Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Thanks fatguy. I looked into both of them before I posted and they seem solid, so I assume I'm misunderstanding? What point are those two making?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter whoknew
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Not sure. It may be that the guy that filed hadn't appeared in the Flynn case before, but that doesn't seem like a big deal either.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
He hasn't appeared in that court before, he isn't certified there, and he submitted under another lawyer's bar number who was. That's pretty f'd up.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
What do you mean by "certified"?
I'm a government attorney. I'm not admitted to the D.C. bar. I file stuff in D.C. District Court all the time. The fact that the guy filing did not have his own D.C. Bar number is a complete non-issue.
I agree it's weird that the other guy's bar number was used. But my guess is that it was inadvertent. There would have been no reason for the filing attorney to use the other guy's bar number and pretend it was his.
The Flynn saga is a big story. The bar number story, to me, seems like a nothingburger.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I mean admitted to that actual federal court.
Ok so you say inadvertent. Now say your whole office refuses to sign a pleading (the actual lawyer on it quits rather than sign it in fact) and you, knowing that, use the bar number of someone fired from your office who was admitted to that court.
Now how do you see it?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think you're conflating two different issues.
Yes, it is extremely weird if the only name on the filing is the Acting U.S. Attorney himself. I have never seen anything like that. Ordinarily the filing would have been drafted and signed by a lower level attorney. So I agree that the lack of other names on the filing is evidence that there was considerable pushback on this decision from others in the office.
My focus is on the part about using the bar number, though. The tweets (and your description) make it sound like they used the departing attorney's bar number for some sort of sketchy reason. But that makes no sense. They could have just filed the document with no bar number at all. So I'm not sure how that detail really fits with the story. What was their improper motivation for including the bar number on the filing?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok fair point. As a practical matter what happens if someone not admitted to a particular federal court shows up and files a pleading with no one else on the by-line? What does the clerk do?
- eta - My guess was if the lawyer shows up with that pleading the clerk says either get enrolled via pro hac vice or just request admission first.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Pretty much all filings are electronic these days. Except in rare instances, nobody is showing up and handing the clerk a filing. The paper gets filed first, then the clerk's office reviews it to make sure it's OK. If there's something deficient about the filing, the clerk's office would bounce the filing at that point with some sort of explanation about why.
Here is the relevant section of the D.C. district court local rules:
So is this what they're referring to? The U.S. Attorney never filed the form with the clerk's office indicating that he's familiar with the local rules? If so, that's not any kind of sneakiness, that's just sloppiness.
ETA: This is the two page form that government lawyers need to fill out every three years
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok, thanks, yes that's what I'm referring to.
However if they had done that, it's possible they could not have filed it right away. And they could not find anyone else to sign off on it, that's my point.
I don't know when this stuff is caught, maybe after the fact, maybe up front when it happens. I don't know. I agree with the sloppiness, not trying to disagree, but it sounds like it could have been kicked back under Shea's number thereby delaying filing? I have no idea, this is so screwed up that I seriously doubt you or I or anyone will ever find or hear of a similar comp. And otoh I seriously doubt the US Attorney would have any trouble getting anything filed in his own name, even if it's totally weird he showed up all by his lonesome. - Honestly thanks as always for the response and insights.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/09/president-obama-declares-there-is-no-precedent-that-anybody-can-find-for-the-flynn-motion-he-may-want-to-call-eric-holder/
Interesting look at the precedent for the DOJ to dismiss the charges. Apparently in United States v. Stevens Eric Holder (Obama's AG) filed a motion to dismiss charges because the prosecution did not give the defense all the relevant information.
Interesting look at the precedent for the DOJ to dismiss the charges. Apparently in United States v. Stevens Eric Holder (Obama's AG) filed a motion to dismiss charges because the prosecution did not give the defense all the relevant information.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Holder didn’t do that himself.
Holder did it only after forced to by the judge in that case.
The judge? It’s the same one in the Flynn case.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
>>However, during the trial prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense which drew a sharp rebuke from Judge Sullivan.<<
- That has never, ***ever happened with Flynn and Sullivan. In fact Sullivan issued an excoriating opinion shutting down Flynn’s claims and he was likely getting ready to do it again, which is why Barr preempted him by not allowing him the chance at a second ruling.
- That has never, ***ever happened with Flynn and Sullivan. In fact Sullivan issued an excoriating opinion shutting down Flynn’s claims and he was likely getting ready to do it again, which is why Barr preempted him by not allowing him the chance at a second ruling.
ren hoek
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Because John Solomon is a fraud with an anti-democratic, anti-liberal agenda, and on Firtash’s payroll to boot.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Amigo it can be totally false and you’ll still have your narrative, don’t worry, that’s how narratives work.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I know how narratives work. I've been watching your of defending of the indefensible for at least a couple weeks now.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok thanks, I’m more interested in facts. Feel free to engage in narratives or claim I have them.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
While I feel you are more reasonable than the other lefty posters on this board, I feel like The only facts you're interested in are the ones that support the current narrative.
You're not interested at all on what just came out about Flynn? That register zero on your smellometer? That doesn't concern you at all?
it seems like you're more interested in debunking the railroad and hit job Flynn got done on him then you are actually finding the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
waiver wire
Footballguy
SID , I pretty much never post in any of these threads but read daily as im interested in the politics and perspectives in the states .
I appreciate the effort and content of your posts
before anyone jumps on me : Canadian who for 20 years voted with the conservatives in Canada but last 2 federal elections voted liberal because I preferred their social stances
BladeRunner
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
He's not conservative or even right-leaning from what I've been reading. Am I wrong?Pretty funny he is calling you a left
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
It’s not fraudulent to report factual information. It’s not antidemocratic to scrutinize the FBI & CIA- two historically corrupt institutions. Setting aside the color commentary in the piece his work held up a lot better than the collusion deadenders.
It’s unfortunate that critical coverage was ceded by mainstream outlets to right wingers, leftists and libertarians. But that’s the choice they made when they dedicated their newsrooms to the collusion scam.
waiver wire
Footballguy
HAHA I totally expected that from someone when I added that in , just didn't want my post to be put in crazy left categoryI think I found the problem.
the trump presidency is intriguing from an outside perspective , im a former conservative voter in Canada but really hate their policies on social issues so cant support them anymore so voted for the lesser evil
from him being nominated and the 3 years in office imho is just nuts
I totally understood but may not have agreed with that an outsider may change the dynamic in the Whitehouse and fix the divide that you I think you have in your country
I wish I was a better writer or as smart as many of the posters in fbg as I would participate more instead I watch from the sidelines and try to understand
I read the psf to get more information and figure out what both sides think because the US is a super power and dominates the economy of Canada
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I think I found your 2nd problem.
I wouldn't assume that (myself included).anyways, I appreciate your input, my Canadian friend.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Not for this situation, no. It’s different because with Stevens Judge Sullivan found inappropriate behavior. Not only has there been no such finding here, Judge Sullivan has ruled completely the opposite.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Firtash and Yanukovych flunkies funneling manufactured claims through Solomon to be laundered through Hannity and his sock puppets isn’t coverage.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
***
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.
By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.
******
At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
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.”
...The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.
Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.
...
***
The Assistant Attorney General during the Flynn case says that Barr has misrepresented the facts and the law.
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.
By Mary B. McCord
Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.
******
At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
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.”
...The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.
Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.
...
***
The Assistant Attorney General during the Flynn case says that Barr has misrepresented the facts and the law.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Will be ignored or laughed ar. Again, thats the current trend here. We are so far divided as a nation. Its truely sad.
I left the Justice Department after it made a disastrous mistake. It just happened again.
By Jonathan Kravis
May 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. EDT
Jonathan Kravis was a federal prosecutor for 10 years.
Three months ago, I resigned from the Justice Department after 10 years as a career prosecutor. I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases, United States v. Roger Stone. At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again.
I was wrong.
Last week, the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law, filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn — notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound.
Since my resignation, I have not commented on the Stone sentencing; it is not easy for me to do so now. Prosecutors are trained to make their cases in the courtroom and let the results speak for themselves.
But I feel compelled to write because I believe that the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided, because my colleagues who still serve the department are duty-bound to remain silent and because I am convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.
First, Roger Stone. He was tried and convicted of obstruction of Congress, false statements and witness tampering, based on evidence that he had lied repeatedly to a congressional committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then threatened a witness who could have exposed those lies.
In February, the Justice Department filed a sentencing memorandum, signed by all four prosecutors in the case, recommending a sentence of seven to nine years, within the range set by the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In my experience, the Justice Department staunchly defends sentences within the guidelines range, particularly for defendants (such as Stone) who are convicted at trial, and especially for defendants (such as Stone) who repeatedly demonstrate disrespect for the judicial system.
The next morning, the president posted a tweet criticizing the sentencing recommendation as a “miscarriage of justice.” Later that day, the Justice Department submitted a revised memo revoking the original recommendation and proposing that Stone receive a much shorter sentence. All four career prosecutors who had tried Stone withdrew from the case. I resigned because I was not willing to serve a department that would so easily abdicate its responsibility to dispense impartial justice.
Last week came an equally appalling chapter: the department’s motion to drop the Flynn case. Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Flynn twice admitted under oath that he had committed this crime, and the trial judge issued a lengthy opinion upholding the plea.
Nevertheless, after public criticism of the prosecution by the president, the department moved to dismiss Flynn’s case, claiming that new evidence showed that the plea had no basis. None of the career prosecutors who handled Flynn’s case signed that motion.
In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.
Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.
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.
The dedicated public servants who remain cannot respond publicly to those who claim that the department acted appropriately in these cases. But I can, and I say this. If the department truly acted because of good-faith commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of the president? Where are the narcotics cases in which the department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career prosecutors? Where are the other false-statements cases dismissed after a guilty plea?
There are none. Is that because the only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by department leadership happened to involve friends of the president? Of course not.
The task of repairing this damage will fall to the department’s career agents and prosecutors, and it is for them that I write this. Your work of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases is hard, and it becomes even harder when witnesses and jurors start to believe that the Justice Department’s handling of these cases is infected by politics. Your service during these times is a credit to the department. And you will be at your posts, serving justice, long after this attorney general is gone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/
By Jonathan Kravis
May 11, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. EDT
Jonathan Kravis was a federal prosecutor for 10 years.
Three months ago, I resigned from the Justice Department after 10 years as a career prosecutor. I left a job I loved because I believed the department had abandoned its responsibility to do justice in one of my cases, United States v. Roger Stone. At the time, I thought that the handling of the Stone case, with senior officials intervening to recommend a lower sentence for a longtime ally of President Trump, was a disastrous mistake that the department would not make again.
I was wrong.
Last week, the department again put political patronage ahead of its commitment to the rule of law, filing a motion to dismiss the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn — notwithstanding Flynn’s sworn guilty plea and a ruling by the court that the plea was sound.
Since my resignation, I have not commented on the Stone sentencing; it is not easy for me to do so now. Prosecutors are trained to make their cases in the courtroom and let the results speak for themselves.
But I feel compelled to write because I believe that the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided, because my colleagues who still serve the department are duty-bound to remain silent and because I am convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.
First, Roger Stone. He was tried and convicted of obstruction of Congress, false statements and witness tampering, based on evidence that he had lied repeatedly to a congressional committee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and then threatened a witness who could have exposed those lies.
In February, the Justice Department filed a sentencing memorandum, signed by all four prosecutors in the case, recommending a sentence of seven to nine years, within the range set by the U.S. sentencing guidelines. In my experience, the Justice Department staunchly defends sentences within the guidelines range, particularly for defendants (such as Stone) who are convicted at trial, and especially for defendants (such as Stone) who repeatedly demonstrate disrespect for the judicial system.
The next morning, the president posted a tweet criticizing the sentencing recommendation as a “miscarriage of justice.” Later that day, the Justice Department submitted a revised memo revoking the original recommendation and proposing that Stone receive a much shorter sentence. All four career prosecutors who had tried Stone withdrew from the case. I resigned because I was not willing to serve a department that would so easily abdicate its responsibility to dispense impartial justice.
Last week came an equally appalling chapter: the department’s motion to drop the Flynn case. Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements in connection with lies he told in an FBI interview about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Flynn twice admitted under oath that he had committed this crime, and the trial judge issued a lengthy opinion upholding the plea.
Nevertheless, after public criticism of the prosecution by the president, the department moved to dismiss Flynn’s case, claiming that new evidence showed that the plea had no basis. None of the career prosecutors who handled Flynn’s case signed that motion.
In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.
Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.
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.
The dedicated public servants who remain cannot respond publicly to those who claim that the department acted appropriately in these cases. But I can, and I say this. If the department truly acted because of good-faith commitments to legal positions, then where is the evidence of those commitments in other cases that do not involve friends of the president? Where are the narcotics cases in which the department has filed a sentencing memorandum overruling career prosecutors? Where are the other false-statements cases dismissed after a guilty plea?
There are none. Is that because the only cases in the United States that warranted intervention by department leadership happened to involve friends of the president? Of course not.
The task of repairing this damage will fall to the department’s career agents and prosecutors, and it is for them that I write this. Your work of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases is hard, and it becomes even harder when witnesses and jurors start to believe that the Justice Department’s handling of these cases is infected by politics. Your service during these times is a credit to the department. And you will be at your posts, serving justice, long after this attorney general is gone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/i-left-justice-department-after-it-made-disastrous-mistake-it-just-happened-again/
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Just more deep state actors getting exposed.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is a replay of what happened with Stone. The difference here is that Trump and Barr did not take the chance of letting the judge look at the motions and the evidence and instead moved to preempt his review altogether. And the only reason I can think they did that is they suspected he would be ruling against them in the near future.
Looking at that motion (h/t SB) it's interesting that they spend a fair amount of time trying to tell Judge Sullivan that he has no latitude or discretion to deny their motion.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Justice Department Wants to Drop Flynn’s Case. Can the Judge Say No?
- This article suggests Sullivan doesn’t have much latitude to deny the DOJ motion, though he does have latitude demand explanations.
- Fox is reporting the motion to dismiss may be granted today.
- This article suggests Sullivan doesn’t have much latitude to deny the DOJ motion, though he does have latitude demand explanations.
- Fox is reporting the motion to dismiss may be granted today.
Travis the Chimp
Footballguy
This is getting very interesting.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-moving-full-throttle-on-russia-probe-review-with-top-federal-prosecutors-involved-sources
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-moving-full-throttle-on-russia-probe-review-with-top-federal-prosecutors-involved-sources
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. …
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you’ve indicated. …
Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”
ren hoek
Footballguy
Welp- so much for that.
Also admits Crowdstrike never presented evidence that Russia hacked/stole documents from the DNC.
He's actually wrong on that count- the FBI did, per James Comey, attempt to gain access to the server. So did DHS. The DNC just refused, the authorities didn't push back, and the FBI inexplicably went along with it.
We've been fed complete bull#### about this for 3 years.
ren hoek
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I don't get it
ren hoek
Footballguy
CC: @moleculo @sho nuffren hoek said:
Just in case you folks missed this one. I remember there being some disagreement about the strength of Crowdstrike's secret evidence that Russia stole the documents from the DNC server. Turns out- they didn't have it.
Here Shawn Henry admits "there's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." That they "didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left." The entire basis was predicated on blind faith in Crowdstrike. Amazingly, they never even turned in a forensic report to the FBI. They could have literally just made it up.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Just reflecting on how lame people were towards anyone that was mildly critical of Muellerpalooza
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
moleculo
Footballguy
Ok?
I'm not a forensic IT guy. I don't know how to weigh this, and havent been following this story for a while.
Reading this passage, without a whole lot of context, reminds me of earlier discussions on circumstantial evidence...that is, if you see snow on the ground but did not witness flakes in the air, you have no direct evidence that is snowed last night. You have circumstantial evidence only, and circumstantial evidence can be damning.
You can read the actual document here. You shouldn't read Ren's misleading, heavily excerpted passage from antiwar.com. Par for the course really.
Last edited by a moderator:
