"So you think I'm guilty. Thats, like, your opinion, man...I got pardoned!"

Case dismissed

Suck it, Sullivan. Asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Can Flynn just no longer show up or pay attention to what the judge wants to do at this point?

Well it's moot. Literally.

https://thepostmillennial.com/...nn-finally-dismissed

in that "special" world of Judge sullivan:

“As an initial matter, whether or not the FBI agents thought Mr. Flynn was lying is irrelevant in a false statements case.”

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...confession-of-guilt/

right emmet, as long as standing up for Justice doesn't mean anything to you.

^^^^
Right, so the actual commission of a crime isn’t relevant if you can put enough pressure on someone to get them to plead guilty to a “crime” your agents don’t think they committed. So long as you don’t like their boss, ‘cause politics.

Seems legit?

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
^^^^
Right, so the actual commission of a crime isn’t relevant if you can put enough pressure on someone to get them to plead guilty to a “crime” your agents don’t think they committed. So long as you don’t like their boss, ‘cause politics.

Seems legit?

What happened to General Flynn (a coerced FALSE confession by a factually innocent defendant) is no different than the horrible injustice suffered by Brian Banks in Los Angeles County (CA). Flynn (like Banks) felt he had no alternative but to plead guilty, given the threat (a long prison term), limited legal resources, and questionable advice provided by his attorney. Because Banks' case involved exoneration of an African American male charged with a crime of violence (Rape) that (in some regions) had historically led to racially motivated lynchings, his case was held up as being emblematic of a national problem (false convictions of poor minorities, who were unable to afford a proper defense).

I say 'was', because the incident was widely publicized prior to the Harvey Weinstein case and the resulting #metoo movement. After the Weinstein and Bill Cosby cases came to light, the cause de jour was now the focus on sexual harassment and assaults against women, emphasizing the "rights" of the accusers vs those of the accused. This narrative (women's claims must be assumed as truthful) was used to justify the (uncorroborated) attacks on SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford. Those same SJWs who'd earlier held up the conviction and subsequent exoneration of Banks as an example of "systematic racism" in our justice system, just as quickly changed direction and insisted that it's sexist and an affront women to require some sort of corroboration before determining men were guilty of sexual assault based upon an unsupported accusation. U.S. senators (including former CA attorney general Kamala Harris) insisted Ford's word alone should be sufficient to paint Judge Kavanaugh as a sexual predator and deny him the appointment to the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, Judge Kavanaugh's supporters outnumbered his detractors and his nomination was confirmed, but the treatment of Banks, Kavanaugh, and Flynn are similar in many evidentiary respects and should all be viewed as relevant and cautionary. All three demonstrate why an unsupported accusation should be viewed with suspicion, how easy it can be for the government to pressure factually innocent persons to admit guilt for offenses they did not commit, and why attitudes and actions such as those by Judge Sullivan are so very wrong.

https://www.historyvshollywood...elfaces/brian-banks/

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
This arrogant SOB needs to be in front of the firing squad, as far as I'm concerned.

This is a rare occasion where I’ll disagree with you. A firing squad would be far too quick and merciful. Solitary confinement with no human contact for the rest of his life. He can spend the rest of his life (or at least as long as he can keep his sanity) considering his misdeeds and his ongoing irrelevance.

This is a news report from a month ago , but it does tie together some things that have been issues for a long time.

It is not at all satisfying.

Chuck Grassley did a good job as former chair of Senate Judiciary Comm, but Lindsey Graham has been a very disappointing replacement.

As Hans Mahncke just wrote:

"The impeachment charge once more shows the main difference between Democrats and Republicans.

When Democrats have power, they use it."



https://www.foxnews.com/politi...mp-russia-hiding-why

As Special Counsel John Durham carries on with the investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, widening his prosecutorial team, critical questions linger over the role played by FBI informant Stefan Halper and his longtime FBI handler, Stephen Somma .

Halper emerged in the middle of the firestorm in May 2018, when his identity as the secret FBI informant embroiled in Crossfire Hurricane was exposed. It cast a dark shadow on his prestigious career as a foreign policy expert, Cambridge professor, author and analyst with deep ties to intelligence figureheads and sources spawning the globe.

But since then he appears to have been hidden from public view . The whereabouts of Somma, who subsequently was exposed as his handler and shared blame for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) mishaps against Trump campaign aide Carter Page, also have been unclear.

Despite both Halper and Somma being poised as having played a pivotal part in the U.S. counterintelligence operation Crossfire Hurricane – which officially ran from July 31, 2016, to May 17, 2017, to determine "whether individuals associated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" – neither of them have testified publicly about their roles and what they knew.

"The key is getting Halper (and Somma) to testify publicly, once he speaks, this whole thing unravels," Steven Schrage, a former senior G8 and congressional chief of staff, whose studies Halper directly supervised as the "Russiagate" scandal was playing out, told Fox News. "So, who is protecting him and why?"

In June, Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to issue subpoenas related to oversight of the FISA process and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, on which Somma was named.

"I want to know why all these counterintelligence investigations were opened to begin with," Graham said in a statement at the time. "This Committee is not going to sit on the sidelines and simply move on."

Schrage had been working with Durham's investigation since 2019. However, he told Durham in June that he needed to reach out to other investigators due to their lack of action and concern that important evidence would stay hidden from the public past the 2020 election.

Days later, in a letter obtained exclusively by Fox News, dated June 8, 2020, Schrage informed Graham that he had "information that may be indispensable to revealing critical facts on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."

"Your subpoenas and hearing may be the last chance to expose vital information being kept from you and that risks being buried after the 2020 election," Schrage, a former Senate chief of staff, wrote, adding that he was willing to meet with Graham or with his top staff members on short notice.

After following up for several days, Schrage said he received a response from a staffer who said neither Graham nor his top aides were willing to meet on this evidence. However, a Senate Judiciary staffer told Fox News that the panel did not receive enough information to evaluate what the evidence was and that Schrage did not want to talk to a senior investigator in advance, which they had offered.

Then, the Senate Homeland Security Committee in September also voted in favor of authorizing depositions and subpoenas for 40 other people connected to the Russia-Trump quagmire – including both Halper and Somma. In early October, the committee subpoenaed Halper as part of its investigation, for records about his work during the Trump-Russia inquest. The committee has been chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

"You are hereby commanded to appear before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate on October 14, 2020 , at 5:00 p.m. at its committee room," the subpoena read, adding that there, he was compelled to "produce all records related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crossfire Hurricane investigation."

But Halper, now 76, failed to show , and it's uncertain whether the matter will be pushed further. According to a source connected to Durham's inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Halper allegedly claimed to be sick for much of the past year.

Halper was Schrage's Ph.D. supervisor throughout his studies, starting from 2013. While Halper technically remained his adviser until he received his doctorate in 2019, they did not speak after Halper's outed in 2018. Schrage also was the official who first connected Halper with Page at a security conference in July 2016.

From Schrage's lens, it remained strange that the three people he considered to be at the center of the investigation – Halper, Somma and Steele – have been protected from issuing public statements or congressional testimony.

It still was not evident how long Halper – who then remained in communication with Page until at least July 2017 – worked as an FBI informant in the Russia-Trump team inquest. The last in-person meeting he had with Halper, Schrage said, was in the spring of 2018, shortly before his identity in the probe was leaked.

Page has long alleged that he specifically told Halper he never met with two former Russian officials mentioned in the largely discredited Steele dossier.

A Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general's report into FISA abuses, released last December, blamed Somma – a New York field office-based FBI counterintelligence investigator – for being "primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions" of the 17 found in the FISA warrant application against Page.

why and how Halper has managed to evade law enforcement or publicly take the stand also called into question the status of Somma, dubbed "Case Agent 1."

From Schrage's lens, it all came down to Halper and Somma in piecing together the missing pieces of the original puzzle.

Horowitz's findings concluded that Somma excluded critical information provided by Halper – who was termed "Source 2" – which included Page denying to Halper that he had ever met with the Russian figures in the Steele report.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee did not respond to requests for further comment. The FBI declined further comment on the subpoena matter, reiterating its previous statement that, "under Director [Christopher] Wray's leadership, the FBI has been, and will continue to be, fully cooperative with Mr. Durham's review. This includes providing documents and assigning personnel to assist his team."

Halper also has been staying quiet.

"Neither I nor Professor Halper will agree to an interview and will not comment further on matters relating to Sen. Johnson's inquiries," Robert Luskin, an attorney for Halper, told Fox News in an email.

It also remained murky whether Halper was paid to communicate with Trump campaign figures – using U.S. taxpayer dollars. Public records from the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) showed that Halper received $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017.

Weeks after at least one large payment was made, the wiretapping of Page started. Schrage has noted that Halper was profusely thankful for the introduction to the Trump campaign confidante, which he "never really understood," and that he exhibited "odd" behavior at the time.

A January-dated letter authored by Grassley to James Baker, director of the ONA, underscored that a request for "all records related to Professor [Stefan] Halper's contracts with DoD" six months earlier had not been met. When Grassley raised the "failure to comply" a month later, further documents were issued, but he claimed in the letter that the "production of documents still did not include all records requested."

However, Halper and Somma were not the only critical figures within Russiagate who have been shielded from public view.

Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor working at the security and intelligence-focused Link University in Rome – who in 2016 told fellow Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians "had dirt" that could damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign before the opening of Crossfire Hurricane – has not been seen publicly since his name was exposed in the fall of 2017.

Former FBI Director James Comey implied in May of last year that Mifsud was something of a "Russian agent." Yet the Mueller team never indicted him, despite statements in the report that he lied three times to investigators. It has long been fodder for debate as to whether Mifsud was also on the payroll of a Western foreign intelligence agency

when questioned by Republican lawmakers in a House Judiciary Committee hearing in June as to why Mifsud was not charged with the crime of giving false statements despite other indictments for fewer offenses, Mueller responded: "Well, I can't get into it and it's obvious, I think, that we can't get into charging decisions."

An attorney for Mifsud, who has not had direct contact with him since his dispersal from public view, told Fox News that he remained in some form of hiding in November.

it's unclear when – or if – Durham will issue a report on his findings.

As it stands, the Judiciary Committee has been in the process of evaluating whether it will draw conclusions before the end of the term, pass the information onto the incoming chairman or do a combination of both – but the steps going forward rest heavily on the results of the Georgia runoff elections in early January.

“If the Democrats win Georgia,” another staffer said, “ then this is probably just going to go away .”

John Solomon reported that one of the things to be declassified over the next week is that Fiona Hill put Christopher Steele in touch w Igor Danchenko

Steele wrote the fabricated lying dossier
Danchenko was the primary subsource for Steele

Fiona Hill was on the U.S. National Security Council as a Russia expert.
She testified against Trump in the first impeachment trial
She now works for Brookings Institution (Strobe Talbott, Benjamin Wittes)

from Hans Mahncke:

This is from the newly released Flynn 302s.

Trump let bygones by bygones. In return, Team Hillary organized a coup.

Let no good deed go unpunished!!

That was a mistake. As was not firing every Obama appointee throughout the government on day one. Regards 18DAI

one of the transcripts released by Lindsey Graham was the interview w FBI agent Joe Pientka

Here is a summary provided by Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre @ClimateAudit

Remember when Gonna Graham said that he was going to "get to the bottom" of something or other. And was even going to call witnesses. I'll give a short thread from questioning of SSA1 (Pientka) to give you a flavor of the abject uselessness and failure of Gonna's process.


On hand to ensure that Pientka didn't answer questions were eight (!) lawyers: three for Pientka personally, three from FBI and two from DOJ.

The interview was on 27 Aug 2020


when Committee counsel inquired about predication of Flynn investigation, Pientka lawyer directed him not to answer, so he didn't. Committee lawyer didn't object or inquire as to basis of refusal.


Pientka was asked whether he had approved a memo closing Flynn investigation on Jan 4 - a document that is public . Pientka lawyer instructed refusal; no objection or demand to provide basis for refusal.


counsel asked whether Pientka had "become aware of phone calls" between Flynn and Kislyak. Same: Pientka lawyer directed him not to answer, so he didn't. Committee lawyer didn't object or inquire as to basis of refusal

Committee counsel asked whether Pientka had discussion regarding Logan Act. Same. Pientka lawyer directed him not to answer, so he didn't. Committee lawyer didn't object or inquire as to basis of refusal.


Committee counsel asked whether Pientka had ever worked a FARA case. Same result. Pientka lawyer directed him not to answer, so he didn't. Committee lawyer didn't object or inquire as to basis of refusal.


Committee counsel asked whether Pientka had ever worked a Logan Act case. Same result. Pientka lawyer directed him not to answer, so he didn't. Committee lawyer didn't object or inquire as to basis of refusal


Committee counsel, in this interview like others, used much of his clock on "throat clearing" questions about Pientka's employment biography, while Democrats asked pro forma questions in which Pientka declined to challenge Mueller


here was, however, one small scrap of interesting information. Pientka resigned from Crossfire Hurricane in early January 2017 (transferring back to WFO) out of protest that FBI had shut down the standard validation review of Steele that Pientka had initiated

Horowitz report had observed that Pientka had sought validation information on Steele on Sep 19, 2016 - the VERY FIRST day that Crossfire Hurricane team learned of Steele information. And that Pientka never got an answer. Somers, Cmte counsel, asked about it.


Somers asked what "efforts" were made to corroborate Steele. Pientka said that they sent team to interview Steele (in Rome), that he "initiated asset validation review" and that he met with Bruce Ohr.

Pientka told Somers that talking to Ohr was the ONLY attempt that FBI made to verify Steele with prior clients (including Gaeta). But there was even more disquieting aspect to validation review

in early Nov 2016, right after Steele had been terminated for blabbing to Mother Jones, Pientka formally requested the validation review that he had not obtained pursuant to his unanswered Sep 19 email.

Somers asked Pientka what happened to his validation request (this time without usual objections). Pientka said that Steele validation had been "turned off".


Somers pursued this line of questions, asking clarification. Pientka explained that he had requested FBI director of intelligence to do an "enhanced validation review" "outside and independent of Counterintelligence Division". It was "turned off".

Pientka said that validation review had been "turned off", according to Priestap and Strzok, out of "concerns about leaks". (Though needless to say, as Trump inauguration arrived, FBI leaks became a Niagara torrent.)

Pientka told Somers that, notwithstanding the rationale given by Priestap and Strzok, he disagreed. A disagreement that, as we will see later on, led Pientka to disassociate himself from the operation.


Somers expressed some consternation that FBI senior officials were so mistrustful of leaks from "trained and vetted" agents charged with enhanced validation that they "turned off" an important (and in this case, especially essential) validation procedure.

Somers confirmed with Pientka that the validation procedure for Steele had been "turned off" and that Pientka had disagreed with that decision by his superiors.

Somers then, rhetorically, expressed his incredulity that FBI was "willing to trade off .. validating [Steele]" because of "an internal problem at the FBI regarding leaks." Pientka: "Is that a question?"

Somers clarified an important nuance. It was not that Priestap/Strzok had turned down Pientka's request for validation review. Rather, Pientka had set the process in motion and it was "stopped" by Priestap/Strzok.

Pientka's formal involvement with Crossfire Hurricane ended in early Jan 2017. Somers asked why. Pientka said that he "asked to go back" to Washington Field Office.


this is discussed more after digression in which Pientka explained that he didn't learn until Jan 11, 2017 (after off CH) that DNC was Steele's ultimate employer. And, even then, only because he had been contacted by an agent whose offer of a CHS had been turned down in Aug.

now for a punch line: Somers asked Pientka why he had left such a big case, one squarely within his expertise. Pientka: "I had a professional disagreement with stopping the enhanced validation review"


Somers then asked what had changed FBI's mind when it eventually and subsequently undertook the validation review that it had refused to Pientka. Pientka: you'd have to ask the individuals who made the decision.

Pientka confirmed that (at least from his perspective) the disagreement was with Priestap. Given that we now know that Priestap opened Crossfire on McCabe's direct order (not on his own initiative as Horowitz claimed), the source of turn-off order is a dig-here.

Explaining the disagreement further, Pientka said that enhanced validation "is the process, this is what we do, this is what we always do" and that he had "questions" about the intel validation being done in Counterintelligence Division

ultimately, according to Pientka, "this was a concern that [he was] so passionate about that it made [him] terminate [his] association with the case, the team, and go back to the Washington Field Office?"

Pientka: "it was".

the Russiagate Hoax undermined Trump's entire term, and, yet only in final week of Trump's presidency do we learn that Pientka resigned from Crossfire in protest over refusal to do enhanced validation on Steele even AFTER Steele had been terminated as CHS for cause

despite Pientka's resignation from Crossfire, he was Strzok's sidekick at key Flynn interview on Jan 24. Not a single question about that incident. When Somers tried to ask anything about Flynn, it was blocked by lawyers for bureaucracy

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
.....despite Pientka's resignation from Crossfire, he was Strzok's sidekick at key Flynn interview on Jan 24. Not a single question about that incident. When Somers tried to ask anything about Flynn, it was blocked by lawyers for bureaucracy

It all comes down to one thing: The lack of accountability of the FBI because it's endemic to the culture of the organization. Management can do whatever they wish and who's going to really question them? Certainly not the President that wants to use them as a political weapon (ie: Obama).

This whole story appears to have a far different ending than I ever anticipated.

Hans Mahncke summed it up well:

Huber failed. Horowitz failed. Durham failed. Barr failed. Declassification failed


A prosecutor was assigned to look into the hundreds of suspicious unmasking of individuals in NSA reports. These unmaskings were in the last months of the obama administration.
The prosecutor said he found nothing wrong and then promptly resigned.

One writer said Barr tricked Donald Trump by appearing to be aggressively investigating thru Durham, while all along the plan was to drop the "investigation".

FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith lied about Carter Page being a source for the CIA. The lie was put into one of the Top Secret FISA warrants against Page. The judge that sentenced Clinesmith ruled "no jail time", just probation. This judge was James Boasberg. An obama appointee. Boasberg happens to also be the chief judge of the FISC court. The court that was lied to.

A total coverup everywhere. DoJ, FBI, CIA, federal judges. The Deep State is very deep.

Unfortunately my deep disappointment in the DoJ seems to have no limits.

Not one single person that participated in the coup will meet any sort of justice.

The failure to hold anyone accountable for the 2016 coup emboldened them to take the gloves off in the 2020 election.

video at link

https://theconservativetreehou...e-biden/#more-207710

Maria Bartiromo asks Peter Navarro how Biden was able to sign so many executive orders on his first day.

There is a review process before the president can sign an EO. The last check box is at DoJ. Bill Barr's office of legal counsel was fast tracking Biden EOs in front of Donald Trump's.
That is how Biden got to sign so many EOs on day one.

Navarro says the bottle neck For Donald Trump's last batch of EOs was at the Dept of Justice

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
The failure to hold anyone accountable for the 2016 coup emboldened them to take the gloves off in the 2020 election.

This. Recall that John Durham was selected by AG Barr to conduct criminal investigations associated with the "Russian Collusion" hoax based in large part due to Durham's supposed "successes" as a prosecutor of federal corruption violations in the James "Whitey" Bulger matter. The "Bulger" case was referred to on Page One of the November 2019 report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz describing the misuse of uncorroborated "Confidential Human Sources" (informants) by FBI agents to obtain FISA warrants based upon false information.

In the Bulger case, Durham prosecuted ONE agent (John Connolly), while giving immunity to that agent's supervisor (John Morris), even though the supervisor admitted accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from Bulger too. As a result of that immunity deal, the dirty supervisor wasn't just spared jail time, he was RETAINED as an employee by the FBI, transferred to the Los Angeles Office (just a few miles from where Bulger was "hiding in plain sight" in Santa Monica), promoted to Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the "Corruption" unit there, and ultimately retired with a full pension. One might ask, "What kind of manager would not only approve such an employee's retention, but promote this guy, given his admissions of guilt???" You'd have to ask him yourself, if you'd trust his answers. The Director at the time? Robert Mueller.