DoJ drops case against Flynn.

[Agema]

I'm not going to mince my words: this is corruption in action.

Gen Michael Flynn was one of the earliest casualties of the Trump investigation, who lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty. Sentencing, however, was delayed. Flynn hired new layers in 2019, who tried a different tack of aggressively trying to free their client and withdrawing the guilty plea. There were two main claims: firstly "outrageous government conduct", which apparently normally applies when te government commits or incites or the crime. The second more credible reason is if the defendant can claim a "fair and just" reason to do so, which apparently is under some sort claim that his prior layers screwed up... which is I guess possible. What is noticeable, however, is that at no point is Flynn really trying to argue that he didn't lie to the FBI.

It was long thought Trump would merely pardon him, which is basically corrupt, but legal. However, instead, ubercrony extraordinaire Bill Barr has decided to simply drop the case. The prosecutor of the case has quit it, strongly implying he disagrees with his department.

This comes following the publication of emails from the FBI discussing how to handle Flynn, and the long and short of it seems to be some sort of argument that the FBI didn't have sufficient grounds to investigate him. And I've got to say, this sounds to me like the most amazing bollocks imaginable, because the police have no problem stopping people on the streets and investigating them for being black and they don't get thrown out of court.

Who watches the watchmen? Apparently, nobody. The executive is giving itself the total right to oversee investigations of itself and clear whoever it likes at whim. At the same time it's shutting down independent inspector generals who scrutinise the executive, blocking congressional scrutiny and more. Come on, who is fucking kidding? This is banana republic level stuff. Who gives a fuck how dodgy you are and what you did wrong? If you did it for the president, you get off, apparently.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I had heard in those FBI documents they may have admitted to entrapment. Though I'm not looking very hard at this at the moment, just assuming Flynn was going to get off one way or another.

 

[Agema]

I had heard in those FBI documents they may have admitted to entrapment. Though I'm not looking very hard at this at the moment, just assuming Flynn was going to get off one way or another.

Entrapment is actively tricking someone into commit a crime when they otherwise would not have done. If the FBI told Flynn something like "Look, there's obviously nothing going on here, you just say X so we can report it and can close this all down", then that might be entrapment.

What happened is that the FBI ppear to have suspected that Flynn would lie. They discuss whether to get the truth or let him lie and take him down. But there's no evidence whatsoever they somehow tricked him into lying: Flynn voluntarily gave evidence, lied on his own accord, so they let him do so and did him for it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Entrapment is actively tricking someone into commit a crime when they otherwise would not have done. If the FBI told Flynn something like "Look, there's obviously nothing going on here, you just say X so we can report it and can close this all down", then that might be entrapment.

What happened is that the FBI ppear to have suspected that Flynn would lie. They discuss whether to get the truth or let him lie and take him down. But there's no evidence whatsoever they somehow tricked him into lying: Flynn voluntarily gave evidence, lied on his own accord, so they let him do so and did him for it.

Fair enough then.

 

[Saelune]

The Trump Administration continues to prove it is more dangerous than the alternatives.

 

[SupahEwok]

Sad that these seems like it's gonna fly under the radar of all this corona stuff, if this forum's any indication.

 

[gorfias]

I'm not going to mince my words: this is corruption in action.

Gen Michael Flynn was one of the earliest casualties of the Trump investigation, who lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty. Sentencing, however, was delayed. Flynn hired new layers in 2019, who tried a different tack of aggressively trying to free their client and withdrawing the guilty plea. There were two main claims: firstly "outrageous government conduct", which apparently normally applies when te government commits or incites or the crime. The second more credible reason is if the defendant can claim a "fair and just" reason to do so, which apparently is under some sort claim that his prior layers screwed up... which is I guess possible. What is noticeable, however, is that at no point is Flynn really trying to argue that he didn't lie to the FBI.

It was long thought Trump would merely pardon him, which is basically corrupt, but legal. However, instead, ubercrony extraordinaire Bill Barr has decided to simply drop the case. The prosecutor of the case has quit it, strongly implying he disagrees with his department.

This comes following the publication of emails from the FBI discussing how to handle Flynn, and the long and short of it seems to be some sort of argument that the FBI didn't have sufficient grounds to investigate him. And I've got to say, this sounds to me like the most amazing bollocks imaginable, because the police have no problem stopping people on the streets and investigating them for being black and they don't get thrown out of court.

Who watches the watchmen? Apparently, nobody. The executive is giving itself the total right to oversee investigations of itself and clear whoever it likes at whim. At the same time it's shutting down independent inspector generals who scrutinise the executive, blocking congressional scrutiny and more. Come on, who is fucking kidding? This is banana republic level stuff. Who gives a fuck how dodgy you are and what you did wrong? If you did it for the president, you get off, apparently.

Are you not bothered that senior investigators said, "this guy has done nothing wrong. Let's get him to do something we can argue is wrong so that maybe we can get him, a currently innocent guy, to be fired or sent to prison". That these same people state the files on their investigation of him have been lost as it became apparent this was an abuse of power?
This was an example of the weaponization of power to take down political opponents. It's a disgrace and the people that did this? I have to wonder if there is a reasonable way to charge them with insurrection and have them hung until dead. They are traitors.

 

[Avnger]

"this guy has done nothing wrong. Let's get him to do something we can argue is wrong so that maybe we can get him, a currently innocent guy, to be fired or sent to prison".

Show us this quote. We'll wait. Considering the entirety of your conclusions rest on this existing, it should be easy to do. I mean otherwise it's almost like you're deliberately lying in order to support a false narrative...

 

[Worgen]

Sad that these seems like it's gonna fly under the radar of all this corona stuff, if this forum's any indication.

Colbert has his eye on it.

 

[gorfias]

Show us this quote. We'll wait. Considering the entirety of your conclusions rest on this existing, it should be easy to do. I mean otherwise it's almost like you're deliberately lying in order to support a false narrative...

What on Earth are you talking about?




Why was this investigation done? What do we know about it? A cabal of anti-trumpers sought to undermine then undo a US Election because they didn't like a candidate. They didn't suspect wrong doing. They sought to undermine the legal choice of the US people. This is called insurrection. Those involved should be tried, and if/when found guilty, hung.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Sad that these seems like it's gonna fly under the radar of all this corona stuff, if this forum's any indication.

To be fair, some of us are just so browbeaten by the corruption that this is exactly what I thought was going to happen. Either the case would be dropped or he would be pardoned.

We're so preoccupied by talking about all the Democrats' faults that when flagrant examples of misdoings like this occur, people turn the other way and go "But dat Reade, tho!".

I'm far removed from thinking that this government is currently capable of justice. It's only capable of Favors.

 

[Agema]

Are you not bothered that senior investigators said, "this guy has done nothing wrong. Let's get him to do something we can argue is wrong so that maybe we can get him, a currently innocent guy, to be fired or sent to prison".

They did not say that at all though, did they?

They have solid reason to investigate him, which includes that he has potentially broken a law. They then decide that either they can force him to admit it or just let him lie and duly prosecute it. They opine themselves that forcing him to admit it will get him in a huge heap of trouble anyway.

And then Flynn lied. He deliberately lied to an official investigation entirely out of his own choice, despite surely knowing it was grossly unethical and probably also illegal to do so. He lies to protect himself and the Trump campaign from accusations of dodgy dealings with Russia. And just so we're not confused about him lying, he then also openly admits that he lied about it in the court case, too. So he committed a crime, end of discussion. Calling him "innocent" is a bizarre and bogus argument: a murderer is innocent of murder right up until the knife goes in, too - it doesn't mean we should let them off.

After that, we also need to consider what sort of people we want to put into the role of National Security Advisor. People who hold dodgy meetings with foreign governments and lie to legal authorities about it? It's actually even worse than that, because of course that foreign government knows he's lying and can prove it. He's therefore made himself a blackmail risk right at the heart of the US government. That is some serious problem.

* * *

Look, I'm really sorry for honest-minded Republicans that Trump is an incompetent shitshow and his administration corrupt, that he's busy using his cronies to bury the cases of corruption they've committed. If they hate the Democrats so much that that's what they'd prefer, okay I guess. But they are really not doing themselves or their country any favours by pretending the corruption pouring out of the White House isn't actually there.

 

[Agema]

View attachment 115

Or to translate: "The Trump administration does not believe that the Trump administration should be subject to independent oversight or investigated for corruption".

 

[gorfias]

Or to translate: "The Trump administration does not believe that the Trump administration should be subject to independent oversight or investigated for corruption".

You can make a criminal out of anyone and then selectively prosecute.

In this case, we're seeing the communications of those investigating Trump and the lengths to which they went. Government got weaponized to destroy a candidate, then POTUS. This makes Watergate look like a prank.

What was their intent? You can do something that is otherwise legal but have an illegal intent, particularly as it relates to Flynn.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/report-ap-doj-drops-michael-flynn-prosecution/ and https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...lie-so-we-can-prosecute-him-or-get-him-fired/

"Though the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing — as shown in documents produced by the FBI to Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, last week — senior officials kept the case open... an unidentified FBI agent wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” "

 

[tstorm823]

Or to translate: "The Trump administration does not believe that the Trump administration should be subject to independent oversight or investigated for corruption".

Ok, but before talking to the FBI, Flynn hadn't committed a crime.

Like, imagine something that isn't a crime that you don't want to tell the FBI. Maybe you wet the bed last night. The FBI brings you in, sits you down, has a casual conversation, and then drops in "oh, by the way, you don't wet the bed, do you?" And you say no, and then they say they have the evidence you did and they'll arrest you for lying to them.

Flynn committed a crime by lying. By that measure, he's a criminal. But an incoming security advisor asking a Russian diplomat to push back on sanctions against the US is not a crime. It's not corruption. It's literally diplomacy. But because they were tearing apart anyone that ever talked to Trump and Russians, he didn't want them to look into him further. Not because he committed a crime, because he didn't want his life upended.

And the FBI had recordings, they KNEW the contacts they were asking about had been both legitimate and after the election. They KNEW it had nothing to do with election interference. They wen't into the conversation knowing they'd learn nothing of value in their investigation, so they made the decision in advance to make it a perjury trap.

 

[Agema]

Ok, but before talking to the FBI, Flynn hadn't committed a crime.

So what? The justification for the police to investigate someone is that they credibly may have committed a crime, not that they actually have. They can also acquire statements from people who aren't accused of crime, but may have evidence relevant to a potential crime, who are also expected to tell the truth. There are lots of people who have never committed a crime and perjured themselves. It's still perjury.

As it happens, at the point Flynn was negotiating with Russian officials, the Trump administration did not yet hold office. This was therefore potentially a crime under a very old and little known or used statute called the Logan Act, of interference in official government business. One might query the relevance or usefulness of the Logan Act, but nevertheless it's on the books. He lied about these conversations with Russia to VP Pence, who thus repeated them publicly.

Let's also bear in mind that the FBI has a second role in terms of guarding national security. They have prime facie evidence of someone with numerous ties (some financial) to a foreign country negotiating with that foreign country's government and lying about it, even to one of his own superiors and thus into public record. It is therefore credible for them to be concerned that he is compromised.

It's also not a perjury trap, because he lied about issues that directly relate to the matter of investigation - you shouldn't just uncritically repeat Trump cronies.

* * *

I might also note the DoJ has withdrawn its case without a single signature from any of the prosecutors on the case - one of which officially withdrew - which strongly suggests the prosecutors do not agree with the DoJ's decision. Not dissimilar, we might note, from the way the prosecutors resigned over the equally grotesquely and obviously partisan political dropping of the Roger Stone case as well.

 

[Agema]

You can make a criminal out of anyone and then selectively prosecute.

Maybe. But 99.9% of the time criminals make themselves by their own actions. Crime figures will clearly show far more crimes occur than are prosecuted. And people with very expensive lawyers are incredibly hard to frame.

In this case, we're seeing the communications of those investigating Trump and the lengths to which they went. Government got weaponized to destroy a candidate, then POTUS. This makes Watergate look like a prank.

No, what you see is the FBI investigating a government official about his links to Russia with a credible justification to do so, who found potential problems in his involvement with Russian officials.

"Though the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing — as shown in documents produced by the FBI to Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, last week — senior officials kept the case open...

Right... and wrong. The FBI was checking on Flynn for some of his dealings with Russia, where he was initially cleared and an unfinished memo was drafted to close the case. Documents then reveal a flurry of emails from various staff indicating the FBI management didn't want it shut down, but no explicit explanation given. We can only speculate, but implicitly given the timing in early January, that hold was because the FBI had just found out he'd had meetings with the Russian ambassador before the Trump administration took office and wanted to check it out first.

an unidentified FBI agent wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” "

Let's also look at the continuing statements from that same document (my bold and underlining):

• 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

That document is a strategy on how approach the interview, which encompasses both options for Flynn lying or telling the truth, where the FBI accept that if he tells the truth, it's probably bad news for Flynn anyway. The FBI agent testified that he actually attempted to prod Flynn into admitting the truth by using exact words and terms spoken between Flynn and Kislyak in their meetings. At no point did they ever coerce, encourage or trick Flynn into lying. Flynn decided on that all himself.

There's really no problem here. He committed a bigger offence to cover up a smaller one, he can take the fall for it.

 

[gorfias]

If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give this to DOJ and have them decide

Intent is huge in criminal law. WHY were they trying to get him to admit breaking the Logan Act? The Logan act is never enforced Ask John Kerry and so many others. Constitutionally, It should fail as charging someone with it is so, on its face, unusual. So, they weren't after him because they thought he broke the Logan Act. They were after him in order to engage in an insurrection with the color of law. Their intent is what is criminal, what they should be tried for, and if found guilty, hung as traitors.

EDIT: What has me so flabbergasted was the obvious abuse of power. This was an act of war against the American people by other means. The lack of outrage about all of this from the Left is just stunning. I have no words. Well. Being free was nice for a while.

 

[tstorm823]

It's also not a perjury trap, because he lied about issues that directly relate to the matter of investigation - you shouldn't just uncritically repeat Trump cronies.

He did not lie about issues that directly relate to the matter of investigation. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election. They were asking exclusively about events after the 2016 election. They had literal recordings to know that the conversations were not about the 2016 election. It was not in any way within the scope of the investigation, and that's the reason it's being thrown out.

 

[ObsidianJones]

He did not lie about issues that directly relate to the matter of investigation. The investigation was about interference in the 2016 election. They were asking exclusively about events after the 2016 election. They had literal recordings to know that the conversations were not about the 2016 election. It was not in any way within the scope of the investigation, and that's the reason it's being thrown out.

This is "18 USC 1001"

I think it isn't the subject of what the lie is, but rather that a lie took place at all.