Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Justice Coming for General Flynn?

 

Judge Sullivan’s weekend has been ruined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That is the court that is the boss of him. For many years, leftists could count on this district to further their interests. It was understood as important to their longer term projects. However, Republican presidents sometimes get to appoint members. In this case, the luck of the draw was in favor of justice. There is a Bush 41, Obama, and Trump judge on the assigned panel, and they all agreed that they should consider motions, a series of papers, on the petition for writ of mandamus on behalf of Gen. Michael Flynn.

Honest attorneys in the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Barr’s protection and leadership, threw in the towel on the wrongful prosecution of Flynn, a key part of the attempted Obama faction and security agencies coup against President Trump. That, as a matter of federal law and federal court practice, should have been the end of the matter. But Judge Sullivan hates President Trump and his voters more than he respects his oath and the Constitution, so he continued his disreputable conduct and sought to keep control of Flynn, looking for some way to play for time until, he hoped, Biden would be elected.

Sidney Powell was having none of this, and wrote a petition for writ of mandamus that is a thing of fierce beauty:

Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court order the district court immediately to (1) grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) vacate its order appointing amicus curiae; and (3) reassign the case to another district judge as to any further proceedings.

[. . .]

Inflaming public passions against a party, particularly a criminal defendant, and encouraging prosecutors to vastly increase the charges against him, is the very antithesis of calling balls and strikes.

[. . .]

This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself. He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.

[. . .]

Unlike in Fokker, the district judge’s outrage at General Flynn does reveal a deep-seated antagonism. In open court, knowing full well that his words would be broadcast all over the world within minutes, the district judge accused General Flynn of treason—a charge hurtful to any American, but a stake through the heart of one who has risked his life protecting the United States from its foreign enemies. The judge also expressed his personal “disgust” (pointing out he was not hiding it) and accused him of arguably having “sold out” his country. App. 1: 34. Even uttered in a private conversation, such words would be cause for recusal, but to say them to the world does, indeed, evince “deep-seated … antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.

If the Court grants the principal relief Petitioner seeks, there may not be much by way of further proceedings in the case, but there could be. Petitioner, the Government, and the appearance of justice will best be served by having another judge—one who has not implied that Petitioner is a traitor—conduct any further proceedings in the case.

Sullivan might have succeeded in running out the clock if the appeals court panel had been typical of the circuit. It was not, so, we got this terse order No. 20-5143:

BEFORE: Henderson, Wilkins, and Rao, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that within ten days of the date of this order the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss filed on May 7, 2020 (ECF No. 198). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a); United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The government is invited to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court.

Per Curiam

It is not over yet, but this is as good as Flynn could expect, and does not point towards a drawn-out process. Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) refers to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(a):

Rule 48. Dismissal

(a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016)” tells you that this is an opinion from the very court of appeals that is the boss of Judge Sullivan. You will find this case cited by Sidney Powell in the petition for writ of mandamus. Here is what is likely to be the key passage from that decision, setting the rule by which this case will be decided:

We vacate the district court’s denial of the joint motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. We hold that the Act confers no authority in a court to withhold exclusion of time pursuant to a DPA based on concerns that the government should bring different charges or should charge different defendants. Congress, in providing for courts to approve the exclusion of time pursuant to a DPA, acted against the backdrop of long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions. Nothing in the statute’s terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert those constitutionally rooted principles so as to enable the Judiciary to second-guess the Executive’s exercise of discretion over the initiation and dismissal of criminal charges.

In vacating the district court order, we have no occasion to disagree (or agree) with that court’s concerns about the government’s charging decisions in this case. Rather, the fundamental point is that those determinations are for the Executive—not the courts—to make. We therefore grant the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I do not expect it will be a good weekend, let alone a pleasant week ahead for Judge Sullivan. It did not have to be this way. He could have been the judge he was in overturning Senator Ted Stevens’ wrongful prosecution.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge

    The thing about Flynn, I’m sure you know, is that he was targeted and set up with the Svetlana Lokhova affair (no pun intended) a year before Trump ever announced his candidacy. It makes you wonder who was really the primary target in 0bamagate.

    • #1
    • May 22, 2020, at 2:10 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  2. Larry3435 Inactive

    The Circuit Court’s order directs Judge Sullivan to respond to the issue of whether dismissal is required here, but not to the issue of recusal. Does that mean that the Circuit is not even thinking about recusal, or does it mean that the Circuit will decide that issue based on the pre-existing record and does not want to hear how Judge Sullivan might try to justify his prior inflammatory and prejudiced remarks? Recusal of a federal judge is pretty extreme. Perhaps the Circuit does not want to address that issue if it is going to require dismissal of the charges anyway.

    In my own opinion, Judge Sullivan should not only be recused but also impeached, and this case should be taught in law school classes as an example of how badly judicial ethics can go off the rails.

    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    • #2
    • May 22, 2020, at 4:22 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  3. colleenb Member
    colleenb Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    The Circuit Court’s order directs Judge Sullivan to respond to the issue of whether dismissal is required here, but not to the issue of recusal. Does that mean that the Circuit is not even thinking about recusal, or does it mean that the Circuit will decide that issue based on the pre-existing record and does not want to hear how Judge Sullivan might try to justify his prior inflammatory and prejudiced remarks? Recusal of a federal judge is pretty extreme. Perhaps the Circuit does not want to address that issue if it is going to require dismissal of the charges anyway.

    In my own opinion, Judge Sullivan should not only be recused but also impeached, and this case should be taught in law school classes as an example of how badly judicial ethics can go off the rails.

    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Excellent post. My thought is that Flynn/Sidney Powell are waiting for everything to be settled before suing Covington Burlington (I think that was the previous law firm), the government, etc. Covington will probably settle but their reputation is severely tarnished. In this economy the might well end up breaking up.

    • #3
    • May 22, 2020, at 5:18 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  4. Stad Thatcher

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    • #4
    • May 22, 2020, at 5:43 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  5. Jon1979 Lincoln

    So what now? Sullivan still has Gleeson out there basically serving in the role of Assistant U.S. Attorney to Sullivan’s top prosecutor role — do they spend Memorial Day weekend together brainstorming how to come up with something the Appeals Court will be forced to let play out, or is Sullivan on his own here in terms of figuring out a way not to abide by the Fokker decision, which looks to be what the Court was trying to tactfully guide him into, without having to issue an outright reprimand for exceeding the bounds of his authority? If Sullivan’s all-in on betting on a Biden win in November, he could decide that defying the Appeals Court and being lionized by the media and Democrats as a hero of the #Resistance could be beneficial to him in the long run, even if the three-judge panel slaps him down before November.

    • #5
    • May 22, 2020, at 6:02 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  6. Jon1979 Lincoln

    Stad (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    It was interesting that in his video to his former administration officials two weeks ago, Obama mentioned a perjury charge against Flynn, when nothing like that had been part of the charges … and then five days later Sullivan threatens Flynn with a perjury charge while refusing to drop the case against him, even though DOJ had ended efforts to prosecute based on the violations committed by Obama Administration officials.

    • #6
    • May 22, 2020, at 6:25 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  7. Rodin Member

    If I were judge Sullivan I would grant the motion to dismiss and make it moot as to whether his previous orders were consistent with the rules and precedent. It only seems to risk the public being more aware of Obamagate the longer this goes on. It seems that Sullivan wanted to force the President to issue a pardon and give the Democrats an issue for the campaign, but somehow it is not going according to script. Delighted for the DC Circuit panel order. But an en banc review might go the other way pushing it to the Supremes. It’s all about the calendar now.

    • #7
    • May 22, 2020, at 8:00 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  8. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    The thing about Flynn, I’m sure you know, is that he was targeted and set up with the Svetlana Lokhova affair (no pun intended) a year before Trump ever announced his candidacy. It makes you wonder who was really the primary target in 0bamagate.

    Obama’s knife was out for Flynn once Flynn crossed the President about Iran. Not content to make one powerful enemy, Flynn called for audits of the intelligence “community.”

    So Flynn was targeted early. Lee Smith at Tablet Magazine:

    The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal. To stop Flynn, the outgoing White House ran the same offense it used to sell the Iran deal—they smeared Flynn through the press as an agent of a foreign power, spied on him, and leaked classified intercepts of his conversations to reliable echo chamber allies.

    In March 2017, after seeing evidence of the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump associates, Congressman Devin Nunes said it had nothing to do with Russia or the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation, or similar Russia probes conducted by congressional committees. Nunes’ contention was difficult to make sense of at the time. Wasn’t everything about Russia and whether or not there was, as Congressman Adam Schiff said, more than circumstantial evidence of collusion?

    In fact, as Trump prepared to take office after his 2016 upset victory, the Obama White House was focused on the Middle East. “Russia collusion” was the narrative that Hillary Clinton operatives seeded in the media and fed to the FBI to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. After the election, the Obama team took it over and used it to hobble the incoming administration.

    That Obama has publicly criticized the Justice Department’s decision to withdraw its case against the retired general shows how personal the anti-Flynn campaign still is for the former president. In leaking his supposedly off-hand comments to Michael Isikoff, a journalist whose work was central in pushing the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, Obama was effectively taking credit for pushing the larger anti-Trump operation that grew out of the anti-Flynn campaign. While the Russia collusion story was a handy instrument for many to advance all manner of personal and political interests, for Obama the purpose of Russiagate was simple and direct: to protect the Iran deal, and secure his legacy.

    Russiagate was part of the coverup.

    • #8
    • May 22, 2020, at 9:16 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  9. PHCheese Member

    Justice is blind and in the case of this judge, deaf and dumb as well.

    • #9
    • May 22, 2020, at 9:33 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Ontheleftcoast Member

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Justice is blind and in the case of this judge, deaf and dumb as well.

    Not deaf. He heard the orders from Obama just fine.

    Jon1979 (View Comment):
    It was interesting that in his video to his former administration officials two weeks ago, Obama mentioned a perjury charge against Flynn, when nothing like that had been part of the charges … and then five days later Sullivan threatens Flynn with a perjury charge while refusing to drop the case against him, even though DOJ had ended efforts to prosecute based on the violations committed by Obama Administration officials.

    Just a coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along.

     

    • #10
    • May 22, 2020, at 9:48 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Ontheleftcoast Member

    colleenb (View Comment):
    Excellent post. My thought is that Flynn/Sidney Powell are waiting for everything to be settled before suing Covington Burlington (I think that was the previous law firm), the government, etc. Covington will probably settle but their reputation is severely tarnished. In this economy the might well end up breaking up.

    With the assets going to Perkins Coie to keep them in the hands of the Party?

    • #11
    • May 22, 2020, at 9:51 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Cicero Del Tufo Coolidge

    Stad (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    Not Sullivan & Cromwell; but rather Covington & Burling: Eric Holder’s firm.

    • #12
    • May 22, 2020, at 10:30 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  13. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Stad (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    Remember we now know that judge John Sirica was having ex parte meetings with prosecutors in the Watergate case.

    • #13
    • May 22, 2020, at 10:36 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  14. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    The thing about Flynn, I’m sure you know, is that he was targeted and set up with the Svetlana Lokhova affair (no pun intended) a year before Trump ever announced his candidacy. It makes you wonder who was really the primary target in 0bamagate.

    Obama’s knife was out for Flynn once Flynn crossed the President about Iran. Not content to make one powerful enemy, Flynn called for audits of the intelligence “community.”

    So Flynn was targeted early. Lee Smith at Tablet Magazine:

    The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal. To stop Flynn, the outgoing White House ran the same offense it used to sell the Iran deal—they smeared Flynn through the press as an agent of a foreign power, spied on him, and leaked classified intercepts of his conversations to reliable echo chamber allies.

    In March 2017, after seeing evidence of the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump associates, Congressman Devin Nunes said it had nothing to do with Russia or the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation, or similar Russia probes conducted by congressional committees. Nunes’ contention was difficult to make sense of at the time. Wasn’t everything about Russia and whether or not there was, as Congressman Adam Schiff said, more than circumstantial evidence of collusion?

    In fact, as Trump prepared to take office after his 2016 upset victory, the Obama White House was focused on the Middle East. “Russia collusion” was the narrative that Hillary Clinton operatives seeded in the media and fed to the FBI to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. After the election, the Obama team took it over and used it to hobble the incoming administration.

    That Obama has publicly criticized the Justice Department’s decision to withdraw its case against the retired general shows how personal the anti-Flynn campaign still is for the former president. In leaking his supposedly off-hand comments to Michael Isikoff, a journalist whose work was central in pushing the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, Obama was effectively taking credit for pushing the larger anti-Trump operation that grew out of the anti-Flynn campaign.

    snipped.

    Russiagate was part of the coverup.

    My opinion a year ago was that Flynn was a target even before Trump, as Trump was expected to lose.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59533.html

     

    • #14
    • May 22, 2020, at 10:40 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  15. colleenb Member
    colleenb Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    The thing about Flynn, I’m sure you know, is that he was targeted and set up with the Svetlana Lokhova affair (no pun intended) a year before Trump ever announced his candidacy. It makes you wonder who was really the primary target in 0bamagate.

    Obama’s knife was out for Flynn once Flynn crossed the President about Iran. Not content to make one powerful enemy, Flynn called for audits of the intelligence “community.”

    So Flynn was targeted early. Lee Smith at Tablet Magazine:

    The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal. To stop Flynn, the outgoing White House ran the same offense it used to sell the Iran deal—they smeared Flynn through the press as an agent of a foreign power, spied on him, and leaked classified intercepts of his conversations to reliable echo chamber allies.

    In March 2017, after seeing evidence of the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump associates, Congressman Devin Nunes said it had nothing to do with Russia or the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation, or similar Russia probes conducted by congressional committees. Nunes’ contention was difficult to make sense of at the time. Wasn’t everything about Russia and whether or not there was, as Congressman Adam Schiff said, more than circumstantial evidence of collusion?

    In fact, as Trump prepared to take office after his 2016 upset victory, the Obama White House was focused on the Middle East. “Russia collusion” was the narrative that Hillary Clinton operatives seeded in the media and fed to the FBI to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. After the election, the Obama team took it over and used it to hobble the incoming administration.

    That Obama has publicly criticized the Justice Department’s decision to withdraw its case against the retired general shows how personal the anti-Flynn campaign still is for the former president. In leaking his supposedly off-hand comments to Michael Isikoff, a journalist whose work was central in pushing the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, Obama was effectively taking credit for pushing the larger anti-Trump operation that grew out of the anti-Flynn campaign.

    snipped.

    Russiagate was part of the coverup.

    My opinion a year ago was that Flynn was a target even before Trump, as Trump was expected to lose.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59533.html

     

    Probably but remember Trump did not like the Iran deal either.

    • #15
    • May 22, 2020, at 10:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. cdor Member
    cdor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    I too have asked this question in previous discussions. Most of us have had terrible things happen to us in the course of life. I know I have. But I also know that I had some culpability in those bad things having happened. I think Flynn got the Royal screwing, but he made some serious mistakes along the way that aggravated his already miserable situation. I wonder why he was naive enough to speak with those two FBI agents at the White House.

    • #16
    • May 22, 2020, at 10:54 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  17. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    cdor (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    I too have asked this question in previous discussions. Most of us have had terrible things happen to us in the course of life. I know I have. But I also know that I had some culpability in those bad things having happened. I think Flynn got the Royal screwing, but he made some serious mistakes along the way that aggravated his already miserable situation. I wonder why he was naive enough to speak with those two FBI agents at the White House.

    He spoke to those two FBI agents because he had a military background, not a legal one.

    • #17
    • May 22, 2020, at 11:43 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  18. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    Remember we now know that judge John Sirica was having ex parte meetings with prosecutors in the Watergate case.

    What gets rewarded gets repeated.

    • #18
    • May 22, 2020, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  19. cdor Member
    cdor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    I too have asked this question in previous discussions. Most of us have had terrible things happen to us in the course of life. I know I have. But I also know that I had some culpability in those bad things having happened. I think Flynn got the Royal screwing, but he made some serious mistakes along the way that aggravated his already miserable situation. I wonder why he was naive enough to speak with those two FBI agents at the White House.

    He spoke to those two FBI agents because he had a military background, not a legal one.

    Carol, please. He was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. He was the National Security Advisor for Trump. In other words, Michael Flynn had spent the last 10 years or more of his career in Intelligence. He doesn’t know you don’t talk to the FBI without a lawyer? In any event, he had every right…it was his job…to talk with Kislyak. But had he not given that interview with the two FBI agents, the Mueller team would never have gotten to first base.

    • #19
    • May 22, 2020, at 12:44 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. Larry3435 Inactive

    Cicero Del Tufo (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know what is happening with Flynn’s previous lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell. Has Flynn sued them for malpractice? Has he filed charges against them with the D.C. bar association? As if it wasn’t bad enough that the FBI and the Justice Department were corrupt and were setting Flynn up, and as if it wasn’t bad enough that the Judge seems to have been in on the scam, it also appears that Flynn’s own lawyers were in on it. This is pretty Kafkaesque stuff. I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    Makes me wonder if there were private communications and coordination among the three entities: Law enforcement & prosecution, the defense attorneys, and the judge . . .

    Not Sullivan & Cromwell; but rather Covington & Burling: Eric Holder’s firm.

    Yes, that’s right. My mistake. Sorry.

    • #20
    • May 22, 2020, at 1:05 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Rightfromthestart Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):
    Excellent post. My thought is that Flynn/Sidney Powell are waiting for everything to be settled before suing Covington Burlington (I think that was the previous law firm), the government, etc. Covington will probably settle but their reputation is severely tarnished. In this economy the might well end up breaking up.

    With the assets going to Perkins Coie to keep them in the hands of the Party?

    Don’t people ever get disbarred? What does it take? If all the people ruling on disbarment are lawyers it seems we have an old boys and girls club situation with no sense of outrage.

    • #21
    • May 22, 2020, at 3:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Ontheleftcoast Member

    The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Gen. Flynn was dropped in late December; Peter Sztrzok then had it reopened after the President was briefed on the call with Kislyak. In that call, an important topic was the President’s declaration that many Russian diplomatic personnel were persona non grata and to be expelled from the USA. Sanctions were allegedly touched on in passing. 

    Dan Bongino did a long interview with Sydney Powell 

    in which she says she suspects that the purpose of Obama’s PNG declaration was to get Ambassador Kislyak to call Gen. Flynn to talk about it. Basically the same technique used to fabricate the “affair” with Svetlana Lakhova. And the dossier: real names, maybe even a real meeting, fake content.

    • #22
    • May 22, 2020, at 3:49 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  23. Boss Mongo Member

    cdor (View Comment):
    Carol, please. He was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. He was the National Security Advisor for Trump. In other words, Michael Flynn had spent the last 10 years or more of his career in Intelligence. He doesn’t know you don’t talk to the FBI without a lawyer? In any event, he had every right…it was his job…to talk with Kislyak. But had he not given that interview with the two FBI agents, the Mueller team would never have gotten to first base.

    Yes, but through all his years working with the interagency, especially when deployed, and when working as McChrystal’s intel guy, he had built interagency intelligence federations. He imbued the (deployable, actually working) part of the IC with the ethos of one team, one fight. He was savvy to daggers in the back from allies and enemies; from those on his own team? Probably not so much.

    • #23
    • May 22, 2020, at 3:53 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  24. Boss Mongo Member

    Powell’s submission for the mandamus seems geared for the Supremes, more so than the DC Circuit. Not saying the DC Circuit won’t do the right thing, but her specifically using and expanding upon the “call balls and strikes” metaphor that Chief Justice Roberts used in his confirmation hearing indicates she’s prepping for the writ’s presentation to the Supremes.

    • #24
    • May 22, 2020, at 3:57 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  25. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    Carol, please. He was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. He was the National Security Advisor for Trump. In other words, Michael Flynn had spent the last 10 years or more of his career in Intelligence. He doesn’t know you don’t talk to the FBI without a lawyer? In any event, he had every right…it was his job…to talk with Kislyak. But had he not given that interview with the two FBI agents, the Mueller team would never have gotten to first base.

    Yes, but through all his years working with the interagency, especially when deployed, and when working as McChrystal’s intel guy, he had built interagency intelligence federations. He imbued the (deployable, actually working) part of the IC with the ethos of one team, one fight. He was savvy to daggers in the back from allies and enemies; from those on his own team? Probably not so much.

    If he was going to audit the US intelligence community, wouldn’t that also have disturbed a lot of cosy and maybe lucrative arrangements involving friendly foreign intelligence agencies?

    • #25
    • May 22, 2020, at 4:16 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Shot: From Conservative Tree House:

    Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard “Ric” Grenell announced today he is in the process of declassifying the transcripts of the calls between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

    Within a twitter response by Grenell, part of the riddle behind the transcripts gets a little more clarity: “The IC doesn’t have all the transcripts/summaries…. it wasn’t our product.”

    The implication here is the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) did not generate one of the transcripts; that evolved into an FBI equity, and was later used in their case against Lt. General Michael Flynn. The December 29, 2016, intercept was not exclusive to the U.S. intelligence apparatus, and the call summary became proprietary to the FBI; the agency exploiting the underlying content.

    This makes sense and explains how the FBI was able to manipulate the framework of the call and keep the remaining U.S. intelligence system away from their internal plan.

    Chaser: A Friday afternoon news dump.

     . . .we’re learning that the FBI had wiretapped Flynn’s call with Kislyak, never masked his name, and circulated this information throughout the Obama administration. The source of the leaks now points to the J. Edgar Hoover Building. With so much malfeasance, current FBI Director Christopher Wray announced an internal review of this investigation (via Fox News):

    The FBI announced Friday that Director Chris Wray has ordered an internal review of the handling of the bureau’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, which will include examining whether current FBI employees “engaged in misconduct.”

    “FBI Director Christopher Wray today ordered the Bureau’s Inspection Division to conduct an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation,” the bureau said in a statement.

    The review will be handled by the bureau’s Inspection Division, the FBI said. That division is similar to an internal affairs office in a police department.

    The bureau said the “after-action review” will have a two-fold purpose: evaluating the FBI’s role in the case and determining whether any “current employees engaged in misconduct,” as well as identifying whether any “improvements” might be warranted to FBI procedures.

    “Although the FBI does not have the prosecutorial authority to bring a criminal case, the Inspection Division can and will evaluate whether any current onboard employees engaged in actions that might warrant disciplinary measures,” the FBI said.

    • #26
    • May 22, 2020, at 4:36 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  27. Larry3435 Inactive

    Rightfromthestart (View Comment):
    Don’t people ever get disbarred? What does it take? If all the people ruling on disbarment are lawyers it seems we have an old boys and girls club situation with no sense of outrage.

    In California, and I assume in most other states, the monthly bar magazine has a section on disciplinary actions – it lists the names and offenses of lawyers who have been disbarred, suspended, or reprimanded. It’s the first thing that most of us would turn to when the mag showed up in the mail (looking for law school classmates). And yes, lawyers do get disbarred (although it usually takes multiple offenses). But it almost never is because the lawyer did a poor job or sold out his client’s interests. It’s usually because the lawyer embezzled client funds (or co-mingled client funds with his own accounts) or because the lawyer had such a severe drug or alcohol problem that he or she stopped responding to client inquiries, missed court dates and filing deadlines, and stuff like that. There is a sense of outrage, but it is selective.

    • #27
    • May 22, 2020, at 5:19 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  28. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    cdor (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    I too have asked this question in previous discussions. Most of us have had terrible things happen to us in the course of life. I know I have. But I also know that I had some culpability in those bad things having happened. I think Flynn got the Royal screwing, but he made some serious mistakes along the way that aggravated his already miserable situation. I wonder why he was naive enough to speak with those two FBI agents at the White House.

    Probably thought FBI agents were honest. That is sometimes called “mirrored thinking.”

    • #28
    • May 23, 2020, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  29. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    Carol, please. He was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. He was the National Security Advisor for Trump. In other words, Michael Flynn had spent the last 10 years or more of his career in Intelligence. He doesn’t know you don’t talk to the FBI without a lawyer? In any event, he had every right…it was his job…to talk with Kislyak. But had he not given that interview with the two FBI agents, the Mueller team would never have gotten to first base.

    Yes, but through all his years working with the interagency, especially when deployed, and when working as McChrystal’s intel guy, he had built interagency intelligence federations. He imbued the (deployable, actually working) part of the IC with the ethos of one team, one fight. He was savvy to daggers in the back from allies and enemies; from those on his own team? Probably not so much.

    If he was going to audit the US intelligence community, wouldn’t that also have disturbed a lot of cosy and maybe lucrative arrangements involving friendly foreign intelligence agencies?

    They were in on it. Downer was a Hillary donor in spite of being an Aussie. Steele was a former MI6 member.

    • #29
    • May 23, 2020, at 4:45 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  30. cdor Member
    cdor Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I would also like to know how Sullivan & Cromwell – a prominently Democratic firm – ever became Flynn’s lawyers in the first place. There are still unanswered questions here.

    I too have asked this question in previous discussions. Most of us have had terrible things happen to us in the course of life. I know I have. But I also know that I had some culpability in those bad things having happened. I think Flynn got the Royal screwing, but he made some serious mistakes along the way that aggravated his already miserable situation. I wonder why he was naive enough to speak with those two FBI agents at the White House.

    Probably thought FBI agents were honest. That is sometimes called “mirrored thinking.”

    It’s the kind of mirror one sees at a Carnival.

    • #30
    • May 24, 2020, at 10:14 AM PDT
    • Like