High Profile DOJ Alum Push Back At Barr’s Flynn Shenanigans

[Oldestyle]

Mary McCord worked for both the Obama and Trump admins.

"But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

Opinion | Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth. (Published 2020)

The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

www.nytimes.com

She explains in granular detail how Barr twisted here words and subverted justice.

Look at that interview in context with what we now know and Mary McCord looks complicit in the attempt to take down a sitting President! She's lying her ass off and she knows it!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Still waiting for you to refute what McCord (and Kravis) had to say with something other than your opinion and gratuitous insults.

What was the evidence that Schiff had that Trump and Putin stole the election?

What is the evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI?

Non existent

I can’t even get a liberal to show evidence for a c note.

Flynn lied? Proof?

Trump and Putin stole the election? Proof?

Liberals lie for money and power. It’s so fucking weird.

What does some transsexual in New York benefit from Adam Schiff lying about Trump and Putin stealing the election.

 

[Oldestyle]

From Kravis..........."The attorney general’s public comments worsened matters. William P. Barr gave nationally televised interviews in which he disparaged the work of prosecutors and agents who handled these cases, criticizing the Stone prosecutors for losing “perspective” and the Flynn team for becoming “wedded to a particular outcome.”
As the attorney general knows, those career prosecutors and agents cannot respond. The department prohibits employees from talking to the media about criminal cases without high-level approval. Department lawyers are ethically bound to protect the confidences of their client. Barr’s decision to excuse himself from these obligations and attack his own silenced employees is alarming. It sends an unmistakable message to prosecutors and agents — if the president demands, we will throw you under the bus."

They don't have to "respond"! Their emails do that quite clearly for them! Those career prosecutors were lured into playing politics with the power of their offices. The more layers of this onion that are peeled back the worse people look who were in charge at the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA and at the Obama White House!

 

[Billiejeens]

Context is everything, berg. And, when you use context with the bullshit that you're spewing, you're left with only your main
ingredient......which is bullshit.

Still waiting for you to refute what McCord (and Kravis) had to say with something other than your opinion and gratuitous insults.

What was the evidence that Schiff had that Trump and Putin stole the election?

What is the evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI?

Non existent

I can’t even get a liberal to show evidence for a c note.

Flynn lied? Proof?

Trump and Putin stole the election? Proof?

Liberals lie for money and power. It’s so fucking weird.

What does some transsexual in New York benefit from Adam Schiff lying about Trump and Putin stealing the election.

The democrats (as a party) are more likely to pander to the transgender person than the Republicans.
Though with President Trump that may not even be true.

 

[bendog]

Nope. As the case with Flynn, evidence isn't needed.

Well that's a stupid comment. The evidence is overwhelming that he lied to the FBI. Not even his lawyers are claiming he didnt lie. You are in la la land.

True. But you could make an argument that the FBI interviewed him when they were not really investigating a crime, and the reason they interviewed him was just catch him in a lie. (and even then people in the FBI differed over whether Flynn was trying to mislead them).

Flynn's problem is simply that to withdraw his plea now, he has to convince Judge Sullivan that he lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the campaign and before Trump was sworn in. THAT MIGHT BE TRUE. He may have pleaded guilty, even when he still believed he was not guilty, to save his kid.

I think we should be able to agree upon the FBI really fucked the guy. The FBI does that every day, though. The Trumpanzees would have you believe it's all Deeeeep Stattte, because this was Trump and not some drug dealer. But we both know what the response would have been if Valerie Jarret or Rahm Emmanuel had been meeting with Iraq during the campaign.

 

[bripat9643]

It's true.

False. Thats why you cant show me where the DOJ filing says he didnt lie. Or where his lawyers recent filings claim he didnt lie. You are just talking out of your ass again.

Charges against ex-Trump adviser dropped​

In a court filing first reported by the Associated Press, the justice department said it moved to dismiss the charges "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information".​

​

The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was "unjustified" and not conducted on a "legitimate investigative basis".​

​

It also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied, and said that after the interview, FBI agents had "expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied".​

​

The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators "requires more than a lie.​

​

"It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was 'material' to the underlying investigation."​

Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."
"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."
McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'"

I already dealt with this nonsense.

 

[colfax_m]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

 

[Polishprince]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

He incurred legal bills because he was ACCUSED of breaking the law, not because he did or didn't. And Mueller really didn't care whether Gen. Flynn broke the law or not, his goal was to destroy Flynn and destroy Trump, regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

[ColonelAngus]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

Come on, easy hundred bucks.

Show us evidence that Flynn lied or that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the 2016 election from HIllary.

 

[Meister]

Who canned her ass, berg?

Why does that matter? What does it have to do with the facts?

The facts bitch slap you at every turn, berg, that's why the bullshit from you.
Who do you think your fooling?

 

[colfax_m]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

He incurred legal bills because he was ACCUSED of breaking the law, not because he did or didn't. And Mueller really didn't care whether Gen. Flynn broke the law or not, his goal was to destroy Flynn and destroy Trump, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Everyone who is found guilty is first accused of breaking the law. Your accusation against Mueller is meritless.

 

[colfax_m]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

Come on, easy hundred bucks.

Show us evidence that Flynn lied or that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the 2016 election from HIllary.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4318008/Flynn-18-USC-1001-a-2-Indictment.pdf

Enjoy!

 

[Polishprince]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

He incurred legal bills because he was ACCUSED of breaking the law, not because he did or didn't. And Mueller really didn't care whether Gen. Flynn broke the law or not, his goal was to destroy Flynn and destroy Trump, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Everyone who is found guilty is first accused of breaking the law. Your accusation against Mueller is meritless.

Not everyone who is accused is guilty. Gen. Flynn "copped a plea", he wasn't "found " guilty. He agreed to say he was guilty as they threatened to destroy his son if he didn't and he didn't have any money to defend himself any more. Didn't have a choice.

 

[colfax_m]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

He incurred legal bills because he was ACCUSED of breaking the law, not because he did or didn't. And Mueller really didn't care whether Gen. Flynn broke the law or not, his goal was to destroy Flynn and destroy Trump, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Everyone who is found guilty is first accused of breaking the law. Your accusation against Mueller is meritless.

Not everyone who is accused is guilty. Gen. Flynn "copped a plea", he wasn't "found " guilty. He agreed to say he was guilty as they threatened to destroy his son if he didn't and he didn't have any money to defend himself any more. Didn't have a choice.

How much money he spent on his defense is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.
He can claim he was coerced into pleading guilty, but that has never been judged as such.

The evidence against him is overwhelming. That’s why he copped a deal. Everything else is post-hoc excuses.

 

[Catman51]

Has it occurred to any of you posting that these "former DOJ members" would still have a job if they were any good at bipartisan performance of their jobs?

 

[ColonelAngus]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

Come on, easy hundred bucks.

Show us evidence that Flynn lied or that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the 2016 election from HIllary.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4318008/Flynn-18-USC-1001-a-2-Indictment.pdf

Enjoy!

I love the effort.

Flynn did not lie.

Is Flynn a free man?

 

[colfax_m]

90% of federal cases never go to

Which is a sign of how strong federal cases are before they even see charges brought.

Not really. Just shows how efficient the federal investigators are at dragging the case out and destroying the defendants' lives with legal bills, that anyone is willing to make a deal

Since when is legal bills a suitable justification for not prosecuting someone? As if I’m supposed to care that Flynn incurred legal bills because he broke the law.

Come on, easy hundred bucks.

Show us evidence that Flynn lied or that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the 2016 election from HIllary.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4318008/Flynn-18-USC-1001-a-2-Indictment.pdf

Enjoy!

I love the effort.

Flynn did not lie.

Is Flynn a free man?

Facts say otherwise. Flynn is the beneficiary of government corruption so he gets to go free.

 

[Billiejeens]

Meanwhile, acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell is unmasking the unmaskers of Flynn. He recently sent to the DOJ a declassified list of the Obama administration officials who were responsible for the unmasking — a significant development that may help the DOJ get to the bottom of who leaked about Flynn to the media. As Flynn attorney Sidney Powell notes, "The leak of the Kislyak transcript is a felony that should be prosecuted to the max, including a conspiracy charge for all those who decided to make it happen as part of the setup and framing of General Flynn."

 

[The Original Tree]

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.”

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

Two things you should know:

Eat more Bat Soup

And Trump and Flynn were innocent and exonerated and Obama Bin Lying is going to GITMO with his terrorist friends.

Now go back to emptying bed pans in Wuhan.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.”

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

Two things you should know:

Eat more Bat Soup

And Trump and Flynn were innocent and exonerated and Obama Bin Lying is going to GITMO with his terrorist friends.

Now go back to emptying bed pans in Wuhan.

That does seem like something that Berg would be tasked with.