The legal team for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and lawyers for the Justice Department clashed with the judge presiding over the case against the former Trump national security adviser, asking an appeals court to direct the lower court to drop all charges.At Town Hall Matt Vespa says The Second Act of the Flynn Case Has Begun...and It's a Total Circus, which is being kind to circuses.
The Justice Department told a U.S. district court last month “that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice” as it sought to drop the false statements charges against Flynn, but instead, Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee who has been handling the Flynn case since December 2017, appointed retired New York federal Judge John Gleeson to serve as an amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department’s motion and to explore whether Flynn should be charged with perjury.
Flynn’s attorneys were joined by the Justice Department last month in asking the D.C. Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus instructing Sullivan to dismiss the case, but Sullivan hired an outside lawyer to argue that he is not a “rubber stamp.”
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor who took over Flynn’s representation last summer, filed a 26-page brief with the appeals court on Wednesday, arguing that Sullivan “has exceeded his power now precisely because General Flynn proclaimed his innocence and pursued a vigorous defense of his constitutional rights as soon as he retained unconflicted counsel.” In a reference to Sullivan’s 2018 suggestion that Flynn had committed treason, which the judge walked back with an apology, Powell argued the judge’s “proclivity for grabbing world-wide headlines by suggesting General Flynn has committed heinous crimes that don’t exist is once again on display.”
“Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution vests the power to execute the laws solely in the Executive Branch,” Powell argued. “Accordingly, the power to prosecute — to decide who, when, where, and how someone is charged with a federal crime — rests entirely with the Department of Justice.”
Powell said the appeal’s court’s “intervention is needed now — not after Respondent and his Amicus create a circus and sentence an innocent man.” She argued that “to allow Respondent to do anything other than grant the Motion to Dismiss would erode the authority of this Court, its precedent, the Constitution, and the Article II power” of the Justice Department.
“This Court must stop him before he further jeopardizes the legitimacy of the federal judiciary,” Powell said of Sullivan. “Accordingly, mandamus should issue to dismiss this case with prejudice, vacate the plea, and order any further proceedings conducted by a different judge.”
I, for one, am shocked that some retired judge who is working for the law firm representing the Department of Justice’s top Trump resister, Sally Yates, said that Michael Flynn committed perjury and is a bad, bad, man (sarc.). John Gleeson laid out his case for his besieged colleague Judge Emmet Sullivan over the fiasco that has become the Michael Flynn case (via WaPo). . .
"Shipwreckedcrew", the pseudonym for a legal writer at Red State calls The Highly Anticipated Brief From Judge Gleeson on the Flynn Case — Mueller Report ReduxWeird how you left out that it was co-written by the defense attorney for Sally Yates, who is being investigated by federal authorities for her role in the Russia Collusion Hoax. https://t.co/s0inpjcdZN— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 10, 2020
The brief filed by Judge Gleeson is in excess of 80 pages long. For me to write a comprehensive take-down of what he has filed would take me at last 12,000 words, and a week to research and write. That’s what I would do if I was involved in the case and preparing a response. I can’t do that here.'This is how the Left operates': Jim Jordan slams 'crazy' attempt to continue Flynn case (WaEx)
Instead I’m going to simply isolate a few areas in the brief that I find worthy of comment, and deal with them in separate articles.
So, in referring to what’s “worthy of comment” I should begin with my first “hot take” on Twitter this morning when I called the brief “trash” — and then got critical.
A couple observations right off the top based on my LIMITED analysis so far — which I hope to build upon in later articles.
For the “Factual Basis” Judge Gleeson includes references to 1) media reporting and accounts, 2) the Inspector General’s report on Four FISAs, and 3) the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
As for the media, Gleenson references articles that are sourced to anonymous former government officials, which we now know were mostly former Obama Administration officials who fed the entire false fantasy “Trump-Russian” collusion narrative to gullible and willing anti-Trump media for the past nearly four years.
As for the IG Report, Gleeson never addresses the issue that the IG’s ability to collect factual information was limited by his lack of authority to compel answers from anyone not currently employed by the DOJ, and by the fact that the IG lacks subpoena or GJ authority to collect both documentary and testimonial evidence. The result is that the IG’s “window’ into events surrounding the investigation of the Trump campaign and individuals such as General Flynn was always limited — and there is absolutely NO DOUBT that DOJ has more information available to it than the information reported in the IG Report that Gleeson relies upon.
Finally, as for the IC Assessment, this was a product commissioned by former CIA Director John Brennan, hastily assembled in the closing days of the Obama Administration, which reached certain “conclusions” that have been determined to not have been factually accurate. When the Mueller Report came out finding that no Americans had assisted the Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election campaign, and there was no evidence of “collusion” between anyone in the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government, John Brennan’s reaction was as follows:
Former CIA Director John Brennan said Monday that he “suspected there was more than there actually was” in regard to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was…. I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”Yet the IC Assessment that he commissioned and oversaw, finding the existence of such nefarious activity, is what Judge Gleeson relies upon for some of the facts he sets forth in his briefing.
"This judge is talking about abuse of power now?" the Ohio Republican exclaimed. "The abuse of power was then. This is how the Left operates, and I think the American people see this for what it is."John Solomon at JTN, FBI knew Steele’s Russia research connected to Clinton, Dems from earliest interactions. I remember Comey, testifying before Congress claiming it was funded by Republicans. Lock Him Up!
Presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton appointee who has overseen the case since 2017, tasked Gleeson with acting as an amicus curiae to review the case and present arguments in opposition to the DOJ's motion to drop the false statement charges against the former national security adviser.
"What's rich here is Judge Gleeson using the term 'abuse of power.' Are you kidding me?" said Jordan. "First of all, a few years ago, Judge Gleeson said a prosecutor can drop the case at any time for any reason. Now, he's suddenly changed, which shows how political this is from his perspective and, I think, from Judge Sullivan's perspective."
Jerry Dunleavy at WaEx, Judge who reviewed full Mueller report asks DOJ about 'merits' of redactions
The federal judge who reviewed the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller said he has questions about the reasoning for the Justice Department's redactions and ordered the agency to provide the court with answers.James Durso at RCPolicy, America Deserves a New FBI. Yep, the takeover of the top echelon by the leftists has gutted it. Transfer the workers to the US Marshalls, and kill the agency.
“Having reviewed the unredacted version of the Mueller Report, the Court cannot assess the merits of certain redactions without further representations from the Department,” Judge Reggie Walton said in a court order this week.
. . .
Walton said Monday that he “must discuss the substance of the redactions” with the Justice Department, but that the conversation “cannot occur remotely due to the lack of a secure connection between the Court and the Department necessary to avoid disclosure of the redacted information” and cannot immediately occur in-person due to social-distancing guidelines issued by D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell related to the coronavirus pandemic.
It would be one thing if the FBI’s behavior in l'affaire Trump was a one-off, but it’s really standard operating procedure.ET, House Intel Relied on Sources Besides CrowdStrike to Conclude Russians Stole DNC Emails, Source Says. So, something is better than nothing? But it's not really all that convincing.
Since its founding in 1908, the Bureau has regularly infringed on Americans’ civil rights or just failed to do its job, to wit: the internment of Japanese-American citizens; the harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders; the shooting of innocent citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco; the takeover of the Boston Field Office by organized crime boss Whitey Bulger; the betrayals by FBI agent Robert Hanssen; misunderstanding the significance that persons connected to Osama bin laden were enrolled in U.S. flight schools; pursuing and publicly naming the wrong suspect in the 2001 Anthrax attacks; ignoring a Russian warning about the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing; concocting fake terror plots; and ignoring an advance tip about the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
If these abuses happened in, say, Belarus, we’d have congressional hearings, a flood of op-eds; think tank panels featuring government officials and activists with “concerns,” and sanctions galore for the miscreants.
The information provided by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike wasn’t the most compelling piece of evidence examined by a House committee to reach the conclusion that Russian hackers stole thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in late May 2016, according to a Republican on the panel who was directly involved in the investigation.Sundance, It’s Worse Than We Thought – DNI Ratcliffe Declassifies “Annex A” The Supportive Documents For 2017 Intel Community Assessment…
The House Intelligence Committee reviewed multiple independent sources, all of which were more compelling than the evidence handed over by CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm that the DNC hired to deal with the breach of its systems. The evidence for the exfiltration of the emails from the DNC server was as convincing as the evidence for the rest of the cyberattack, the source told The Epoch Times.
“The evidence on exfiltration was not weaker than for any other parts of the hacking operation. CrowdStrike’s evidence was not the most compelling thing we had—it was the independent sources of information that also indicated Russian exfiltration. Unfortunately, those details are classified and were redacted from official reports on the hack,” the source said.
The committee disclosed the new information in response to questions that arose from the recently declassified testimony of Shawn Henry, the president of CrowdStrike Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of CrowdStrike. Henry told the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 that CrowdStrike had no direct evidence that Russian hackers exfiltrated emails from the DNC email server.
According to special counsel Robert Mueller, Russian hackers breached the DNC’s Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails sometime between May 25 and June 1, 2016, more than three weeks after the DNC hired CrowdStrike to protect itself from the hackers and oust them from its network.
DNI John Ratcliffe has declassified the Appendix to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). [Source Document Here] The appendix known as “Annex A” was the material the FBI and CIA did not include in the body of the ICA; however, it was used to brief congress. [NOTE: the document quality/clarity is very poor as released]I'm happy to see Ratcliffe f
There was always suspicion that “Annex A” was the ridiculous claims by FBI source Christopher Steele; those suspicions are confirmed today. The ICA was written in late December ’16 & early January 2017, and the purpose was to politicize intelligence by making outlandish claims of the Trump-Russia conspiracy the official position of the U.S intelligence apparatus (CIA, FBI, DOJ and NSA). . . .
And rules? They're just for us little people, WaFreeBee, Fired State Department IG Sent Confidential Info to His Personal Email AccountsNotice a pattern?
- When Democrats won the White House in ’92 Republicans helped the transition.
- When Democrats lost the White House in ’00 they created chaos. They destroyed the telephones and computers, punched holes in the walls, spray painted and cut the furniture, and the Clinton’s even stole the furnishings down to the dishes.
- When Democrats won the White House in ’08 Republicans helped the transition.
- When Democrats lost the White House in ’16 they weaponized the intelligence apparatus to destroy the incoming administration. Leaked intelligence to the media; and unmasked incoming officials to create chaos and fabricate lies.
The State Department inspector general whose recent dismissal ignited a political firestorm sent copies detailing a sensitive investigation to his personal email account, according to a probe into his conduct run by the Defense Department's inspector general.Burn out "The Resistance", root and branch!
The inquiry report, dated March 17, confirms that fired State Department inspector general Steve Linick was the subject of a broad investigation related to the leaks of politically charged materials to journalists, specifically a draft evaluation report into Brian Hook, the State Department’s top Iran official. The report, which was provided to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, concluded that while Linick was permitted to send information to his personal email account to facilitate access while traveling, he was the only official in that office to have done so. The disclosure is likely to raise new questions about Linick’s suspected role in leaking sensitive information to the press.
Linick’s firing generated harsh criticism from Democrats and many in the media, with opponents of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo alleging the former IG was canned for his efforts to investigate allegations of impropriety related to Pompeo and his staff. The Trump administration, however, has maintained that Linick’s firing was justified.
Details of the highly sensitive investigation into Hook—involving unsubstantiated allegations that Hook fired officials he saw as insufficiently hawkish on Iran—were leaked to the media without authorization, according to the DOD investigation.
The DOD investigation into Linick found that between March 2019 and September 2019 Linick sent 23 emails containing confidential work products from inside the State Department email system to his personal Gmail account. Eight of the emails Linick sent to himself, which were forwarded over a six-day period, contained copies of the incomplete probe into Hook. Linick was the only State Department employee from the IG’s office to email drafts of the evaluation outside the department, according to the report.
No comments:
Post a Comment