Dan Abrams, who is no conservative, said Sullivan was either unprepared or vindictive. The WSJ op-ed page laid into Sullivan as shockingly incompetent. How silly we are for expecting someone to get this right.
Link: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/dan-abrams-says-michael-flynn-got-railroaded-at-hearing-judge-either-unprepared-or-vindictive/
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
If the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution were confronted with a Major General who lied about being in the employ of a foreign power while serving the President, the Framers would have hanged him from the nearest tree.
Link: U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
subject to FBI interview? On what basis, the surveillance of phone call with a foreigner, a part of normal counter-intelligence operation, suddenly was used as a criminal investigation on him? If the content of that phone conversation with Russia ambassador is criminal, certainly the status of Flynn should be changed from witness of counter-intelligence operation to a criminal target. But now, we all know the content of that phone conversation is not illegal, it's appropriate given Flynn's position as a transition official and incoming WH national security adviser. There was no crime until FBI showed up and created a process, the interview, which generated a crime. The function of FBI is supposed to uncover crimes that already happened, not to provide citizens the opportunity to commit new crimes. This is very Mao/Stalin-like in nature. It's a shame.
You can’t say there was nothing criminal about the call because the transcript isn’t public. He had also been paid by Putin for his prior visit to Moscow which he hadn’t declared. That in and of itself is criminal. We also don’t know if he made the call on his own or with the knowledge and direction of others such as Jared or Orange. We do know that the purpose of the call was likely to reassure the Russians that the sanctions being lawfully imposed by the current administration would be lifted when the new crowd came in. It’s an obvious and traitorous undermining of the current govt’s dealings with a hostile foriegn power. A foriegn power that had just helped Trump win by interfering in our election. So we have the incoming NSA who had previously been paid by the Russians calling the Russian spy boss in the U.S. to undermine legitimate sanctions against that nation because they had just illegally interfered in in our election to help Trump. And no one in the FBI should have asked him about that? Only a complete fool or Putin toady would believe that.
killing, it's on his lying to police; And on a bank fraud case, a person committed to bank fraud, his sentence is not on bank fraud, it's on his lie to police....
If Flynn's phone call with Russian ambassador is something criminal, Flynn should be arrested immediately, interrogated and prosecuted. It's a much more serious offense than lying to FBI.
I doubt he made that call on his own initiative.
See if you answer the question, if it was all on the up and up why did he lie about it?
Remember "Russia collusion", "Russia help Trump win the election", "Trump is going to repay Putin's help"....on MSM everyday? Flynn in FBI interview probably tried, as possible as he can, to make his phone call with ambassador in line with what Pence, Priebus...said in public on TV. That's what I guess if you ask me. Also, remember Flynn once said I have my story. Someday I will tell it.
The real answer isn’t that complicated. People (other than pathological liars like Orange) lie to protect someone or something, often themselves.
Here he lied because he didn’t make that call on his own. He was directed to do so. That’s what he was protecting.
He clearly represented the interests of the Turk both during and after the transition.
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna761656
He hadn't taken any money from Erdogan or Putin in a few months, so therefore he was no longer an unregistered foreign agent. Gotcha!
Therefore, although he lied about both, he was not vulnerable to blackmail.
The distance these guys will travel to excuse everyone in Trump world is great under normal circumstances...but for this one, it's off-the-charts.
(no message)
How much did he take? From who? What did he do for it?
If he’s criminally liable, please take him down. Both of the P’s have been scumbags for years.
Same situation here. I get it: To get Trump, you guys will sacrifice some Dem operatives. Actually, I'm good with that. If you are consistent, I'm fine. When Podesta is arrested, I'll stop defending Flynn. When all the Congressmen who used government funds to silence sexual harassers or affairs are impeached, then please, by all means, go after Trump.
Clinton is fun to point out to you because it’s a situation where you get hoisted up by your own petards.
Podesta and HRC are hardly my operatives. I said that HRC should have been charged and said it during the campaign. I have always despised the Podestas.
There is no point in engaging with him.
You only want to prosecute R's.
I'm willing to let R's be prosecuted if D's are also prosecuted for the same offense.
I'm dumbfounded how you guys think I'm the biased one here.
....then they should be punished too. I don't give two shits.
The hearing yesterday was for Flynn. Not sure if you noticed that. His guilt or innocence has precisely nothing to do with Podesta or Hillary or whoever.
Justice should be blind. Apparently you disagree.
“Hey Ned, since you were in favor of impeachment and removal of Bill Clinton, shouldn’t the same standards apply now to Orange as to what constitutes an appropriate offense for impeachment and removal?”
Ned: (while shuffling) “Well yes that’s how I felt back then, but I have since evolved and changed my view on what the standard should be. So now I feel that a stricter standard should be applied (of course uniformly to both parties).”
“But Ned isn’t that awful convenient to have changed your standard now that it’s a Republican who is facing possible impeachment?”
Ned (now really shuffling): “Of course not because my change has nothing to do with politics. I have just grown and evolved.”
So how about when you change your standard as to when lying to the FBI should be prosecuted (which solely by chance will occur the next time a prominent D is charged with it)?
I'm willing to go impeachment or not impeachment. I just want consistency.
If the Dems want to play "whataboutism" and pull now what the GOP did in the 90's, I'm cool with that...but do it to all offenders.
Or, they could say that what the GOP did was wrong, and say that they are better and won't do that...and let all offenders have a pass.
That is not what is happening, though. They want to unfairly apply the rules now against current offenders...only against Trump, but not Clinton cronies or current Congressman. That is what I oppose. that means that everything is politics and not principled. that means that they are announcing to the world that the rules are suspended, and anything goes (but,they still reserve the right to criticize the Right for not following the rules).
I have said repeatedly when she was a candidate and after that Hills should have been indicted.
You really think if it were Rice I would be making excuses for her like you do for Flynn? I would prolly be fighting with the libs. Sigh!
You are shameless.
(no message)
You are sooo full of it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
but clearly, you and Cole are the sole possessors of those facts.
Well, mostly Chris and Frank are wrong. You don't usually state facts.
Just for example, Chris keeps saying that Flynn was an agent of Russia while APNSA. But, he wasn't. He was an agent of Ukraine and Turkey. And, he was not an agent for them after he became APNSA. Chris hasn't yet realized his mistake; perhaps he is not reading beyond post titles. Frank realized his mistake, and walked it back to two different alternative allegations:
1) Last night, he said that Flynn was NSA for a candidate, not for the president.
2) Today, he says that Flynn was an unpaid agent while APNSA.
He's trying to characterize the situation to match his prejudices.
I know, I know, I am so "tedious" for pointing out the facts....slows you guys down.
He took cash payments from Russia and from Turkey.
He also used his position to influence decisions in the incoming Whitehouse admin and influenced decisions while acting as NSA.
And he did take money from Putin and lied about it. There may be more than we know, but the story below is something you seem to forget.
You don't stop being an asset when you get promoted. In fact, you become an extremely valuable asset. Which is why the DAG went to warn the White House about him.
He was a paid agent for Turkish interests. Note there is a difference between "agent" and "asset." It's important. And there is no way for us to know (yet) how much he did for Turkey, or when, or when he stopped. But because he lied about the payments, the Turks had leverage over him, too.
REMINDER: This is all just what we know. Mueller and the judge know a lot more.
Sorry if these are inconvenient facts.
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/flynn-lied-investigators-about-russia-trip-says-top-house-dem-n763216
Maybe Flynn became a Russian asset the moment he lied about the money he took from whomever. Then Podesta probably did as well, and he was advising an actual president at that point. I'm willing to put both in jail for treason. Are you? Of course, if you say yes, Frank will just argue that you have to say that, because you are "hoisted on your own petard."
And, by they way, you are still collapsing lies. Flynn may have lied to his wife about an affair, but he likely didn't talk to the Russian ambassador about that. By pointing to other lies, you are saying that Flynn is a liar (e.g., because he lied to his wife about the affair) so it is ok for the FBI to charge him with lying to the Ambassador of Russia. Be specific. I know being ambiguous helps you advance your position, and ignore inconvenient facts, but that is a tactic, not substantive discussion.
You said, "You don't stop being an asset when you get promoted. In fact, you become an extremely valuable asset." I get that. It's not a bad point. Of course, the only reason they are pursuing that (as opposed to pursuing others) is because Flynn works for Trump. I think what will happen is that Podesta will get arrested. That's the only way to remove the appearance of the witch hunt. But, we'll see.
You said, "He was a paid agent for Turkish interests." True, but not while he was APNSA, contrary to your earlier statements. Sorry if this is an inconvenient fact.
You said, "Note there is a difference between 'agent' and 'asset.' It's important. And there is no way for us to know (yet) how much he did for Turkey, or when, or when he stopped." I agree. I'm just asking for a fair application of the law.
You said, "But because he lied about the payments, the Turks had leverage over him, too." which ended when he and his partners made their retroactive filing. Don't get me wrong: I understand your point, and it is a good one. But, the Dems have similar issues. I'm just arguing for a non-political application of the law.
You said, "Sorry if these are inconvenient facts." There are no inconvenient facts. I embrace facts.
I’m not claiming he was unpaid agent. I’m claiming he was paid handsomely and was continuing his work for that payment.
He also was the top security advisor to a national prez campaign when he accepted that handsome payment to become an unregistered foriegn agent.
He continued to work for those interests after the election and his appointment as NSA.
Those are the facts.
You just can’t refute them.
(no message)
(no message)
Oh, and I agree that the allegations that I am tedious are not factual.
(no message)
payment. That’s part of what he got out of by pleading guilty.
OK. Seems like that only works against Flynn, though. I doubt you would apply that rule in other contexts. And that is the thing: All I'm asking for is consistency. Your ally Chris has no interest in consistency, though. He would argue quite confidently and dismissively that there is no conflict of interest if we were talking about someone working for Obama.
Your foolishness just gets worse.
He continued to work for his paymasters and advance their interests.
(no message)
for them.
Everything in the indictment of his partner related to actions taken before the election, though. Nothing related to any action taken by his business partners with regard to Turkey afterward. Also, the contract was for $600k, but $70k was returned for "unfulfilled work" according to the Associated Press. It doesn't sound like Flynn entered the Trump administration with $530k in his pocket. Also, it doesn't sound like Flynn did hardley anything...it seems like he partnered with two Turks, and they used him as a figure head to give credibility to their efforts. Read the link. It describes the timing and what the money went to. (And, of course, I'm sure there is a lot we don't know. I suspect I would not like Flynn if I ever met him. I don't get all the "hero" talk.)
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=506511
He did zero at the time for the $500K payment. They paid it to buy his influence if needed.
He used that influence both during the transition and as NSA, both on the cleric and the Kurds. In fact the day before the election he wrote the op ed piece on the cleric. Was he paid more for that? Think he did it for free or did the $500K cover it?
Stop willfully being a fool.
I don't think that is how business work. I was a partner in a firm for awhile. I didn't get to keep all the money that my partners made.
who?
The main point is even if it was a three way split, Flynn was paid for influence not work.
And he exercised that influence both after the election during the transition and when he became NSA.
(no message)
We have to watch out for these RINO's you guys have in, in important places.
the impressive part of his rebuke of Flynn is Flynn and his team of lawyers along with Trump and the Republicans wanting to frame his treatment by the FBI and Mueller as unconstitutional, unfair and out of the norm.
He made Flynn double down on the fact he sold his country out, lied to America and that he was responsible for his actions the moment he did so.
The dichotomy of shames in all this is, you and your fellow R's will fight tooth and nail for Flynn's innocence from a major crime and yet scream bloody murder about HRC and her email server. I believe it goes repeatedly something like this - LOCK HER UP ….
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
People responsible and accountable for their actions. And stop attacking everyone else. Flynn committed crimes and betrayed his country. Despite a distinguished military career he fucked up in a big way on the biggest stage. Hold him accountable for his actions. The judge realized he misspoke and apologized. He held himself accountable for the truth. This is something absent from Trumpo and team. You and Trumpo have no credibility because everything is spin and there is no responsibility.
I’m glad someone finally spoke up for what most Americans believe, and for the country.
It’s NOT okay to call the Russian ambasssador to undermine sanctions being imposed by the then current administration, and to tell him that you will fix them when your Admin is in power.
It’s NOT okay to be an unregistered foriegn agent getting paid $500K while being the national security advisor to a prez campaign. And then lobbying the prior administration not to arm the Kurds to fight ISIS and refuse to do it when you are the NSA. All to please yer paymasters.
He’s a disgrace and a traitor. Thanks Judge Sullivan.
The Court is not obligated to accept a plea deal like Flynn's. Judge Sullivan could have tossed the guilty plea and indictment, or he could have imposed a sentence consistent with sentencing guidelines that differs from what thee parties propose. Jared Fogle -- the former Subway pitchman -- is a perfect example. He was charged with child molestation and possessing kiddie porn. He pleaded guilty, with the deal being that the government would request no more than 12 years and Fogle would seek no less than 5 years. The judge gave him 15.6 years, which was well within her right.
One problem with courts not accepting plea deals is that it discourages plea deals. Fogle, for example, may very well have chosen to roll the dice at trial had he known that the Court was going to stick it to him.
In this case, Judge Sullivan hasn't done anything yet. He expressed an opinion and hinted that he is considering prison time, the government's recommendation notwithstanding. Judge Sullivan hinted it might be in Flynn's interest to conclude his required cooperation before he is sentenced. While it didn't come out clearly, I think that Flynn's comments in his memo to the effect that the FBI entrapped him and tricked him into lying, without a lawyer being present, backfired. Judge Sullivan commented that blaming the FBI wasn't consistent with accepting responsibility. I would never have taken that approach.
Judge Sullivan is no "disgrace." He is a federal judge doing his job.
It's not exactly a newsflash that judges don't have to accept a prosecutor's recommendation. Wow, you must be fun at dinner parties.
Mark, here are three incontrovertible truths:
(1) Flynn lied to the FBI. I have no doubt of that. He is guilty.
(2) The FBI breached protocol in sending top FBI agents to interview him (one being in counter intell) without warning the WH, without telling Flynn an investigation was underway, and without advising him he had a right to a lawyer.
(3) Judge Sullivan was horrifically wrong yesterday in raising the treason issue. His flamethrowing made national headlines but he was wrong, and he had to apologize for it. See Ned's post below detailing how wrong Sullivan was. Even Dan Abrams said he was wrong. He was so wrong that he had to apologize for it.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that all of the above three things can be true at the same time? Is that too hard for you? I know it's hard for Chris and Frank and Lancey, but why is that hard for you? As I understand it, you are a lawyer, correct? Can all of the above three things be true?
Therefore, nothing to breach.
Perhaps you are under the impression that Flynn thought the FBI's counter-intelligence guys just came over to shoot the shit, and were not there in an official capacity, so lying to them was A-O-K. Perhaps you are as dumb as the President thinks you are.
He said that they would never have gotten away with doing that under Bush or Obama. He knew it was a violation of protocol, but he thought he could get away with it, and he was right. This is Comey talking, not some pro-Trump talking head.
(no message)
Yes?
They said so in court when Sullivan asked them - over and over if this is true. They said so yesterday in court several times. No, the FBI didn't breach protocol nor did they do anything improper when questioning him. It's a red-herring and you are trying to perpetuate that lie.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. I suspect that someone is interpreting what the word "protocol" means, like "sexual relations does not include oral sex."
administration with a chain of command that’s what would happen. He was also saying that this wasn’t the case with the just installed clown car.
and not the GOP/R's, Giuliani and Trumpo said was fact.
Sullivan is a bit of a stickler for defending the US justice system - so says all the pundits on FOX TV (and msm) therefore I'm going with, the FBI didn't break protocol in questioning Flynn at his home or at any other time.
It’s good to see someone actually offended by what this prick was trying to do.
We do get immune to it as it’s just one excuse or diversion after the other with these crooks and their enablers. Thanks for having some balls, Judge. Bout time someone calls this what it really is.
(no message)
That way the White House couldn't stop it which opened up Trump to more trouble.
And #1 is the only thing directly related to sentencing. If they have an issue with something the judge said they can take it up on appeal.
(no message)
(no message)
He knows more than we do.
(no message)
That makes it easier to catch someone in a lie about a conversation.
(no message)
Knowing the answer to questions makes it unfair to ask them, I guess, because you'll know when the person answering is lying.
Alternatively, the person can tell the truth (bah!).
His lying is an indicator of wrong-doing, Ned. He knew it.
Yes, he shouldn't lie. But, I already outlined in another post how easy it is for a person who wants to do their duty can lay out a fact in away that is amenable to being accused as a lie...even when the interviewer doesn't think the person intentionally tried to lie (as Strzok did in this case). You intentionally oversimplify this aspect of the issue because if you dig too deeply into the details, it starts to look like you are wrong.
Further, when given the chance to use leverage against him, it got even more unfair. Instead of giving him immunity like they did with HRC aides, they prosecuted him because he is a Trump aide.
That is the country you are working towards. You want to use the power of the state to shape the political reality of this country. Frankly, that is shameful.
I would rather the laws be applied without regard to politics.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You ARE in the know.
while serving in the White House. That is what caused the judge to walk back some assertions he made.
He may be correct that Flynn was an unregistered lobbyist (before he became Nat'l Security Advisor). However, Flynn has not been charged with that crime.
acting as NSA.
In the short time in the job there were attempts to send (for lack of a name) the Turkish politician back to Turkey - the order came from within the White House and is believed to have been by Flynn.
unregistered foriegn agent?
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna761656
(no message)
He got paid $500K from Turkey. At that time he was clearly an unregistered foriegn agent. He continued to advance the interests of Turkey after the election and during his brief tenure at NSA. How was he not an unregistered agent the entire time?
Do you have any evidence at all for that, other than the fact that he wanted to continue some of Obama's policies?
He had already gotten $500K. What work had he done for that?
He was still working for that payment.
(no message)
(no message)
Flynn's partners did get a $600k check, for months of work. And, they returned some of it ($70k) for work not completed.
You act like the Turks gave Flynn a check right before he took office, with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Only, that's not what happened. You should read the indictments of his partners.
it would be the same problem. Guess what they lost.
If Trump had lost, none of this would be an issue with Flynn.
The point is what he got, he got for influence not for work and he used that influence to benefit his paymasters.
Go look at Cole’s posts on Feb 16 and May 5 of this year informing this board about how knowledgeable he was about all things regarding Judge Sullivan.
“Sullivan is an oustanding judge.”
“Sullivan will sort it out.”
Cole is a fraud.
(no message)
....for a judge to make such an obvious and egregious error, it makes you wonder how closely he has been following the case. I doubt Mueller’s team wanted this to happen either as it gives Flynn another avenue to escape if he wanted to try.
There was no treason by anyone’s account. Flynn stopped taking money when he started his new job which is SOP. He failed to report his past ties until later which is shady at least, but Podesta did the exact same thing and Mueller hasn’t bothered him, thus it was also likely SOP.
The judges threatening comments about “you sure you want me to sentence you today?” directly implies that the judges personal mood and and hostility is clouding his judgment. While apparently within his perview as a judge, when combined with his gross lack of understanding of the case and prior erratic behavior, it would not be a hard case to make if one were calling for a mistrial. But I doubt Flynn wants to do this again anymore than Mueller.
While I think Flynn got railroaded, at the same time, I don’t think he is a Boy Scout. He lied to his superiors and was fired for it.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1075364334828699649?s=19
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Per The HIll: They (Flynn's partners and a Turkish company which we should assume was a cover for the Turkish government) first engaged in July of 2016 without a contract, and had a contract signed around September time frame (they were exchanging written contract drafts by then--the indictments apparently don't say exactly when they signed. Payment was to be made on an unreported date to Flynn's company, not Flynn directly. He had several partners and employees, and some of the money was an advance for the cost of making a documentary making Turkey look good.
Timing isn't very good. But, I guess Flynn had to keep his day job on the chance that Trump lost as everyone predicted he would.
Also, its not like Flynn pocketed $550k like Frank alleges. The money went to costs and expenses of the business and project first, and then Flynn got a paycheck, I'm sure. The contract was for $600k, but some money was returned to Turkey for "unfulfilled work" according to the AP. It doesn't sound like Flynn led the negotiation, so I doubt he got the lion's share of the money. Note that Flynn's business partners were named Bijan Kian and Ekim Alptekin, two Turks...so, I do wonder if he was more of a figure head in this operation. Flynn's business partners met with "a member of Congress, a congressional staffer and a state government official" to discuss that Gulen character which Erdogan accused of orchestrating the coup. So, members of his business, who were presumably paid, did a lot of work on behalf of Turkey. Some money was returned. Flynn's name was put on an oped supporting Turkey in November which had been drafted by Kian (per the AP)...that is what started the investigation.
That is what Erdogan wanted, and what he paid for.
judge to do what he did.
I don’t like what either Flynn or Podesta or anyone else has been doing wrt lobbying - I would make it all illegal if it were up to me. But if Mueller thought there was any substance to a treason charge, he certainly would have brought charges.
(no message)
Thank God for your post.
Your opponent: "I want fairness and consistency. We should treat everyone equally under the law, regardless of political affiliation."
You: "Here we go again with the 'whataboutism'."
Do you see why that doesn't work? He's pointing out unfairness, and you are using the term "whataboutism" as a non-intellectual way to defend unfairness. Everyone sees what you are doing, so you are not actually persuading anyone. I suppose you are just working for applause from your own side.
Try expressing the facts on Flynn and his misdeeds as they are the conversation. Then you'll be free from "whataboutisms" in the future.
(no message)
(no message)
By asking Flynn if he wanted to proceed to sentencing, he was telling him that he would get more credit for cooperating, and likely a lesser sentence, if he waited until after Flynn had fully cooperated per his deal. That is hardly unfair; ion fact, it's cutting Flynn a break.
As for the treason comment -- eh. He took it back. Treason potentially is a capital offense, but we're talking about 0 - 6 months in federal prison here.
You don't know right from wrong.
Link: https://twitter.com/lawfareblog/status/1075408189124956160
You are correct as well. The judge did make some unfair comments (my opinion) about treason that were not based in the known facts.
(no message)
She said the same thing before yesterday. Don’t be surprised if Sullivan throws it out.
(no message)
(no message)