading guilty means he must have been guilty is flimsy. Defendants plead guilty all the time in court to things they never did. Some estimates are that as many as 25% of guilty pleas are from innocent people.
3. You are giving an account of the interview that was edited by the FBI agent long after the interview, and after the decision to prosecute, and including edits by an FBI lawyer. It simply isn't good evidence to go on. So maybe it went down that way. But we don't really know. The recent revelations related to the editing of the 302 alone should be enough to have this case tossed and Page and Strzok fired.
4. Again, it's important to know that other than allegedly lying to the FBI, Flynn did nothing criminal. He was the subject of an intensive investigation by multiple US agencies and they all cleared him. There's a background narrative that he was a traitor, something Sullivan absurdly shouted at him during the trial, or that he had committed many crimes but the process charge was the only thing they could nail him on. All untrue.

This prosecution is the equivalent of arresting someone for resisting arrest with no other basis for ever attempting an arrest to be resisted. Given the misconduct by the FBI and the DOJ after deciding to prosecute him, dropping the case is a no brainer at this point. That hasn't happened because the prosecution of Flynn has political motives.

I always respect your views but re: “intent to entrap” you are unequivocally wrong. I just don’t know how else to say it. The notes you’re referring to, which I quoted in full, are a discussion of goals. The FBI is basically saying “What is our goal w/ this interview? Is it “A”? B? C?” It’s ridiculous to construe that as “intent to do ‘A’, as you’d have to concede there was equal intent to do B or C. If you and I decide to grab a quick bite to eat, I could ask if we should grab In-N-Out, Jack In the Box, or McDonald’s. But it would be incorrect to say that shows my “intent to go to McDonald’s.” It shows my intent to go to lunch, and I offered several possibilities of how that could be done.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by saying he was the target of investigation by multiple agencies and they all cleared him? The case we are discussing is a plea deal. Flynn was potentially facing prosecution for all sorts of things: failing to register as a foreign agent, meeting with Turkish reps regarding potentially kidnapping a Muslim cleric, attempting to get nuclear power plants build in the Middle East in which he had business interests and then onmitting that as well as details on foreign travels on his security clearance form...all sorts of things. I’ve seen no indication that he was cleared of those things. He took a plea deal so that he (and his son) wouldn’t be prosecuted for those things.
Your analogy re: resisting arrest with no other basis for arrest makes no sense. As I’ve pointed out, they FBI had plenty of predication for their interview. The investigation (Crossfire Razor) was itself fully predicated, and as you pointed out, still open. FBI often interview subjects as a final step before closing an investigation—as they did to Hillary during her email investigation, for example—to make sure nothing was missed, tie up loose ends, etc. if the subject lies during that interview, it’s absolutely legally actionable. They could pull Flynn in for an interview at any time if they chose. No further “basis” was needed. But they did have it anyway-
Because this had a counterintelligence aspect to it: it was important to determine if Flynn was compromised, had exchanged favors, could be blackmailed, etc. That is both material to the FBI’s jurisdiction and material to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. So yes, Flynn did do something wrong when he lied. It is a crime.

 

[BFoe]

Sanction is not the same as expulsion of diplomats.

Admitting to not remembering the details of a phone call from 3 weeks prior is not a crime. Flynn even said it was possible those things were discussed. The case was bullshit from the beginning.

A sanction is a penalty put on another nation to attempt to achieve compliance to some rule or law.
I won’t keep going back and forth because we did this in another thread. I will say this:
There is no difference, either objectively, or legally, between the following sentences:
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing PNG expulsions with Kislyak.
Flynn lied to the FBI about discussing the Russian response to U.S. sanctions with Kislyak.

All 3 sentences mean the same thing, and carry the same legal ramifications. I have no idea what awful media outlet you ripped this argument from, but it makes absolutely no sense and demonstrates that you aren’t knowledgeable about this case. Simple as that.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by saying he was the target of investigation by multiple agencies and they all cleared him?

The FBI files state that they found nothing derogatory related to Flynn and that when the FBI contacted other agencies, whose identities were redacted, to see if their respective investigations turned up anything, those agencies responded that they also found no indication of any wrongdoing.

Flynn was potentially facing prosecution for all sorts of things: failing to register as a foreign agent, meeting with Turkish reps regarding potentially kidnapping a Muslim cleric, attempting to get nuclear power plants build in the Middle East in which he had business interests and then onmitting that as well as details on foreign travels on his security clearance form...all sorts of things. I’ve seen no indication that he was cleared of those things. He took a plea deal so that he (and his son) wouldn’t be prosecuted for those things.

Flynn was not potentially facing prosecution for anything else. Again, the FBI files make it clear they found no evidence of criminal activity or even any basis for ongoing criminal investigation into Flynn. That much is fact.

In my opinion, this is why Biden went so far as to laughably suggest they try to get Flynn under the Logan Act. They had to stretch because they had nothing. Ultimately, that's why the FBI set up a perjury trap. They had been directed to prosecute Flynn in the Oval Office (according to the lead agent in this case) and had no basis for doing so, so they contrived to engineer a process charge. The perjury trap itself doesn't seem to have worked well, because the official 302 had to be edited after the decision to prosecute, a wild departure from FBI protocol.