DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[26CornerBlitz]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

He got that in December 2016?

 

Is your point hat he was just a son-in-law before then?  If so it's weak. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[GG]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Is your point hat he was just a son-in-law before then?  If so it's weak. 

 

My point is that you're another chronologically challenged poster.  You responded to the question that asked when did Kushner become a government official in the December 2016 timeframe that's being discussed.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, GG said:

 

My point is that you're another chronologically challenged poster.  You responded to the question that asked when did Kushner become a government official in the December 2016 timeframe that's being discussed.

 

Officially yes. Because the new administration wasn't in place yet. 

[EasternOHBillsFan]

26 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Charge Against Flynn Is More Evidence that Mueller Has Nothing

by John Hinderaker

 

News media are breathlessly reporting that Gen. Michael Flynn has agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI. You can read the Statement of the Offense here. The false statements alleged by the government seem rather pathetic:

 

1) Flynn falsely told an FBI agent that he didn’t ask the Russian ambassador to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions” the U.S. had just imposed, and

2) that he didn’t recall the ambassador subsequently telling him that the Russians had moderated their response per his request;

3) Flynn falsely said that he didn’t ask the Russian ambassador to delay or defeat a pending U.N. Security Council resolution, and

4) that the ambassador never subsequently described his country’s response to that request. (Flynn tried, unsuccessfully, to convince several members of the Security Council, including Russia, not to proceed with an anti-Israel resolution. This is to his, and President Trump’s credit.)

 

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.

 

In short, the allegations against Flynn suggest that Robert Mueller has nothing significant against President Trump or other members of his administration.

The press, of course, is gleeful. ABC‘s headline blares, “Flynn Prepared To Testify Against Trump, Trump Family, White House Staff.” Really? Testify to what?

 

{snip}

 

 of course, there is nothing wrong with directing Flynn to make contact with the Russians. ABC says this is contrary to statements that Trump has made, but I don’t know whether that is true or not. It would require considerable research into Trump’s many statements to discern whether he has said that he never directed Flynn to contact any Russian on any subject.

 

In any event, what is the point? Contacting foreign governments was part of Flynn’s job, and directing Flynn to contact foreign governments was part of Trump’s job.

 

In the information filed against Flynn, what is most important is what is not there–the dog that isn’t barking

 

W]hen a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation. That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

 

I suppose it is still possible that Mueller could still surprise us, but General Flynn was supposed to be the key witness, and he apparently has little or nothing to say that is newsworthy.

 

 

 

More at the link....................

 

.

 

John Hinderaker: " So I say: Roy Moore for Senate! Enthusiastically. "

 

Enthusiastically for a child predator? That's all you need to know. Win at all costs, even though it means supporting people that feel up children and would marry a 16 year old in his late 30s.

[GG]

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Officially yes. Because the new administration wasn't in place yet. 

 

Officially yes, what?

 

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

John Hinderaker: " So I say: Roy Moore for Senate! Enthusiastically. "

 

Enthusiastically for a child predator? That's all you need to know. Win at all costs, even though it means supporting people that feel up children and would marry a 16 year old in his late 30s.

 

Did you not read past the first line of that article or did you not comprehend it ?

 

Also, his last article does not nullify any points he makes in this link...............but you knew that.

 

 

 

.

[Logic]

https://qz.com/1144480/mike-flynns-guilty-plea-muellers-investigation-into-trumps-russia-ties-and-everything-else-you-need-to-know/

Everything you need to know about Mike Flynn’s guilty plea

Mueller threw the kitchen sink at Manafort and Gates, with 12 criminal charges against them, but Flynn has just one. That’s because Mueller wants to bludgeon Manafort and Gates into cooperating, while Flynn has already been doing so.

To get this kind of light deal, Flynn would probably have had to offer highly damaging information about other people in last year’s presidential campaign, writes University of New Hampshire law professor and former public defender Seth Abramson (Abramson’s Twitter account is a must-read for those following the probe and heavily informs this piece). What’s more, that information has to be onsomeone higher “up the food chain” in the organization.

For someone of Flynn’s seniority, there are very few people who fit that bill. President Trump and vice-president Mike Pence are two of them. Whether Trump’s son-in-law and right hand man Jared Kushner is a big enough fish could be open to interpretation. Abramson argues that Flynn could only have got this very easy deal by offering incriminating information on Trump or Pence.

The first early sign that he’s done just that is ABC’s report that Flynn will testify that Trump “directed him to make contact with the Russians.”

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm just wondering if Flynn could have been charged with more serious charges and wasn't because he has damaging information on somebody higher up.  It's all speculation at this point though because obviously we don't know exactly what Mueller is doing.

 

From my understanding, yes he was facing more serious charges and this represents a deal of some kind between Mueller and Flynn. That's why there is a very real chance that he has more to say that will end up being very bad for many in the administration. 

Certainly possible. 

 

But your last point is also key and worth repeating. No one knows where Mueller's investigation has veered. Everyone was convinced Popadopolous was wearing a wire to entrap Trumpers - yet when the recordings of his court hearing were revealed we learned he was ordered by the judge not to have any contact with anyone related to the investigation (ie Trump and his team). This point was under reported at the time because people are running with the bits of the story that conform to their beliefs/wishes/desires more so than stepping back and looking at the whole picture. 

 

And the whole picture about the Russian narrative started before the 2016 campaign was even in the incubation stage. 

 

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

He doesn't recognize that you can disagree with someone respectfully.  He also doesn't realize that you can agree with someone and still think they're a retard because their thought process is so bass-ackwards and !@#$ed sideways.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

This is the office displaying their leverage as they continue. It's meant to be more informative than revelatory IMO.

 

This is also true. The Flynn deal is a message. 

[boyst]

Do we just also forget that Flynn worked under Obama and could also be providing info on that regard? Or just because this is about Russia we want to believe it's all about Trump?

 

I know it won't happen, but imagine if he had something against Lynch.

 

In the end, the only charged and result is to smear mud for people who lied to this probe or some **** that happened 5 yrs ago.

 

Dog and pony show and !@#$s like 26cornerbitch and pastajoe think it matters.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

When he received a Government Security Clearance with access in the WH and made official trips to conduct government business.

 

Nope.  That's not how it works.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Lock him up!!

 

Too soon?

[Koko78]

Cross-examining Flynn in any criminal case brought about because of his speculated cooperation would be a blast.

 

"So you were fired as National Security Advisor because you lied to VP Pence?"

 

"Then you were charged with and plead guilty to lying to the FBI?"

 

"But we're supposed to believe you this time?"

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Cross-examining Flynn in any criminal case brought about because of his speculated cooperation would be a blast.

 

"So you were fired as National Security Advisor because you lied to VP Pence?"

 

"Then you were charged with and plead guilty to lying to the FBI?"

 

"But we're supposed to believe you this time?"

Several things. 

 

He he might be able to provide documentation that he brought forward because of plea

 

He can tell them about events, facts, accounts or other evidence they might not have been discovered otherwise

 

He can give explanations of evidence to juries and grand juries that would otherwise remain useless to the prosecution without it being explained

 

Any grand jury testimony can't be cross examined but can be used to get indictment against other targets of the investigation like Jared Kushner 

[Deranged Rhino]

Finally got the time to read the filing... 

 

After reading it and the plea deal specifically, I'm left wanting answers to a few questions:

 

1) Why would Flynn lie to the FBI on the 24th of January about a story that was already in the press (leaked) weeks before? Incompetence and idiocy can't be ruled out completely as humans do stupid things for inane reasons every day... but the fact he chose to lie about something that a) he knew wasn't illegal, and b) he knew was already leaked in the media always struck me as strange for a man with Flynn's counter intel background:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/13/michael_flynn_called_the_russians_is_this_normal.html

https://apnews.com/ba462d64c12d4692b8381cb7076d34ab/ap-source-trump-aide-frequent-contact-russia-envoy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.21b2198dfd35

 

2) The Turkey of it all. The FARA issues with regards to Flynn's work with Turkey were some of the strongest violations Mueller had against Flynn, there's no reason to include it in this part of the deal they struck unless they agreed before hand Flynn wouldn't be penalized for it (the quid pro quo of it all). Compare his plea deal to the Popadopalous's plea deal and it's clear they hammered Papadopalous in comparison. By including the Turkey of it all in this deal, and Flynn pleading guilty to the lesser charge, he's now immune from not just all things Russian, but Turkish as well. There are additional speculations that can be drawn about this if you do some thinking back to the "coup" last year and Flynn's alleged role in that, but we'll set those aside for now and leave that for the Deep State thread wherein the Turkey coup was discussed and sourced at length.

 

Flynn now has immunity on all things Russia and Turkey, and most importantly, is required by the terms of his plea to turn over to Mueller and the FBI any and all information and evidence he has about any illegal activities - not just those related to Mueller's investigation. That gives Mueller the ability to shift his investigation in any number of unexpected ways depending on what evidence and what crimes Flynn is disclosing. 

 

This is why Flynn's previous job experience is important to keep in mind, as is the oath he took to hold that position.

 

Remember back (and dig into) the relationship Flynn had with the previous administration while serving in that post. What was the specific issue that lead to their falling out? Does that issue relate to the things we've seen unfold recently abroad? (*cough* KSA) 

 

Let that soak in before you dismiss it...

 

So now we have two key Mueller witnesses who leave us questioning what Mueller is really investigating: One witness was probably working as an asset for the investigation by wearing a wire - though he was instructed by the court not to have any contact with any Trump officials or transition team officials (so, who was he wearing a wire for?); and a second witness who is now legally compelled to turn over any evidence of any illegalities he knows of, whether it's related to Russian collusion or not.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that the information Flynn has to cut the deal is everything the Russian-gate folks have been hoping for - can't rule that out and won't until we know definitively. But it's also possible the information Flynn will give to Mueller has nothing to do whatsoever with Russian collusion, and is instead something else entirely. 

 

Which brings me back to my number one question above: why lie then to the FBI?

 

... Could a spy have been playing the long game?

 

Nah, that's not how spies think, or how they're trained, or how they problem solve.

 

Better link to all the indictments and pleas: https://www.justice.gov/sco

Edited December 2, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

And then this - which is either hilariously poor spin/deflection... or if Flynn or the WH actually has evidence of this, heads will explode.

CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362856-cnn-white-house-claims-obama-admin-approved-flynn-calls-with-russian

 

Clapper calls the claim "absurd"... and you know, he's a beacon of truth.   

 

[Tiberius]

55 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

And then this - which is either hilariously poor spin/deflection... or if Flynn or the WH actually has evidence of this, heads will explode.

CNN: White House claims Obama admin approved Flynn calls with Russian ambassador

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362856-cnn-white-house-claims-obama-admin-approved-flynn-calls-with-russian

 

Clapper calls the claim "absurd"... and you know, he's a beacon of truth.   

 

So Flynn lied to protect Obama and Hillary!! I knew it 

[B-Man]

 

#FAKENEWS: ABC: Our hugely damning report about Trump and Flynn earlier might have gotten one tiny detail wrong. 

 

Sheesh.

 

and because of ABC's devotion to the false media NARRATIVE, millions  were lost by stock investors

 

 

Quote

 

Stephen Miller‏Verified account @redsteeze

FollowFollow @redsteeze

More

ABC News cratered the stock market worse in one day than 10 months of President Simple Jack.

 

 

7:58 PM - 1 Dec 2017

 

 

 

The Lawfare Blog is less than impressed.

 

 

David French says There Is No Evidence of ‘Collusion’ in Michael Flynn’s Offense Statement.

 

I don’t know what’s going on myself. I do think that this will either end with a fizzle, or with an enormously divisive prosecution, possibly producing a constitutional crisis.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/282266/

 

 

.

121

Edited December 2, 2017 by B-Man

[westerndecline]

Isn't all this irrelevant because trump will pardon anyone under him like Bush with Iran contra and then just claim he had no knowledge

[/dev/null]

7 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

When he received a Government Security Clearance with access in the WH and made official trips to conduct government business.

[row_33]

Panetta admitted it to be a stretch to find anything against the law here, which is drastically understating the honest truth.

 

Trump correctly fired Flynn for lying to Pence.