berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 14,883
- 12,294
- 2,320
Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr’s decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.
Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.
Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”
..............................................................................................................................................................
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.
After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.
Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?
Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.
Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?
Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).
Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit 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.
Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?
No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.
And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.
Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.
Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?
No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.
More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.
Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.
Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?
No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.
www.lawfareblog.com
Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com
The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.
www.lawfareblog.com
Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the start of the probe, accused Barr of “twist[ing]” her words in the legal motions the Department filed to ask that Flynn’s case be dismissed.
Jonathan Kravis — a DOJ prosecutor who resigned after Barr meddled in the Roger Stone case — called last week’s Flynn maneuver “equally appalling.”
High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans
Two former Justice Department officials who were directly involved in the Russia investigation have now spoken out publicly against Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case.
talkingpointsmemo.com
Okay, it's time for the reflexive response of Trumpleheads to kick in to gear. JUST LIKE ALL CRITICS OF TRUMP FROM EITHER PARTY these officials will get the "deep state" treatment for having the audacity to speak the truth.
After all, it isn't difficult to dismantle Billy the Bagman's deceit. You just have to pay attention to the facts.
Did the DOJ have all the justification it needed to question Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak?
Yes. It was within their jurisdiction to follow up on the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, along with Flynn’s false statements to Pence and Spicer. At a minimum the fact that the Russian government would know that Flynn had lied left him open to potential blackmail by a hostile foreign power............surely a realistic counterintelligence concern.
Was the FBI authorized to do this investigation even if the prior investigation in to whether Flynn was a Russian operative had been closed?
Yes. The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of ... [a]n activity constituting ... a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation (DIOG 6.5). Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is ... a national security threat” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis added). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target (DIOG 18.5.6).
Billy the Bagman has made the horseshit 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.
Is the use of prosecution of Flynn's son as leverage grounds for dismissal of the case?
No. Leaning on a potential defendant for cooperation using the criminal liability of family members as leverage is not unheard of. This does not mean the practice is beyond criticism—but the handling of Flynn’s case is not some kind of aberration, let alone the sort of conscience-shocking thing that might justify a dismissal.
And to the extent any nod-and-a-wink arrangement on Flynn Jr. would raise any kind of Giglio issue, it certainly does not with respect to Flynn, who was obviously aware of the predicament his son faced and any role of his plea in alleviating it. That issue would only arise, as the Covington email reflects, if Flynn’s testimony were used against someone else and any arrangement with respect to his son were not disclosed.
Flynn’s consulting group, with which his son was employed, engaged in practices that raised legal questions under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, exposing both father and son to potential criminal liability.
Are any of the documents found in Jensen's review of the case grounds for dismissal?
No. The way the documents suggest that FBI officials discussed the case and made adjustments to their plans is typical of criminal investigations, former federal prosecutors say, even if seeing these internal discussions put in writing isn’t as common.
More importantly, the documents don’t make the false statements Flynn pleaded guilty to — lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — any less false. Nor are they the kinds of documents that prosecutors were legally obligated to produce for Flynn’s lawyers.
Is Flynn's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defensible? Yes.
Is Flynn's motion to throw the case out due to prosecutorial malfeasance defensible?
No. Flynn’s new lawyer cites notes given to her by Jensen, which were presumably written by then-FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, as supposed smoking-gun evidence that the FBI was seeking to entrap Flynn in a lie. The trouble with that argument is that absolutely nothing forced Flynn not to tell the truth in that interview. And while FBI officials appear to have discussed the strategic purpose of the interview, there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.
www.lawfareblog.com
Why The Latest Flynn Entrapment Claims Are As Bogus As The Last Ones
The pandemic has changed many things, but it has not changed Michael Flynn’s habit of overhyping claims of FBI entrapment...
talkingpointsmemo.com
The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case
Under the logic of the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent.
www.lawfareblog.com
