James Comey

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/05/07/doj-michael-flynn-charges/

The Justice Department dropped its case against Michael Flynn on Thursday, citing “newly discovered” information from the investigation of the former national security adviser.

The stunning decision comes following a series of revelations in recent weeks from an internal review of the Flynn case by Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney for St. Louis.

Attorney General William Barr appointed Jensen to review the Flynn investigation after the retired general filed a motion to withdraw a guilty plea he entered on Dec. 1, 2017 for making false statements to the FBI during an interview on Jan. 24, 2017.


Jensen provided Flynn’s lawyers with an FBI memo from early 2017 which showed the bureau was poised to close an open counterintelligence investigation of Flynn due to a lack of evidence that he had any suspicious ties to Russia.

Jensen also discovered a handwritten memo from an FBI official questioning whether the goal of an interview with Flynn was to “get him to lie” in order to either get him fired or in legal jeopardy.

Flynn was interviewed at the White House regarding his phone calls in December 2016 with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. At the time of the calls, the FBI had an open counterintelligence investigation against Flynn and three other Trump associates.

Jensen said in a statement Thursday that recommended to Barr that the case against Flynn be dismissed.


“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case. I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed,” Jensen said.

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 06: U.S. Attorney General William Barr speaks at the National Opioid Summit at the U.S. Department of Justice on March 6, 2020 in Washington, DC. More than 400,000 people in the United States have died of opioid overdoses since 2000. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
U.S. Attorney General William Barr speaks at the National Opioid Summit at the U.S. Department of Justice on March 6, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Timothy Shea, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., said in a court filing Thursday that the FBI interview with Flynn did not have “a legitimate investigative basis” to the counterintelligence probe.

“The Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn,” Shea said in the filing. (RELATED: DOJ Official Abruptly Withdraws From Flynn Case)

The decision to drop charges against Flynn is certain to prove polarizing. President Donald Trump has long accused prosecutors of mistreating Flynn, while Trump’s critics have accused him of improperly meddling in the Justice Department’s investigation of his former national security adviser.


The FBI opened its investigation on Flynn on Aug. 16, 2016, as part of Crossfire Hurricane, the counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign. The FBI also investigated Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort.

Investigators initially looked into whether Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, “was directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation.”

The Jan. 4, 2017 memo from the FBI said that investigators found no derogatory information regarding Flynn. The FBI investigation of Flynn was kept open, however, at the request of Peter Strzok, who then served as deputy chief of FBI counterintelligence.

Shea says in the memo that Strzok wanted to keep the investigation open after reviewing transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls with Kislyak.

But Shea says that Flynn’s phone call with Kislyak “did not warrant either continuing that existing counterintelligence investigation or opening a new criminal investigation.”

“The calls were entirely appropriate on their face,” Shea wrote.

He asserted that the phone calls showed no evidence of an “inappropriate relationship” between Flynn and Kislyak, and that Flynn acknowledged during his White House interview that his communications with the Russian ambassador were likely monitored.

Shea also said that there was no need for the FBI to interview Flynn since investigators had a word-for-word transcript of his conversation with Kislyak.

Strzok was one of two FBI agents who conducted the Jan. 24, 2017 interview with Flynn.

Prosecutors also provided Flynn’s lawyers with a handwritten note from Jan. 24, 2017, in which Bill Priestap, Strzok’s boss, asked whether the goal of a Flynn interview was to get him to lie to the FBI.

“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote in the memo.

With the dismissal, Flynn is now seemingly free from a gag order preventing him from discussing his case. Flynn has spoken out through court filings seeking to withdraw from his plea deal.

Flynn said in a Jan. 29, 2020 court filing that he did not lie to the FBI and that he “regret” pleading guilty in his case. He said he entered the plea deal because prosecutors had threatened to prosecute his son.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-demand-answers-from-fbi-director-over-latest-michael-flynn-revelations

House Republicans Demand Answers From FBI Director Over Latest Michael Flynn Revelations

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are demanding answers from FBI Director Christopher Wray regarding recent revelations that FBI officials discussed getting former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to lie and to “get him fired.”


At the end of April, unsealed court records revealed that FBI agents considered using their January 24, 2017 interview with Flynn to get him fired by getting “him to lie.”

“What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” an FBI agent wrote on the day of the interview.

On May 4, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Wray requesting answers relating to the latest revelations regarding Flynn. Jordan noted in his letter that the FBI had determined Flynn was not a Russian agents and decided to drop the investigation into the former lieutenant general until FBI special agent Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case going.

“The FBI’s mission is to do justice dispassionately. But these documents suggest that the FBI ignored protocol to confront LTG Flynn about a potential violation of an obscure and rarely charged offense, with the real goal of forcing LTG Flynn’s resignation or prosecution. The FBI pursued LTG Flynn despite knowing that he was not a Russian agent and even after the FBI became aware that a central piece of evidence of alleged Russia collusion—the so-called Steele dossier—was based on Russian disinformation. Placing these events in context reveals the extent to which the FBI facilitated an incorrect public impression of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia,” Jordan wrote.



In light of the revelations, Jordan has asked Wray to respond to a series of questions regarding the investigation into Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI but is now fighting to rescind that plea:

Produce all documents and communications referring or relating to Crossfire Razor, the FBI code name for its investigation into LTG Flynn.
Produce all documents and communications between or among the FBI and other executive branch agencies, including but not limited to the Executive Office of the President, for the period December 1, 2016 to January 20, 2017, referring or relating to LTG Michael Flynn’s December 30, 2016, conversation with [Russian Ambassador] Sergey Kislyak.
Explain when you personally first learned of the FBI’s misconduct with respect to LTG Flynn. 4. Explain why the Committee and the American public are learning of the FBI’s misconduct with respect to LTG Flynn from court filings rather than from you.
Explain whether you or any other member of the FBI’s senior leadership prevented or delayed the disclosure of additional exculpatory information to LTG Flynn and his legal team.
Certify that the FBI has produced all responsive documents as part of the review ordered by Attorney General Barr into LTG Flynn’s case.

On Wednesday, Jordan revealed he had also sent a letter to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, requesting an update to the status of the FBI’s fixes for the FISA warrant process that resulted in Flynn and other Trump administration officials getting unfairly surveilled by the FBI.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/report-ap-doj-drops-michael-flynn-prosecution/

The Department of Justice is reportedly dropping its prosecution of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn (Ret.), according to the Associated Press.

The news comes a week after new evidence released to Flynn’s lawyers showed FBI agents apparently attempting to trap Flynn into lying to them, hoping he would be prosecuted or fired. The evidence also suggested they knew he had not committed a separate crime.

Earlier Thursday, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdrew from the case.

Flynn had been director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama but was fired. He then joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, shaping its foreign policy and introducing Trump at rallies.

After Trump won, Flynn shaped the national security policies of the incoming administration and was picked to serve as National Security Adviser. In that capacity, he held conversations with foreign officials, including then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were picked up by wiretaps of the ambassador, and his name was “unmasked” by Obama administration officials in transcripts of the conversations, which were leaked to the Washington Post. At the same time, the Obama Department of Justice investigated Flynn under the Logan Act of 1799, which prevents private citizens from conducting diplomacy but is rarely enforced.

Though the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing — as shown in documents produced by the FBI to Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, last week — senior officials kept the case open.

Then-FBI Director James Comey sent FBI agents to meet with Flynn informally at the White House, hoping to trap Flynn into lying about his conversations with Kislyak.

The controversy concerned a question about whether Flynn discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia for election interference. Flynn allegedly denied doing so, though the transcript suggested that he had.

Flynn resigned from the administration after apparently misleading Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Kislyak.

He was later prosecuted for lying to the FBI, and pleaded guilty, under pressure and on the advice of his former counsel from Covington and Burling LLP. He had to sell his house to pay his legal fees.

At the time, Flynn’s prosecution was seen by Democrats and the media as the foundation for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of supposed “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But Mueller found no evidence of “collusion,” and as evidence began to emerge of misconduct by the FBI and the DOJ, Flynn moved earlier this year to withdraw his guilty plea.

In February, Attorney General William Barr appointed an outside prosecutor, Jeffrey Jensen, to review the DOJ’s case against Flynn. Under closer scrutiny, the FBI released more documents — and the prosecution began to unravel.

The case against Flynn is now over.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/michael-flynn-prosecutor-quits-case/

Brandon Van Grack, one of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s handpicked prosecutors, has withdrawn from the case against former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn (Ret.).

Van Grack’s withdrawal marks a major victory for Flynn and for his new attorney, Sidney Powell, who have secured the release in recent days of exculpatory evidence showing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may have targeted Flynn.

Documents released last week show the FBI deliberating about whether their real goal in meeting Flynn in January 2017 at the White House was to obtain the truth, or to have him prosecuted or fired.

Senior FBI officials used the pretext of an informal meeting to set Flynn up — without informing him that he was a target of investigation.

The “crime” for which he had been probed was violating the Logan Act of 1799, a statute preventing private citizens from conducting diplomacy. It is almost never enforced, and Flynn arguably had not violated it in any case, since he was incoming National Security Adviser when he had conversations with foreign officials, including the Russian ambassador.

Furthermore, text messages released last week reveal that the FBI had found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Flynn. On Jan. 4, 2017, the FBI drafted a memo to close the case — until agent Peter Strzok intervened, saying that senior leadership wanted the investigation to remain open.

The next day, Jan. 5, then-FBI Director James Comey met with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and other senior officials in the White House. Comey was told to brief President-elect Donald Trump the next day (Jan. 6) about the contents of the false “Steele dossier,” which was then leaked to the media.

Flynn’s original lawyers, from the Covington and Burling firm — where Obama’s former attorney general, Eric Holder, is a partner — negotiated a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Powell told Breitbart News Sunday that evidence had emerged to show that the FBI had agreed not to pursue charges against Flynn’s son if Gen. Flynn pleaded guilty — a deal that had not been properly disclosed.

[soonernvolved]

President Trump needs to bring him back into the administration and place him over the CIA, etc.

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/trump-celebrates-michael-flynns-exoneration-an-innocent-man-now-an-even-greater-warrior/

President Donald Trump on Thursday rejoiced at the White House to the news that the Justice Department had abandoned his production case of his former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn.

“I’m very happy for Gen. Flynn, he was a great warrior, and he still is a great warrior, now in my book he’s an even greater warrior,” Trump said.




The Justice Department announced their decision Thursday to drop the criminal case against Flynn, just days after documents revealed the FBI tried to get him to lie or get him fired in an interview with agents. Earlier Thursday, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdrew from the case.

“He was an innocent man, he is a great gentleman, he was targeted by the Obama administration, he was targeted in order to try and take down a president and what they’ve done is a disgrace, and I hope a big price is going to be paid,” he said.

President Trump indicated he was always confident that the prosecution in Flynn’s case would fall apart and again berated the Obama Justice Department for their efforts to smear his former advisor.

“I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price because they are dishonest crooked people, they’re scum … they’re scum, they’re human scum,” Trump said, calling their actions “treason.”

He also blamed the media for working with the Obama administration who received Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on the case should be forced to give them back.

“Their partner, very complicit is a thing called the media, the media is totally guilty, all those writers and so-called journalists, they’re not journalists, they’re thieves,” he said, adding, “It was fake news, those Pulizer Prizes should be given back immediately.”

The president spoke about Flynn’s case in a meeting with Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Thursday afternoon at the Oval Office.

The Justice Department announced their decision Thursday to drop the criminal case against Flynn, just days after documents revealed the FBI tried to get him to lie or get him fired in an interview with agents. Earlier Thursday, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack withdrew from the case.

The president has frequently cited Flynn’s prosecution as the result of “dirty cops” led by then-FBI Director James Comey, predicting last week that his former adviser would get exonerated.

“Dirty cops tormented General Flynn. General Flynn is a fine man, 35 years or so in the military. You don’t get to be where he is by being bad, that, I can tell you,” he said.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/jerry-nadler-rages-outrageous-that-doj-dropped-flynn-case/

House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reacted furiously to the Department of Justice reportedly dropping its criminal case against retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, referring to the Thursday development as “outrageous.”

“This is outrageous! Flynn PLEADED GUILTY to lying to investigators,” Nadler wrote on social media. “The evidence against him is overwhelming. Now, a politicized DOJ is dropping the case.”




“The decision to overrule the special counsel is without precedent and warrants an immediate explanation,” the New York Democrat added.

“Due to the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, I worked with DOJ to postpone our scheduled hearing with AG Barr as attentions and resources appropriately went to responding to the pandemic. But rest assured, we are going to reschedule that hearing, ASAP, and demand answers!” he concluded.

President Trump celebrated the reported move involving his former national security advisor, stating: “He was an innocent man… Now in my book he’s an even greater warrior.”

“I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price,” the president added, before accusing Obama-era FBI officials of committing treason. “They’re scum.”

The president made the remarks as he met with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in the Oval Office.

The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the past three years have maintained that Flynn lied to the FBI in a January 2017 interview about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn himself admitted as much, pleading guilty before asking to withdraw the plea, and became a key cooperator for Mueller the special counsel investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press.

The Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended dropping the case to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/wisenberg-if-biden-wins-he-could-still-prosecute-michael-flynn-for-perjury/

Joe Biden could still prosecute former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) for perjury if the former vice president defeats President Donald Trump in the November election.

That is the view of former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg, who told Fox News on Thursday afternoon that even though the Department of Justice (DOJ) had decided to drop its prosecution of Flynn, a future Biden administration could still decide to pursue Flynn for perjury.




The problem, Wisenberg said, was that Flynn had originally pleaded guilty in 2017 to the crime of lying to the FBI on the advice of his lawyers at the time from Covington and Burling, and under pressure from prosecutors, who reportedly threatened to indict his son on unrelated matters.

In that guilty plea, Flynn told a federal court, under oath, that he had deliberately lied to the agents.

But as evidence emerged of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ in the case — and with a new lawyer, Sidney Powell — Flynn sought to withdraw his plea.

In its motion to drop the case on Thursday, the DOJ explained that while Flynn admitted to making a false statement to the FBI, that statement had not met the standard of “materiality”:

Mr. Flynn entered a guilty plea—which he has since sought to withdraw—to a single count of making false statements in a January 24, 2017 interview with investigators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). See ECF Nos. 3-4. This crime, however, requires a statement to be not simply false, but “materially” false with respect to a matter under investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Materiality is an essential element of the offense. Materiality, moreover, requires more than mere “relevance” or relatedness to the matter being investigated; it requires “probative weight,” whereby the statement is “reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.” United States v. Weinstock, 231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (emphasis added).

Wisenberg said that President Trump might still need to pardon Flynn to prevent his future prosecution.

[soonernvolved]

And a great day, gets even better:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/chris-christie-slams-obama-doj-after-supreme-court-overturns-bridgegate-convictions/

Chris Christie Slams Obama DOJ After Supreme Court Overturns Bridgegate Convictions; Update: Trump Responds

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday, after the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out the convictions of two aides involved in “Bridgegate.”

The Bridgegate scandal emerged in early 2014 after Christie was re-elected overwhelmingly in November 2013, with bipartisan support. It was alleged that aides to Gov. Christie ordered lane closures on the road leading to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee, New Jersey, possibly as retribution for the mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie for re-election. Several were investigated and convicted by the Obama DOJ.




The scandal also dented Christie’s presidential prospects, which had looked bright after his re-election.

But on Thursday, the Court unanimously overturned the convictions of Bridget Ann Kelly and Bill Baroni. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court in Kelly v. U.S., said that whatever the bad actions or motives the aides may have had, they could not be prosecuted under federal fraud statutes because they had not sought money or property. The law, Kagan explained, does not criminalize “all acts of dishonesty by state and local officials.” She added: If U. S. Attorneys could prosecute as property fraud every lie a state or local official tells in making such a decision, the result would be—as Cleveland recognized—“a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction.”

In a statement, Christie ripped the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, and the Obama DOJ:

What cannot be undone is the damage that was visited upon all the people dragged through the mud who had nothing to do with the prosecutorial conduct and personal vindictiveness of Paul Fishman. Despite being repeatedly told by numerous respected members of the bar during the investigation that he was inventing a federal crime, Paul Fishman proceeded, motivated by political partisanship and blind ambition that cost the taxpayers millions in legal fees and changed the course of history. Worst of all, Fishman allowed Bill Baroni to go to jail for crimes he [Fishman] invented.

The leadership of the Obama Justice Department is also culpable for permitting this misconduct to happen right under their noses …

This was a case driven by a U.S. Attorney and Justice Department in search of a predetermined and biased outcome. In recklessly pursuing that outcome, they violated the oath sworn by every member of the Department of Justice.

The U.S. Attorney General at the time was Eric Holder. Holder endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president on Wednesday.

The defeat at the Supreme Court is only the latest blow to the Obama DOJ, which is now widely seen as having abused its power in pursuing false claims of “Russia collusion” against President Donald Trump and his aides.

Update: President Donald Trump congratulated Christie:

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/05/07/doj-dropping-case-against-flynn-following-blockbuster-revelations-of-fbi-corruption/

DOJ Dropping Case Against Flynn Following Blockbuster Revelations Of FBI Corruption
MAY 7, 2020 By Madeline Osburn
The Department of Justice on Thursday moved to dismiss the federal case against Michael Flynn following the revelation of gross government corruption and abuse against the former national security adviser.

After charges were brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, but recently unsealed documents revealed that the FBI agents’ interview with Flynn was a perjury trap all along. Handwritten notes from FBI agents who ambushed Flynn at the White House without his attorneys present show that their goal was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”


In its motion to dismiss the criminal charges, the DOJ said the recently unsealed documents not only conclude the FBI had no proper predication for launching its investigation, but now call into question whether there is sufficient evidence that Flynn actually lied to FBI agents during their Jan. 24, 2017, White House interview.

“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,” the motion reads. “Moreover, we do not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The previously undisclosed documents revealing the FBI agents’ intentions all along are a result of Attorney General William Barr appointing an outside U.S. attorney, Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, to review the Flynn investigation. Last week, Jensen recommended Barr drop the case.

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

The DOJ’s motion to dismiss recounts the timeline of the FBI’s Flynn investigation and concluded Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak “were entirely appropriate on their face.” The DOJ also concluded that “proof of a false statement to federal investigators under Section 1001(a)(2) requires more than a lie,” and that the law which Mueller charged Flynn of violating is written in such a way that it “prevents law enforcement from fishing for falsehoods merely to manufacture jurisdiction over any statement–true or false.”

www.scribd.com/document/460364426/DOJ-Motion-To-Dismiss-Corrupt-Case-Against-Michael-Flynn#from_embed

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/05/07/fbis-memo-exonerating-flynn-proves-its-time-to-investigate-comeys-corrupt-confidential-human-sources/

FBI’s Memo Exonerating Flynn Proves It’s Time To Investigate Comey’s Corrupt ‘Confidential Human Sources’
The unsealing of the FBI’s closing memo on the Flynn investigation made two things clear: The FBI had no proper predication for investigating Flynn, and the confidential human source should be investigated for making false statements to the FBI.
Margot ClevelandBy Margot Cleveland
MAY 7, 2020
Recently released documents confirm that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) framed Michael Flynn and that the special counsel’s office (and later federal prosecutors) improperly withheld material exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s defense attorneys. However, two lesser-noticed realities also came into focus with last week’s unsealing of the FBI’s closing memorandum on the Flynn investigation: The FBI had no proper predication for launching its investigation into Flynn, and the confidential human source (“CHS”) debriefed as part of the Flynn probe should be thoroughly investigated for making false statements to the FBI.

Last week, Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, filed a second supplement to the still-pending motion to dismiss the criminal case against the former Trump national security adviser. More than two years ago, while being represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.


Since Powell took over Flynn’s representation, she has been demanding complete disclosure of all documentation surrounding the investigation into Flynn, but to no avail — that is, until Attorney General William Barr appointed an outside U.S. attorney to review the Flynn investigation.

Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen’s probe into the targeting of Flynn has uncovered a cache of previously undisclosed documents. Powell has received two batches of documents to date, and immediately filed those with the court to supplement her argument that presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan should dismiss the charge against Flynn based on egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

Among the documents Powell filed last week was the FBI’s four-page communication closing out the investigation of Flynn, coded Crossfire Razor. That closing communication was dated Jan. 4, 2017, but text messages included with the court filing reveal that higher-ups in the FBI halted the closing of the investigation. Additional documents uncovered by U.S. Attorney Jensen show that under the guise of that still technically open investigation, FBI agents Peter Strzok (since fired) and Joe Pientka proceeded to question President Donald Trump’s then-national security adviser about his call with the Russian ambassador.

No Proper Predicate to Investigate Flynn
The details included in the closing communication reveal another key point: The FBI’s decision to target Flynn under the umbrella of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was itself pretextual — there was no proper predicate to investigate Flynn.


In explaining its decision to shutter the Flynn investigation, the FBI noted in its closing communication that it had opened Crossfire Razor “based on an articulable factual basis” that Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.”

What exactly was that “articulable factual basis”? Four facts: 1) that Flynn “was cited as an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate DONALD J. TRUMP for foreign policy issues since February 2016,” 2) that Flynn had ties to various “state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open source information,” 3) that Flynn “traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source information,” and 4) that Flynn had “an active TS/SCI clearance.”

This was no basis; this was bull.

The FBI predicated an investigation into one of the top foreign policy advisers to a presidential campaign based, first, on the fact that Flynn worked for the Trump campaign, which itself was the target of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. And in opening the case on Flynn, the FBI “cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane.”

The Predicate for Crossfire Hurricane

Let’s start with the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, as the FBI believed that added to its justification for targeting Flynn.

In his report on the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, abuse, Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz explained that the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane “in response to information [Counterintelligence Division] officials received on July 28, 2016, from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) indicating that in a May 2016 meeting with the FFG, George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the Trump campaign, ‘suggested the Trump team had received some kind of a suggestion’ from Russia that it could assist in the election process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.”

While the opening documentation from Crossfire Hurricane relied solely on Papadopoulos’ comment as a basis for launching the investigation into the Trump campaign, the IG report noted that “the FBI received the FFG information at a time when it had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and when the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC), including the FBI, was aware of Russia’s efforts to interfere with 2016 U.S. elections.”

Horowitz concluded that, “given the low threshold for predication,” the FBI had a sufficient basis “to predicate the full counterintelligence investigation,” branded Crossfire Hurricane.


Upon the release of the IG report, Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham — the federal prosecutor Barr appointed to investigate the Russia probe — both denounced Horowitz’s conclusion that Crossfire Hurricane was properly predicated. “Last month, we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,” Durham said in a statement released shortly after the IG report. Durham stressed that the Crossfire Hurricane “investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department,” and instead “included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”

The details Durham uncovered that call into question the predication of Crossfire Hurricane remain unknown. But even assuming the FBI properly predicated the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the targeting of Flynn in a separate investigation fails to satisfy even the “low threshold for predication” on which Horowitz hung his hat.

As the IG report noted, the attorney general and the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide requires an “articulable factual basis” that, “if true,” “reasonably indicates” the target may be involved in “an activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security,” or terrorism or some other legitimate investigative purpose not at issue here.

But none of the grounds for targeting Flynn noted in the IG report “reasonably” indicate the former national security adviser “may have been involved in an activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to national security.” That conclusion should have been obvious from the IG’s report when it hit in December 2019. But so many significant revelations emerged in the 400-page report, Horowitz’s perfunctory discussion of the issue went unnoticed, and his conclusion that “the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open” the individual investigation of Flynn was sufficient to satisfy the low predication threshold went unchallenged.

The FBI’s Bogus Basis for Investigating Flynn
However, one detail contained in the closing document — but omitted in the IG report — concerning the predication jolts attention to the absence of a proper predicate.

In addition to noting that Flynn served on the Trump campaign, the closing memorandum provided as a rationale for opening an investigation into Flynn his “active TS/SCI clearance.” This fact not only does not justify investigating Flynn, it cuts against the entire idea that Flynn may have been involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation.

Mere months before the FBI launched Crossfire Razor, the Obama administration’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in April of 2016, renewed Flynn’s “top secret/sensitive compartmented information” clearance. “That approval is significant,” wrote Eli Lake in the Chicago Tribune. “The process for renewing a security clearance at that level is intense. It includes interviews with associates and friends and an extensive background check. Flynn took a polygraph test as part of his reapplication for the security clearance.”

The timing of that April 2016 renewal is also significant because the FBI claimed two additional facts justified its launch of Crossfire Razor, but those facts pre-dated Flynn’s TS/SCI clearance. Specifically, the closing document noted Flynn had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, presumably Russia Today, for whom Flynn gave a speech in Moscow in December 2015 — the basis of the final supposedly suspicious point.

Those facts were known before Flynn’s TS/SCI clearance renewal. Additionally, before Flynn traveled to Russia in 2015 to speak at the dinner, he was briefed by the DIA. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell told me that Flynn also briefed the DIA upon his return, and shared with the intelligence agency a thumb drive of information he had collected during his Russia trip.

Under these circumstances, it is beyond ridiculous that the FBI relied on Flynn’s 2015 trip to Russia as providing a “factual basis” for suspecting that he was “involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” Given that those events occurred after Flynn’s TS/SCI clearance renewal, the FBI could have no “reasonable” basis to launch an investigation into him.

While the IG report concluded otherwise, Horowitz’s team inexplicably omitted any mention of the FBI’s reliance on Flynn’s TS/SCI clearance renewal. Might that have been because Horowitz realized the predicate provided for the launch of Crossfire Razor crumbled when Flynn’s top-secret-plus clearance was factored into the mix?

Or might there have been other “facts” known to the FBI that were omitted from the opening electronic communication?

Here the FBI’s closing communication, read in conjunction with the IG report, suggests that possibility.

Did the FBI Have Undisclosed Intel on Flynn?
Recall first that the IG report noted, “After conducting preliminary open source and FBI database inquiries, intelligence analysts on the Crossfire Hurricane team identified three individuals — Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn — associated with the Trump campaign with either ties to Russia or a history of travel to Russia.” However, the Crossfire Hurricane team on Aug. 10, 2016, initially opened only separate counterintelligence cases on Page, Manafort, and Papadopoulos. The FBI didn’t open a case on Flynn until Aug. 16, 2016.

Why the delay? What changed? The IG report does not tell us, but it suggests a possibility.

On Aug. 11, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team met with “Source 2,” reportedly CHS Stefan Halper. During that meeting, the FBI inquired about Papadopoulos, but while Halper hadn’t heard of Papadopoulos, he noted he had met campaign volunteer Page and asked if the FBI had any interest in Page. Halper also “told the Crossfire Hurricane team that [he] had known Trump’s then campaign manager, Manafort, for a number of years and that he had been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn.” (Flynn has never met Halper, though, Powell told me.)

The IG report’s discussion of its use of Source 2 makes no further mention of Flynn, although Horowitz’s team reported that Case Agent 1 had “said that it was ‘serendipitous’ and that the Crossfire Hurricane team ‘couldn’t believe [their] luck’ that Source 2 had contacts with three of their four subjects.”

The next day, Aug. 12, 2016, the FBI again debriefed Halper. Four days later, with a weekend intervening, the FBI opened the case against Flynn. Why? Was it something Halper said?

The IG report does not explain the delay, and the closing document makes no mention of another basis for opening Crossfire Razor, but we know from the IG report that in the case of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI did not include the entire basis for launching the investigation in the opening documentation. Rather, as discussed above, the opening documentation identified Papadopoulos’ comments about Russia having information on Hillary Clinton to a friendly foreign government as the sole predicate for the investigation. But the FBI agents told Horowitz that the WikiLeaks release of the DNC emails and the intel indicating Russia intended to interfere in the 2016 election provided an important backdrop to their decision to investigate the Trump campaign.

Similarly, the FBI may have belatedly opened a case on Flynn because of some additional “intel.” Here, the just-released closing document raise that possibility.

CHS Reporting Echoes a Faulty Media Narrative
“The [Crossfire Hurricane] investigative team also addressed this investigation through CHS reporting,” the closing memorandum read, noting the Crossfire Hurricane team “contacted an established FBI CHS to query about [Flynn], seeking ‘any derogatory or lead information.’” According to the FBI’s closing memorandum, “the CHS relayed an incident s/he witnessed,” when Flynn spoke at an event, the name of which was redacted. The CHS told the FBI team that at the time of Flynn’s speech, he was still within the U.S. intelligence community.

The CHS said that after Flynn spoke at the event and socialized over dinner and drinks, members of the unnamed group arranged for a cab to take Flynn to a train station, at which time a person whose identity was redacted in the document, “surprised everyone and got into [Flynn’s] cab and joined [Flynn] on the train ride” to his destination. The CHS added that “s/he was somewhat suspicious of” this individual, claiming the person’s “father may be a Russian Oligarch” living in an unnamed city.

For those following the Flynn case, this “intel” closely resembles a story first peddled in the press by Christopher Andrew in February 2017, when he penned a piece for the U.K.’s Sunday Times titled “Impulsive General Misha Shoots Himself in the Foot.” Andrew, who had served as the official historian of Britain’s MI5, wrote of a dinner gathering at a Cambridge intelligence seminar at which Flynn had spoken while still serving as then-President Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Andrew suggested in his article that an intrigue began over dinner and drinks between Flynn and an unnamed Russian-national graduate student.

Other outlets quickly pushed the narrative, with the Wall Street Journal identifying Svetlana Lokhova as the female student. Lokhova later sued the Wall Street Journal and other outlets, along with her former Cambridge colleague, Halper, for defamation, alleging Halper was behind Andrew’s story and the other false reporting that suggested she had an affair with Flynn and was a Russian spy.

Lokhova is convinced Halper is the CHS discussed in the closing memorandum, and she is the unnamed individual who supposedly jumped in the cab with Flynn and boarded the train with him.

How do I know it is Halper? Lokhova asked rhetorically. “Because reporters were telling me Halper was peddling the story about me and Flynn as early as December 2016,” Lokhova told me. In fact, long before last week’s release of the closing memorandum, in a May 2018 interview with the Sunday Times about the Cambridge dinner, Lokhova pointed out that she had told the London outlet that “Halper told reporters he had seen me leaving the dinner with Flynn,” lining up with the CHS’s claim that Lokhova had jumped into a cab with him.

Lokhova’s attorney Steven Biss also considers the closing memorandum significant. “The Closing Memorandum confirms that Halper represented to the FBI that Ms. Lokhova ‘surprised everyone’ and got into General Flynn’s cab and joined General Flynn on a ‘train ride.’ This important new evidence corroborates Ms. Lokhova’s allegations in her lawsuit filed in May 2019,” Biss told me.

Was Crossfire Razor Predicated on a Lie?
Earlier this year, a federal court tossed Lokhova’s lawsuit against Halper and the other media outlets, preventing her from obtaining discovery necessary to prove her case. Lokhova has appealed that dismissal, and Biss maintains that the release of the closing communication “demonstrates that the district court short-circuited and prematurely dismissed Svetlana Lokhova’s case against Stefan Halper.”

“Now we know that Halper, the ‘established FBI CHS’ referred to in the Closing Memorandum, relayed an incident he claims he ‘witnessed’ when General Flynn spoke at the dinner in Cambridge on Feb. 28, 2014,” Biss told me, adding, “We look forward to reversal on appeal so she can obtain further discovery of Halper’s role in the defamation.”

While Lokhova and Biss are convinced Halper is the unnamed CHS, there are other possibilities. The CHS could be someone who actually attended the Cambridge dinner — which Halper did not. Richard Dearlove and Christopher Andrew, both of whom have connections to British intelligence, could have been the CHS. Or possibility another attendee?

No matter the identity of the CHS, however, the claim that Flynn left the Cambridge dinner with a Russian is false, and a CHS who claimed to have witnessed that event would have been knowingly lying to the FBI. Did that lie serve as an unsaid predicate for launching Crossfire Razor?

The FBI knows, and the FBI and DOJ know the identity of that CHS. Lokhova deserves to know the truth. America deserves to know the truth. And that CHS, whoever it may be, deserves to be investigated for his role in the SpyGate scandal.

[soonernvolved]

President Trump: He was targeted by the Obama administration. And he was targeted in order to try to take down a president. And what they’ve done is a disgrace and I hope a big price is going to be paid. A big price should be paid. There has never been anything like this in the history of our country. What they did, what Obama administration did is unprecedented. It’s never happened. Never happened. A thing like this has never happened before in the history of our country and I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price because they are dishonest crooked people.

[soonernvolved]

Comey responds:

[soonernvolved]

More liberal meltdown:

dailycaller.com/2020/05/07/cnn-legal-analyst-susan-hennessey-flynn-bill-barr-justice-trump/

CNN Legal Analyst Decries ‘Astonishing Assault On The Rule Of Law’ After Flynn Charges Dropped

CNN legal and national security analyst Susan Hennessey called the Department of Justice’s decision to drop the charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn an “astonishing assault on the rule of law.”

“This moment represents the full collapse of an apolitical Justice Department,” Hennessey wrote Thursday. “An astonishing assault on the rule of law and in a functional DOJ it would prompt mass resignation.”

The DOJ announced Thursday that it was dropping all charges against Flynn after “an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances.” (RELATED: ‘Waco’: A Timely, Must-Watch Series In The Age Of Authoritarianism)
The announcement comes just over a week after documents revealed discussions between FBI agents over whether their goal was to get Flynn to lie, in order to either prosecute him or get him fired. Flynn pleaded guilty in late 2018 to lying to the FBI, but said earlier this year that he regretted his decision, saying he believes he was honest with FBI agents who interrogated him during the early days of the Trump administration. (RELATED: Trump Tweets Support For Mike Flynn After Attorney Releases So-Called Exculpatory Evidence)
“When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24, 2017, I did not lie to them. I believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time,” Flynn said.
Hennessey has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration, and the CNN analyst asked her Twitter followers earlier this year to donate to left-wing causes to “ensure Trump is defeated” in his re-election campaign.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/rosenstein-scope-memo-confirms-baselessness-of-trump-russia-probe/

Rosenstein ‘Scope’ Memo Confirms Baselessness of Trump–Russia Probe
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 7, 2020 4:58 PM

A spurious prosecutor futilely investigated four nobodies who did not commit the nonexistent crimes they were ridiculously accused of.
Finally, three years coming, the Justice Department is showing a little more leg on the Rosenstein “scope” memo — the directive by which then–deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein defined the parameters of the investigation he’d appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to conduct.

Of course, the games never end in the Trump–Russia probe, so there’s a hitch. The scope memo remains partially, tantalizingly redacted. Disclosure is limited to Rosenstein’s purported grounds for investigating four members of the Trump presidential campaign: Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn. But six lines of text, which appear to describe a fifth person, and the supposed basis for investigating that person, remain blacked out.




TOP ARTICLES
1/5
READ MORE
Why They’ll Never Remake Network


Does this redacted section refer to President Trump? We do not know.

We do know that the FBI had opened a criminal investigation of Trump, based on the untenable theory that a president’s firing of the FBI director could amount to obstruction of justice. The last 200 pages of the special counsel’s voluminous report, moreover, demonstrate that the cabal of activist Democrats that Robert Mueller recruited to conduct the investigation tried like hell to make an obstruction case on Trump. But was that aspect of the special counsel’s enterprise licensed by Rosenstein’s scope memo? For some reason, we’re not being told.

The scope memo is dated August 2, 2017. It is worth rehearsing why it was necessary.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller on May 17, 2017. In doing so, as I explained repeatedly at the time, he failed to comply with federal regulations. The appointment of a special counsel is proper only if there is a factual basis to support a criminal investigation that the Justice Department is too conflicted to conduct. The Russia investigation was not a criminal investigation; it was a counterintelligence investigation. The latter focuses on the activities of foreign powers for information-gathering purposes, not on criminal activity for prosecution purposes.

NOW WATCH: 'Trump says Michael Flynn was Tormented by 'Dirty Cops''


WATCH: 0:49
Trump says Michael Flynn was Tormented by 'Dirty Cops'
On Trump–Russia, there was no factual basis for a criminal investigation, which is why Rosenstein did not attempt to articulate one in his directive appointing Mueller. Therefore, the question of whether there was a conflict requiring the appointment of a prosecutor from outside DOJ should never have been reached. Even if it had been reached, there was no conflict, which is why the FBI and DOJ had been conducting the Russia investigation for nearly a year before Mueller’s appointment. In any event, because the FBI’s counterintelligence mission is not prosecutor work, it normally does not need a DOJ prosecutor, much less an outside prosecutor.

That the initial appointment directive was wholly inadequate is not surprising. In that Week That Was, Rosenstein was evidently an emotional wreck.


On May 9, President Trump fired FBI director James Comey, publicly relying on a memo Rosenstein wrote and foolishly assumed he’d reap bipartisan praise over — he had, after all, scalded Comey over the mishandling of the Hillary Clinton emails caper. To his shock and dismay, Rosenstein was vilified. Though Democrats had no real use for Comey (they blamed him for Clinton’s defeat), by May 2017 they found it expedient to frame Comey’s firing as the height of the president’s “collusion” with Russia — impeding the FBI’s effort to examine the fever dream of Trump-campaign complicity with the Kremlin. Indeed, the bureau’s then–acting director, Andrew McCabe, leapt at the Comey firing as a rationale for opening an obstruction case on Trump.

Rosenstein agitated over being made the fall guy. In his hand-wringing over how to restore his reputation as a scrupulous nonpartisan (i.e., a nominally Republican bureaucrat admired by Democrats), he broached the possibilities of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove a mentally unfit president from office and of covertly recording the president in the Oval Office (if Trump ranted, recordings might convince the cabinet that he was unstable). Realizing that these were lunatic notions, Rosenstein finally settled on naming Mueller, a Beltway eminence, to be a special counsel. The appointment was made on May 17, with Rosenstein’s assurances to congressional Democrats that Mueller would have virtually boundless authority.

But the problem remained: There was no factual basis to believe that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, had engaged in a conspiracy with the Kremlin to interfere with the 2016 campaign by cyberespionage or any other criminal activity.

The failure of Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller to specify a proper foundation for a criminal probe was not just a public-perception problem for the Justice Department: It portended legal challenges. If Mueller charged anyone, as it appeared he was poised to do to Manafort (for tax and other crimes unrelated to Trump and Russia), the defense would surely claim that Mueller’s appointment was illegitimate.

To paper over this deficiency, Rosenstein issued the scope memo. Up until yesterday, we had been permitted to see only the Manafort-related passages (because, as just adumbrated, they became an issue in Mueller’s prosecution of Manafort). But as I noted at the time, even that glimpse of the memo provided insight into the travesty that was the Mueller appointment, and the Trump–Russia probe itself.


The unredacted Manafort section authorized Mueller to investigate whether Manafort “committed a crime by colluding with Russian-government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.” Where to begin? First, as we noted more times than I can count, collusion is not a crime. Second, not surprisingly, Rosenstein articulated no factual basis to believe Manafort had “colluded” with Russia. Third, that’s obviously because the “basis” for this allegation was the bogus “Steele dossier.” Fourth, by the time Mueller was appointed, the FBI and the Justice Department well knew that the dossier was Clinton-campaign-sponsored propaganda. FBI agents had not only failed to corroborate its triple-hearsay claims; they also knew that Steele had major credibility problems, and they had interviewed a key Steele “sub-source” who scoffed at his claims as nonsense.

Of course, Rosenstein wouldn’t have wanted to bring those inconvenient details up. At the time of the scope memo, he’d only recently authorized the final application for a FISA surveillance warrant against Carter Page — which relied on the Steele dossier, notwithstanding what the FBI and DOJ already knew about its deep flaws.

Speaking of Page, recall that he was never charged with a crime despite the FBI and DOJ’s four representations, under oath to the FISA court, that he was a clandestine agent of Russia working in a “conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Putin’s regime. Yet the now-unredacted portions of the scope memo show that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate Page for “colluding” with Russia. Naturally, the memo does not elaborate on the “basis” for this allegation. Like the “basis” for the FISA warrants, it relied heavily on the Steele dossier.

The unredacted scope memo similarly reveals George Papadopoulos as a Mueller prosecution target, over the unsupported allegation that he may have committed the nonexistent crime of “colluding with Russian government officials.” Mueller was authorized to pursue this claim even though we now know the FBI and DOJ knew it was untrue. Because the FBI had used confidential informants to attempt to entrap Papadopoulos into admitting that he and Trump’s campaign were in cahoots with the Kremlin, investigators knew he had vigorously denied it. They also knew that their main tip on Papadopoulos (Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat with longstanding ties to the Clintons) had not actually claimed that Papadopoulos said the campaign was conspiring with the Russians. In fact, Papadopoulos had not even mentioned DNC emails, the publication of which had “suggested” to the diplomat that there might kinda, sorta be some Trump-campaign wrongdoing involved.

And then there is General Flynn. Regarding the Trump–Russia probe, the scope memo shows Rosenstein directed Mueller to investigate whether Flynn committed a crime “by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition.” Of course, the Justice Department and the FBI already knew there were no such crimes because they had recordings of these communications, between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn had not made any commitments to Russia about lifting sanctions, and even if he had done so, it would not have been a crime. The only theory on which these communications were conceivably criminal would have called for application of the Logan Act. As we’ve noted many times, this late-18th-century provision, which purports to criminalize freelance diplomacy by unauthorized officials, is unconstitutional. That is why the Justice Department has not even tried to invoke it since 1852, and why, in the Logan Act’s 221 years on the books, no one has ever been convicted of violating it.

Mueller was also authorized to probe whether Flynn had made false statements to FBI agents who questioned him about his Kislyak conversations. By the time of the scope memo, the FBI and DOJ knew that (a) the questioning of Flynn had not been based on any properly predicated investigation; (b) the FBI had willfully violated protocols to conduct an ambush interview, which they would not have been permitted to do had they sought permission from the Justice Department and the White House; (c) the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he had lied; and (d) the bureau improperly edited the report of Flynn’s interview. Mueller’s staff nevertheless eventually succeeded in pressuring Flynn to plead guilty to a false-statements charge. It has since been reported, however, that (a) they pressured him to plead by threatening to prosecute his son, (b) Mueller’s commitment not to prosecute Flynn’s son was withheld from the court, in violation of federal law, and (c) prosecutors concealed from Flynn’s defense significant exculpatory evidence while misrepresenting how the interview report was generated.

It is worth noting that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate other crimes — e.g., irregularities regarding payments Manafort received from Ukraine, and whether Papadopoulos and Flynn should have registered with the Justice Department as foreign agents due to work they’d allegedly done for, respectively, Israel and Turkey. Putting aside whether there was a sufficient factual basis for these allegations (over which only Manafort was eventually prosecuted), they had nothing to do with the Trump–Russia probe. That is, there was no conceivable conflict warranting appointment of a special counsel, no reason why the Justice Department could not have investigated these matters in the normal course of business.


COMMENTS
Mueller, to the contrary, was appointed only because an investigation of President Trump and his campaign could have presented a conflict for the Trump Justice Department. Whether it did depended, of course, on whether there was a real reason to conduct a criminal probe of President Trump, despite the fact that the FBI’s former director, James Comey, told Trump multiple times that he was not under investigation.

From the looks of things, then–deputy AG Rosenstein not only had nothing when he appointed a special counsel; he further had abundant reason to know he had nothing. “Democrats are saying mean things about me” is not a legally cognizable basis for naming a prosecutor from outside DOJ. Did Rosenstein have more than that? It doesn’t look that way . . . but maybe all the good stuff is under those six lines that, for some reason, we’re still not allowed to see.

[soonernvolved]

www.foxnews.com/politics/drops-doj-case-against-michael-flynn-in-wake-of-internal-memo-release

DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release

The Justice Department on Thursday moved to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in a stunning development that comes after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI.


The announcement came in a court filing "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information," as the department put it. DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis."

Later Thursday afternoon, Flynn tweeted a video of his grandson reciting The Pledge of Allegiance, along with the message, "and JUSTICE for ALL."

The federal judge overseeing the case would have to make the final determination to dismiss it.

READ: DOJ MOTION TO DISMISS FLYNN CASE

The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case and conduct. But, the case has been plodding through the court system with no resolution ever since his original plea, even amid speculation about whether President Trump himself could extend a pardon.

The DOJ move to dismiss the case would appear to put an end to that process.

MUELLER PROSECUTOR WITHDRAWS FROM FLYNN CASE AFTER QUESTIONS SURFACE CONCERNING HIS COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER


Earlier Thursday, the top prosecutor on the case, Brandon Van Grack, abruptly withdrew from the case, without explanation, in a brief filing with the court.

Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be reconsidered. Documents unsealed a week ago by the Justice Department revealed agents discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he pleaded guilty.

The latest DOJ filing noted Flynn's false statement plea pertained to a crime that required a statement "to be not simply false, but 'materially' false with respect to a matter under investigation." The filing showed that the government "is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn's statements were material even if untrue."

Ian Prior reacts to Barr suggesting DOJ may side with citizens suing states over COVID-19 restrictionsVideo
The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended dropping the case to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

"Through the course of my review of General Flynn's case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case," Jensen said in a statement. "I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed."

President Trump reacted from the Oval Office just minutes after the DOJ filing surfaced. "He was an innocent man... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said, while criticizing Obama administration officials. "They're human scum. ... It’s treason."

Trump critics decried the decision Thursday.


Former FBI Director James Comey tweeted: "The DOJ has lost its way."

And House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who was a key figure during Trump's impeachment proceedings, called the decision "outrageous."

"The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement, while urging an inspector general investigation.

Meanwhile, the DOJ on Wednesday released a mostly unredacted version of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s August 2017 "scope memo," outlining the authority then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller had for his investigation. That document revealed for the first time that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was known previously.

Rosenstein's memo was known to have authorized Mueller to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," and "any other matters within the scope of [obstruction of justice laws]."

But, the new document made clear that Rosenstein authorized a deep-dive criminal probe into the Trump campaign that extended well beyond Russian interference efforts.

Memo reveals Mueller was given larger playing field than previous thought in Russia probeVideo
The memo revealed that Mueller was, among other things, looking into whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition."


That was an apparent reference to the Logan Act, an obscure statute that has never been used in a criminal prosecution successfully and was intended to prevent individuals from claiming falsely to represent the United States government abroad.

MICHAEL FLYNN PROSECUTION: A TIMELINE OF TRUMP'S EX-NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER'S CASE

Meanwhile, the handwritten notes showing agents discussing his interview – which the FBI's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap penned after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – sparked even bigger reverberations for the case.

The notes, released last week, showed agents considered various options in the run-up to the fateful January 2017 interview, including getting Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

"What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

Another note read, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide." The memo appeared to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths, while cautioning: "If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious."

Aside from swiftly being ensnared in Mueller's investigation in the fallout from that interview, Flynn was fired from his prominent post as national security adviser in February 2017. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak.


Flynn's communications with Kislyak in December 2016 had been picked up in wiretapped discussions, apparently unbeknownst to him. The FBI agents in January 2017 questioned him on the communications and later used his answers to form the basis for the false-statement charge and his guilty plea.

Flynn's supporters have insisted he was innocent but was pressured to plead guilty when his son was threatened with prosecution and he exhausted his financial resources. The release of the handwritten FBI notes fueled accusations from Flynn's defenders that agents did not conduct themselves properly in the case.

NOW-IMPERILED CASE AGAINST FLYNN COST HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, HIS HOUSE, JOB

Meanwhile, the Rosenstein scope memo further authorized a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) review into Flynn's dealings with Turkey. Prosecutors have suggested Flynn's guilty plea on one count of false statements to the FBI allowed him to escape liability for a possible FARA charge – in other words, the FARA case may have provided leverage.

FARA prosecutions have picked up dramatically in recent years, and prosecutor Van Grack, who led the DOJ's case against Flynn, was appointed to head up the new FARA unit at the Justice Department in 2019.

Van Grack has been under scrutiny for claiming to a federal court that he had turned over all relevant exculpatory informing involving Flynn – even though a slew of "exculpatory" documents surfaced last week.

The case has come at an enormous cost for the retired three-star Army lieutenant general and his family, as he racked up millions of dollars in legal bills, was forced to sell his house, lost his job and saw his reputation sullied.


Attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News last week that Flynn paid his first law firm, Covington & Burling, approximately $3.5 million. The total amount of Flynn’s legal bills was unclear, but reports suggested last year that he had more than $4.6 million in unpaid legal bills at that time.

Flynn earlier this year moved to withdraw his guilty plea for making false statements to the FBI regarding his communications with Kislyak. His legal team, at the time, said the move was "because of the government's bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In December 2017, and on the brink of financial ruin, Flynn was forced to put his home in Old Town Alexandria, Va. – located just outside Washington ,D.C. – on the market with an asking price of $895,000 to pay his mounting legal bills.

The townhouse sold for $819,995 in September 2018, Zillow showed. Powell confirmed the sale of the house to Fox News.

[soonernvolved]

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/7/rod-rosenstein-targeted-carter-page-after-dossier-/

Deputy AG Rosenstein targeted Carter Page after dossier fell apart

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein put Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page under special counsel investigation after a year in which allegations against him in a Democratic Party-financed dossier had fallen apart.

The Justice Department on Wednesday released a less-censored “scoping memo” Mr. Rosenstein sent to special counsel Robert Mueller on Aug. 2, 2017. The memo authorized Mr. Mueller to target Mr. Page, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos and former campaign manager Paul Manafort.

At the time, there was no evidence that any of the four conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election — outside of allegations in the dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. No evidence ever materialized and Mr. Mueller closed his probe without charging any Trump associate with conspiracy

TOP STORIES
Donald Trump Jr. offers to walk woman down wedding aisle after liberal parents' snub
Unanimous Supreme Court rebukes 9th Circuit on immigration law
President Obama discussed Flynn probe with Comey at White House meeting

The less-censored memo (compared to a version filed in court in 2018) revealed that Mr. Rosenstein targeted Mr. Page with this sentence: “Allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law.”

The FBI first singled out Mr. Page for a counter-intelligence probe in August 2016.


In the year leading up to Mr. Rosenstein’s scoping memo, several events damaged the FBI’s case.

In October, the FBI won a judge’s approval to start electronic and physical surveillance on Mr. Page that would last until the following September. Four warrant applications were based on dossier allegations that Mr. Page conspired with Russians in Moscow and worked with Mr. Manafort as a liaison to the Kremlin. The Department of Justice inspector general said Mr. Steele’s claims were essential to obtaining the warrants.

But in January, the FBI interviewed Mr. Steele’s main Russian source, who repudiated the dossier, saying he was just repeating gossip to the ex-spy.

What’s more, intelligence services told the FBI in early 2017 that the claims about Mr. Page were likely Russian intelligence disinformation. The Kremlin learned of Mr. Steele’s Democratic Party assignment in July 2016, making him a ready candidate for the Russian statecraft of feeding disinformation to try to destabilize the West. In this case, the target was candidate, and now president, Trump.


In 2016, then-FBI agent Peter Strzok and other agents were reading Mr. Steele’s allegation of a vast conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia that never occurred.

Mr. Rosenstein also targeted Mr. Manafort and Papadopoulos with the allegations they colluded with Russia in the election. This did not prove true either.

Mr. Manafort is in federal prison after being convicted of income tax fraud. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of his meeting with a London-based professor who learned in Moscow that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The allegations against Flynn included that he committed a crime by talking to Russian government officials during the presidential transition.

This is an apparent reference to the 1799 Logan Act. Mr. Strzok interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2107 at the White House with a goal of getting him to admit he violated the act. As a private citizen, so the legal theory goes, he was prohibited from discussing Obama foreign policy with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Flynn’s backers considered the ploy a joke since no one has ever been convicted of a Logan Act violation and no one prosecuted for more than a century. The Justice Department concluded that as a transition official he did not violated the law.

Flynn, briefly Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the phone call. He has since repudiated the plea and is seeking to have his case dismissed on grounds the FBI entrapped and framed him.

After Justice released the memo via Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, the senator tweeted, “The legal foundation for Mueller’s appointment is crumbling.”

[soonernvolved]

www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-transcripts-collusion-schiff-panic-mode-sources

Sources say Russia probe transcripts affirm officials came up empty on collusion: 'Schiff is in panic mode'

EXCLUSIVE: Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday.


This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion.

“Schiff is in panic mode,” a senior administration official told Fox News.

INTEL CHIEF TELLS SCHIFF TRANSCRIPTS OF RUSSIA PROBE INTERVIEWS CLEARED FOR RELEASE

Earlier this week, House Republicans sought over 6,000 pages of transcripts pertaining to interviews conducted by the committee in 2017 and 2018, after the panel in September 2018 voted on a bipartisan basis to approve their public release.

A day later, acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell notified Schiff, D-Calif., that the redaction and declassification process was complete, and that the records were ready for release, putting the ball in Schiff’s court.

However, intelligence officials told Fox News on Wednesday that Schiff has had his subcommittee staff director reaching out to heads of intelligence community agencies asking how Grenell was involved and what role Grenell — a known Trump ally — may have played in the declassification and redaction process.

Fox News is told, however, that the redactions were completed before Grenell took the helm as acting director this past February.


The process, according to an intelligence community official, took place under both former directors Dan Coates and Joseph Maguire, and was conducted by career intelligence officials. The official also told Fox News that the relevant heads of appropriate agencies were consulted on the declassifications and redactions of all 53 transcripts.

Who is Richard Grenell?Video
Grenell, in a letter to Schiff dated May 4, wrote that the review of 43 of the 53 transcripts “was completed in June 2019,” and that the “interagency review of the remaining ten transcripts has been completed.” Grenell added, “pursuant to your guidance, these transcripts have not been shared with the White House.”

The remaining 10 transcripts included interviews with President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., former adviser Steve Bannon, the president’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, Trump aide Hope Hicks and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

EXCLUSIVE: HOUSE GOP SAYS SCHIFF IS 'BLOCKING' RELEASE OF RUSSIA PROBE TRANSCRIPTS, DEMAND ACCESS

Further, Grenell wrote Schiff that he was “willing” to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI] “as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.” It’s unclear, at this point, when Grenell could release the transcripts.

A House Intelligence Committee spokesman told Fox News on Wednesday that the panel received Grenell’s letter on Tuesday.

Jim Jordan rips Mueller, Wray: Why didn't we learn about Flynn from them?
Jim Jordan rips Mueller, Wray: Why didn't we learn about Flynn from them?
“After more than a year of unnecessary delay, the ODNI has finally concluded its protracted classification review of the committee’s transcripts, and it also appears the White House has now abandoned its improper insistence on reviewing key transcripts, which the committee appropriately rejected,” the spokesman said.


“We are now reviewing the proposed redactions from ODNI based on classification, law enforcement sensitivity or items ODNI requests be for official use only,” the spokesman continued. “Given the overtly political role now played by the acting DNI, including the leak of his letter, this committee and the public can have little confidence that his determinations are made on the merits.”

The spokesman added: “This process had already taken far too long, most notably because the ODNI improperly held up the declassification review and release of several transcripts at the request of the White House.”

The spokesman also said that the committee’s review of ODNI’s “newly proposed redactions” would be “as expeditious as possible given the constraints of the pandemic.” He continued, “We look forward to releasing these transcripts, which relate to misconduct by the Trump campaign and the president himself.”

The 53 transcripts eligible for release, according to a source familiar with the transcripts, included interviews with Trump Jr., Bannon, Kushner, Hicks, Lewandowski, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Brad Parscale, Michael Caputo and Rick Dearborn.

Also expected to be released, according to the source: transcripts for interviews with Obama officials such as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power; former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; former National Security Adviser Susan Rice; former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; former Obama adviser Benjamin Rhodes; and former Obama counselor and Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta.

House GOP committee members accuse Schiff of ‘blocking’ Russia probe transcriptsVideo
Another source familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that the people interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe were asked whether they had evidence that Trump, himself, or the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion.


“The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion,” one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.

Mueller, similarly, at the conclusion of his nearly two-year-long investigation, said he and his team found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, which current Attorney General Bill Barr ultimately decided not to pursue.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

While law enforcement officials have long maintained that there was clear intelligence Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, to date, there have been no charges concerning actual conspiracy against people associated with the Trump campaign, which was at the core of the Russia investigation.

The Russia probe never produced charges linking the Trump campaign and Russia as part of a criminal conspiracy.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2020/05/07/after-damning-evidence-of-corruption-doj-prosecutor-withdraws-from-flynn-case/

After Damning Evidence Of Corruption, DOJ Prosecutor Withdraws From Flynn Case
MAY 7, 2020 By Kylee Zempel

Brandon Van Grack, a former special counsel’s team member and a top Department of Justice prosecutor, moved to withdraw Thursday from the case against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Van Grack’s removal, documented in a court filing, coincides with his abrupt withdrawal from other unrelated federal cases. That, along with recent damning revelations about government corruption in the Flynn case, raises questions about Van Grack’s future with the Justice Department.

Moments after Van Grack’s withdrawal from the Flynn case, news emerged that the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case against the former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 concerning conversations with a Russian ambassador, but recently tried to withdraw his guilty plea, citing ineffective counsel and government corruption.


Explosive new developments in the Flynn case reveal government corruption indeed. The case began to crumble as evidence surfaced suggesting the Federal Bureau of Investigation had set a perjury trap for Flynn. Newly released handwritten FBI notes, withheld inappropriately from Flynn’s defense team, reveal a main objective of the agents investigating him was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” Not only that, but a look at the FBI’s closing memorandum on the Flynn case shows that federal investigators had no proper predication for investigating Flynn in the first place.

Despite no legitimate basis for investigating Flynn, Van Grack completely mischaracterized both Flynn’s interaction with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn’s statements to FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka on Jan. 24, 2017, which Van Grack argued were “absolutely material.”

Additionally, per D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s standing order in the Flynn case, Van Grack was required to produce all government-possessed evidence “that is favorable to [Flynn] and material either to [Flynn’s] guilt or punishment.”

The government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order,” Van Grack said in a 2019 filing, claiming the government prosecutors had fulfilled their responsibility to turn over to defendants all exculpatory evidence. The government has not “affirmatively suppressed evidence,” nor was it “aware of any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing,” Van Grack claimed in the same filing.

When Flynn’s current attorney Sidney Powell accused government prosecutors of “targeting” Flynn for “concocted and political purposes,” Van Grack rejected her charges as “conspiracy theories.”

Van Grack, however, failed to produce to Flynn’s attorneys and the court the newly unsealed documents revealing that the FBI had closed its Flynn investigation in January 2017 after it “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts,” only to have it reopened by former FBI agent Strzok, who was later fired for misconduct.

Van Grack’s withdrawal from the case became moot shortly after, when the Justice Department decided to dismiss the case against Flynn, a suggestion made by Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, whom Attorney General William Barr had brought in for an outside review.

Van Grack’s misconduct paired with his sudden withdrawal from other cases, however, suggest a bleak outcome for the federal prosecutor.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Liberal Meltdowns continue over General Flynn getting Justice:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/nancy-pelosi-barr-dropped-flynn-charges-to-cover-up-for-trump/

Nancy Pelosi: Barr Dropped Flynn Charges to ‘Cover Up’ for Trump

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reacted angrily to the Department of Justice dropping its criminal case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn Thursday, saying Attorney General William Barr’s “politicization of justice knows no bounds.”

“Barr’s politicization of justice knows no bounds. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators in the face of overwhelming evidence – but now, Barr’s Justice Department is dropping the case to continue to cover up for the president,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Overruling the Special Counsel is without precedent and without respect for the rule of law.”




Earlier Thursday, the DOJ moved to dismiss its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak during President Donald Trump’s transition. The retired Army lieutenant general pleaded guilty in 2017 as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into now-debunked collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The Justice Department in January switched its sentencing recommendation for Flynn from probation to six months in jail, prompting the former Trump official to withdraw his guilty plea, citing prosecutors breaking their plea agreement.

Thursday’s development comes after handwritten notes that were written by FBI officials questioned whether the “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired” — a reference to agents’ interview with Flynn.

Prior to the filing being made public, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, moved to withdraw from the case.

A couple of months ago, President Trump said he was “strongly considering” pardoning Flynn, suggesting that the FBI and Justice Department lost records related to the case.

Speaking to reporters Thursday in the Oval Office, the president described Flynn as “an innocent man,” “a great gentleman.”

“He was targeted by the Obama administration and he was targeted in order to try and take down a president,” Trump said.

“And I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price because they’re dishonest, crooked people. They’re scum and I say it a lot, they’re scum, they’re human scum. This should never have happened in this country.”

Trump also criticized the media coverage of Flynn’s case and the Russia investigation, calling on journalists to give back their Pulitzer Prizes.
........................................................................

And the race card is played:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/ilhan-omar-on-doj-dropping-michael-flynn-case-white-privilege/

Ilhan Omar on DOJ Dropping Michael Flynn Case: ‘White Privilege’

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) reacted to news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was dropping its case against former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) on Thursday by calling it an example of “white privilege.”

Flynn, whose name was “unmasked” by Obama administration officials in a foreign wiretap and illegally leaked to the media; who was apparently set up by FBI officials in an attempt to have him prosecuted or fired, even though they knew he had not committed any underlying crime; who was investigated on the instructions of FBI leadership even after the agency had begun closing the case for lack of evidence of wrongdoing; who was interviewed at the White House without any notice that he was a target of investigation; who was reportedly coerced into pleading guilty by threats that his son would face indictment; who lost his job as a result of the ensuing political controversy; and who had to sell his house to pay his legal fees, was a target of the entire media and political establishment before allegedly benefiting from said “privilege.”

Elsewhere in the media, journalists hostile to the Trump administration did not seem to favor race as a factor, but said rather that the Department of Justice had become politicized under President Donald Trump.

The idea that the DOJ might have been politicized under Obama — resulting in the Flynn investigation — seems not to have been widely considered by the mainstream media, even though the Supreme Court ruled unanimously earlier in the day that the highly-political prosecution of aides to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the “Bridgegate” scandal had no legal basis.

Omar sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
.......................................................

And she, who slept her way to the top, speaks:


www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/05/07/harris-trump-is-having-barr-do-his-political-bidding-for-flynn-while-children-are-hungry/

Harris: Trump Is Having Barr Do His ‘Political Bidding’ for Flynn While ‘Children Are Hungry’

Thursday on MSNBC, former California Attorney General Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) commented on Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department dropping the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for allegedly lying to the FBI amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Harris said, “It’s not surprising, frankly, Nicolle. That hearing— in May of last year, so a full year ago, I called for Bill Barr to resign. He clearly has never followed the role, the responsibility, and the mission of the attorney general, which is to be the people’s lawyer. He has instead consistently done Donald Trump’s bidding, and this is yet another example. You know, here’s the thing, remember Elliott Richardson, Nixon’s attorney general, under a Republican, nominated by a Republican president who refused to do the investigation of Archibald Cox and said I’m resigning, right? The role and responsibility of the United States Department of Justice is to do Justice, unimpeded, un-interfered by favor or fear, and also to do the work that is about doing justice and not being interfered with by a political agenda which is clearly Donald Trump’s agenda. It’s outrageous, and I couldn’t agree more, I absolutely agree we have to make sure that the career professionals in that department stay there and hold down the fort in spite of the fact that there’s an attorney general of the United States who is — who has really done the work of disrupting justice in America.”




Host Nicolle Wallace said, “It’s work that’s ongoing. Attorney General Barr is running a U.S. Attorney out of Connecticut, Mr. Durham, who is re-examining, and it’s become a criminal investigation as well some of the very same conduct that’s been examined almost half a dozen times by inspectors general and others. Is there any way to reach in and protect the kind of individuals you’re talking about, career prosecutors?”

Harris said, “Well, one, we have to have oversight, and we’ve been asking for that oversight. I’ve asked that Barr come before the Judicial Committee. I’m on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we need to have oversight. We need to find out what is going on. From the earliest days when you played the tape of my questions of Barr when he was up for confirmation, we need to oversee what is happening in that agency in terms of what conversations Bill Barr is having with the president, what kind of conversations they are having that are about interfering with the justice being done by the career folks there. But this is outrageous. This is outrageous. And in the midst of this pandemic, in the midst of people standing in line for hours to get food, in the midst of — I just saw some information today, one out of five mothers are saying that their children are hungry. In the midst of a crisis, because this president will not use the Defense Production Act to get the number of tests out to America that we need to actually have some control over this pandemic, in the midst of all of that, the president has his attorney general, the hand of the president doing his political work, his personal bidding, in the face of what should be a Justice Department doing the work of preserving justice and fighting for justice in America. But that’s not what we’re going to get in Bill Barr. Again, I will say he should resign.”

She continued, “We have 33 million people in America who just in the last few weeks have become unemployed. To have a work requirement that people are employed in order to get food stamps is outrageous because, of course, we now have 33 million people who are not working. So there’s a lot of work that needs to happen and needs to happen immediately, to your point, so that these children are not going hungry.”

Wallace said, “What do you say about this whiplash? You look at the lines of cars in places like Dallas lining up for the food banks, and it’s clear that these were families on their way to carpool and offices 60 days ago, and now we have a president who throws around the death toll with a callousness that’s just unimaginable. What do you make of all the country has been through in the last 60, 70 days?”

Harris said, “Honestly, it breaks my heart. I know it does that for all of us. People are suffering right now. People are hungry. They’re standing in lines. There is a hunger crisis in America right now, and we need to come to terms with this, and this is again where we need a commander-in-chief who takes on the responsibility of lifting up the American people and meeting their needs while in this crisis people are suffering literally to get food to feed their families. The fact that in America today, we have so many hungry people and that this is our crisis is unconscionable, and it requires all leaders to step up and focus on what is important today. It’s not letting somebody like Flynn off who pled guilty because he is guilty. It’s about having people in a position of leadership who are addressing the needs of people who are suffering in America today. The coincidence that this happened that the Department of Justice does this on the same day that the most recent unemployment numbers come out, on the same day that we have a report that one in five mothers is explaining that their children are hungry, talk about misplaced priorities. It is about an abject failure of leadership, abandonment of leadership when the American people need their government the most.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Sidney Powell: We’re both obviously relieved and gratified that we have an attorney general and other attorneys in the Department of Justice right now with enough integrity to bring the truth to light. And agents who were willing to dig for it before they found it and expose it so the public can see it… Mr. Schiff wouldn’t know the truth if it poked him in one of his bug-eyes! Because General Flynn’s plea was neither knowing or voluntary and both of those things are required for a guilty plea.[/u]
[/i]

[soonernvolved]

Ed Henry: Breaking tonight, Schiff may be even more panicked right now. Because I’m hearing from two sources familiar with this that as early as tomorrow Rick Grenell, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, could reveal even more documents shedding light on the Russian probe of President Trump and how Schiff and other investigators knew for a long time there was no collusion even as they were saying they had direct evidence there was… There’s a second set of documents that Rick Grenell who now has the job Clapper had brought to the Department of Justice today in a satchel… They say as early as tomorrow we may learn the contents.

[soonernvolved]

Adam Schiff going to the Russia well again:

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/07/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-fumes-over-flynn-case-doj-invented-an-argument-the-fix-was-in/

Appearing Thursday on CNN’s The Situation Room, the network’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, fumed over the Department of Justice’s decision to drop its criminal charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.



WOLF BLITZER: Jeffrey, you’ve been reading through this very lengthy Justice Department filing. What’s their argument for dropping the case and do you believe it’s legitimate?

JEFFREY TOOBIN: The argument is that even if he did lie, even if Flynn did lie, this was not a legitimate investigation, at that point in January of 2017. It is one of the most incredible legal documents I have read and certainly something that I never expected to see from the United States Department of Justice. The idea that the Justice Department would invent an argument, an argument that the judge in this case has already rejected, and say, that’s the basis for dropping a case where the defendant admitted his guilt, shows that this is a case where the fix was in. Donald Trump has been saying for months, if not years, he feels sorry for Michael Flynn. He wanted to help Michael Flynn. That’s what this case is about, not the equal protection of the law.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/07/transcript-james-clapper-admitted-no-direct-evidence-of-russia-collusion/

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted to the House Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that he was not aware of any direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

In a closed-door session on July 17, 2017, Clapper told the committee: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jc7.pdf

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Shannon Bream: And I am told tonight there is MUCH MORE coming next week and it was described to me as “a bombshell.” So if you thought your head was spinning today stick around for that. We’re waiting the Durham Report as well. There will be much more to analyze and break down.