Posted on 05/08/2020 1:35:33 PM PDT by jazusamo
It seems the only ones who still think ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is guilty of anything are the usual suspects: anti-Trump clowns. Forget the politically motivated charges against Flynn, these folks are simply ignoring the horrific deviations from policy here and the heinous acts of overreach conducted by the FBI to scalp a Trump official because they so desperately wanted Russian collusion to be true.
The FBI stumbled into this mess and instead of putting out the fire, they decided to pour gasoline on it. This Flynn fiasco shows the lengths at which the FBI will go to ensure their messes aren’t revealed and how they’re willing to destroy someone’s life to make sure their dirty laundry isn’t aired. This is our preeminent domestic law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency. This should scare all of us—and yes, we’re once again reminded that the Trump-Russia collusion hysteria was a myth, it was a hoax, and that government isn’t our friend. Flynn is an unfortunate casualty, but this should be a warning to everyone about what this agency can do to its own citizens. They’re supposed to be impartial. They are not. I’m a huge supporter of law and order and law enforcement. They are our finest, but we have a lot of bad cops in the DOJ/FBI and they should be dragged out forcefully.
Even liberal law professors, like Jonathan Turley who teaches at George Washington University Law School, said the Flynn case should be dropped, but also noted in the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss, which was filed yesterday, the lengths at which then-FBI Director James Comey, his deputy, Andrew McCabe, and other FBI officials were willing to go to scalp Flynn at all costs. If he wants to, Turley alludes that there could be grounds for Flynn to sue to malicious prosecution [emphasis mine]:
In the motion below, the Justice Department stresses that “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who … seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches [the] task with humility.” It also establishes that there was never a satisfaction of the materiality element to the criminal allegation:
“ 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.”
It further notes that key figures like Andrew McCabe “cut off” objections to the overly aggressive pursuit of Flynn. It describes an effort of former Director James Comey, McCabe, and others to skip common protocols to bag Flynn at any cost on any grounds.
While malicious prosecution cases are notoriously difficult to prove (particularly in a case with a voluntary plea), the motion reinforces the view of many of us that the Justice Department was engaged in a campaign to incriminate Flynn — a campaign that now appears entirely detached from both the evidence and legal standards supporting a criminal charge.
Turley also hit McCabe, who is now with CNN, after he said this probe was done after “surreptitious” meetings with the Russians. Flynn told about these calls while adding that CNN, in typical fashion, never pressed McCabe about him being a proven liar, which led to his firing.
CNN just did a bizarre interview with McCabe who said that they were alarmed by Flynn having "surreptitious" meetings with the Russian ambassador. He was the including National Security Adviser. It was entirely legal ... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/07/the-justice-department-drops-flynn-case/ …
The claim that this was "surreptitious" is bizarre. Flynn told the transition team about the call. It is not "surreptitious" because McCabe did not know about it and did not ask Trump official about a legal call with the Russians by the incoming National Security Adviser.
Bring Comey, McCabe, and the rest of this gang back to the Hill. We have more questions.
As I said, I’ve known about it since at least 2018. But with just a cursory look right now I found this: “....based on reports now confirmed by The Hill, Circa News and Infowars, that Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, “first we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.” Independent journalist and author Jack Posobiec helped spread the news....” If you need more than that; the internet awaits.
Maybe if we say “pretty please” they’ll act better.
Turley has been outraged at this whole sham.
Don’t worry about it. there’s a lot more about McCabe that is going to come out. This is just the start. I think he will be singing like a canary pretty soon.
The Twitter link below reveals an email from a New York Times reporter named Mark Mazzetti to lawyers at Covington & Burling. Mazzetti is asking for a meeting with General Mike Flynn’s attorneys to discuss what the New York Times had just discovered, that Joe Pientka told IG Horowitz that Andrew McCabe ordered him to to alter the FD-302 report originally filed in the Flynn case.
https://mobile.twitter.com/...
The Justice Department is in possession of these yet unreleased documents that were discovered by the US Attorney from Missouri looking at the case. Bill Barr now has in his hands written testimony from Joe Pientka indicating he was ordered by Andrew McCabe to materially alter the FD-302 documents after the timeline established by FBI regulations for the submission of a 302 had elapsed in order to prosecute General Flynn for something he did not do. And it gets worse.
With this corruption being fully revealed to the Justice Department, we now know the following:
1) Covington & Burling attorneys did not share the information with Flynn or the court, are now liable for civil penalties should General Flynn choose to pursue them and... the attorneys in the case should face disbarment proceedings for failure to advise their client of the existence of Pientka’s testimony to the Inspector General.
2) It appears this revelation from Pientka was either redacted in the Horowitz report or Horwitz never told anybody about it and it was found in the evidence the US Attorney assigned by Bill Barr to look at the case stumbled across. This raises the possibility that Inspector General Horowitz concealed facts indicating the corruption of the FBI from the Justice Department, Flynn and his lawyers, the United States Congress and the American people.
3) The New York Times, “the paper of record”, despite being fully aware of McCabe’s behavior, buried the fact that crimes had been committed by McCabe and other people within the FBI by never reporting it.
4) If this is the reason that Christopher Ray fired Andrew McCabe, It means that Christopher Wray concealed the information while continuing to prosecute General Flynn for a crime he didn’t commit. There is little likelihood that Wray was not aware of both the revelations of the motives of the FBI described in the handwritten notes of Pientka and Pientka’s testimony to IG Horowitz... and should be fired by the Attorney General immediately.
One of the implications is, of course, that they now have at least one felony on Andrew McCabe and, hopefully, he will start singing like a bird when presented with the fact he’s going to jail without his cooperation on the whole sordid mess. After all, didn’t Andrew McCabe famously state (to paraphrase) that if he “was going down, everybody else was going down with him”?
And what about Wray? If he was aware of this fact and did not advise the court as well as Flynn’s lawyers, is he also not criminally and civilly liable?
Grab you a Coke and some popcorn, this is going to get very interesting this summer and maybe sooner.
Interesting, isn’t it, how it’s ONLY the SAME guy every time?
You’d think the Bar and the law skools would be SCREAMING @ the injustice done to Michael Flynn
Crickets
ChickenShtz
We on the patriot side are going to need some good news this summer headed into November, what with Covid, economic suffering, and an enemy media determined to carry Biden across the finish line.
Hope AG Barr can, & is willing to deliver.
I prefer death.
I've already read that 'ere internet.
Couple times.
Get my laffs from the stupidity and venality of those controlling large swaths of our gubmint.
Har.
They're damn near worthless at catching spies and moles so a separate group to do that is in order rather than handing the sort of extra authority it requires to an agency that also handles kidnapping and bank robbery.
JMHo
Hmmm. Barr...
...and training. Don’t forget the training.
Oh jimmy boy the pipes are calling.
Well Jim if you are afraid of being in a cell with ty consider playing Russian roulette with an auto loader.
I'll believe it when I see it. Members of "The Club" don't need to worry about silly things like prison.
Turley has usually been on the side of civil liberties, with a few exceptions, much like Alan Dershowitz. In fact, he testified FOR Trump during the shampeachment.
The Cpt. also says go eat nothing burgers and enjoy some nothing will be done.
I remember him testifying at one point and he was indeed independent.
Barr needs an ironclad case to win. Shiff is already playing the “partisanship” card on Barr, and an acquittal would really play into Adam Schiff’s hands.The facts of American political life are that
- because of the influence of the wire services - all of them - major journalism is a cartel in violation of Sherman.
- journalism profits from promoting crises continually.
- government profits from the perceived need for more government - and that is what public fear of crisis produces.
- Consequently journalism promotes big government, and big government advocates are simpatico with journalists.
- Consequently conservatives get libeled mercilessly, and “liberals” don’t get libeled. At all.
- The Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision prevents Republicans from suing for libel.
- Sullivan stands or falls on the claim that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”That claim was completely novel in American jurisprudence in 1964, because a right to murder reputations with dangerous “weapons” - libel - is no more authorized by the First Amendment than murdering people is authorized by the Second Amendment. “The” freedom of the press and “the” RKBA were both existing and limited in 1788 - and the Bill of Rights was crafted to preserve those rights unchanged. The Federalists didn’t want to enumerate rights at all, but they had to promise to do so in order to win ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was ratified as a conservative measure; it touched no rights it did not enumerate.The majority - weak as it is - of conservative SCOTUS Justices must be given a case to overturn Sullivan. And - preferably in the same case - to find the wire services in violation of Sherman - and abolish them. After all, they are collusive on their face - and the rationale for allowing them anyway no longer exists (who thinks telegraph bandwidth is expensive enough to justify unifying and homogenizing journalism now?).
Conservative commentators are averse to the abolition of Sullivan for fear that they will be hit with lawfare libel suits. To the extent that that is a danger, SCOTUS could simply override Sullivan only for the members/subscribers of the wire services.
Justice Thomas favors overturning Sullivan, and Justice Scalia favored it as well. Justice Kavanaugh has every reason to favor it also, and presumably Alito would agree. That leaves Gorsuch - whom Scalia approved of - and Roberts. But by the time a case launched now reached SCOTUS, Ginzburg might have retired or something . . .
We need at least one, possibly two, more Supreme Court appointments before we have a conservative court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
