FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!

Gateway Pundit ^ | 05/23/2018 | Jim Holf

[American Quilter]

If govt employees are proven to have falsely testified against Michael Flynn, their wages should be garnished for as long as it takes to reimburse him for his legal fees.

[rolling_stone]

If govt employees are proven to have falsely testified against Michael Flynn, their wages should be garnished for as long as it takes to reimburse him for his legal fees.

they shoulsd no longer be govt employees...

[editor-surveyor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqnE6iSROFE

[rolling_stone]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3657632/posts

[Alberta's Child]

OK -- thanks. I just want to go through a few items here for clarification:

1. In your last prior post you said: Rosenstein was not vetted and approved as per the constitution, thus he cannot make the appointment. For one thing I don't know what relevance this has, but more importantly I don't know what "vetted and approved" means in the context of Rosenstein. He was nominated as the Deputy AG and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

2. Levin is a smart guy and I respect him, but on this particular point I think his case is very weak.I've said before that this is not a very solid argument. Arguing the constitutionality of a DOJ appointment is specious because the U.S. Justice Department didn't even exist when the Constitution was written. It was established by an act of Congress in 1870. So there seems to be no clear constitutional basis to determine which DOJ officials require Senate confirmation and which do not.

3. Point #2 would seem to mean that for the U.S. Justice Department, the definition of "principal appointments" under the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the ones that require Senate confirmation) would have been established under the statute that created the DOJ, or under associated statutes and regulations that followed.

4. To make matters more complicated, many of the posts in the Federal bureaucracy are created through executive orders by the President, or even by cabinet secretaries. The Deputy AG position, for example, was never legislated into existence by Congress. It was created in 1950 by the sitting AG at the time. Who exactly determines which ones require Senate confirmation as "principal" appointments?

[rlmorel]

I believe that is the point being made repeatedly by Mark Levin. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

[rlmorel]

I heard Dan Bongino referencing this today, and he said there are likely people who want to talk, but cannot because of what happens to whistleblowers. He said he has seen it happen.

If you know something bad that reflects poorly on your organization, it is a death sentence professionally speaking. They come after you and find a way to fire you for cause.

If you know something bad and leak it to the press, they polygraph EVERYONE. He said he has had to go through a few of them himself, so he knows.

(I think he has inside info on this)

He said that under the protection of a subpoena, he is pretty sure that people will talk, because...they can’t lie, and would welcome the chance to be able to do so.

So there may be something to this. We’ll see

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

302 reports are valuable for later or future analysis for both prosecution reasons and historical reasons. I’ve reviewed them for several major ‘action/prosecution’ cases and found them to be very useful.

However, all interviews, if possible should be recorded for completeness and accuracy (re transcribing or words that might be unclear, i.e. almost illegible or illegible).

Handwritten notes are okay but they are, unless one uses shorthand, incomplete, and therein lies the problem. Recording the interviews would resolve any “fullness” and “accuracy” issues.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Mark always knows what he is talking about.
.

[Eleutheria5]

Backing Flynn, too.

[rlmorel]

There are a lot of people who are saying "No, Levin and his ilk are WRONG on this" but I listened to the Levin show from last night where he goes over it in detail, and he SKEWERS Judge Napolitano who went on television to say people who are pushing this are trying to exploit a technicality, the American people aren't interested in a technicality, they want to know if wrongdoing was done, etc.

I listened to both Napolitano's take (at this link, around 4:49 in) and Mark Levin's take from his show last night, and besides the fact that Levin DID lay out his rationale (citing the specific DOJ memoranda from both 1973 and 2000 that both unequivocally concluded that it is the DOJ policy that a sitting President CANNOT be indited, and specifically listing the four specific tests for constitutionality of a Special Prosecutor in the Morrison vs. Olsen) I also listened to the explanation by Judge Napolitano which was shallow, vapid and lacking in detail.

Granted, I am sympathetic to the fact that Levin had a lot of time to make his case on his podcast, and Napolitano was on television which usually means you have very little time to make your case because it is television and you will get cut off...I was a bit appalled at Napolitano's comment about "the people don't care about a technicality"...

And then, even more oddly, Napolitano said that Levin was somehow taking the side of the MINORITY opinion as outlined by Justice Scalia, NOT the majority view outlined by Justice Rehnquist (both great men) which Levin immediately highlighted and discounted. I found that very odd, it really DID make Napolitano sound like he had no idea what he was talking about.

We either live in a Constitutional Republic, run by the rules of law, or we don't. If we don't, and the mood of the people is more important than a Supreme Court decision that took the time and outlined their rationale in detail, then...we simply don't live in a Constitutional Republic any more. What is going on here is CRITICAL to the future of this country. If this travesty is allowed to stand, and political campaigns (never mind the "little people" like us!) can be subjected to this type of hostile surveillance, then we are finished as country. I do believe it is that important.

To me, it is that simple.

[MayflowerMadam]

Napolitano is a feckless Never Trumper. He needs to go home, hop in bed with his “partner”, and shut up

And who cares if Levin is going with the “minority OPINION”? If Nap favors opinions over the law... again... he needs to go home. We care about the law.

[rlmorel]

I just included that as part of my overall impression that Napolitano LOOKED confident about what he was talking about, but sounded like he didn’t (to get that COMPLETELY backwards)

I wouldn’t mess with Levin...I appreciate his intellect and passion, but talking with him must be like handling a porcupine or a cactus.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post. Levin's argument is much stronger when he lays out the special counsel appointment as a violation of a specific statute or -- in this case -- a violation of established DOJ policy.

The constitutional argument is the one that seems weak to me because the U.S. Constitution is clear about the need for "principal officers" to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate but is not clear about what exactly constitutes a "principal officer" in the executive branch of the U.S. government.

I use the office of the Deputy AG as a perfect example. The Deputy AG post requires Senate confirmation by law or regulation, but that post wasn't even established by Congress in the first place. So it must be defined as a "principal officer" somewhere, but certainly not in the U.S. Constitution.

[rlmorel]

I admit to being a total dunce on these things...I only know what I have heard in the last week about it, though I suspect I now know more than 99% of the electorate about it!

Well, thank God for FR. If I didn’t have people steering me to these things to at least look at them, I would be pretty much like that 99%...not saying that is bad, but I am very concerned about this whole thing.

I have been having discussions with some other Freepers about the “process crimes” that nailed Admiral Flynn and George Papadopoulos, not evidence of actual wrongdoing, and it bears on this for me because I long ago realized that Mueller’s team is not on a fact finding mission, they are on a scalp hunting mission.

In my mind, if they are willing to destroy people over these kinds of things in an effort to scare other people into giving up information, then we should fight back with a Constitutional “process” issue and destroy/invalidate their charter/mission if we are legally able to do so.

I know there are people (not necessarily you, but you might think so too I suppose...:) who think I am being hysterical about the importance of this “investigation” in light of the actual misdeeds that went on in the name of this witch hunt. I think the future of our Republic is at stake, with this spying on political candidates and such.

[Alberta's Child]

I have no interest in defending Mueller, but let's also keep in mind that he may very well have been put in a position where it was impossible to function as a real prosecutor in most of the cases he was investigating.

Think about it this way ...

1. He was given responsibility to take over what had been an FBI-NSA-CIA counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation.

2. It's almost impossible to pursue criminal charges from a counterintelligence investigation because the surveillance methods used by the intelligence agencies would never stand up to legal scrutiny and would be inadmissible in court. For example, if they got a FISA warrant on a Russian operative and they recorded conversations where a U.S. citizen was selling classified material to the Russian, then the recordings would not be admissible in court. They'd have to start all over with a separate investigation of the U.S. citizen.

3. If Mueller couldn't prosecute any REAL cases related to the counterintelligence investigation for the reasons I described above, then what is he left with? Answer: Process crimes, financial crimes loosely related to the foreign business dealings of people like Paul Manafort, and comical charges against a Russian company (Concord Management) and 13 Russians who have no intention of ever showing up in court anyway.

I almost get the sense that Mueller has run out of things to do, and is begging anyone who has anything remotely related to Russia to come forward and give him a reason to conduct another 200 hours of interviews with people who can't be charged with any crimes other than (potentially) lying to the FBI.

[rlmorel]

"...It's almost impossible to pursue criminal charges from a counterintelligence investigation because the surveillance methods used by the intelligence agencies would never stand up to legal scrutiny and would be inadmissible in court. For example, if they got a FISA warrant on a Russian operative and they recorded conversations where a U.S. citizen was selling classified material to the Russian, then the recordings would not be admissible in court. They'd have to start all over with a separate investigation of the U.S. citizen..."

Hm. I am not sure, and I could definitely be wrong here, but anything obtained under a legally obtained FISA warrant is admissible in the same way surveillance under a warrant from a civilian US court would be admissible. Heck, we don't need a FISA warrant to spy on non-citizens, but if we need to surveil a US citizen, there has to be either a FISA or civilian court warrant, but...all indications are pointing to the fact that it isn't the surveillance itself that is the issue, it is how that surveillance came to be put in place.

There is a growing body of evidence that people in the Trump sphere were set up in such a way to SPECIFICALLY get a counterintelligence (FISA) warrant. They chose to frame the Trump people in such a way that it went down THAT road instead of getting a warrant to surveil a US citizen using then non-FISA pathway.

So, they steered it into the FISA process. Think about it...WHY did these "encounters" between Papadopoulos and Downer, Page and Halper, Papadopoulous and Halper all take place coincidentally in London? And why were both Papadopoulos and Page both offered all expenses paid trips to the UK (as low level as they were)?

It is because they had to get them out of CONUS and into a foreign country where they could be spied on, entrapped, and engaged by foreign intelligence entities which would funnel them right into the FISA channel.

The problem is, if they went the non-FISA pathway (through a regular court) they couldn't control that process and it would have left an easy trail far too visible for anyone who had the inclination to look. And it probably wouldn't have been approved. One of the major issues is...was this rubber stamped by the court to let it happen...and most people are inclined to think it was.

NOTE: This is one of the reasons the DOJ has stubbornly refused to release the details of the FISA warrant request and why we see this stupid (well, not stupid for the Left, because it is going to undress them in public, so they have no choice but to drag their feet, lie, and obfuscate!) bureaucratic war between the DOJ and Nunes. We have Comey and Clapper on record saying "Oh, the dossier wasn't used in a major way, it was only part of a 'mosaic'..." and only recently admitting it was actually REALLY used in any way, while the stupid hack stooge Brennan is insisting it was not used (last I heard).

For what it is worth, I think the dimwit Brennan is going to be the last one left holding the bag. So he might be as far up as this goes, sadly.

[EVO X]

I am not sure if this is the current view of the DOJ on principle officers. The brief is from 2007. I suspect if someone contests Mueller’s appointment, they would use some of those arguments to try and justify his appointment. It is a long tough read so here is the conclusion.

“For all of these reasons, we conclude that an individual who will occupy a position to which has been delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign
powers of the federal government, and which is “continuing,” must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments clause. Conversely, a position that does not satisfy one of these two elements need not be filled pursuant to that Clause.”

https://www.justice.gov/file/451191/download

[rlmorel]

Eeeek! LOL, I am afraid to even go in and look at that...kudos to you! (sincerely)

Sigh...I don’t know about you, but I read that as

A.) Mueller’s job is continuing (Meets requirement 1)

B.) Mueller DOES occupy a position to which has been delegated by legal authority a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government (He does have Subpoena power, right?) (Meets requirement 2)

Which means Mueller’s position WOULD have to be fulfilled by appointment AND by confirmation as is done with an Attorney General.

NOTE: I throw my hands up in surrender on this-all other things I say may be completely out in right field! I have already ventured too far beyond my understanding! I thank both of you for taking me beyond where I would have ventured!

God, I hate this stuff. Hate it. The skulduggery. The corruption. The intrigue. The blood sport. I hate it all. Doesn’t mean I won’t be happy when someone is called to account, but I wish it never came to this.

[EVO X]

I think they would make the case that it isn’t a continuing position because it isn’t a permanent appointment. The longer he sticks around would test that assumption. He could be there for 8 years which would be longer than many principle officers stay..