Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

+1,000.

Let's move on....

[Typical Lax Dad]

+1,000.

Let's move on....

Yep.

[old salt]

Randy, you say Flynn did nothing wrong by talking to Kislyak. I disagree. Furthermore, I am OK with the leaks to the press about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. I haven’t seen anything authoritatively saying those leaks were illegal. I could understand why, in general, it would be illegal to disclose info from FISA intercepts, but I suspect there may be some particulars with respect to the Flynn – Kislyak conversations that may make this specific leak legal. The WaPo says it had ten sources (initial plus nine corroborators). All ten violated the law? No one has been arrested or indicted, and it has almost been two years. If a crime occurred, certainly the Trumpers would be hot to nail someone. Maybe they haven’t found the leaker or the corroborators. Or maybe no crime occurred. My money is on door number two.

Even if illegal, I am OK with this specific leak. Uncovering misconduct (including illegality) by governmental officials (or those who are about to become such) is vital to our democracy. Flynn was subverting the foreign policy of the U.S. government and arguably violating the law by telling Kislyak, in effect, that the Trump administration would not enforce the sanctions Obama had placed on Russia for interfering with the 2016 election. The leak was specific to these conversations and, importantly, did no real harm to any U.S. interests or citizens. Certainly Flynn has no right to cry foul given that he was, at best, acting improperly and, at worst, criminally. He might have had a more sympathetic case if he hadn’t gone on to lie to the Vice President and the FBI. But he chose the path that criminals from time immemorial have chosen. He tried to talk his way out of it.

Then FBI Director Comey disagrees with your assertion that leaking NSA intercepts with foreign officials is not criminal disclosure of classifieds information.
Comey told Trump that they were trying to locate the leakers & would "put their heads on a pike" to deter further leaks of classified information.
They haven't been prosecuted because they haven't been located ...& won't likely be, at this late date.

[old salt]

Flynn wasn’t a target until after he lied to the FBI. He was not a target going into the meeting unless you think he was a target for violating the Logan Act. As many have said, it is highly unlikely Flynn was being criminally pursued in late December 2016/early January 2017 for Logan Act violations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... -logan-act

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case — the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration's early days. It was that interview, held on Jan. 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Flynn wasn’t a target until after he lied to the FBI. He was not a target going into the meeting unless you think he was a target for violating the Logan Act. As many have said, it is highly unlikely Flynn was being criminally pursued in late December 2016/early January 2017 for Logan Act violations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... -logan-act

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case — the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration's early days. It was that interview, held on Jan. 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea.

Thank God.

[old salt]

So as it turns out Flynn wasn’t “ambushed” after all. In Flynn’s own attorney’s filing with the court, Flynn admits McCabe told him the FBI wanted to interview him about his conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Kinda hard to call it an “ambush” when he was told the purpose of the meeting in advance. Knowing the FBI wanted to interview him about his calls with Kislyak, Flynn voluntarily agreed to the date, time, and place of the meeting, which took place later on Jan. 24, 2017, a couple of hours after the initial call with McCabe. This was Flynn’s fourth day on the job as National Security Advisor. He far outranked the FBI agents in the governmental hierarchy so he could have set the meeting when and where he wanted to. Or he could have declined to agree to meet. Or he could have said he wanted White House counsel, or his own attorney, present.

Randy, you say McCabe mislead Flynn. He did not. He told him the FBI wanted to talk to him about his conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Flynn wasn’t a target until after he lied to the FBI. He was not a target going into the meeting unless you think he was a target for violating the Logan Act. As many have said, it is highly unlikely Flynn was being criminally pursued in late December 2016/early January 2017 for Logan Act violations.

Randy, you seem to think McCabe was unreasonably trying to force Flynn into not having an attorney at the meeting. Another possible explanation is that he didn’t want to put Flynn in a tough situation with White House counsel who might not be aware of Flynn’s dalliances with Kislyak. If Flynn had told the truth to the FBI, everything might have ended there. No need for Sally Yates to go talk to Don McGahn.

Now that the “ambush” canard has been disproven, the Flynn defenders have shifted their argument to criticizing: (a) McCabe for allegedly trying to persuade Flynn not to bring an attorney to the meeting; and (b) the agents for not specifically informing Flynn that lying to the FBI is a crime. Both of these are “so whats.” Flynn is a big boy who was in a very big boy job (National Security Advisor). He couldn’t make his own decision about whether to have an attorney present even in the face of (alleged) pressure from McCabe not to do so? And Flynn certainly knew lying to the FBI is a crime. What is the need to tell him that?

In his Jan. 24 meeting with the FBI agents, Flynn had the choice of telling the truth or lying. He also could have stopped the interview at any point for any reason or no reason. He could have said he wanted a lawyer present for any further interrogation. Flynn chose to lie, even though he certainly knew his conversations with Kislyak had been intercepted and that the FBI very likely had the transcripts. (In my book, that makes him either a pretty dumb bunny or extraordinarily arrogant.)

There has been reporting off and on that the FBI agents didn’t think Flynn lied to them. We see now that that, too, was either entirely untrue or at least an extreme exaggeration. Had there been any proof of that in the record, surely it would have been included in Flynn’s pre-sentencing memorandum. Now we see that all the FBI agents said was that he was relaxed and jovial. That’s a far cry from concluding he wasn’t lying (which, of course, he was).

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... nsequences

McCabe, who arranged the bureau's interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was "relaxed" during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe's account of events plus the FBI agents' writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn's defense team.

Citing McCabe's account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn's West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he "felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down" with Flynn to discuss Flynn's talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. "I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only," McCabe wrote. "I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants."

Within two hours, the agents were in Flynn's office. According to the 302 report quoted in the Flynn sentencing document, the agents said Flynn was "relaxed and jocular" and offered the agents "a little tour" of his part of the White House.

"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport."

The agents had, of course, seen transcripts of Flynn's wiretapped conversations with Russian then-ambassador Sergey Kislyak. "Before the interview, FBI officials had also decided that if 'Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used ... to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said ... they would not confront him or talk him through it,'" the Flynn memo says, citing the FBI 302.

"One of the agents reported that Gen. Flynn was 'unguarded' during the interview and 'clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,'" the Flynn memo says, again citing the 302.

Later in the memo, Flynn's lawyers argue that the FBI treated Flynn differently from two other Trump-Russia figures who have pleaded guilty to and been sentenced for making false statements. One of them, Alexander Van der Zwaan, "was represented by counsel during the interview; he was interviewed at a time when there was a publicly disclosed, full-bore investigation regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election; and he was given a warning that it is a federal crime to lie during the interview," according to the memo. The other, George Papadopoulos, "was specifically notified of the seriousness of the investigation...was warned that lying to investigators was a 'federal offense'...had time to reflect on his answers...and met with the FBI the following month for a further set of interviews, accompanied by his counsel, and did not correct his false statements."

The message of the sentencing memo is clear: Flynn, his lawyers suggest, was surprised, rushed, not warned of the context or seriousness of the questioning, and discouraged from having a lawyer present.

That is all the sentencing document contains about the interview itself. In a footnote, Flynn's lawyers noted that the government did not object to the quotations from the FBI 302 report.

In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 — nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.

[njbill]

Randy, you say Flynn did nothing wrong by talking to Kislyak. I disagree. Furthermore, I am OK with the leaks to the press about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. I haven’t seen anything authoritatively saying those leaks were illegal. I could understand why, in general, it would be illegal to disclose info from FISA intercepts, but I suspect there may be some particulars with respect to the Flynn – Kislyak conversations that may make this specific leak legal. The WaPo says it had ten sources (initial plus nine corroborators). All ten violated the law? No one has been arrested or indicted, and it has almost been two years. If a crime occurred, certainly the Trumpers would be hot to nail someone. Maybe they haven’t found the leaker or the corroborators. Or maybe no crime occurred. My money is on door number two.

Even if illegal, I am OK with this specific leak. Uncovering misconduct (including illegality) by governmental officials (or those who are about to become such) is vital to our democracy. Flynn was subverting the foreign policy of the U.S. government and arguably violating the law by telling Kislyak, in effect, that the Trump administration would not enforce the sanctions Obama had placed on Russia for interfering with the 2016 election. The leak was specific to these conversations and, importantly, did no real harm to any U.S. interests or citizens. Certainly Flynn has no right to cry foul given that he was, at best, acting improperly and, at worst, criminally. He might have had a more sympathetic case if he hadn’t gone on to lie to the Vice President and the FBI. But he chose the path that criminals from time immemorial have chosen. He tried to talk his way out of it.

Then FBI Director Comey disagrees with your assertion that leaking NSA intercepts with foreign officials is not criminal disclosure of classifieds information.
Comey told Trump that they were trying to locate the leakers & would "put their heads on a pike" to deter further leaks of classified information.
They haven't been prosecuted because they haven't been located ...& won't likely be, at this late date.

As I said, in general I accept the proposition that leaking FISA intercepts may be illegal. I do recall the "head on a pike" comment, but don't recall the source so I'm not sure Comey actually said that. (I do recall it being attributed to him.) Even if he did, he has been long gone from the FBI. Maybe more info has been uncovered of which Comey was unaware. Or, as I said, maybe the leak was unlawful. My view, as I stated, is I am OK with THIS leak even if illegal because it exposed wrongful conduct by the incoming National Security Adviser. I don't expect to persuade you.

[njbill]

Flynn wasn’t a target until after he lied to the FBI. He was not a target going into the meeting unless you think he was a target for violating the Logan Act. As many have said, it is highly unlikely Flynn was being criminally pursued in late December 2016/early January 2017 for Logan Act violations.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byro ... -logan-act

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case — the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration's early days. It was that interview, held on Jan. 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea.

Assuming this is accurate, it's a valid point. But wanting to interview Flynn about a possible Logan Act violation is not the same thing as Flynn being a target of such an investigation, which is the statement I made. If that is too fine a point, or too cute, for you, that's fair. But Flynn was not a target of an investigation about his lying to the FBI before the interview took place. I think we can agree on that. And that is what he ultimately was charged with, of course.

[old salt]

As I said, in general I accept the proposition that leaking FISA intercepts may be illegal. I do recall the "head on a pike" comment, but don't recall the source so I'm not sure Comey actually said that. (I do recall it being attributed to him.) Even if he did, he has been long gone from the FBI. Maybe more info has been uncovered of which Comey was unaware. Or, as I said, maybe the leak was unlawful. My view, as I stated, is I am OK with THIS leak even if illegal because it exposed wrongful conduct by the incoming National Security Adviser. I don't expect to persuade you.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nald-trump

In a memo dated 14 February 2017, Comey says Trump complained during an Oval Office meeting about classified information being leaked to the media. Comey writes that he said he “agreed very much” that it was “terrible” such information was being leaked, and added that he was “eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message”. Comey adds that Trump “wrapped up” the conversation “by returning to the issue of finding leakers”.

“I said something about the value of putting a head on a pike as a message,” Comey writes.

[njbill]

Randy, you simply quoted a long excerpt from a Washington Examiner article without indicating what specific points you are making in response to my post. Some of what is in that article purports to be direct quotes from Flynn's pre-sentencing memo. Some is commentary. I assume you agree with the commentary. I don't. I think it's pretty clear from my initial post where I disagree.

[wahoomurf]

The Orange Don's Consigliere, "MIKE the MUSCLE" Cohen, is packing his bags and hugging his kids.The Don's Capo Regimes must be changing their Pampers.A bunch of his "soldiers" have gone to the mattresses.Omerta is dead. Compared to The Don's "family",Joey Gallo's crew looked like the Gambinos.

Mr.Mueller.Lot's of work to do.Aim straight,don't miss but VA PIANO.Get 'em all, one sitting duck at a time.

One At A Time.jpg (15.08 KiB) Viewed 1613 times

[njbill]

As I said, in general I accept the proposition that leaking FISA intercepts may be illegal. I do recall the "head on a pike" comment, but don't recall the source so I'm not sure Comey actually said that. (I do recall it being attributed to him.) Even if he did, he has been long gone from the FBI. Maybe more info has been uncovered of which Comey was unaware. Or, as I said, maybe the leak was unlawful. My view, as I stated, is I am OK with THIS leak even if illegal because it exposed wrongful conduct by the incoming National Security Adviser. I don't expect to persuade you.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nald-trump

In a memo dated 14 February 2017, Comey says Trump complained during an Oval Office meeting about classified information being leaked to the media. Comey writes that he said he “agreed very much” that it was “terrible” such information was being leaked, and added that he was “eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message”. Comey adds that Trump “wrapped up” the conversation “by returning to the issue of finding leakers”.

“I said something about the value of putting a head on a pike as a message,” Comey writes.

This sounds like a general complaint from Trump and a general response from Comey, and not a specific discussion about the WaPo article on Flynn's conversations with Kislyak. Even if it was, as I said, I am OK with this leak even if it was illegal.

[old salt]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

Or Flynn could have told the truth. Rock bottom

[old salt]

Randy, you simply quoted a long excerpt from a Washington Examiner article without indicating what specific points you are making in response to my post. Some of what is in that article purports to be direct quotes from Flynn's pre-sentencing memo. Some is commentary. I assume you agree with the commentary. I don't. I think it's pretty clear from my initial post where I disagree.

The excerpt I quoted addresses the points you made in the excerpt of your lengthy post, which I quoted.

I'm happy to let Byron York answer you, in my stead.

[njbill]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

We are starting to go around and around. I disagree with your second sentence. Flynn knew or should have known the FBI had a transcript. McCabe had no obligation, or good faith duty, to tell him that. They wanted to see what Flynn would say without having the benefit of seeing their evidence. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is the proper way to conduct an investigation. On the other hand, Flynn had a legal obligation to tell the truth to the FBI. Again, we aren't going to agree on this.

[old salt]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

Or Flynn could have told the truth. Rock bottom

Maybe he did. The agent's FBI Forms 302 cited were dated 7 mos after the interview.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

We are starting to go around and around. I disagree with your second sentence. Flynn knew or should have known the FBI had a transcript. McCabe had no obligation, or good faith duty, to tell him that. They wanted to see what Flynn would say without having the benefit of seeing their evidence. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is the proper way to conduct an investigation. On the other hand, Flynn had a legal obligation to tell the truth to the FBI. Again, we aren't going to agree on this.

Flynn isn’t Tyreke in East Baltimore. He knows better.

[old salt]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

We are starting to go around and around. I disagree with your second sentence. Flynn knew or should have known the FBI had a transcript. McCabe had no obligation, or good faith duty, to tell him that. They wanted to see what Flynn would say without having the benefit of seeing their evidence. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is the proper way to conduct an investigation. On the other hand, Flynn had a legal obligation to tell the truth to the FBI. Again, we aren't going to agree on this.

Agree. That's why I called it an ambush. Not a good faith inquiry between colleagues, as McCabe & the agents suggested it would be.

[old salt]

Shortly before the interview, McCabe contacted Flynn on a secure line. If McCabe was acting in good faith with Flynn, he woud have informed him that they had a transcript of the NSA intercept of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, & offered to send over his two top conter intel agents to review the transcripts, so Flynn could provide context. ...if Flynn was not a target.

We are starting to go around and around. I disagree with your second sentence. Flynn knew or should have known the FBI had a transcript. McCabe had no obligation, or good faith duty, to tell him that. They wanted to see what Flynn would say without having the benefit of seeing their evidence. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is the proper way to conduct an investigation. On the other hand, Flynn had a legal obligation to tell the truth to the FBI. Again, we aren't going to agree on this.

Flynn isn’t Tyreke in East Baltimore. He knows better.

Maybe. Maybe not. He came out of the military, not out of law enforcement.

In this case, McCabe & Strzok were smarter than Flynn.