Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Russia Hoax Update
A couple of news items in the Russia Hoax you probably missed.
1. A DC court judge ruled that Mueller violated the law in his dossier by asserting that a Russian restaurateur was acting on behalf of the Russian government when he placed ads besmirching Hillary in 2016. I think this will eventually end the case and just like that Mueller’s only non-fictional Russian will be cleared of influence.
2. Gen. Michael Flynn’s lawyer was reviewing his guilty plea in a FARA violation and noticed that agreed facts signed to by Flynn and prosecutor don’t include all the elements required for the crime. The prosecutor may attempt to convince Judge Sullivan that a deal is a deal, but I don’t think that will fly with the judge and the deal will be tossed. In the meantime, the prosecutor is talking about putting pressure on Mike Flynn, Jr. again. The prosecutor has also hinted that there is other secret evidence against Flynn Sr. that certain government agencies have. The takeaway here is that Obama had probably been spying on Flynn before he joined the Trump campaign and Flynn might avoid any convictions.
Published in Law
Any wonder why the Democrat leadership postponed Mueller’s testimony?
IIRC, you may be conflating a lot of different things. Although so may I.
Concord was from a pre-existing investigation of Russia’s version of “Operation Chaos” that was handed to Mueller. There is likely some there there. But there are two noteworthy aspects. First, by handing a legitimate case to Mueller, it gave false legitimacy to Mueller’s other activities, generally. Second, it let Mueller bend the facts of those cases to further his other investigations (bending the facts to make it seem like a specific plan to make Trump president rather than a general attempt to sow discord).
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the investigations that actually resulted from Mueller’s appointment: Manafort, Papadopolous, Stone, etc. This is the most problematic stuff because it resulted from all sorts of investigative/prosecutorial falsity/fraud (dirty dossier, etc.).
Flynn falls in between in that he was already under investigation for his relationship with Turkey and then had the Russia stuff pile on..
Our government’s treatment of Michael Flynn enrages me.
On the first item, the Court did not find Mueller violated the law, rather he was in violation of local Bar rules. However, the linked article understates the serious implications of what the Court did. This is the Russian interference case in which Mueller alleged certain Russian entities illegally tried to influence the 2016 election. When he filed the case Mueller anticipated he would never have to prove the allegations because the defendants were all outside US jurisdiction. However, one of the defendants, Concord Management, surprised him by retaining US counsel and contesting the allegations and most of what’s happened since has been an embarrassment for the Mueller team.
In this particular instance, the Court noted that the Mueller Report alleged that the St Petersburg based Internet Research Agency (IRA) was controlled by the Russian government. However, the indictment naming the IRA contained no such allegation, and in further proceedings Mueller acknowledged it is not making such an allegation. For a prosecutor to make a statement like that in the Mueller Report which is not an allegation in its legal action is a violation of bar rules.
It’s yet another example of the dangers of taking anything in the Mueller Report at face value. And, of course, it goes to the heart of the allegations regarding Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.
This raises a question: What is the legal status of the Mueller dossier? I assume it went out over his signature. Could this lead to a charge of perjury, based on what he claimed in the dossier?
I would also think that it would raise another notch the question of what was included in any and all of the FISA declarations. Perjury charges would definitely lurk there.
Thanks for the xplanation.
Whatsamatter?
Our wondrous Orwellian government is only charging Flynn with knowing information he allegedly should have known but didn’t from his “Turkish” contacts, because of the government’s yet to be fully divulged illegal spying on Flynn and those contacts. The guvmint knew more than Flynn did and charged him for dealing with contacts in an illegal way he didn’t know he had and the failure to report them. It is has also been speculated by some that these “contacts” were a frame -up from the gig-go perpetuated with contacts in the Erdogan government by the Russian Conspiracy Mueller/Brennan et al hoaxers.
Welcome to our new jurisprudence – being charged with a crime the government thinks you should have committed, but didn’t.
Well, the script said he would commit the crime, so they’re going with that.