The Department of Justice has tapped an outside prosecutor to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. That prosecutor is Jeff Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Reporter Carol Lee at NBC News has an article that, despite a heavy serving of anti-Trump and anti-Barr polemics, offers some insight. She focuses on the aspect of the case that early on drew my attention--the lack of any reasonable predication for investigating Flynn's perfectly normal contacts with the Russian ambassador. In other words, her focus is on the actual interview of Flynn by Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka:
Justice Department opens inquiry into FBI interview at heart of Flynn's guilty plea
Lee also does some digging into the significance of having a prosecutor conducting this "review." Remember how Durham launched a "review" of the Russia Hoax? Yeah, that turned out to be a criminal investigation--which is what prosecutors do. OIG does reviews.
I've edited out the polemical parts because I assume that Barr can justify everything he's doing. Excerpts:
...
Attorney General William Barr asked the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeffrey Jensen, to look into Flynn's FBI interview, the people familiar with the inquiry said. The inquiry began within the past month, they said.
...
One of the people familiar with the inquiry described it as "very sensitive."
...
The FBI interviewed Flynn at the White House about his Russia contacts on Jan. 24, 2017, just four days after Trump's inauguration.
Comey and McCabe signed off on sending two agents to interview Flynn. One of the agents was Peter Strzok.
...
Jensen's inquiry seems similar to one Barr assigned to the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, examining the origins of the FBI's investigation into potential ties between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. Durham's inquiry evolved into a criminal investigation, raising questions about whether Jensen's may as well.
...
Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia and an NBC News legal analyst, said it's unclear if there's anything improper about assigning Jensen to look into Flynn's FBI interview, but if he's not looking into whether a crime was committed, then Barr is potentially misusing a U.S. attorney.
"If you think what you have is a flawed process, or some larger policy issue that needs to be addressed, then you might go to the IG," Rosenberg said. "If you think you have a crime, then you would go to a U.S. attorney."
...
Assigning an inquiry to a U.S. attorney out of the district that has jurisdiction over the matter — in Flynn's case Washington, D.C., or possibly Virginia — is typically done when the district with jurisdiction needs to recuse itself, and that isn't the case with Flynn, said Joyce Vance, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Alabama and MSNBC contributor.
...
Jensen, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, is a former FBI agent. He is tasked with looking into how the FBI's interview of Flynn took place, as well as how the department handled it afterward, the people familiar with the inquiry said. They said they did not know the timeline for completing the inquiry. Flynn's sentencing hearing, which had been scheduled for this month, was postponed to allow time to sort through the latest motions by the defense and the prosecution. No new date has been set.
UPDATE: Some Twitter commentary:
FOOL NELSON
@FOOL_NELSON
This Michael Horowitz revelation, that the @JusticeOIG referred Andy McCabe for criminal conduct that isn't public, is now relevant given we learned today that McCabe might've pressured Pientka to alter his 302, leading Pientka to inform the IG.
FOOL NELSON
@FOOL_NELSON
· Sep 18, 2019
POTENTIALLY HUGE: When asked why he criminally referred McCabe to the DOJ, Horowitz states that he'll "stick to what's public", the @JusticeOIG "found a lack of candor". This raises the question whether there's more undisclosed McCabe crimes. Tune to 1:06. https://youtu.be/KoJxreP1vVI
6:15 PM · Jan 29, 2020
FOOL NELSON
@FOOL_NELSON
Remember there was potentially another McCabe referral that was relevant to the Flynn prosecution, combine that with the Flynn news today of outside prosecutors scrutinizing Van Grack, et al. The @USAO_DC is under a microscope. 
2:52 PM · Feb 14, 2020
Greg Rubini
@GregRubini
In the DOJ statement it says:
"US Attorney Jeff Jensen will be working hand-in-hand with the lead prosecutor of Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack"
What it really means is:
"Jeff Jensen will grill and torch Van Grack"
bye bye, Van Grack Grack Grack - and good luck!
2:33 PM · Feb 14, 2020
What did FBI Comey say, under oath to Congress, about that interview ...
ReplyDeleteComey stated to the media that he would have notified White House counsel on the interrogation if he, Comey, thought he would have "gotten away with in a more organized administration."
In front of Congress, under questioning from Trey Gowdy, Comey clarified, "In an administration where rhe rhythm of the context between the FBI and the White House was more established, there would have been a strong expectation that we coordinate it through White House cousel instead of calling the national security adviser directly."
So, Comey took advantage of the situation to put Trump's National Security Advisor into an adversarial "friendly" interrogation.
It's great Barr is now investigating this, but the fact Flynn has lost his career, reputation, and any savings he had due to nefarious actions by FBI Director Comey all the while FBI Director Comey gets to pontificate from forrested scenes is a travesty beyond the pale. It is compounded worse by the fact the system is stacked against him.
At some point we have to recognize things are irreconcilable broken and nothing will save it.
The implications of all this is horrible.
That was my first reaction to this report, pretty much. It's great to see, but why did it take so long? The fact that it was a setup was well known. I can understand Barr wanting to be methodical, but peoples' lives are involved here.
DeleteExactly. Barr is intimidated by the DoJ. (Shea certainly is!) Far from falling into line, they're flagrantly defying Barr and his hand-picked associates. This is an ideological battle. (Entrenched DoJ Democrats versus "the deplorables") You can't change somebody's political ideology. You can only kick them out the door, which isn't happening. Because Barr thinks the DoJ is "too big to fail"?
DeleteDrain the swamp? It ain't happening with the DoJ. Even IF Durham indicts some people, the D.C. DoJ swamp will remain. I feel sick.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vindman-will-not-be-investigated-after-ouster-army-secretary-says
DeleteSomeone else is "vindicated". Great day for the Swamp. Dissolution becomes more attractive as an option by the minute.
Tom S.
I just read Barr's transcript of the ABC interview. Barr is not the bull-in-the-china-shop I wished for. He said "We, we like our prosecutors and hope they stay." Oh well.
DeleteAt this point I can only hope Barr has an attitude adjustment and realizes Trump isn't the problem (the DoJ is) Trump is re-elected, Barr stays for 4 more years, and a whole bunch of ex-DoJ ex-FBI people wind up in prison. Is that too much to ask?
He can say bye bye to those Eagles.
DeleteRob S
Yes, and retire at about 80 grand a year and take up a second career in State, or for some lobbyist on K St, and be honored as the occasional 'net' talking head expert on Resistance, like John Dean, while some kid does hard time in Leavenworth for taking a picture of a dead Taliban to celebrate that he didn't have to die that day for the glory of the Swamp. With a little luck, and a good literary agent, Vindman will be a millionaire before his 50th birthday. He's eligible now for retirement, if he wants it, and their sending him to the War College for an advanced degree, which sets him up for a teaching gig at an Ivy League college/Service Academy or think-tank. I certainly wouldn't bet real money on him not ending up with a star, much less an eagle, if he decides to stay. He isn't being forced out. Travesty is too small a word to cover it.
DeleteTom S.
@dfp21
DeleteI've never gotten the sense that Barr is the least bit intimidated by the den of vipers that the DOJ has become. Quite the contrary. The impression I get is that of a careful and methodical veteran snake handler.
When I say Barr is intimidated - it's not by any individuals, but it's by the DoJ as a whole. It's about him not even trying to drain the swamp. Barr doesn't seem to consider the DoJ a refuge for partisan Democrat lawyers. Or, if he acknowledges that, he's decided he can "manage" it rather than expunge the partisan atmosphere.
DeleteIn other words - Barr is afraid to even try to drain the swamp. Wouldn't be prudent. Barr has chosen the easy path - don't provoke a fight, swat down anybody who challenges you (Mueller), and deceive yourself into thinking you've gained the DoJ's respect, rather than their silent contempt.
And another thing. My criticism of Barr for his inaction comes from my own experience in the corporate world. It takes only days for a new leader of an organization to purge ALL the old leadership if he thinks the organization needs a cultural adjustment. I've seen it first-hand and I've received a termination contract & NDA when they finally got around to me, a mid-level manager, after all the top-level guys silently disappeared. Barr is doing nothing to change the partisan behavior of the DoJ. And Barr is no babe-in-the woods. He could change whatever he wants to change.
DeleteMaybe Trump should tweet Barr that the federal bureaucracy works just like the corporate world and that he can purge DoJ in days. And you could take credit for that insight.
DeleteYou commented on this post, but apparently it didn't stick:
https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-could-possibly-stop-barr-from-just.html
I'm not ignorant enough to think Barr can just fire people. But I am ignorant enough to believe he could re-assign people to send a g.d-d.m message. I guess he can't even do that much.
DeleteHey, it is what it is. Barr is as good as it's going to get. I love the guy, compared to his predecessor.
This has lots of implications, not the least of which is a shot across McCabe's bow indicating he isn't out of jeopardy just yet.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Sally Yates also soiled herself when she heard the news this afternoon. Her Logan Act excuse hasn't weathered well since January 2017 when she trotted it out.
And lastly, can you imagine how Van Grack and the other remnants of the Mueller Gang must feel about an outside federal Prosecutor looking over their shoulder ...
Good point re Yates. Comey apparently did the interview without her prior knowledge but she was front and center (with Mary McCord) claiming that Flynn was lying.
DeleteSome months ago it was reported the Durham’s investigation and “interviews” were being done by prosecutors. Somewhat more than just ‘investigators”.
ReplyDeleteOther than Barr’s mention that there could be something happening in late spring or early summer, neither Durham nor Barr has talked about what Durham is doing. I like that.
>> Greg Rubini
ReplyDelete@GregRubini
In the DOJ statement it says:
"US Attorney Jeff Jensen will be working hand-in-hand with the lead prosecutor of Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack"
What it really means is:
"Jeff Jensen will grill and torch Van Grack"
bye bye, Van Grack Grack Grack - and good luck!<<
Oh, my; Van Grack is going to get the equivalent a proctologic exam. "Bend over, buddy -- here it comes!"
Also wondering: will Van Grack resign in protest like other Mueller Inquisition alums, or try to grin and bear it?
ReplyDeleteThe first question Jensen should ask is "why would the FBI need to interview Flynn to find out what he said to Kislyak when they already had the transcript of the phone call?"
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess, that alone justifies Barr's appointment of Jensen to investigate this travesty of justice, and goes to the question of why he appointed a US Attorney instead of spinning off to Horowitz at DOJ OIG.
On it's face, the interview makes no sense at all... unless it's purpose was as a potential perjury trap.
"On it's face, the interview makes no sense at all... unless it's purpose was as a potential perjury trap."
DeleteWhich, of course, it was. Delete 'potential'.
And remember the timing. The Russia hoax--leaked as an "investigation" into Trump/campaign--to effect the electoral outcome didn't work. In January, FBI knew oppo research Steele dossier was useless. After the inauguration--go after Flynn (as Deep State #1 target) with process crime trap by flouting normal protocols.
Delete"Show mw the man, I'll show you the crime."
--Lavrentiy Beria.
@Forbes
DeleteYes.
The timing of all this Trump Conspiracy is fascinating, esp as now the gaps and connections are filling in.
Its impossible to avoid the consideration that all of these scores, if not hundreds, of inter-related and complex moving parts were not directed by a central cerebral cortex (or cortices).
Doesn't every conspiracy, by definition, have an architect or architects?
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conspiracy
I think I know that Mark is a devotee of Sherlock Holmes and so I have to wonder out loud (perhaps only a bit tongue in cheek) whether there is a real life counterpart to Doyle's fictional Professor Moriarty, of whom Doyle wrote:
"The greatest schemer of all time, the organizer of every devilry, the controlling brain of the underworld, a brain which might have made or marred the destiny of nations—that's the man! But so aloof is he from general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self-effacement, that for those very words that you have uttered, he could hale you to a court and emerge with your year's pension as a solatium for his wounded character."
I suppose the alternative is that the Trump Conspiracy just metastasized without central direction.
But that would have been so risky (or riskier...). Wouldn't it?
When I stated the system is irrevocable broken, I mean that the only way to save our Republic is via the most extreme way and that, sadly, is through violence.
ReplyDeleteI truly hope that is wrong. I, using legal vernacular, beseech any higher power to make my summation wrong.
I want it to be wrong.
I do not see it that way, though. Nothing so far even suggests it otherwise.
This saddens me. I am not necessarily old and have been trained in various ways of close combat training. Thing is, I see the fight happening with my children and not me.
Yes, this is this deep and this horrific.
Sigh.
It's too late to avoid violence. Democrats have been using mob violence against individual Trump supporters since 2016. Democrats shot Scalise. Democrats proudly announce their hatred of, and hound anybody who wears a pro-Trump hat.
DeleteSo the violence is here. Thing is, Democrat mob violence has only shown a spotlight on themselves. Trump can't lose now. I suppose Democrats perceive their impotence to stop him, so erupt with hatred.
Sally Yates said that Russia might be able to blackmail Flynn because Ambassador Kislyak had recorded Flynn violating the Logan Act.
ReplyDeleteThat was the original justification for the DOJ/FBI actions against Flynn.
The logic of Yates’ justification makes no sense on its face. Since Yates (DOJ) knows about Flynn’s calls with Kislyak, including the details of what was said, (since the FBI has transcripts from intercepts of all Kisyak calls,) it is impossible for Russia to “blackmail” Flynn even if he DID violate the Logan Act (which he didn’t) –- because US Law enforcement already knows what he said to Kislyak. Thus, there is no threat for the Russians to make –- nothing they can reveal that the FBI/DOJ doesn’t already know. You can’t blackmail a wife cheater whose wife already knows he’s cheating on her!
DeleteAnd as a matter of law, the Logan Act doesn’t apply to requests made by a transition official/National Security Adviser designate passing along requests of the incoming administration in calls to foreign officials that were authorize by the extant Administration.
In short, Yates was lying out both corners of her mouth. The Logan Act/blackmail nonsense was just a pretext to set up the FBI ambush interview of Flynn in the WH, and as pretexts go, this is transparently a load of codswallop.
I would add the observation that using such a flimsy and logically flawed pretext suggests a high level of desperation on the part of the conspiracy to go after Flynn.
For further consideration on my cynical view despite Barr's opening another investigation...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/breaking-doj-will-not-charge-former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe/
"
The Department of Justice on Friday announced it has dropped its criminal investigation of Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
His lawyers made the announcement on Friday morning."
Things are broken. Nothing Trump nor Barr or Durham will rectify.
When they say "has dropped its investigation" they're only referring to ONE very specific investigation--the claim, which he denies, that when he spoke to reporters he was not authorized to do so. He says he WAS authorized, and DoJ has decided they can't prove a lack of authorization beyond a reasonable doubt.
DeleteALL other investigations remain on the table, especially the Durham investigations.
Now, with the new Flynn "review" McCabe will once again be front and center.
Of course McCabe's camp and the MSM want this to sound like some sorta major exoneration. It was nothing of the sort.
DeleteAnd why am I soo cynical, as if really need to justify such a position, here is another reason ...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/deep-state-justice-same-doj-prosecutor-who-let-andrew-mccabe-walk-gave-a-sweetheart-deal-to-imran-awan/
"And, as pointed out by Robert Barnes earlier today, J.P. Cooney, who signed today’s letter, is the same DOJ prosecutor that let Imran Awan walk free."
Cooney followed orders. Barr was not at DoJ when that deal was done. Cooney may well be corrupt, but the real corruption is at a higher level of DoJ as well as in Congress.
DeleteInteresting explanation of why McCabe won't be charged for lying...
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1228503238481235969
Certainly. But the lying pertains to only one very specific aspect that doesn't go to the big picture conspiracy itself, the actual Russia Hoax.
DeleteI'm trying to keep an open mind. The single justification for the lack of indictments, and it is the only one left, is that these complicated legal matters take time. OTOH, the bad guys didn't seem to have time issues when they brought the hammer down on Page, Stone & Flynn, among others. But I'm keeping an open mind.
ReplyDeleteSome of what Barr has said recently rattles me. As has been pointed out, he may not be Beowulf. I'm going to keep that open mind until mid-July. After that I'm cashing out. Any indictments that come post July would run the risk of being "known unknowns," of possibly hurting Trump. Barr can't control how the media will spin things, and spin they will.
Voters are fickle, and easily moved. It wouldn't take much. The bad guys are still trying to steal the election. They don't need any help.
Barr's only been in there a year. So the time issue strikes me as real. Then again, it isn't as if Barr is out looking for the Higgs Boson.
BTW: exactly how many people are working on these various cases? I'm thinking dozens and dozens, maybe a hundred or more. What if it's twelve men out near the boiler room? Is there a way to find out?
I give it until July.
Your first paragraph: There is no comparison, none at all, between the two matters as re the degree of complication. Additionally, it always takes more time--a lot more time--to follow the rule of law than to ignore the rule of law.
Delete"There is no comparison, none at all, between the two matters as re the degree of complication."
ReplyDeleteRight.
Esp because the hammer never came down on Page and the Stone & Flynn indictments were made up.
And the ill-advised Stone & Flynn indictments are still causing the prosecution nightmares.
Better Durham avoid these as helpful precedents.
That is an excellent riposte, it takes more time to follow the rule of law than to ignore the rule of law. As I tend to defer to you in these matters, I will continue to do so. You are a lamp in the jungle, Mark.
ReplyDelete@Cassander and @Titan 28
DeleteGreg Jarrett, an accomplished defense attorney thinks that the new 'review' is the first step to dropping the Flynn case. Barr obviously wants to do this in a watertight way that will be impervious to media spin. Flynn and Powell should want that too. My own view is that the apparently criminal nature of this 'review' bodes ill for McCabe. More in just a bit.
Slightly off topic; did anyone else hear/see Hannity yesterday?
DeleteHe's hinting something very, very big is going on which he thinks will culminate soon, and when it does, "it will rock their world" -- referring to the conspirators in this enterprise.
He stipulates that he does not know what it is, but based on the "bread crumbs" we do know, and what his heretofore reliable sources are telling him, he is reasonably confident about this "big deal" that Barr/Durham are working on.
If it were just Hannity saying this, I'd tend to take it with a grain of salt. But his sources have not misled him in any material way in the past three years on this subject. And Sara Carter says she's hearing the same thing from her sources.
And, though I have no sources other than open source, I got a similar hunch as thing unfolded over the course of the past few weeks; it feels like something big is brewing, and the pace with which Barr is suddenly acting now is a significant uptick, and, as Hannity characterized it, looks like someone "clearing the decks" (or prepping the battlefield?) before a major engagement.
The level of hysteria from the conspirators and their defenders/co-conspirators in the Deep State this week also seems to betoken a rising level of fear that something very bad is about to happen to them. Their over-reaction to Barr rescinding the Stone sentencing recommendation submitted by prosecutors is symptomatic of this hysteria.
They sense the proximity of the monster, but do not know where it is , what it is, or how big it is. And they do not know when the monster will choose to strike.
And neither do we.
He's talking about those who "deliberately misled" the FISC. That would include McCabe, but plenty of others. I'm not privy to Barr/Durham's strategy, but indictments of thos players leading to their cooperation against higher ups--breaking in late spring to early summer--would make sense.
DeleteThe FISA fraud, while not UNimportant, would be lower level but significant charges when compared to the big picture conspiracy. Whether the conspiracy can be charged without people like Brennan included is unclear to me. Durham may feel he needs to get more cooperation from FBI players to lead to the conspiracy charges, the big picture of the Russia Hoax.
DeleteAgain, not minimizing FISA abuse, but at this point I see it as a stepping stone to getting at the Deep State manipulation of our political and constitutional order.
"...but indictments of thos players leading to their cooperation against higher ups--breaking in late spring to early summer--would make sense."
DeleteWhich leads me to a minor point which we have not (I think) discussed here. I would have thought the threat of charges against McCabe in the leaking case (which seems pretty open and shut to me) might have been a useful lever to flip McCabe...The charges would not have to have been announced, they would simply be part of Barr/Durham's toolkit in developing the case(s) against Comey, etc., and even higher ups...In this respect I found McCabe's interview on tv yesterday where he proclaimed relief at the supposed end of his legal jeopardy and anger at prosecutors for dragging him and his family through the ordeal of being 'unfairly' accused...just a little bit bizarre. It is impossible to believe McCabe's legal travails are over, and impossible to believe he doesn't know it.
Hannity was quite clear on the point that whatever this is, it is something we do not know about yet.
DeleteAnd he characterized as something very deep, very profound. He rails about FISA fraud every day; that isn't a new "shiny" for him.
Whatever it is, its bigger that the FISA fraud, and deeper.
... and intriguing as all hell!
@Cassander: Check out the ending to the new post re Lee Smith's interview.
Delete@EZ: Direct Hannity quote:
"those that did the premeditated fraud on FISA…They’re about to see their worlds rocked.”
MW wrote:
Delete..@EZ: Direct Hannity quote:
"those that did the premeditated fraud on FISA…They’re about to see their worlds rocked.”<<
You're right, he did say that, but it appears the FISA Abuse is just one aspect of the much bigger "we don't know what it is" thing that Barr/Durham are working on. The Hannity video clip linked below gives you some of the flavor of what I was trying to describe.
>>https://youtu.be/YslbX_rzROo<<
In retrospect, I think Hannity just threw in the FISA Abuse because when he does his monologues it's one of the things he repeats endlessly. (This is another reason why Hannity grates on me -- he incessantly interrupts guests to insert his pet theories and issues when the focus in on a different issue. I fear that's what he may have done here, jamming the FISA Abuse into a larger issue.)
He spent the better part of an hour describing this on the radio on Friday, and it was clear whatever it is, it is MUCH LARGER than just FISA Abuse.
I guess we are just going to have to wait to see what it turns out to be.
The "much bigger" thing is simply the entire Russia Hoax conspiracy, of which FISA is one--albeit important--aspect. My thought was that there could be indictments for strictly FISA related crimes to get the ball rolling, so to speak. As a leadup to the bigger conspiracy. It would be a matter of plea deals and cooperation, and obviously that would be very tightly held info up to the last moment. For example, supposing that there are some cooperators already or people in active plea negotiations, those deals for guilty pleas could be announced without prejudice to the other cases but with a major impact on the public.
DeleteAnother piece of scuttlebutt I saw in the past few days:
DeleteThere is a claim that Durham has been "following the money" ... from ONA at DoD, to Halper, and then from Halper to whomever he distributes it. That has supposedly opened up new vistas for the Durham's investigators.
In hindsight, it's clear there was much more going on with ONA and Halper than what at first it seemed. It was obvious enough to me that Halper, writing these silly "50 years in the future" predictive assessments for ONA, which nobody ever read, or would put any stock in, because you can't predict that far ahead with any reasonable accuracy, was just cover for Halper working for the spooks, and a mechanism to pay him without it showing up in the CIA checking account as a payment to Halper.
But what I failed to realize was the payments are way too large for what little Halper does. It's more than a million dollars over the past several years. IOW, Halper is a laundryman, a bag man, a cut-out, for people CIA (I assume) wants to pay without it being traced back to them.
Well, Durham apparently has traced it back to them, and he knows who the payments went to from Halper.
And since Halper was up on Carter Page in early July in London, well before FBI opened CH, there's a problem somebody is going to have to explain (Brennan?) including the hastily planned Intelligence Conference in London to which Carter Page was curiously invited, featuring all manner of heavy hitters on the agenda, like Maddy Albright, talking about topics that are the intel equivalent of "Knowledge is good."
That is, of course, where Halper cornered Carter Page and chatted him up good.
It's just a hunch, but it would not surprise me if the "Big thing" Hannity is referring to is what's at the other end of the Halper money laundering/cut-out operation that starts at CIA and meanders through DoD/ONA, then Halper's bank account, and then to a bunch of people no one is supposed to know about, and about whom no one is leaking, not even to Hannity.
Yes, he's been on that for a while, and there's no doubt it gets to the core of the operation. It's got them freakin'.
DeleteFLASH TRAFFIC:
ReplyDelete>>https://www.scribd.com/document/447637687/US-v-Flynn-Flynn-Reply-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-for-Egregious-Govt-Misconduct<<
Sidney Powell lights up Van Crack in response to prosecutor's reply to Motion to Dismiss.
One interesting tidbit is that she challenges the predication of opening an investigation of Flynn in the forst place in August 2016. Points out the FBI had exactly ZERO evidence that Flynn was involved in anything illegal.
Yes, I've been reading it. Powell states it very succinctly. As I've said, I'd really like to see this case decided on that basis, rather than giving the government a pass for that kind of BS.
Delete