Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You haven't been following this until now?

Yes. But, there is so much new information it is hard to remember if the judge knew about the rewritten 302 then. Being late and being rewritten are two very different things.

Yes. Judge Sullivan knew all this in December...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

"Setting Flynn up to lie"? He wasn't "set up." He lied. Just like he had lied to Pence, and lied to Priebus, and lied to Spicer.

I still want to know WHY did he lie? Who told him to lie? Trump? And why?

The agents who interviewed him did not think he was being dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You haven't been following this until now?

Yes. But, there is so much new information it is hard to remember if the judge knew about the rewritten 302 then. Being late and being rewritten are two very different things.

Yes. Judge Sullivan knew all this in December...

He did not know about the set up for the interview. He did not know about the side agreement for the plea. He did not know they had not even identified a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You haven't been following this until now?

Yes. But, there is so much new information it is hard to remember if the judge knew about the rewritten 302 then. Being late and being rewritten are two very different things.

Yes. Judge Sullivan knew all this in December...

He did not know about the set up for the interview. He did not know about the side agreement for the plea. He did not know they had not even identified a crime.

He knew that they had.

Interview prep is privileged so judges rarely know that. And since there was no side agreement, he still doesn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from we are taught that a lie is a lie. No one provokes you to lie. You either tell the truth or you decide to lie.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

Is this what you tell your children, that it's no okay to lie unless you are set up to lie? Wow. Just wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from we are taught that a lie is a lie. No one provokes you to lie. You either tell the truth or you decide to lie.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

Is this what you tell your children, that it's no okay to lie unless you are set up to lie? Wow. Just wow.

Then why was the FBI's strategy "to get him to lie"? If no one provokes you to lie, why did the FBI want to do just that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from we are taught that a lie is a lie. No one provokes you to lie. You either tell the truth or you decide to lie.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

Is this what you tell your children, that it's no okay to lie unless you are set up to lie? Wow. Just wow.

Then why was the FBI's strategy "to get him to lie"? If no one provokes you to lie, why did the FBI want to do just that?

Giving someone rope to hand themselves is what they did. Nobody made him lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You haven't been following this until now?

Yes. But, there is so much new information it is hard to remember if the judge knew about the rewritten 302 then. Being late and being rewritten are two very different things.

Yes. Judge Sullivan knew all this in December...

So why did Barr have to step in if the judge was about to throw the case out? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from we are taught that a lie is a lie. No one provokes you to lie. You either tell the truth or you decide to lie.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

Is this what you tell your children, that it's no okay to lie unless you are set up to lie? Wow. Just wow.

Then why was the FBI's strategy "to get him to lie"? If no one provokes you to lie, why did the FBI want to do just that?

Giving someone rope to hand themselves is what they did. Nobody made him lie.

First, it was "provoke to lie"...now it is "made him lie"? Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So Flynn is innocent-- because a government bureaucrat waited more than five days to file their paperwork?

That was only ONE of many discrepancies. Also, please remember, it was rewritten against the rules. It was edited by someone who was not present and a different agent rewrote the original. That's not the way it is done. Why did they do this?

Judge Sullivan already went through all of this in December.

Hint: none of this is a big deal.

Did he have the information about the re-write then?

For sure, he did not have the handwritten notes about setting Flynn up to lie.

Neither.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from we are taught that a lie is a lie. No one provokes you to lie. You either tell the truth or you decide to lie.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

Is this what you tell your children, that it's no okay to lie unless you are set up to lie? Wow. Just wow.

Then why was the FBI's strategy "to get him to lie"? If no one provokes you to lie, why did the FBI want to do just that?

Giving someone rope to hand themselves is what they did. Nobody made him lie.

First, it was "provoke to lie"...now it is "made him lie"? Which is it?

Neither. He didn’t lie. And he changed his plea. And now he’s innocent because...the doj after an independent review of the Comey sh$tshow, dropped the charges. That’s how justice works.

[Anonymous]

This piece highlights some of the misconduct committed by Van Grack and the FBI in the Flynn case.....

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

And, as related to Brady.....

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This piece highlights some of the misconduct committed by Van Grack and the FBI in the Flynn case.....

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

And, as related to Brady.....

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

This. That is some seriously dirty cop BUllsh$$$$$$t. Comey will go down in history as the guy who burned down the FBI, and Obama and holder and tarmac meeting lady were all okay with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This piece highlights some of the misconduct committed by Van Grack and the FBI in the Flynn case.....

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

And, as related to Brady.....

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

This. That is some seriously dirty cop BUllsh$$$$$$t. Comey will go down in history as the guy who burned down the FBI, and Obama and holder and tarmac meeting lady were all okay with that.

Did Flynn twice lie to the FBI or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This piece highlights some of the misconduct committed by Van Grack and the FBI in the Flynn case.....

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

And, as related to Brady.....

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

This. That is some seriously dirty cop BUllsh$$$$$$t. Comey will go down in history as the guy who burned down the FBI, and Obama and holder and tarmac meeting lady were all okay with that.

Did Flynn twice lie to the FBI or not?

We'll need to hear from Agent Joe Pientka to know for sure what the agents thought. Since Strzok edited his 302 with Page's help, we can't be sure.
They have said that these agents did not think he was being dishonest. And, then things were changed........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This piece highlights some of the misconduct committed by Van Grack and the FBI in the Flynn case.....

These documents do not show prosecutors finding a way to arrest someone suspecting of a crime. They show prosecutors trying to create a crime. It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak. There was no reason to hide such a discussion. Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more positive posture with them.

It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.

Keep in mind CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.” The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

And, as related to Brady.....

At least as early as February 2018, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (who was one of Mueller’s staff) was under order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” There was also an obligation to turn over all favorable defense evidence, including impeachment evidence for witnesses even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

In 2019, Van Grack repeated the denial that there was “any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

So we now know that the Justice Department was withholding a January 4, 2017 document entitled “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office. That document declared that an investigation “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” In what universe would that not be :favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment”? Moreover, it would be key impeachment evidence in examining investigators or other witnesses. As a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would have viewed the material above as a windfall of evidence favorable to my client.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

This. That is some seriously dirty cop BUllsh$$$$$$t. Comey will go down in history as the guy who burned down the FBI, and Obama and holder and tarmac meeting lady were all okay with that.

Did Flynn twice lie to the FBI or not?

We'll need to hear from Agent Joe Pientka to know for sure what the agents thought. Since Strzok edited his 302 with Page's help, we can't be sure.
They have said that these agents did not think he was being dishonest. And, then things were changed........

Judge Sullivan addressed all of this in December. It's all laid out. There were some embarrassing data entry errors but nothing wrong.