December 1, 2017

"Michael Flynn Expected to Plead Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I."

The NYT reports.

186 comments:

Mike said...

My gut reaction is what a small bang this is for all the sturm and drang over the last year. He was already under investigation for this before a special counsel was even named. If Flynn is not a flip (and I see that flipping could explain the tiny false statements charges) then this foretells a big nothingburger. If.

theribbonguy said...

The 'ol Scooter Libby gambit. Effectively admitting they got nothing.

They need to shut down this shit show.

Curious George said...

Yawn.

wwww said...



We won't know what he got for the plea deal for quite a while. Couple of years even.

Mike said...

You have to be out of your mind to talk to the FBI.

AReasonableMan said...

wwww said...
We won't know what he got for the plea deal for quite a while. Couple of years even.


Yes, it seems this show will run for a while now. There are the trials or plea deals for the other two as well to keep this particular story line ticking along at a steady pace.

mccullough said...

Maybe he'll get the Petraeus sentence.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Looks like Mueller got his Scooter Libby. Moral of the story, as always, is never ever "cooperate" and talk with law enforcment.

Moral of the story, as always, is always hire at least one underling who will "cooperate" and talk with law enforcement. The investigation must "get" somebody before it can end, so make sure you have somebody below you who is "get-able".

jaydub said...

Even if he "flipped" how can he be a credible witness against anyone? He's pled guilty to lying under oath to the FBI and he was reportedly fired from the WH for lying to the VP.

wwww said...

Yes, it seems this show will run for a while now. There are the trials or plea deals for the other two as well to keep this particular story line ticking along at a steady pace.


yeah, I'm assuming they reached a deal because Flynn had something to give the FBI for him to agree to plea. But I don't think we'll know what Flynn gave up for a looong time.

Kevin said...

On that Russian thing.

So Mueller took a year to convict Flynn of what Trump fired him for doing?

All that tells me is the immunity-and-flip thing didn’t work.

Ken B said...

Isn't this what Trump fired him for?

Nyamujal said...

"Trump troubles" is quite an understatement.

DougWeber said...

This should be interesting. From what I see reported, he did not tell the FBI about discussions he had with the Russian ambassador. The particular discussion looks like a important diplomatic discussion that it is reasonable that the government would want to keep secret. Informing the FBI of it would probably break the needed secrecy. He may well have a good case to claim that not telling the FBI was necessary and correct.

JohnJMac862 said...

Meanwhile, if you are Hillary, you can lie your ass off for months about your emails and then destroy evidence under subpoena.

rhhardin said...

It's a deterrent penalty that teaches people not to talk to the FBI.

wwww said...

He may well have a good case to claim that not telling the FBI was necessary and correct.

But he's pleading guilty. Doesn't that suggest he does not plan to contest the case and ask for a trial?

Mike said...

This should be interesting. From what I see reported, he did not tell the FBI about discussions he had with the Russian ambassador.

Close. He denied making a statement to the ambassador that is contradicted by the FISA recording they have of the conversation.

Speaking of which, it would sure be nice to know who leaked that shit! Because that rat should be in the dock too.

Amadeus 48 said...

Sessions and Rosenstein panicked, and thus came forth Mueller. Actually I wrote a poem celebrating Mueller on the Hunt when Manafort was indicted. Here it is:

Mueller and a pack of Dems
Set off to snare a Trump.
Instead, Bob tripped on Manafort
And fell upon his rump.
“He's laundered money shamelessly
And lived a hog on high!”
Trump zoomed by in motorcade
And twittered on the fly:
“Don’t be downcast, dear Bob,
There’s other prey out there.
Hillary deserves a look.
She’s played footsie with the Bear.”

Mueller and his pack of Dems
Set off cross bog and fen.
“There’s criminals in that there swamp.
We’ll catch ‘em if we can.
Anyone know that Hillary?
He sounds a nasty bloke.
Keep your eyes and noses clear
Cuz where there’s fire there’s smoke!”

So off went Mueller fearlessly
Seeking out a crime.
He’s got guns and men enough
Bought with the public’s dime.
He’ll huff and puff most mightily
Until he claims a prize.
The rest of us get on with life
And try to hide our eyes.

Fabi said...

Constitutional crisis!

Mike said...

Meanwhile, if you are Hillary, you can lie your ass off for months about your emails and then destroy evidence under subpoena.

And the FBI won't record the conversation or take notes, making sure thay can't come back later and charge you with lying to them.

Thanks, Jim Comey!

traditionalguy said...

This closes the case Res Juducata. The penalty is the question. Will he be Petraeused ?

Of course the offer he gets is between a certain plea out for this penalty, or spend 10 million of your own money ( or DJT's?) on Defense lawyers over three yearsfor a possible loss, while the Special Mueller Team bills and gets 100+ million of somebody else's money, win or lose.

Trump may have the upper hand, though. Did you see Trump get Crazy McCain to roll over and vote for the Agenda like he has suddenly became a kitten, ever since Alaweed and friends spilled the beans.

tim in vermont said...

Nothing close to "collusion" yet. Not a step closer. This could also be tying up loose ends. Maybe I am wrong. I would be interested in any relevant factual basis for a charge of some kind of illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin.

tim in vermont said...

And the FBI won't record the conversation or take notes, making sure thay can't come back later and charge you with lying to them.

Seems like there are two kinds of political investigations. The kinds intended to resolutely avoid the discovery of a crime, and the kind intended to create crimes, even if non exist.

EDH said...

Doesn't this sound like Flynn interceding if not 'interfering' in Russian affairs, a reversal of the Obama administration giving Russia the anti-Isreal vote it wanted in the UN Security Council?

Who, exactly, was the 'Russian stooge'?

In one of the conversations described in court documents, the men discussed an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.

Mr. Mueller’s investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel, according to two people briefed on the inquiry. Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, took the lead in those efforts. Mr. Mueller’s team has emails that show Mr. Flynn saying he would work to kill the vote, the people briefed on the matter said.

In the other discussion, according to court documents, Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak that Moscow refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions announced by the Obama administration that day against Russia over its interference in the presidential election.

sparrow said...

The blatant imbalance in prosecution breeds cynicism.

Nonapod said...

One indication that this is a big nothingburger is that it didn't even make it to the front page of Reddit, which is currently running a Net Neutrality filibuster by posting threads with the names of every state Senators who voted to repeal it.

tim in vermont said...

Yeah, that all sounds like election collusion to me.

rcocean said...

If that's all they got, I hope Trump pardons him.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
"wwww said...
We won't know what he got for the plea deal for quite a while. Couple of years even.

Yes, it seems this show will run for a while now. There are the trials or plea deals for the other two as well to keep this particular story line ticking along at a steady pace."

And yet still no collusion.

rcocean said...

Given that Hillary has been given a pass for criminal negligence in setting up private server with classified data, I don't see any reason why Flynn should go to Jail for a silly 'process' crime.

Crimso said...

The fact that today is Friday, it's in the middle of Groperdammerung (as somebody at Ace's has dubbed it), and that Trump fired him for this tells you what you need to know about the significance of it.

Tommy Duncan said...

Rusty said: "And yet still no collusion."

We don't know that for sure until we hear from UnknownInga164 and Chuck.

John Borell said...

As Ken White (Pope Hat) says, "From the citizen's perspective, this situation points to one obvious conclusion: shut up. Never answer a federal agent's questions without a thorough debriefing with a qualified lawyer first."

https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-hastert-and-federal-prosecutorial-power/

How do people fuck this up?

NEVER TALK TO THE FEDS. EVER.

Good God, they already have what they have when they talk to you; talking to them only lets them try to charge you with lying to them.

I wouldn't tell the feds what I ate for breakfast this morning.

hombre said...

Ah. The timeless Scooter Libby ploy. Take that, Flynn!

Remember when the Clintonistas were charged with lying to the Feebs in the email investigation? Me neither, because everyone with a motive to lie was given immunity - except Hillary who is evidently invulnerable.

thomas lachac said...

Given the fact that none of the usual suspects have showed up to gloat, it also lends credence to this being insignificant. It also serves as a convenient distraction from the travesty in San Francisco.


BTW, first time poster, LONG time lurker . Hello!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I had previously heard ( On MSNBC ( not on my TV )) that the way that they were going to flip Flynn was that both Flynn and his son engaged in behavior ( as part of their business ) that could make them unregistered foreign agents. The idea was that Flynn would flip in a deal to save his son.

MSNBC spent five gleeful minutes discussing the possibility of Flynn flipping on Trump, only occasionally sobered by the possibility that Flynn might have been out of the loop regarding collusion, an thus might not have the goods on Trump.

Never mentioned was the possibility that there was no collusion on which to get Trump in the first place.

tim in vermont said...

Even Chuck doesn't buy this collusion nonsense.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I forget. Exactly what crime is being investigated?

mockturtle said...

Tempest. Teapot.

Fabi said...

"Given the fact that none of the usual suspects have showed up to gloat..."

They're just waiting on their approved talking points.

Hagar said...

If this is a Stewart/Libby thing, misbehavior by the FBI is not a "tempest in a teapot."

Khesanh 0802 said...

@thomas lachac Welcome!

traditionalguy said...

The rabid dog MSNBC team finished off their hostile questioning of the BlackWater owner ( DeVoss's brother)with an their assurance that Flynn will certainly take down Trump because there are still so many criminal acts that Flynn committed regarding Turkey that Flynn can be prosecuted for them if he fails to tell what the prosecutor wants to hear.

Of course it is really the exact opposite. Flynn's plea to one count, under one sentencing guide line maximum, is all that can be to held over his head. ALL other known Flynn crimes are now res judicata and dead.

Mueller just cleared Flynn of any real risk. And he must have done it at Trump's demand. Trump seems to be the one holding the Trump Cards on Mueller in his hand. Mueller is the one who will most likely be sentenced on corruption unless he has made a deal with Trump.

Mattman26 said...

I'm glad to see I'm not alone here, although I suppose we could all be in denial.

Lying to the feds is definitely a low-grade charge; I'd imagine even w/o cooperation, that would not lead to jail time for a guy with Flynn's background (although I gather there's some other pretty bizarre stuff out there re his dealings in recent years).

And even with the recent "breaking" news that others in the Admin (let's even assume including Trump) knew of or directed the contact w/ the Russian ambassador, I'm not sure why anyone should much care. It was post-election, a week or two before inauguration, and an administration emissary is telling the Russian ambassador not to do anything rash re recent sanction developments.

I not only don't think that's a crime, I'm not even sure it counts as a political faux pas.

And all this coverage about the stock market taking a dive on the news; as of this writing, it's given up about two-thirds of yesterday's gain. My God, the humanity.

Much breathlessness about nothing, IMHO.

Yancey Ward said...

As I read this, he is charged with what precisely got him fired from his post in the first place- by Trump himself. If I were Trump, I would go ahead and pardon him at this point. I mean, really, another process crime in which no one can really demonstrate and prove a crime in the underlying acts? You think I am wrong about the last part? Then where are the charges after a year of investigation?

I noticed that a number of stories talked about "candidate" Trump from December of last year- that isn't accurate- he was "President Elect" Trump at the time. The collusion story is dead. It appears that Mueller is fully into process crimes at this point. Now, have other Trump officials lied in this investigation? I don't know, but I doubt it.

eric said...

I feel sad for a lot of progressive, Clinton supporting, Dems right about now.

They are going to get really high off of the lousy reporting over this. Thinking it means doom for Trump. When nothing happens, they're going to come off their high in a hard way.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Lying to the feds is definitely a low-grade charge."

-- It's also a political charge. Abedin lied to the feds about Hillary's emails and hid documents and devices from the FBI, until they stumbled across them because her husband sexted underage women which -- Hell, we have proof of -- and he needed to do it twice before being politically destroyed.

Francisco D said...

traditionalguy has a very interesting perspective.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

I will take a wild guess and predict that Inga, Chuck and ARM will be greatly saddened by the denouement of the Mueller-Flynn drama.

Michael K said...

Did you see Trump get Crazy McCain to roll over and vote for the Agenda like he has suddenly became a kitten, ever since Alaweed and friends spilled the beans.

I thought that was interesting, too.

McCain's constituency has been the Media for years. Why do something for Arizona at this late date ?

Yancey Ward said...

If this is it in regards to charging Flynn, then the only real danger is whether or not other officials lied about this event. They might have done so early last year, but probably wouldn't have after Flynn was fired for it.

It was always odd to me that Flynn would have lied about it, though I would have to actually compare his interviews with the FBI with the actual FISA recording to know what sort of misstatement it was. My impression from the statements made when he was fired was that he lied to Pence, too, about the contents of the conversation with Kisylak. However, no story every made it clear the exact nature of this lie- was it an omission; was it an omission to a vague question; or was it a denial to direct question? And if it were an omission, was it a knowing omission? Remember, the poor schlub who Mueller also got to plead guilty to lying was caught misremembering the date by a week of a conversation he had with some academic from Europe- he didn't lie about the conversation, simply about whether or not he was a member of the Trump team at the time it took place, and he technically wasn't a member yet- he hadn't even started the job at the time.

I guess how you view this is whether or not there really is anything to the Russian Collusion story. Since I still see no evidence of it, I am going to say this is it for the Mueller investigation as far as high points. I hope no else lied about this- I can't see why they would, but then again, Flynn's lie didn't seem rational either.

Inga said...

He got a sweetheart plea deal, which indicates he’s singing like a bird. No wonder Trump has been in high dudgeon these past few days.

Inga said...

Should be a “Trump’s in trouble” tag. Flynn said he was directed by a Trump senior transition team member. Either Pence, Kushner or Trump himself. Getting close now.

Mattman26 said...

Oh, poor poor Inga. Soon to be hardest hit.

Dow up 150 points in the past hour.

Bay Area Guy said...

Flynn is definitely the fall guy -- he kinda reminds me of Ollie North in the late 1980s. But North pushed back hard and earned a big public following, while Flynn just slinked away in silence.

Hopefully, Flynn doesn't get jail time. Total politicized and petty plea bargain.

Inga said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-flynn-charged-making-false-statements-fbi-documents/story?id=50849354

“Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.

Yancey Ward said...

Wow, Inga, unless Trump or his other associates lied about telling Flynn to talk to Kisylak, there is no crime to be proven. Trump was the President Elect- Flynn was his incoming National Security Advisor- Trump was well within his rights to start reaching out to foreign friends, foes, and neutrals alike to discuss and plan issues for a time after January 20th. Every president elect in my lifetime has done this after winning the election but before taking office- it is SOP.

Now, if Flynn has evidence that Trump's outreach was a payback for election support- then that might be a conspiracy charge against Trump- surely the Holy Grail of the anti-Trump faction, but there is a problem with this conjecture- Flynn didn't plead to a conspiracy charge- he plead to process crime. That tells me that Mueller really does have nothing about the Russian Collusion conspiracy, and never did. At this point, the only thing Mueller is likely to charge Trump or other associates with is lying about Flynn's actions, but again why would anyone do that- especially after Flynn was fired for doing exactly that?

Kyzernick said...

So, what crime did Trump commit, exactly?

And I mean, exactly.

Talking to someone who had a Russian accent? Talking with Russian officials about possible policy goals of a future Trump campaign? Talking with Russian officials about ways to slow the burn in Syria, or avoid escalation?

So far, the only proven Russian involvement in the 2016 election was their purchase of social media ad space, most of which went towards unrelated subjects like BLM, the DAPL project, and fake news stories about both Trump and Clinton. It was a pitifully small ad buy, did not reach most users, and influenced practically nobody - if anything, it probably influenced the Left more.

Did Trump pay for a fake dossier about Clinton hiring hookers to pee on a bed in Russia? Did Trump promise Medvedev "more flexibility after his election"? Did Trump clear a shady lawyer to not only enter the country illegally, but also participate in Congressional testimony? Did Trump help facilitate and engineer a uranium sale to Moscow for a large kickback and a speaking fee for his spouse?

If Flynn "flipped" on Trump, what possible crime could be be absolutely instrumental in uncovering? OR are the Democrats counting on the "optics" to do their dirty work for them, kind of like hoping that if they chant "Bloody Mary" into a mirror in a darkened room for long enough, Trump will magically be impeached? I see a lot of liberal stooges on Facebook today are crowing about Trump's imminent impeachment, but when pressed for details on the why and how, they clam up pretty quick or go off on a tangent about how Trump is "pure evil", and that's reason enough for them.

Is logic on vacation today?

Inga said...

It means Trump’s in Trouble.

“What does this mean? Either an immense amount of reporting about Flynn’s foreign ties is sensationalistic and wrong (possible), or prosecutors entered into a classic plea deal where a defendant pleads guilty to a minor crime to escape accountability for more serious crimes in exchange for cooperation and potential testimony against the true targets of the investigation. A sweetheart deal plus continued cooperation strongly signals that Donald Trump’s former national security adviser (an extraordinary high-level official) is not the ultimate target of Mueller’s probe, and that Mueller believes that Flynn’s testimony is valuable enough to let him off with a relative slap on the wrist.

UPDATE: Here’s more evidence that the Flynn charge is a prelude to bigger things. Reportedly, Flynn is prepared to testify that candidate Trump “directed him to make contact with the Russians.”

ABC also reports that Flynn is willing to testify against Trump and members of the Trump family. Now, before everyone starts yelling “collusion,” the report said nothing about why Trump allegedly directed him to reach out to Russia. If it was contact for election collusion, that’s dire. I also think that’s highly unlikely. If it was contact to set the stage for post-election relations and cooperation, that’s far less problematic — unless members of the Trump administration (or Trump family) have been lying to the FBI about those contacts. So, we could be looking at less of a criminal conspiracy and more of a festival of lies surrounding a non-conspiracy. That’s at least consistent with the guilty pleas (Flynn and Papadopoulos) so far. Stay tuned.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454264/michael-flynn-charge-monstrous-injustice-or-prelude-bigger-things

Matthew Sablan said...

"So far, the only proven Russian involvement in the 2016 election was their purchase of social media ad space,"

-- This is incorrect. The Clinton campaign, through her lawyer as an intermediary, hired Russian intelligence operatives to conduct espionage on Trump, an American citizen. The results were part of the dossier.

Kyzernick said...

Yancey Ward: Every president elect in my lifetime has done this after winning the election but before taking office- it is SOP.

Does the Left not understand this? Or do they somehow think that, because they hate Trump sooooo much, he should not have been allowed to act like the President-Elect until they were done screaming at the sky?

Cuz if that's the case, they're still not done, so I guess Trump still should be acting like he never won the election. Which he did. Fair and square. With no help from the Russians.

Kyzernick said...

Matthew, I thought it was proven the Russians bought ads on Facebook and Twitter, but that those ads were either not conclusively pro-Trump or were a mixed bag pandering to both conservative and liberal causes. Was this not the case?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Flynn is prepared to testify that candidate Trump “directed him to make contact with the Russians.”"

-- That can't be a crime. The Clinton campaign paid Russian intelligence operatives for dirt on Trump, and none of them went to jail.

Yancey Ward said...

And, just to make it crystal clear- you don't allow someone who is cooperating to plea to a charge completely unrelated to the crimes being investigated- you use the plea to prove the crimes of the underlying investigation. That Flynn's plea is to the thing he was fired for in the first place pretty much is an admission that the collusion conspiracy theory is exactly that.

The danger for Trump is whether or not Flynn was the only person who lied about what Flynn was doing in December of 2016? Maybe Flynn has something to offer in that regard, but it is unlikely to be provable unless Flynn also has recordings to corroborate it. Telling Mueller that Trump told him to talk to Kisylak is nothing by itself- he would have to testify that Trump told him to lie about it, but again, Flynn would have had to plea to an conspiracy to obstruct in that case, which he didn't.

Inga said...

There’s a lot more to come. Mueller didn’t give him a sweetheart plea deal for nothing.

“...the plea deal will strengthen Mueller’s sprawling probe into Trumpworld’s possible criminal acts and ties with Russia. In October, Mueller charged Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates with money laundering and failing to properly disclose their lobbying work on behalf of foreign clients. Mueller also unsealed a guilty plea in October from former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who admitted to lying to federal investigators about meetings in which he discussed potentially colluding with Russian agents to acquire Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

Due to his unique ties to both the Trump campaign and the Trump White House, Flynn is particularly well-suited to answer the two central questions in the Mueller probe: Did the Trump campaign knowingly collude with Russia, and did Trump obstruct justice by trying to limit or derail the FBI’s investigation? A plea deal would get Mueller closer to answering those questions.

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/1/16706534/michael-flynn-fbi-charged-deal

Jim at said...

Wow. This will surely be the end of the Trump Administration.

An entire year of digging up something - anyhing! - and they've got one count of 'lying' to the FBI.

Gold, Jerry. Gold!

In all seriousness, that's it? That's all they've got out of Flynn?
Whatever.

Inga said...

Hiding out? Can’t blame him.

https://apnews.com/99bb8f75c5514af8b7e5ec77ea4f6f68

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the investigations into Trump campaign associates and Russian election interference (all times local):

12:30 p.m.

The White House has cancelled a scheduled opportunity for reporters to question President Donald Trump about former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea.”

Jim at said...

He got a sweetheart plea deal, which indicates he’s singing like a bird. No wonder Trump has been in high dudgeon these past few days.

Apparently, your stupidity knows no bounds.

Matthew Sablan said...

"There’s a lot more to come. Mueller didn’t give him a sweetheart plea deal for nothing."

-- Based on what? Dozens of Clinton operatives got sweetheart immunity deals for literally nothing.

Jim at said...

is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.

That's your fucking collusion? That?!

Seriously. You simply cannot be this stupid.

You just can't.

Bay Area Guy said...

Sessions needs to resign. He's been defanged (by himself). It's like having an Offensive Tackle, who's stopped blocking for the running back.

Trump needs a new AG - a tough politically astute AG (like Guiliani) to: (a) put some real pressure on Obama holdovers in the DOJ and FBI and (b) blunt Mueller.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, given how freely the FBI gives out immunity in political cases, I'm surprised Flynn didn't push harder for total immunity, and then destroy subpoenaed documents anyway.

Yancey Ward said...

Inga,

Do you really think Flynn is holding out information to Mueller? Mueller already knows everything Flynn could offer- it is why Flynn was allowed to plead in the first place. If Flynn had anything to indicated a conspiracy, Flynn would have had to plead to that. No prosecutor would have ever missed that opportunity. Mueller may be a lot of things, but he isn't that stupid.

Bay Area Guy said...

The problem is the NSA wiretapping -- and who controls it.

These upper rank govt folks are smart enough to not write incriminating e-mails or internet posts.

But if lies are captured by wiretaps, watch out. May not be admissible in a court of law, but they provide serious leverage.

And politicians of both parties, particularly in the heat of a campaign, lie a lot.

Matthew Sablan said...

"These upper rank govt folks are smart enough to not write incriminating e-mails or internet posts."

-- Except for Hillary Clinton, who wrote an email saying to remove the classification markings and send it to her un-secure. But, hey, who's counting?

Mattman26 said...

Inga, you indicate that there's likely nothing wrong with a Pres-elect reaching out to another country prior to inauguration unless it was some sort of quid pro quo for that country having helped get him elected.

That makes sense as far as it goes, but ask yourself: If there had been actual collusion leading up to the election, would it make any sense that Flynn would then feel the need to tell the Russkies to keep their cool a week or two before inauguration day? Wouldn't the Russians already know that all they had to do was sit tight til Trump took office, since he was already their guy?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve uhr said...

Per usual it's all Obama's fault. If he hadn't told Trump not to hire Flynn, Trump never would have hired him.

dreams said...

I feel better after reading Andrew McCarthy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation

Bay Area Guy said...

Andrew McCarthy -- I say this without exaggeration -- is an absolute national treasure.

Trump should fire Sessions, and appoint McCarthy as AG.

Inga said...

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/01/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-judge-napolitano-monumental-reduction-charges-doesnt-come-free

“Napolitano said the potential penalty on a charge of lying to the FBI is minimal compared to the 60 or so years Flynn could have faced on other allegations.

"With his guilty plea, he's reduced that to somewhere between six and 12 months. That is an enormous, gargantuan, monumental reduction. That doesn't come easily and it doesn't come for free,

The judge said it raises the "tantalizing" question of what information Flynn has given to Mueller.

"We will find out soon," said Napolitano.

Flynn served as President Trump's national security adviser and worked on Trump’s presidential campaign.

Napolitano stated later on "Outnumbered" that he sees the development as a "nightmare" for President Trump and the "tip of a prosecutorial iceberg."

He noted that Flynn was a "constant companion" of Trump on foreign policy and national security matters from June 2015 until early 2017.”

Inga said...

“Former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea Friday for lying to the FBI is alarming news for Donald Trump. But the first person it's likely to jeopardize will be the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Two former officials with the Trump transition team who worked closely with Flynn say that during the last days of the Obama administration, the retired general was instructed to contact foreign ambassadors and foreign ministers of countries on the U.N. Security Council, ahead of a vote condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was told to try to get them to delay that vote until after Barack Obama had left office, or oppose the resolution altogether.

ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself. If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election. Impeachment could then be in the cards.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-01/kushner-is-said-to-have-ordered-flynn-to-contact-russia

Jupiter said...

Mike said...
"You have to be out of your mind to talk to the FBI."

That would be a logical conclusion. However, I suspect that it is not possible to get and keep a high-level federal position without talking to the FBI. If you are innocent, then you are expected to "cooperate with the investigation". Never mind that cooperating with the investigation is a crime, if they decide your cooperation wasn't helpful. Scooter Libby was basically convicted of reading his own notes wrong, by a jury that would have been happy to convict a ham sandwich as his co-conspirator.

n.n said...

A witch hunt ends with the discovery of someone set up to look like a witch.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga quotes...

If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election.

On the other hand, if those contacts involved discussions about where Trump buried Jimmy Hoffa's body, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of an actual murder by the president!

This is fun!

Mike said...

then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion

Wishful thinking. Of course Trump told him to talk to Russia's ambassador. That's Flynn's job! And the nature of the phone call should be easy to determine since there's a recording/transcript of it. It will show no collusion. You and the fools you listen to will cry and wail. What an absurd person you are.

Inga said...

“But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream," Comey wrote on Twitter and Instagram.”

Inga said...

“You and the fools you listen to will cry and wail.”

Doubtful.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Nothingburger.

But of course, Inga and ARM are excited about it, and that's rather cute.

Leland said...

Glad to see Mueller finally holding Flynn accountable for lying behavior. Trump fired Flynn the moment he found out Flynn lied to Pence.

Bay Area Guy said...

Not a revelation to anyone, but the game plan by Mueller will be to:

1. Use Flynn to nail one or more of Trump's kids (or Kushner), prior to the mid-term election in 2018

2. Help the Dems retake the House in 2018

3. Have House impeach Trump, although, there won't be enough votes in the Senate (need 67) to remove him.

Politics ain't beanbag. Obviously, I hope this doesn't happen. Just reading the tea leaves, as a spectator.

Inga said...

“All this week there have been warning signs about the cracks appearing in the hull of Steamship Trump. The behavior of the 45th president has grown so bizarre that there is now open talk that he just might be unhinged.

Trump managed to astonish the far-right wingnuts with his Islamophobic tweets, cleaving apart his alliance with the British government. He hurled unfounded allegations against news executives, and continued to bleat on about Hillary Clinton’s emails.

There’s something so deliciously guilty about a man who claims his election rival was a threat to national security, at the same time as he was compromising national security.

Then again, Flynn himself whipped up all the Trumpistas at the party convention crowd by insisting that he would go to jail if he did one tenth of Clinton’s supposed wrongdoing. Now that’s truly delicious.

With all the hindsight that a week gives us, it’s clear that Trump isn’t mad with his reckless tweeting. He’s just desperate: the last caged rat who knows he has nowhere left to go as his one-time friends leave him behind.

If he weren’t so crassly offensive, he might just be pitiful.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/01/michael-flynn-wrongdoing-tip-iceberg

Qwinn said...

I love how $140 million in Russian money going to the Clinton Foundation - never even mind the obvious Uranium One quid pro quo, just the money itself - isn't considered evidence of "collusion" at all, but if Flynn asked the Russians whether they hacked Hillary when she viilated every security standard ever devised, OMG!!!!!! Trump is criminal!!!

Seriously, I think anyone who would push a narrative that absurd should be convicted on prima fascia evidence of being utterly corrupt themselves.

Qwinn said...

Care to imagine what Inga and the Guardian would be saying right now ic the exact same evidence were reversed? 140 million in Trump's bank after Trump sold US uranium to them, versus anyone on Hillary's team having ever talked to a Russian, ever, about anything.

Just don't ever say "The Podesta brothers".

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Weak.

Here's a link to the old (viral) Don't Talk to the Police speech by Prof. Duane. It's gotta be doubly true for the Feds! I'm not sure I'd even confirm my actual name for the Feds, but I hope to never find out.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Inga said...
“But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream," Comey wrote on Twitter and Instagram.”

12/1/17, 1:14 PM

But ignorance seeks its own level and self-righteousness is a font of ever-flowing delusion.
Written on bathroom wall by Killroy

gadfly said...

@theribbonguy said...
The 'ol Scooter Libby gambit. Effectively admitting they got nothing.

They need to shut down this shit show.


Having now pleaded guilty of lying to the FBI, according to ABC, General Flynn is prepared to testify that he reached out to the Russian Embassy at the behest of candidate Trump. So, says Eli Lake at Bloomberg, if Flynn’s contacts with the Russians “involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election.”

I know you Trumpers have high hopes, but "oops, there goes a billion kilowatt dam."

John Pickering said...

why no comment, Anne? I suppose this confirms your view that there's nothing to see here? Just wondering, does it make any difference to you that the President may be the stooge, or the dupe, or the agent, or the blackmail victim of the Russian intelligence services?

tcrosse said...

So Hillary is waiting at an undisclosed location with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a Bible.

Howard said...

It is a nothingburger, but it's nice to see Inga easily trigger the Trumpstaffel. What are you ladies so worried about?

Inga said...

“Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said on Friday that former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea is a sign that the House Judiciary Committee has enough evidence to probe President Trump for obstruction of justice.

"There is now more than enough evidence to form the basis of a congressional investigation into the President’s obstruction of justice — and it is long past time that the House Committee on the Judiciary engage on this matter. I urge Chairman [Bob] Goodlatte [R-Va.] to finally begin our oversight work without delay," Nadler said in a statement.

"This development adds further weight to our suspicion of President Trump’s corrupt motives when he approached former FBI Director Comey about the Flynn investigation and asked that he ‘let it go,' " he said.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/362802-judiciary-dem-more-than-enough-evidence-to-probe-trump-for-obstruction-of

Ignorance is Bliss said...

John Pickering said...

why no comment, Anne?

Why should she comment, Johne?

Just wondering, does it make any difference to you that the President may be the stooge, or the dupe, or the agent, or the blackmail victim of the Russian intelligence services?

Any president may be any one of those things. Rational people don't generally worry about such things until at least a little evidence of such has been presented. Rational people are still waiting. Rational people are not holding their breath.

mikeski said...

“Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)[...]adds further weight[...]"

Heh.

dreams said...

"then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election.”"

Well, I don't think so. And collusion isn't a crime.

"That’s it, after a year of huffing and puffing. Nothing about the election, nothing about the long-awaited “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. I have no idea why Flynn apparently lied to an FBI agent, assuming that he did. But the communications described in the information are exactly the sorts of contacts that a national security advisor to an incoming president should be having with foreign powers."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/flynn-indictment-is-more-evidence-that-mueller-has-nothing.php

Inga said...

No wonder he was nuttier than usual.

“For weeks, Trump has vented privately to advisers and confidants about his anxiety over signs that Flynn had flipped. He noted the possibility that Flynn had “turned on me,” three sources close to the president independently recall him saying. These sources had relayed details of these conversations to The Daily Beast over the course of the past week.

The president—an avid and voracious consumer of Twitter and cable news—began privately fuming, according to an administration official and two outside allies of Trump. Two of the three sources noted that it sounded at times as if Trump felt personally hurt by the prospect that someone whom he admired professionally and liked personally had potentially turned.

Sources said that President Trump’s flourish in his Thanksgiving speech to members of the U.S. Coast Guard—during which he said, “You never know about an ally. An ally can turn”—was intended as not-so-subtle jab at his former national security adviser.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-suspected-for-weeks-that-mike-flynn-would-flip

Mark said...

So Flynn was offered the same plea deal that Papadopolous was offered.

He must have flipped with some seriously good information, as there was a much longer list of more serious charges that are not mentioned here.

dreams said...

The Daily Beast. LOL.

Inga said...

And now they’ve got two cooperating witnesses. Flynn and Papadopolous.

“The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

If Mueller can find evidence that members of Trump's team conspired in Russia's hacking effort — by directing it or aiding in some other way — they might face criminal charges, legal analysts said.”
————————————————-
ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself. If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election. Impeachment could then be in the cards.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-01/kushner-is-said-to-have-ordered-flynn-to-contact-russia

Inga said...

Powerline.

LMAO!

Sebastian said...

As McCarthy argues, if they got Flynn on an actual crime, they would have him plead to that.

But even if there was "collusion" of the kind progs most fervently hope for, even that is not a crime.

To Get Trump, the name of this particular game, they have to show criminal conspiracy.

It looks like, after a year and millions of dollars, they got nothing.

Of course, this process is the punishment: it's the swamp trying to drown Trumpkins and make Trump himself sink.


Cassandra said...

Hmmm. Does anyone remember the summer of 2008 when candidate Obama before he even won the nomination, much less the election openly bragged in the NY Times about interfering in ongoing negotiations between Iraq and the Bush White House?

Quote:

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said. “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”

So, agreements made by the sitting president aren't binding on the next one? Wow.

And after the conversations took place, Obama's account (he said he would pull troops out on an accelerated schedule and the Iraqi foreign minister 'had no problems with that') conflicted with the Iraqi Foreign Minister's account (in which he said pulling troops out that fast would be a disaster). But hey, what difference does it all make, anyway?

Odd how it was not only OK but admirable (!) for a candidate who had not even won his party's nomination yet to announce in the NYTimes that he was trying to scuttle an agreement between the sitting president's administration and a foreign power. But somehow, it's deeply wrong - treasonous, even! - for a candidate who had just won the presidential election to speak with a foreign power.

If "pre-inaugural" discussions with foreign powers are illegal (even for the incoming POTUS) then Obama is guilty as sin... as are most candidates. This is stunningly misleading reporting, even for the NY Times.

dreams said...

And not to forget CNBC, all day long, over and over with the Flynn news as if repetition made it more true.

Phil 3:14 said...

"Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria."

You're going to be my National Security Adviser. The situation in Syria is a serious threat to national security. Russia is deeply involved in Syria but may be willing to work on issues of common interest.

by all means, DO NOT TALK WITH THE RUSSIANS!

Comanche Voter said...

If what Flynn is pleading guilty to is a violation of Title 18 Section 1001 of the US Code, you can't assume that Flynn was lying "under oath". Making a false statement to a Federal officer or agency--whether under oath or not--is a crime. You could tell an FBI agent that it is 2 in the afternoon---and if you made the statement when it was 3 in the afternoon, you've violated Section 1001. It's a catchall wastebasket sort of crime--when you can't charge them with anything else.

It's an interesting statute; it's not a violation of Section 1001 for a Federal officer to lie to you. "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it." "There's not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS". "The Benghazi raid was caused by a video" etc. Those are just a few of the more memorable whoppers foisted on the American people by our recently departed, but not lamented, Chief Executive Officer of the United States. And they are not violations of Section 1001.

Inga said...

“I think this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Steve Vladeck, a national security expert at the University of Texas School of Law.”

“The real story of today is that there’s a guarantee that there’s big news coming down the pike.”

MPH said...

I was thinking about where I could find some instant pro-trump rationalizations of this news. It makes me a bit sad that this is where I came first.

Inga said...

“I was thinking about where I could find some instant pro-trump rationalizations of this news. It makes me a bit sad that this is where I came first.”

I expected nothing less.


Mark said...

"As McCarthy argues, if they got Flynn on an actual crime, they would have him plead to that."

Not if they want him to talk. No one who turns informant is charged with every charge, otherwise there is no reason to do so.

Earnest Prole said...

Not if they want him to talk. No one who turns informant is charged with every charge, otherwise there is no reason to do so.

Exactly.

Michael K said...

"“The real story of today is that there’s a guarantee that there’s big news coming down the pike.”


Hope springs eternal in the leftist heart.

I just wonder why the identity of Flynn was unmasked as the law requires.

He was doing what national security advisors are supposed to do.

His mistake was talking to them at all. It was a setup, just like Scooter Libby.

Inga lives to be disappointed.

Michael K said...

He must have flipped with some seriously good information, as there was a much longer list of more serious charges that are not mentioned here.

Or they hit a dry hole.

You people are so amusing. You run to every mole hole expecting a magic fairy to jump out and fulfill all your dreams.

Inga said...

“He was doing what national security advisors are supposed to do.”

Eichman said all along he was only doing his duty.

Michael K keeps hope alive, just like the Germans who were were loyal to Der Fuhrer to the bitter end, even as the allied bombs rained down on them and smashed their cities to rubble.

Bay Area Guy said...

Comparing Flynn to Adolph Eichman is so stupid that it barely requires a response.

Inga said...

“Comparing Flynn to Adolph Eichman is so stupid that it barely requires a response.”

It’s not a comparison. The crimes are not comparable.

It’s an allegory, one of sycophants who are so loyal to their object of desire they lose all reason, even while things are crumbling around their ears.

dreams said...

Cognitive dissonance much, fool's gold.

Michael K said...

Inga, let's agree to discuss all this a year from now. If you are correct, Trump will be facing real impeachment and Flynn will be in jail along with some others you think were involved with the Russians.

Fair enough ?

Inga said...

No. You people aren’t getting off that easy. I’ve been hearing about your schadenfruede since Trump won the election. Now you’re going to hear about ours.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Now you’re going to hear about ours."

We actually did win though, you morbidly obese old cunt. You are gloating about imaginary bullshit that you "hope" will materialize.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

what's really going on... the reality you won't hear on the pro-Democrat hack nightly 'news".

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

According to the hive mind left - it's illegal to talk to Russians. Unless you Obama.

Inga said...

“We actually did win though....”

If I was a man, I’d say I’ve had a schadenboner all day long. A short lived “win”, as a short lived as the Trump Presidency is likely to be.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime."

"While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true. Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel."



Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Obama hates Flynn - and there we have it folks.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Still waiting for the Obama-Clinton-Liar press liars to create the evidence that Trump and the Russians tricked the American people into hating Hillary.

Michael said...

Trump will be in office another three years, possibly seven. Hillary Clinton will never be president. Impeachment papers already drawn for Kamala Harris.

Drago said...

Inga: "No. You people aren’t getting off that easy."

You mean, like "Matt Lauer easy"?.....

Drago said...

Inga: "No. You people aren’t getting off that easy."

You mean, like getting off easy "with a cloth"?.....

Drago said...

Inga, can we "get off easy" if we are ICONS?

Drago said...

You know who shouldn't get off easy?

Nancy Pelosi's facelift/botox guy.

Drago said...

Does Inga mean "get off easy" like her wonderful illegal alien murderer in CA?

Drago said...

Maybe the democrat liberals let the male murderer of an innocent woman off easy because he looked like a Dreamer.

Fabi said...

Inga thinks this low-level process crime is schadenfruede[sic]. That's some funny shit right there. How the high expectations of the left have fallen!

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I think its adorable that these lefties think they can pull off a coup against a duly elected President without the streets running red with their blood. Perhaps they think the police that they demonize as racist murderers, or the military that they despise and slander would somehow be on their side, rather than joining in hanging them from lampposts gutted like fish.

Michael K said...

No. You people aren’t getting off that easy. I

OK You've been warned. I will enjoy watching you eat every one of your words with A-1 sauce.

I do worry a bit about the Democrats, and some Republicans I know, going insane last November,

The insanity will eat all the lefties as they attack each other like sharks in a bloody pool of water.

tim in vermont said...

one of sycophants who are so loyal to their object of desire they lose all reason, even while things are crumbling around their ears.

Project much, Inga? You are really good at it.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillary lied to the FBI, too. No matter, they are all in cahoots. I's all wink and nod inside the democrat-Obama-Clinton-FBI war room.

Qwinn said...

"No. You people aren’t getting off that easy. I’ve been hearing about your schadenfruede since Trump won the election. Now you’re going to hear about ours."

Okay, now THAT'S frikkin' hilarious.

Brian Ross of ABC reported that "candidate" Trump asked Flynn to talk to the Russians. Actually made the market tank briefly.

Then - OOPSIE - correction - it was President Elect Trump who asked him to talk to the Russiands, not candidate Trump.

Which turns something that *could possibly* be consistent with leftie accusations, into something utterly trivial and completely appropriate.

Thus proving Trump's claims about "fake news" yet again.

What you're feeling right now, Inga? That isn't schadenfreude. That's desperation and delusion.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Brain Ross - Inga's favorite journalist

LOL

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Obama had more flexibility with the Russians after the election.

Trump - hey dude, you can't ever talk to the Russians.

PackerBronco said...

Thank goodness for Special Counsels: Keeping America safe from Process Crimes.

Michael The Magnificent said...

They're just waiting on their approved talking points.

They'll need more than talking points to prove that this communication with Russia was colluding with Russia to win the election; They'll need a time machine.

The conversation that Flynn had with the Russians occurred in late December of 2016. Trump had already won the election in November. So unless the Russians possess a time machine with which to have a conversation with Flynn in December, travel back in time and carry out Trump's wishes to hack into the DNC's email server and release the emails via Wikileaks back in July of 2016, this is cannot be collusion on the election.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Aaaand the Left pisses all over itself again. Snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat.

jerpod said...

@DickinBimbos

I’m reading on my iPad while my wife watches TV as usual. Suddenly your avatar appears on TV. I had never heard of Percy Jackson until today. Don’t know about the movie (though it’s playing right in front of me), but it’s a cool avatar.

Yancey Ward said...

What a surprise I find here at the bottom of this thread. I pointed out with my very first comment this morning that ABC News' report was factually incorrect. And yet Inga continued to write the following on more than one occasion:

"ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself."

Of course, that original tweet by the stunningly brilliant Brian Ross was retweeted around the world a million times it seemed before ABC News finally corrected it this evening. It wasn't candidate Trump, just like I wrote this morning- it was President Elect Trump. And, of course, with ABC News correcting their mistake, Inga vanishes like a fart in the wind.

Yancey Ward said...

ABC News owes a thorough explanation for the mistake. Was this Ross' mistake, was this Ross' source's mistake? Was it a mistake at all (my belief is that Ross' source played him like a low IQ idiot to set the narrative before the actual truth got out). If it was the source, to save his reputation, the source needs to be outed by Ross.

Kyzernick said...

And, of course, with ABC News correcting their mistake, Inga vanishes like a fart in the wind.

All of Inga's joys are short-lived. I expect she's used to it by now.

tim in vermont said...

REMEMBERING this sleazy, nothing-there @BrianRoss hit piece on @GovHowardDean right before the 2004 Iowa caucuses http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131483&page=1 … Never trust content from Brian Ross. - Kausfiles.com

It's almost as if Brian Ross is a Clinton hack with a byline, just like most of them, as WikiLeaks showed.

Mac McConnell said...

Jake Tapper reported that "The Hill" was reporting that the President Elect Trump's transition team informed and received permission from the Obama WH to make contacts with the Russian Ambassador.

This particular process crime is BS. While Flynn shouldn't have lied to the VP, he paid the price by being fired. For Flynn it was a catch-22, this info was legit back channel conversations with the Russians, therefore a secret and political in nature which made it info to be held close to the chest. The FBI already knew what was said, they had the tapes, this was a set up.

In truth we don't know at this point if more could be in the pipes, but so far nada. If this all turns into a series of process crimes it is nothing more than battle space prep for the midterms by a corrupt FBI.

Michael K said...

Andy McCarthy has a new column on the Flynn persecution.


So . . . why did the Obama administration decide to investigate Flynn, resulting in the FBI interview? I believe the explanation is threefold: (1) to punish Flynn, and derivatively the incoming Trump administration, for opposing Obama’s anti-Israel legerdemain in the Security Council; (2) to promote the political narrative that Russia–Trump collusion had cheated Clinton out of her rightful election victory; and (3) to tie this collusion narrative to sanctions relief, thereby making it politically impossible for Trump to roll back Obama’s sanctions once he was sworn in — a boon for the Democrats’ collusion narrative since the sanctions stand as a reminder of Russia’s election meddling. The ongoing Mueller probe is not a good-faith investigation of suspected espionage or other crime. It is the exploitation of the executive’s intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement powers in order to (a) criminalize Trump political policies with which the Obama administration disagreed and (b) frame Clinton’s electoral defeat as the product of a traitorous scheme rather than a rejection of Democratic-party priorities.

Very dangerous precedent.

Mac McConnell said...

Well we always knew Obama was a twinky bag of dicks.

Inga said...

“And, of course, with ABC News correcting their mistake, Inga vanishes like a fart in the wind.”

They corrected their mistake. Now, you weirdo, you chastise me for not being awake at 3AM ?

I linked to it before any question of it’s inaccuracies had arisen. So your outrage at me, rates a great big yawn from me. How’s the sex ring at that Pizza parlor? Still hoppin’?

Inga said...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/michael-flynn-flipped-mueller.html?_r=0

“Well, well, well.

We now have a better idea why President Trump went to such great lengths to shield Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, from the prying eyes of the F.B.I. and various congressional committees over the past year. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, it didn’t work out as he had planned.

It’s hard to find a precedent for how quickly Mr. Trump’s inner circle has become consumed by scandal. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan made it into their second terms before the indictments of their inner circle started rolling in.

In a statement released after his guilty plea, Mr. Flynn said that cooperating with the investigation is “a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country.”

Mr. Trump built and sustained his long, gaudy career by demanding loyalty from people to whom he gave nothing in return. He is not used to being on the short end of that deal.”
——————————-
Well at least he’s no longer carrying water for Trump. He knows that you folks will, but you don’t count, you don’t know what Flynn knows.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I linked to it before any question of it’s inaccuracies had arisen.

Those of us on the right have learned that when the news media tells us the sky is blue, that we'd better go outside and look for ourselves. You need to learn that lesson as well.

I pointed out at 9:30 that this so-called "collusion" occurred more than a month after the election, and more than six months after the DNC's email server was hacked. Start using that lump that's three feet above your ass, or keep looking like a fool.

Matthew Sablan said...

Hey. Another lying malicious source not outed by the media. Funny the only times they do that is when it hurts their narrative.

Matthew Sablan said...

To think. If the probe could tell time correctly Flynn may never have been in trouble because they would have realized it wasn't the campaign any more and he was operating under Obama's orders.

Inga said...

Even beyond the charges of criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice....

“The unusual facts of the Russia investigation may implicate another, lesser-known part of the impeachment provision in the Constitution. Article I states that a President can also be impeached and removed for treason and bribery. Treason is defined in the Constitution as “levying war” against the United States, which seems inapplicable to Trump’s conduct, but his business dealings with Russian interests may yet produce evidence of bribery. Trump’s financial affairs, especially with regard to Russia, remain opaque, but it’s possible to imagine how they might give rise to an impeachable offense. A straight payoff to Trump—cash in return for, say, a relaxation of the sanctions imposed by President Obama on the Putin regime—would certainly be impeachable even if it were not technically a crime under American law. Trump’s known business dealings suggest the possibility of a quid pro quo with Russian interests. In 2015, for example, Trump signed a “letter of intent” to build a tower in Moscow. Felix Sater, a Russian associate of Trump’s, wrote of the project, in an e-mail to Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. . . . I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.” That deal never came to fruition, but the intent expressed on both sides is deeply troubling.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/michael-flynns-guilty-plea-sends-donald-trumps-lawyers-scrambling?currentPage=all

Inga said...

“Those of us on the right have learned that when the news media tells us the sky is blue, that we'd better go outside and look for ourselves. You need to learn that lesson as well.”

Oh please. Are you kidding? You bought the shit stained rags that Trump was selling and still do and now you're using them as face towels. Talk about gullible fools. We on the left never for a moment believed Trump was anything more than the fraud he has been proven to be over and over again.

Michael K said...

Inga is the new experinced federal prosecutor among us. Don't pay attention to the guy who put the Blind Sheik away.

Inga will give us our legal education.

Inga said...

“Sheik away.”

Walk like an Egyptian.

Yancey Ward said...

No, Inga, you moron- you vanished within minutes of ABC's correction. I only noted that fact near 3:00 a.m.

Yancey Ward said...

In fact, I waited almost 7 hours for you acknowledge the ABC correction before pointing it out that you never did.

Qwinn said...

$140 in Russian money sitting in Clinton Foundation accounts, with an obvious quid pro quo in Uranium One, and lefties think trying to manufacture bribery charges against Trump with NO evidence is the smart play?

Wow. Just wow. The idiocy is stunning, but... wait, never mind. You go with that. Nothing could possibly go wrong for you there. Nope. Brilliant, that is.

Inga said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
No, Inga, you moron- you vanished within minutes of ABC's correction. I only noted that fact near 3:00 a.m.
———————————

“Yancey Ward”? You commented 3AM? “Yancey Ward” commented at 12:28 and 12:31 AM. Hahaha. You and your sock puppet, eh? Oooops. Dummy.
—————————-

Blogger Kyzernick said...
And, of course, with ABC News correcting their mistake, Inga vanishes like a fart in the wind.

All of Inga's joys are short-lived. I expect she's used to it by now.

12/2/17, 3:12 AM

Inga said...

Kazzy, sock puppet of the real man Yancey Ward. Not too many Yancey Wards in the US, I’ll wager.

Inga said...

“In fact, I waited almost 7 hours for you acknowledge the ABC correction before pointing it out that you never did.”

I know I spend a great deal of time at Althouse, but I do occasionally take time off for a nice evening out. I’m soooooo sorry you waited for SEVEN hours, with bated breath, for me to reappear. LOL!

Yancey Ward said...

McCarthy puts the pieces together really well with today's essay. I will only add this- I think in the immediate aftermath of the election, the Obama people wanted to hamstring the incoming administration, and started trying to drive the "Russian's Hacked the Election" narrative in any way possible. However, they needed a "crime" that they could investigate, and I think they looked everywhere they could between November 9th 2016 until well after the inauguration took place.

In the case of Michael Flynn, they had the FISA intercepts, and I think someone at the DOJ decided that, since they had literally nothing else, they may as well go after Flynn for a Logan Act violation- that is why they interviewed him, and I predict that if you ever get to see the internal communications between the FBI and the Obama DOJ, that will be explicitly discussed as the reason to interview in the first place. This theory explains a great deal that we saw late last December and early January in the left-leaning media- you saw several stories describing how Flynn's conversations might be Logan Act violations, and that narrative literally had to have been driven by DOJ and Obama Administration sources since practically no one had ever heard of this 200+ year old federal statute underwhich only two people had ever been tried and no one convicted.

Flynn, however, seems to have very stupidly lied about his conversations, but he didn't violate any law by having them. Like I wrote yesterday, unless others in the Trump Administration lied to the FBI about the same thing, there is no legal danger here. I strongly suspect that the person whose testimony is supposed to help prosecute is someone Mueller has already revealed as indicted- that person pretty much has to be Paul Manafort.

The ABC fiasco is kind of give-away in my opinion. Lacking any conspiracy to investigate, Mueller had no choice but to take what he could get from Flynn- a plea to something for which Flynn could have been indicted for 10 months ago. All this investigation into Flynn, and Mueller and his team got a plea from him based on evidence that is getting close to a year old? I think Mueller's plan was to get this plea and then have the media run with the "candidate" Trump story that Inga was flogging all day yesterday- I think Brian Ross was set up along with a few others in the media when the special counsel's office was shopping this around on Thursday evening. Some in the media, though, figured it out and properly wrote "President Elect Trump", while others either were too stupid to think it through, or were more than willing to publish an untruth.

Yancey Ward said...

What makes Inga's commentary yesterday worse is that she could have read dozens of other stories in the media that got it right- even some that used the ABC story as evidence, but in a corrected form. I pointed this out with my first comment yesterday- it was only some media sources that were incorrect- I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday comparing the various stories before I commented because they were at odds with each other. Not all of the media outlets who had it wrong referenced ABC, so that is why I think it was the source and common one between news organazations, and it is most likely this source was working for Mueller, or is Mueller himself. I know it is cynical, but I think the plan was to get the lie around the world 3 times before the actual truth got out of bed yesterday.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

Inga, you dolt, the 3:00 a.m. is your time quote, not mine (I just used your stated time since I have no clue what time zone you are in)- I commented at 1:30 a.m. EST- that is my time zone. The first reports of ABC's correction came out in the news just about 4:30 p.m. EST yesterday (that is when I first read it) and was official during their evening news broadcast at 6:30 p.m. EST, just as the initial report said it would happen. I checked this thread several times yesterday evening to see your , before I commented about it very early this morning- your last comment was just after 6:30 p.m. EST- almost on the nose of ABC's public retraction. Sure, you may have just coincidentally called it a day after ABC officially cut the rug out from under you, but the more likely explanation is that you were too embarrassed at the time to acknowledge that you had been reposting bad information no less than 4 times in the same thread.

Michael K said...

I think Mueller's plan was to get this plea and then have the media run with the "candidate" Trump story that Inga was flogging all day yesterday-

I agree and McCarthy sort of supports that interpretation. What we have here is an attempt to nullify the election by the left and the Deep State, which are mostly the same although a lot of GOP legislators are feeding at the same trough,

Inga and ARM and the other lefty commenters are just regurgitating what they are being fed by the DNC.

What is harder for me to understand is how supposed conservative blogs like Patterico are buying the leftist message 100%.

I used to read and comment there a lot but I left after the election when it got crazy. Recently, I went back but it is still crazy.

Yancey Ward said...

I guess Inga had to read up on the new Democrat talking points describing how President Elect Trump really wasn't President Elect Trump after all because- reasons.

One can imagine, quite easily, the alternate reality where the incoming Trump transition team made it a rule to not contact any foreign leaders until January 20th. I feel quite confident that such a rule would have been used in outlets like The New York Times in stories quoting foreign leaders how amateurish and buffoonish it is for the incoming administration to not take or make calls to foreign leaders, and how this is all a breach of SOP. We would have been treated to examples from late 2008 and early 2009 where the Obama Administration demonstrated how you do it right by contacting everyone and letting them know which policies they would be getting after January 20th, and to prepare accordingly in order to not make things more difficult by assuming Bush policies would continue in place.

Gk1 said...

Patterico has just gotten nuttier about trump and it reminds me of the guy that ran the Little Green Footballs blog who did the yeoman's work in debunking Dan Rather's fake TANG memos. Its just weird at some point to fixate on this russia nonsense. Trump is president, get over it. The only way to get rid of him is find a viable platform and candidate and try again in 3 years.

Michael K said...

Yeah, LGF was another blog I read for years,

Patterico I knew personally but he has gone off the deep end on TDS.

I knew him through Cathy Seipp, through whom I also met Breitbart and Mickey Kaus.

Last week he called me a liar for posting some things he disagrees with. That's lefty tactics.

Yancey Ward said...

I think there are a number of conservative writers who spent nearly a year telling all their readers how making Trump the nominee was going to cost the Republicans the presidency and the House and Senate. They spent all that time denigrating the voters who voted for Trump, and planned to spend at least a year writing "I told you idiot voters so" columns and comments, and will never forgive Trump for actually winning the election and maintaining nominal control of both the House and Senate for Republicans. Trump is the constant reminder of being colossally and publicly wrong. Think Chuck.

Michael K said...

Some of those "conservative" think tanks and magazines are dependent on donors who did fine under Obama's ZIRP. The stock Market was the only part of the economy that did well because there was no place else for money to go.

The donor class is the NeverTrumper class. Plus of course their parasites.

Birkel said...

Anybody else read about the FBI agent(s?) removed from Mueller's team because he put his anti-Trump thoughts in E-mail to at least one colleague? And that was the one stupid or conceited enough to get caught.

But UnknownInga64 thinks a process crime leads to impeachment.