Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2020, 01:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935

DOJ dropping case against Michael Flynn


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...ack-qithdrawal

Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, and then plead guilty to it, before withdrawing his plea.

And the DOJ is dropping the case, because apparently lying to the FBI is okay (even admitting to it!) if you're a pal of Trump.

Seems crazy to me. I figured one of the paramount rules of enforcing the law was punishing those who lie to law enforcement. Apparently this DOJ disagrees.
  #2  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:08 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,791
So very banana republic.
  #3  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:12 PM
Gukumatz is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,873
On the same day Brandon van Grack withdrew from the case. Funny that. Barr getting his hands dirty again.

Last edited by Gukumatz; 05-07-2020 at 02:13 PM.
  #4  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:15 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,950
Obviously I missed the part where Flynn was granted his motion to withdraw his plea. Wow.

Welcome to your new world of "justice."
  #5  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
The only attorney signing the order is Bill Barr, apparently:

https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/...-Michael-Flynn

Not a single line attorney. IANAL, but this seems massively unusual.

Also, another resignation by a senior DOJ attorney. Hopefully they'll speak out publicly.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/stat...-Michael-Flynn
  #6  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:33 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,716
Hooray! America is now Great Again!

Now they can move on to Lock Her Up! (How much you want to bet they won't actually try?)
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #7  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:40 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,950
I can find nothing about any hearing/ruling on Flynn's motion to withdraw his plea. If Barr is dropping charges that are still pending before Judge Emmet Sullivan, I don't see how that's legal under any circumstances. Barr has no authority to undo a plea agreement of which I'm aware. (IANAL.)
  #8  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:45 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,880
B-b-b-b-b-but - he was framed by the weaponized DOJ and FBI that Obama created!
  #9  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:54 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,950
Ah. Ok, the situation becomes clear. (Reuters) DOJ has filed a motion to drop the charges. It must be heard by Judge Emmet Sullivan, along with Flynn's motion to withdraw his plea. No date has yet been set for hearing of either motion, looks like.

Quote:
The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday abruptly sought to drop the criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, following mounting pressure from Trump’s political allies on the right.
I will be very surprised if Sullivan grants either motion. DOJ may choose to no longer pursue a sentence, but Sullivan is not in any way bound by that.

Van Grack likely quit for the same reasons all four of the prosecutors withdrew from the Roger Stone case. Just can't stomach this ongoing perversion of justice by the Barr DOJ.
  #10  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:58 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
From the article, quoting the Justice Department:

"The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,"


In other words, since Trump did nothing wrong, Flynn did nothing wrong, so there was no reason to investigate him, therefore it was ok for him to like to the FBI, because the FBI are the real crooks in this story.
  #11  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:07 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
From the article, quoting the Justice Department:

"The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,"


In other words, since Trump did nothing wrong, Flynn did nothing wrong, so there was no reason to investigate him, therefore it was ok for him to like to the FBI, because the FBI are the real crooks in this story.
This investigation has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Flynn's purported violation of the Logan Act, a crime which has never produced a conviction in its over 220 years of existence and is likely unconstitutional.

The notes that were uncovered showed a bare desire to catch Flynn in something, anything and not for any real legitimate investigative purpose. That's the real banana republic thing: Have those in power find someone they don't like and throw things against the wall to see what sticks.

I think it is the right call and I wish that all prosecutors would show the same ethical duty all the way down the line. No doubt that if this was some poor schmuck in Anywhereville, USA they would not attempt to dismiss the case.
  #12  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:10 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 10,061
Good thing he didn't purportedly plead guilty to a crime, eh?
The Trump administration: You think you've seen corrupt? Ha! Watch what we do next!

Last edited by bobot; 05-07-2020 at 04:10 PM.
  #13  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:13 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Good thing he didn't purportedly plead guilty to a crime, eh?
The Trump administrationn: You think you've seen corrupt? Ha! Watch what we do next!
You think people always plead guilty because they are guilty??? The guy spent $8.5 million on his defense, sold his house, and went broke. The government has the power to bring the house, expose you to decades of prison time, threaten to prosecute your family, and then "generously" offers to let you plead down.

Again, if this wasn't a Trump official, I suspect many of you would be outraged by this sort of government conduct.
  #14  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:21 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You think people always plead guilty because they are guilty??? The guy spent $8.5 million on his defense, sold his house, and went broke. The government has the power to bring the house, expose you to decades of prison time, threaten to prosecute your family, and then "generously" offers to let you plead down.

Again, if this wasn't a Trump official, I suspect many of you would be outraged by this sort of government conduct.
He pleaded guilty because he was quite obviously and demonstrably guilty.
  #15  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:23 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You think people always plead guilty because they are guilty??? The guy spent $8.5 million on his defense, sold his house, and went broke. The government has the power to bring the house, expose you to decades of prison time, threaten to prosecute your family, and then "generously" offers to let you plead down.

Again, if this wasn't a Trump official, I suspect many of you would be outraged by this sort of government conduct.
LOL, too bad he pleaded to lying to the FBI. For... you know, lying to the FBI.
  #16  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You think people always plead guilty because they are guilty??? The guy spent $8.5 million on his defense, sold his house, and went broke. The government has the power to bring the house, expose you to decades of prison time, threaten to prosecute your family, and then "generously" offers to let you plead down.

Again, if this wasn't a Trump official, I suspect many of you would be outraged by this sort of government conduct.
Got it -- lying to the FBI is okay, according to Trump, Bill Barr, and UltraVires. Some of think it should be punished, but your mileage apparently varies.
  #17  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:31 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Got it -- lying to the FBI is okay, according to Trump, Bill Barr, and UltraVires. Some of think it should be punished, but your mileage apparently varies.
I'm not making it up. The law doesn't punish lying to the FBI, it punishes a "materially false" statement regarding a matter under investigation by the FBI.

The Justice Department rightfully determined that this was not an investigation by the FBI, it was a farce calculated to trap him into lying to them while creating the pretense of an underlying investigation.

As I said, these dirty tricks happen all of the time, and I hope this case can be used as precedent to stop them. Investigate actual crimes, don't find people you don't like and try to see how you can get them to commit crimes.
  #18  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:46 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The Justice Department rightfully determined...
I will never, ever, accept that on its own from the current justice department.

They are deeply, profoundly corrupt. Not every DOJ employee, not even most, but the guys running the show are as crooked as they come and they call the shots for the rest.

Maybe, possibly, in this case this is truly the right outcome and would be the right result if Hillary or Bill Clinton were the person in question.

Till you can convince me that this DOJ would have let Hillary go, if she had done the same, then you've got something.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-07-2020 at 06:48 PM.
  #19  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not making it up. The law doesn't punish lying to the FBI, it punishes a "materially false" statement regarding a matter under investigation by the FBI.



The Justice Department rightfully determined that this was not an investigation by the FBI, it was a farce calculated to trap him into lying to them while creating the pretense of an underlying investigation.



As I said, these dirty tricks happen all of the time, and I hope this case can be used as precedent to stop them. Investigate actual crimes, don't find people you don't like and try to see how you can get them to commit crimes.
What nonsense rationalization. US Attorneys resigned because of this farce. Lying to the FBI is a crime, full stop. Even when Trump doesn't like the investigation.

You're on Trump's side, so any investigation he doesn't like suddenly becomes illegitimate to you. But that's just nonsense, and we don't need to pretend it's anything but nonsense.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-07-2020 at 06:55 PM.
  #20  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:59 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
dup

Last edited by UltraVires; 05-07-2020 at 06:59 PM.
  #21  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:00 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Lying to the FBI is a crime, full stop.
No, it is not.
  #22  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:06 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No, it is not.
It seems it mostly is with a few exceptions. Below is a lot of copypasta but it is from a government site and in the public domain and I don't want someone accusing me of omitting an important bit:

Quote:
By its plain terms, § 1001 (as it existed before it was amended in October 1996), broadly reaches "[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . .makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations. . . ."

For example, if the false statement was volunteered to an FBI agent the Supreme Court has held that § 1001 does apply. United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984). In Rodgers the court concluded: (1) that criminal investigations fell within the term "in any matter"; and (2) that the FBI qualified as a "department or agency." In Rodgers the language "within the jurisdiction" was held to merely differentiate the official, authorized functions of an agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body. From Rodgers it is also clear that the term "jurisdiction," defined as the "right to say and the power to act" (Gonzales v. United States, 286 F.2d 118 (10th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 878 (1961)), should not be given a narrow or technical meaning (United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1983)), and extends to the power to investigate. The statute has also been held to apply if the false response is made to an investigator other than an FBI agent. See United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 101 (9th Cir. 1972)(employee of the United States Internal Revenue Service); United States v. Mahler, 363 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1966)(employee of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission); Frasier v. United States, 267 F.2d 62 (1st Cir. 1959)(employee of the United States Army); Tzantarmas v. United States, 402 F.2d 163 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 966 (1969)(employee of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service).

Although § 1001 does not provide for exceptions, a number of courts have held that it does not apply to cases involving simple false denials of guilt in response to government initiated inquiries. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 907 F.2d 801 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Equihua-Juarez, 851 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Cogdell, 844 F.2d 179 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Fitzgibbon, 619 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1980); United States v. King, 613 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Chevoor, 526 F.2d 178 (1st Cir. 1975). These courts have concluded, inter alia, that mere denials of guilt do not impair the basic functions of the agency to which the statement is made. But even where it is recognized, the "exculpatory no" doctrine is not applicable in situations in which the statements are more than mere denials of the accusation of criminal activity. United States v. Van Horn, 789 F.2d 1492, 1511 (11th Cir. 1986)("The exception . . . does not apply when a person attempts to affirmatively mislead a government investigation"); United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 364, 369 (D.D.C. 1988), rev'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir.), modified, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Other courts have rejected the "exculpatory no" exception to § 1001. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Rios, 14 F.3d 1040 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); United States v. Steele, 933 F.2d 1313 (6th Cir. 1991)(en banc). In addition, a few courts have neither adopted nor rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine. United States v. Barr, 963 F.2d 641 (3d Cir. 1992); United States v. Cervone, 907 F.2d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

SOURCE: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...l-investigator
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #23  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:07 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...it was a farce calculated to trap him into lying to them ....
People on the right are very fond of this defense of Flynn, judging by its ubiquity. But how does that work in the case of the particular lies Flynn was found to have uttered? How was he "trapped" into saying those things?

Here's a reminder about Flynn's lies:

Quote:
... Two FBI agents walked into the White House the next day. It was Jan. 24, 2017, and they were there to talk to Flynn.

One of them was Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence official who would later face scrutiny for his anti-Trump comments. Flynn agreed to talk with them, and when asked, denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.

He also lied about a follow-up phone call and another matter: On Dec. 21, 2016, when Egypt pushed a resolution at the United Nations critical of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to Flynn to push for the Kremlin to oppose the move. Flynn had unsuccessfully pressured Kislyak on the issue. But he told the agents otherwise.

News of the false statements to the FBI— a crime under federal law— quickly made it to Yates, who on Jan. 26, called White House counsel Don McGahn. She needed to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a meeting with McGahn and another White House lawyer later that day, Yates told him that Pence’s comments about Flynn weren’t true. Also, Flynn’s FBI interview hadn’t gone well. ...
(my emphasis) https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3

Again, how was Flynn "trapped" into making those statements?

Last edited by Sherrerd; 05-07-2020 at 07:09 PM.
  #24  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:41 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not making it up. The law doesn't punish lying to the FBI, it punishes a "materially false" statement regarding a matter under investigation by the FBI.

The Justice Department rightfully determined that this was not an investigation by the FBI, it was a farce calculated to trap him into lying to them while creating the pretense of an underlying investigation.

As I said, these dirty tricks happen all of the time, and I hope this case can be used as precedent to stop them. Investigate actual crimes, don't find people you don't like and try to see how you can get them to commit crimes.
Gosh, it is such a shame Flynn didn't have you as his wing man during that transition period. According to you, he didn't have to lie about anything! What a dummy!

He didn't have to hide his actions with Kisliak, didn't have to lie about it to anyone, including Pence.

He could have just looked those FBI guys straight in the eye and said, "Yeah, I did it! I told those Russians not to retaliate on the sanctions thing, because a new Sheriff was gonna be in town! What are you guys going to do about it? Charge me with violating the unconstitutional Logan Act? HAAAAhahahahahahahahaha!!!!"

And that would have been the end of it! He didn't have to spend 8.5 million on his defense, lose his house or go broke, because he did nothing illegal!

If only you had been there when it really counted.

  #25  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:53 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It seems it mostly is with a few exceptions. Below is a lot of copypasta but it is from a government site and in the public domain and I don't want someone accusing me of omitting an important bit:
Your cite left out an important word:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 1001
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation
Your cite did not even put the ellipses in the right place and, hehe, materially misrepresented the law.

From the DOJ Motion to Dismiss:

Quote:
Proof of a false statement to federal investigators under Section 1001(a)(2) requires more than a lie. It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was “material” to the underlying investigation. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kim, 808 F. Supp. 2d 44, 59 (D.D.C. 2011). Section 1001 prohibits “knowingly and willfully ... mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in a “matter within the jurisdiction of the executive … branch of the Government of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. §
1001(a)(2) (emphasis added). As is well-established, materiality does not equate to mere “relevance”; rather, “[t]o be ‘material’ means to have probative weight”—that is, to be “reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.” Weinstock, 231 F.2d at 701 (emphasis added).

The materiality threshold thus ensures that misstatements to investigators are
criminalized only when linked to the particular “subject of [their] investigation.” Kim, 808 F. Supp. 2d at 59; cf. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 774 (1988) (false date and birthplace statements in immigration application were not “material” as they were not “relevant to his qualifications [for citizenship]”). And it prevents law enforcement from fishing for falsehoods merely to manufacture jurisdiction over any statement—true or false—uttered by a private citizen or public official.

In the case of Mr. Flynn, the evidence shows his statements were not “material” to any viable counterintelligence investigation—or any investigation for that matter—initiated by the FBI. Indeed, the FBI itself had recognized that it lacked sufficient basis to sustain its initial counterintelligence investigation by seeking to close that very investigation without even an interview of Mr. Flynn. See Ex. 1 at 4. Having repeatedly found “no derogatory information” on Mr. Flynn, id. at 2, the FBI’s draft “Closing Communication” made clear that the FBI had found no basis to “predicate further investigative efforts” into whether Mr. Flynn was being directed and controlled by a foreign power (Russia) in a manner that threatened U.S. national
security or violated FARA or its related statutes, id. at 3.

With its counterintelligence investigation no longer justifiably predicated, the
communications between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak—the FBI’s sole basis for resurrecting the investigation on January 4, 2017—did not warrant either continuing that existing counterintelligence investigation or opening a new criminal investigation. The calls were entirely appropriate on their face. Mr. Flynn has never disputed that the calls were made. Indeed, Mr. Flynn, as the former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, would have readily expected that the FBI had known of the calls—and told FBI Deputy Director McCabe as much. See Ex. 11. Mr. Flynn, as the incumbent National Security Advisor and senior member of the transition team, was reaching out to the Russian ambassador in that capacity. In the words of one senior DOJ official: “It seemed logical . . . that there may be some communications between an incoming administration and their foreign partners.” Ex. 3 at 3. Such calls are not uncommon
when incumbent public officials preparing for their oncoming duties seek to begin and build relationships with soon-to-be counterparts.

Nor was anything said on the calls themselves to indicate an inappropriate relationship between Mr. Flynn and a foreign power. Indeed, Mr. Flynn’s request that Russia avoid “escalating” tensions in response to U.S. sanctions in an effort to mollify geopolitical tensions was consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States. At bottom, the arms-length communications gave no indication that Mr. Flynn was being “directed and controlled by … the Russian federation,” much less in a manner that “threat[ened] …national security.” Ex. 1 at 2, Ex. 2 at 2.

They provided no factual basis for positing that Mr. Flynn had violated FARA. Nor did the calls remotely transform Mr. Flynn into a “viable candidate as part of the larger … umbrella case” into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Ex. 1 at 3.
In any event, there was no question at the FBI as to the content of the calls; the FBI had in its possession word-for-word transcripts of the actual communications between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 13. at 3. With no dispute as to what was in fact said, there was no factual basis for the predication of a new counterintelligence investigation. Nor was there a justification or need to interview Mr. Flynn as to his own personal recollections of what had been said. Whatever gaps in his memory Mr. Flynn might or might not reveal upon an interview regurgitating the content of those calls would not have implicated legitimate counterintelligence interests or somehow exposed Mr. Flynn as beholden to Russia.
Further:

Quote:
Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have
conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a
lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.
Bottom line is that Comey, Strzok, and Page were not attempting to investigate a crime and punish an offender. They were attempting to find and offender and manufacture a crime. Such is intolerable and unethical.

Does it happen every day in this country? Yes. Has Flynn received generous and unequal treatment? Yes. But it is the right treatment that should be afforded every citizen. If the police did this to a random dude on the street, the left would be rightfully outraged.
  #26  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:54 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, if this wasn't a Trump official, I suspect many of you would be outraged by this sort of government conduct.
In your opinion, were Flynn’s actions (everything from his sketchy attachments to the Kremlin to his lying to the FBI to his lying to the VP which got him fired) more or less outrageous than Hillary’s emails?
  #27  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No, it is not.
Yes it is. Trump didn't like this investigation, so to you that makes immaterial or whatever ridiculous justification you're throwing up there. But he was asked questions by the FBI in the course of an investigation, and he lied, and that's illegal.

And it should be illegal. How can the FBI and other law enforcement entities expect any chance of cooperation if there are no consequences for lying to them?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #28  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Just because Trump and cronies like Barr don't like an investigation, that doesn't make it illegitimate. Parroting Barr's bullshit justification doesn't make it illegitimate. Barr is a lying scumbag, and it's no surprise that, like he lied about the Mueller report, he's lying now.

Just more confirmation that this DoJ doesn't actually care about justice - only protecting Trump and his interests.

He doesn't even really try to hide it - he told a reporter that he's not worried about how history will view it, because history is written by the winners.

The grift is open for all to see. They're not even trying to hide it.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-07-2020 at 08:20 PM.
  #29  
Old 05-07-2020, 08:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ag-bil...by-the-winners

Forgot the link.

And here are some of the details on Barr's very open lies:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-07-2020 at 08:23 PM.
  #30  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:36 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Your cite left out an important word:



Your cite did not even put the ellipses in the right place and, hehe, materially misrepresented the law.
My cite was the Department of Justice. Take it up with them.

That the current DOJ does not know the law should not be surprising. Scary, but not surprising.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-07-2020 at 09:40 PM.
  #31  
Old 05-08-2020, 12:19 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
Lying to the FBI is a crime, full stop.
No, it is not.
Have you lied to the FBI to test your hypothesis?
  #32  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:52 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Bottom line is that Comey, Strzok, and Page were not attempting to investigate a crime and punish an offender. They were attempting to find and offender and manufacture a crime.
This is ahistorical bullshit.

I'm not falling for for it and you shouldn't either.
  #33  
Old 05-08-2020, 10:46 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,791
The court already ruled on materiality in Judge Sullivan's 92 page opinion issued on 12/16/19.

The concluding statement on page 53 is pretty unambiguous.

Quote:
The Court therefore finds that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were material within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
The whole section "Mr. Flynn's False Statements Were Material" starting on page 49 is worth a read.
  #34  
Old 05-08-2020, 08:20 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No, it is not.
Somebody should have told Mike Flynn about that, before he pleaded guilty to it.

Twice.
  #35  
Old 05-09-2020, 07:43 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
duplicate

Last edited by Xema; 05-09-2020 at 07:45 AM.
  #36  
Old 05-09-2020, 07:44 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
My cite was the Department of Justice. Take it up with them.
Actually, you should. They have made you look rather foolish, by offering a quote from 18 USC 1001 that omits an essential word without ellipsis.
  #37  
Old 05-09-2020, 08:38 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
No, it is not.
Bottom line: Mike Flynn twice entered a guilty plea for something you claim is not a crime.

How does that work, exactly?
  #38  
Old 05-09-2020, 08:45 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Just because Trump and cronies like Barr don't like an investigation, that doesn't make it illegitimate. Parroting Barr's bullshit justification doesn't make it illegitimate. Barr is a lying scumbag, and it's no surprise that, like he lied about the Mueller report, he's lying now.

Just more confirmation that this DoJ doesn't actually care about justice - only protecting Trump and his interests.

He doesn't even really try to hide it - he told a reporter that he's not worried about how history will view it, because history is written by the winners.

The grift is open for all to see. They're not even trying to hide it.
This is just half of it, Andy.

One half of the Trump-Barr legal system is to discredit those who conscientiously uphold the rule of law; the other half of it is turning the legal system into a weapon to attack and even imprison enemies. This is straight out of the authoritarian playbook, and that's where this country is headed if Trump wins and the GOP defends the senate. If Trump wins, the Constitution and America as we know it, die.
  #39  
Old 05-09-2020, 12:39 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
38 posts in this thread with very little mention of the things - many of which became public only last week - that led to the action cited in the OP.

Here's a relevant article: Dirty Dozen: The 12 revelations that sunk Mueller's case against Flynn.

Among the most significant of these points:
That on Jan 4 2017 an FBI memo stated that no derogatory info had been found on Flynn, and the case should be dropped.

That the "302" memo of the Jan 24 interview with Flynn was filed long after the required 5 working days, and the version filed was not the original, but one that had been edited by Strzok and Lisa Page (not present, and not an FBI agent).

And the big one: That though all this information was required to be disclosed to Flynn and his lawyers early in the game, much of it was illegally withheld.
  #40  
Old 05-09-2020, 12:49 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Mike Flynn twice entered a guilty plea for something you claim is not a crime.

How does that work, exactly?
The FBI claimed it was a crime while withholding information that would have allowed him and his lawyers to understand that this was incorrect.
  #41  
Old 05-09-2020, 12:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
38 posts in this thread with very little mention of the things - many of which became public only last week - that led to the action cited in the OP.

Here's a relevant article: Dirty Dozen: The 12 revelations that sunk Mueller's case against Flynn.

Among the most significant of these points:
That on Jan 4 2017 an FBI memo stated that no derogatory info had been found on Flynn, and the case should be dropped.

That the "302" memo of the Jan 24 interview with Flynn was filed long after the required 5 working days, and the version filed was not the original, but one that had been edited by Strzok and Lisa Page (not present, and not an FBI agent).

And the big one: That though all this information was required to be disclosed to Flynn and his lawyers early in the game, much of it was illegally withheld.
From Trumper and non-journalist John Solomon's website? What a joke.
  #42  
Old 05-09-2020, 12:58 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The FBI claimed it was a crime while withholding information that would have allowed him and his lawyers to understand that this was incorrect.
His lawyers should know what is and is not a crime. Flynn entered pleas with the advice of his attorneys - again, they should know what is and is not a crime.

The crime was providing information that is false and material to a legitimately authorized criminal investigation.

What Barr is trying to do, really, is to claim that the entire investigation - one that the government spent presumably millions of dollars on - was a farce.
  #43  
Old 05-09-2020, 01:54 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
His lawyers should know what is and is not a crime. Flynn entered pleas with the advice of his attorneys
Which advice is likely to be better when information the FBI was legally required to disclose is not withheld.


Quote:
The crime was providing information that is false and material to a legitimately authorized criminal investigation.
The withheld information bears directly on the question of whether Flynn's statements were material.


Quote:
What Barr is trying to do, really, is to claim that the entire investigation - one that the government spent presumably millions of dollars on - was a farce.
The validity of an investigation has much to do with whether it was conducted legally & honestly, and very little to do with how much money was spent.
  #44  
Old 05-09-2020, 02:05 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
From Trumper and non-journalist John Solomon's website? What a joke.
Instead of addressing inconvenient evidence, you go ad hominem - convenient, perhaps, but notably weak.
  #45  
Old 05-09-2020, 02:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Instead of addressing inconvenient evidence, you go ad hominem - convenient, perhaps, but notably weak.
It's been addressed -- see the link in post #29. See the actual lawyers who aren't bound by sycophancy to Trump demonstrate Barr's dishonesty. Solomon's not a lawyer (and neither am I -- which is why I trust the real lawyers who don't lick Trump's boots).
  #46  
Old 05-09-2020, 03:20 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
That on Jan 4 2017 an FBI memo stated that no derogatory info had been found on Flynn, and the case should be dropped.
This one keeps coming up, but it is obvious bullshit if you look at the timeline of events.

On January 15, Mike Pence (VP-elect at the time) appeared on Face the Nation and said that Flynn did not discuss Russian sanctions with Kislyak. The Crossfire Hurricane team knew this wasn't true. If Flynn was lying to the incoming administration, these lies in and of themselves could compromise him.

So while the FBI didn't have derogatory info on Flynn on Jan 4, they sure did have derogatory info on Flynn when they interviewed him on Jan 24. Bill Barr and many right wing journos are pretending that this is not the case, but it does not hold up to even a cursory examination.
  #47  
Old 05-09-2020, 04:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Which advice is likely to be better when information the FBI was legally required to disclose is not withheld.



The withheld information bears directly on the question of whether Flynn's statements were material.



The validity of an investigation has much to do with whether it was conducted legally & honestly, and very little to do with how much money was spent.
Okay, so you acknowledge, then, that he lied to federal investigators, and you acknowledge further that he pleaded guilty not once but twice -- to a crime.

No amount of "withheld" information changes that fact.

What your entire argument rests upon is whether the initial reasons for opening the investigation were legal and legitimate to begin with.

Like I said either on this thread or another, time to reverse Barry Bonds' conviction. And it's probably time to reverse convictions of many others who weren't quite taken down on corruption charges but the nevertheless quite valid convictions of providing materially false information to federal law enforcement.
  #48  
Old 05-09-2020, 04:16 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,791
I already linked to it once, but here's Judge Sullivan's 92 page opinion from 12/16/2019.

The judge already ruled that it was a valid counter-intelligence investigation.

The judge already ruled that the FBI did not illegally withhold information.

The judge already ruled that Flynn's lies were material.

A lot of people (including Bill Barr) are pretending that recently revealed information wipes this away, but it does not.

Don't fall for it.
  #49  
Old 05-09-2020, 05:06 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...ack-qithdrawal

Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, and then plead guilty to it, before withdrawing his plea.

And the DOJ is dropping the case, because apparently lying to the FBI is okay (even admitting to it!) if you're a pal of Trump.

Seems crazy to me. I figured one of the paramount rules of enforcing the law was punishing those who lie to law enforcement. Apparently this DOJ disagrees.
Mr. Barr apparently believes in this trope.

Quote:
makes it clear that no one buys it, or at least has serious doubts that the "shaving" victim is telling the truth.
  #50  
Old 05-09-2020, 05:12 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Factual question: did the initial investigation of Flynn involve a counterintelligence issue?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017