Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
258
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

258 Views
Message 1 of 7

It certainly looks like his fox lawyers will be successful...to send flynn to the Big House! 
It seems that he was doing okay before hiring the conspiratorial attorneys! Some judges are wise to their wacko ways...

they probably avoid watching fox news.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
258
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
264
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

264 Views
Message 2 of 7

@jimc91 wrote:

How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

‘Far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives.’
 

BY:  Margot Cleveland

 

Monday’s release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 476-page tome on the Department of Justice and FBI’s misconduct in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2016 presidential election continues to make news—and rightly so. That the DOJ and FBI obtained a surveillance order from a secret court to spy on Carter Page with a series of applications riddled with errors, fabrications, and inexcusable omissions of material fact is shocking. The shocking breadth of the government’s misconduct raises an interesting corollary question: How will Judge Emmet Sullivan react to these devastating revelations?

 

Sullivan has been hunkered down in his chambers for the last month contemplating (or drafting) his ruling on attorney Sidney Powell’s pending motion in the criminal case against her client, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI before Powell took over as his defense counsel. Flynn’s sentencing was postponed to allow Powell to get up to speed in the case. Soon after, Powell filed a motion to compel federal prosecutors to turn over Brady material and other evidence that had been withheld from Flynn’s previous attorneys.

 

In briefing the motion to compel, in addition to arguing that the government improperly withheld evidence from Flynn, Powell also claimed that “[t]he FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation, nor did they have a valid basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against an American citizen, and they all knew it. The evidence the defense requests will eviscerate any factual basis for the plea and reveal conduct so outrageous—if there is not enough already—to mandate dismissal of this prosecution for egregious government misconduct.”

 

Before Judge Sullivan had a chance to rule on Powell’s motion, though, federal prosecutors found themselves forced to inform the long-time federal judge “that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pientka, and those taken by Pientka had been written by Strzok.”

 

Then two weeks ago came another surprise: After having argued for months that there was no need to delay Flynn’s sentencing, federal prosecutors contacted Powell to suggest postponing the sentencing. Powell concurred and then the government filed a joint motion asking the court to cancel the upcoming sentencing briefing and hearings.

 

In the motion, the government presented two rationales for the delay. First, the parties noted that until the court ruled on the pending motion to compel, briefing would be premature. Second, and more significantly, the joint motion noted “that the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an Examination of the Department’s and the FBI’s Compliance with Legal Requirements and Policies in Applications Filed with the US. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to a certain US. Person,” and stated that “the parties expect that the report of this investigation will examine topics related to several matters raised by the defendant.”

 

Now that the report is out, the question is how it will affect Flynn’s case. While the IG report focused mainly on the DOJ and FBI’s conduct related to the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain an order to surveil Page, Horowitz’s investigation and findings raise two issues of import in the case against Flynn.

 

First and foremost is the extensive evidence of government misconduct and abuse the IG uncovered. The misconduct was so extensive and egregious that it can only remind Judge Sullivan of the prosecutorial misconduct he witnessed when he presided over the DOJ’s criminal case against the late Sen. Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution that Sullivan would later conclude was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence…”

 

Soon after taking over Flynn’s case, Powell had evoked the Stevens’ prosecution as a comparator, but the IG report adds gravitas to her comparison. When asked about the effect of Horowitz’s report, Powell told The Federalist, “given the stunning lies and conduct by the FBI painfully documented in the report, I would expect Judge Sullivan—at a minimum—to order the production of everything we requested. Yet again, we see the DOJ learned nothing from the Ted Stevens case. Stronger action is required to impress upon the government a rejection of its reprehensible conduct.” Powell added that “far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives—regardless of their motives.”

 

Before the IG report, Judge Sullivan might have put Powell’s claim of egregious prosecutorial misconduct down to “zealous advocacy.” But it is impossible to contemplate the Sullivan who tossed the Stevens’ case reacting with anything less than outrage to the recent revelations of misconduct. And while the IG report may seem only tangentially related to Flynn, most of the same bad actors were involved in both the Page and Flynn investigations.

 

Further, besides the general take-away from the IG report—that DOJ and FBI misconduct was widespread—one specific aspect of Horowitz’s report proves especially relevant to Flynn’s case, namely the fact that the FBI had assigned “SSA 1” to provide a security briefing to then-candidate Donald Trump after learning that Flynn would be present at the briefing. SSA 1 was a lead agent in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and participated in the briefing as part of the FBI’s investigation.

While the IG report criticized the FBI for using a presidential-candidate briefing as an investigative tool, it is not that fact that proves significant. Rather, it is what SSA 1 told Horowitz’s team about his presence at this meeting. The purpose was, according to SSA 1, to take “the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly have some level of familiarity with [Flynn],” such as learning “Flynn’s overall mannerisms.”

 

SSA 1 added that “in this instance it actually proved useful because SSA 1 was able to compare Flynn’s ‘norms’ from the briefing with Flynn’s conduct at the interview that SSA 1 conducted on January 24, 2017, in connection with the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.” (The IG report does not identify SSA 1, but it has been reported that the second agent to interview Flynn—the first being Peter Strzok—was FBI Agent Joe Pientka.)

 

This revelation is significant because former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the agents who interviewed Flynn “discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in infection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.” Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also confirmed that agents didn’t detect any deception in their interview with Flynn.

 

So now we know that not only did the agents not detect any signs of deception when they interviewed Flynn, but that one of the agents who interviewed Flynn had a prior baseline meeting with the retired general to assess his “norms.” That same FBI agent compared Flynn’s conduct during the January 2017 interview to Flynn’s “norms,” and at the time concluded Flynn was not lying.

 

These facts would have been important for Flynn and his attorneys to know before the former national security advisor pleaded guilty. Further, even though Flynn has already pleaded guilty, shortly after Judge Sullivan took over the case, he ordered the prosecutor to turn over all Brady material, whether related to guilt or punishment. Given that, two years later, Powell is still fighting the government for evidence known to exist, it seems doubtful the prosecutors shared details or documentation of Pientka’s previous spying on Trump and Flynn and his assessment of Flynn’s demeanor during the briefing.

 

If that’s the case and if Powell did not receive Pientka’s report on Flynn’s conduct during the intel briefing, she might just want to file a new motion to compel. That would also provide the perfect opportunity to mention Horowitz’s findings—not that Judge Sullivan is likely to need any prodding to page through the IG report.

 

 


An opinion article from a far right writer in a far right publication which never tells the truth. Well the judge answered that question today. It does not and Flynn will be sentenced in Jan. There could be sanctions against his new FOX lawyers. The far right wrong again.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
264
Views
Highlighted
Esteemed Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
298
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

298 Views
Message 3 of 7
and keep him locked up!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
298
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
307
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

307 Views
Message 4 of 7

Michael Flynn’s sentencing set for Jan. 28 after judge rejects his attacks on the FBI, Justice Department

 

A federal judge on Monday rejected Michael Flynn’s attacks against the FBI and the Justice Department, setting a long-delayed sentencing for President Trump’s former national security adviser for Jan. 28.

 

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington, D.C. dismissed Flynn’s motion to find prosecutors in contempt. In a 92-page decision, Sullivan ruled there was no basis for Flynn’s allegations that federal law enforcement officials entrapped the retired three-star Army general into accepting a plea deal and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s prosecutors had not wrongfully held back 50 requests for evidence from Flynn’s attorneys.

 

Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his interactions with Russia’s ambassador after the 2016 U.S. election, had been set to be sentenced Dec. 18. Sullivan this month delayed the sentencing pending a report by a Justice Department inspector general on how the FBI handled the Russia investigation, which reviewed topics related to Flynn’s allegations.

 

The report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released last week found that the FBI was justified in opening its 2016 probe into possible coordination between Russia and four members of the Trump campaign, including Flynn. But the report also found the FBI made significant errors or omissions in applying for intelligence surveillance warrants for one of them, former campaign adviser Carter Page.

 

Sullivan reviewed Flynn’s more detailed accusations that misconduct by the FBI, Justice Department and Mueller’s office raised ethical concerns and cast doubt on his investigation, but denied defense claims that they warranted tossing out his plea in favor of a trial or dismissal of his case. Similar to Horowitz’s findings, the court ruling undercut arguments that the FBI investigation or Justice Department prosecution of Flynn was unjustified or improperly handled.

 

Refuting Flynn’s claims that he was misled into unwittingly plead guilty to charges, Sullivan wrote that it was undisputed that Flynn told the same lies to the FBI, Vice President Pence, and senior White House officials, who repeated them to the American public, leading to his firing in Feb. 2017.

 

“The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty to making materially false statements to the FBI,” Sullivan wrote.

 

The judge also denied Flynn’s demands for greater disclosure, saying he “fails to explain how most of the requested information that the government has not already provided to him is relevant and material to his underlying offense — willfully and knowingly making materially false statements and omissions to the FBI … or to his sentencing.”

 

Sullivan, the longest-serving active federal judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington and a judicial appointee of presidents of both parties, enjoys a nationwide reputation for championing defendants rights under the so-called Brady rule, which established the government's obligation to turn over evidence that can be useful for the defense.

 

In Flynn’s case, however, Sullivan eviscerated defense claims that the government failed to meet its duties, writing that the court “concludes that Mr. Flynn has failed to establish a single Brady violation.”

 

Sullivan issued his ruling after written arguments by both sides — but without hearing oral arguments — suggesting his dim view of Flynn’s legal case.

 

The judge also scolded Flynn attorney Sidney Powell for purportedly “lifting” whole cloth a piece of a Supreme Court decision in her brief, suggesting the lawyer had plagiarized in a potential violation of legal ethics rules. Powell said she would comment when she read the opinion.

 

Flynn could still move to withdraw his guilty plea and face a potential trial, or appeal a conviction, but faces a tougher legal path ahead to avoid a potential prison term at sentencing.

 

Flynn, 60, pleaded guilty Dec. 1, 2017, to lying to the FBI about contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, becoming one of the first Trump associates to cooperate and the highest-ranking official charged in Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

 

Flynn had admitted he lied about conversations with the ambassador about U.S. sanctions and acknowledged he misrepresented work he had done on behalf of the Turkish government in filings to the Justice Department. Flynn later assisted prosecutors with multiple investigations, including Mueller’s.

 

Prosecutors have said Flynn has finished his cooperation. But after prosecutors described Flynn as a model cooperator and both sides asked a judge for a sentence of probation, Flynn alleged in August that prosecutors withheld classified information and other evidence that his attorneys assert should lead to the dismissal of his entire prosecution.

 

Flynn earlier this year fired the defense team that negotiated his plea, and his new defense team, led by Powell, asserts that the Justice Department coerced a plea.

 

Flynn’s current lawyers accused elements of the FBI, CIA and Pentagon of trying “to smear him as an ‘agent of Russia,’ ” leaking information regarding classified intercepts of his calls with Kislyak or engaging in other “malevolent conduct.”

 

In Justice Department filings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon L. Van Grack blasted Flynn’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct as an unfounded effort to conduct a “fishing expedition” for documents that either do not exist or have no bearing on the conduct to which he pleaded guilty, and for relying on conspiracy theories to deny Mueller’s central finding of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Van Grack had said the defense was using the pretext of a search for exonerating evidence to wriggle out of his guilty plea and repeated sworn admissions of misconduct.

 

Van Grack said the government had turned over 22,000 pages of documents before Flynn’s plea and “is not aware of any information that would be favorable and material to the defendant at sentencing.”

 

Sullivan has in the past heatedly rejected suggestions that Flynn might have been duped into lying to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak.

 

“Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan told Flynn during Flynn’s initially scheduled sentencing hearing, held last Dec. 18, 2018. Sullivan cited Flynn’s admissions that he hid the substance of talks with Kislyak and lied when he said he did not know the extent of the Turkish government's involvement in work his firm had obtained and when he claimed an op-ed he wrote for the Turkish president’s benefit was done at his own initiative.

 

Michael Flynn’s sentencing set for Jan. 28 after judge rejects his attacks on the FBI, Justice Department 

 

Lock him up!  Lock him up!!!  Lock him up!!!!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
307
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
345
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

345 Views
Message 5 of 7

Centristsin2010:  

 

Far too many can't see the lies and distortion and butt-saving activities of trumps pick for AG.  Barr is a fraud. His leagacy won't be a pleasant one...

 

 

 

They remind me of scientists that come out with blockbuster announcements that they've cracked cold fusion. Then we find it's not true.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
345
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
350
Views

Re: How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

350 Views
Message 6 of 7

LMAO!!!  

 


‘Far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives.’
 

Far too many can't see the lies and distortion and butt-saving activities of trumps pick for AG.  Barr is a fraud. His leagacy won't be a pleasant one...


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
350
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
357
Views
6
Replies

How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

357 Views
Message 7 of 7

How The IG FISA Abuse Report Affects Michael Flynn’s Case

‘Far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives.’
 

BY:  Margot Cleveland

 

Monday’s release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 476-page tome on the Department of Justice and FBI’s misconduct in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2016 presidential election continues to make news—and rightly so. That the DOJ and FBI obtained a surveillance order from a secret court to spy on Carter Page with a series of applications riddled with errors, fabrications, and inexcusable omissions of material fact is shocking. The shocking breadth of the government’s misconduct raises an interesting corollary question: How will Judge Emmet Sullivan react to these devastating revelations?

 

Sullivan has been hunkered down in his chambers for the last month contemplating (or drafting) his ruling on attorney Sidney Powell’s pending motion in the criminal case against her client, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI before Powell took over as his defense counsel. Flynn’s sentencing was postponed to allow Powell to get up to speed in the case. Soon after, Powell filed a motion to compel federal prosecutors to turn over Brady material and other evidence that had been withheld from Flynn’s previous attorneys.

 

In briefing the motion to compel, in addition to arguing that the government improperly withheld evidence from Flynn, Powell also claimed that “[t]he FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation, nor did they have a valid basis for a counter-intelligence investigation against an American citizen, and they all knew it. The evidence the defense requests will eviscerate any factual basis for the plea and reveal conduct so outrageous—if there is not enough already—to mandate dismissal of this prosecution for egregious government misconduct.”

 

Before Judge Sullivan had a chance to rule on Powell’s motion, though, federal prosecutors found themselves forced to inform the long-time federal judge “that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pientka, and those taken by Pientka had been written by Strzok.”

 

Then two weeks ago came another surprise: After having argued for months that there was no need to delay Flynn’s sentencing, federal prosecutors contacted Powell to suggest postponing the sentencing. Powell concurred and then the government filed a joint motion asking the court to cancel the upcoming sentencing briefing and hearings.

 

In the motion, the government presented two rationales for the delay. First, the parties noted that until the court ruled on the pending motion to compel, briefing would be premature. Second, and more significantly, the joint motion noted “that the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is conducting an Examination of the Department’s and the FBI’s Compliance with Legal Requirements and Policies in Applications Filed with the US. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to a certain US. Person,” and stated that “the parties expect that the report of this investigation will examine topics related to several matters raised by the defendant.”

 

Now that the report is out, the question is how it will affect Flynn’s case. While the IG report focused mainly on the DOJ and FBI’s conduct related to the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain an order to surveil Page, Horowitz’s investigation and findings raise two issues of import in the case against Flynn.

 

First and foremost is the extensive evidence of government misconduct and abuse the IG uncovered. The misconduct was so extensive and egregious that it can only remind Judge Sullivan of the prosecutorial misconduct he witnessed when he presided over the DOJ’s criminal case against the late Sen. Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution that Sullivan would later conclude was “permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence…”

 

Soon after taking over Flynn’s case, Powell had evoked the Stevens’ prosecution as a comparator, but the IG report adds gravitas to her comparison. When asked about the effect of Horowitz’s report, Powell told The Federalist, “given the stunning lies and conduct by the FBI painfully documented in the report, I would expect Judge Sullivan—at a minimum—to order the production of everything we requested. Yet again, we see the DOJ learned nothing from the Ted Stevens case. Stronger action is required to impress upon the government a rejection of its reprehensible conduct.” Powell added that “far too many in the FBI and DOJ are willing to hide evidence, falsify documents and make up crimes to achieve their objectives—regardless of their motives.”

 

Before the IG report, Judge Sullivan might have put Powell’s claim of egregious prosecutorial misconduct down to “zealous advocacy.” But it is impossible to contemplate the Sullivan who tossed the Stevens’ case reacting with anything less than outrage to the recent revelations of misconduct. And while the IG report may seem only tangentially related to Flynn, most of the same bad actors were involved in both the Page and Flynn investigations.

 

Further, besides the general take-away from the IG report—that DOJ and FBI misconduct was widespread—one specific aspect of Horowitz’s report proves especially relevant to Flynn’s case, namely the fact that the FBI had assigned “SSA 1” to provide a security briefing to then-candidate Donald Trump after learning that Flynn would be present at the briefing. SSA 1 was a lead agent in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and participated in the briefing as part of the FBI’s investigation.

While the IG report criticized the FBI for using a presidential-candidate briefing as an investigative tool, it is not that fact that proves significant. Rather, it is what SSA 1 told Horowitz’s team about his presence at this meeting. The purpose was, according to SSA 1, to take “the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly have some level of familiarity with [Flynn],” such as learning “Flynn’s overall mannerisms.”

 

SSA 1 added that “in this instance it actually proved useful because SSA 1 was able to compare Flynn’s ‘norms’ from the briefing with Flynn’s conduct at the interview that SSA 1 conducted on January 24, 2017, in connection with the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.” (The IG report does not identify SSA 1, but it has been reported that the second agent to interview Flynn—the first being Peter Strzok—was FBI Agent Joe Pientka.)

 

This revelation is significant because former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the agents who interviewed Flynn “discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in infection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.” Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also confirmed that agents didn’t detect any deception in their interview with Flynn.

 

So now we know that not only did the agents not detect any signs of deception when they interviewed Flynn, but that one of the agents who interviewed Flynn had a prior baseline meeting with the retired general to assess his “norms.” That same FBI agent compared Flynn’s conduct during the January 2017 interview to Flynn’s “norms,” and at the time concluded Flynn was not lying.

 

These facts would have been important for Flynn and his attorneys to know before the former national security advisor pleaded guilty. Further, even though Flynn has already pleaded guilty, shortly after Judge Sullivan took over the case, he ordered the prosecutor to turn over all Brady material, whether related to guilt or punishment. Given that, two years later, Powell is still fighting the government for evidence known to exist, it seems doubtful the prosecutors shared details or documentation of Pientka’s previous spying on Trump and Flynn and his assessment of Flynn’s demeanor during the briefing.

 

If that’s the case and if Powell did not receive Pientka’s report on Flynn’s conduct during the intel briefing, she might just want to file a new motion to compel. That would also provide the perfect opportunity to mention Horowitz’s findings—not that Judge Sullivan is likely to need any prodding to page through the IG report.

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
357
Views
6
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors