Thursday, April 30, 2020

Opening And Closing The Flynn Case

Among the very interesting revelations in the Flynn case in the last two days--with more to come--is the FBI's Washington Field Office's EC (electronic communication) dated 1/4/17, closing the Flynn case. That is, closing it until Peter Strzok at FBIHQ got wind of WFO's intention to close the case and quickly told them to keep it open. Of course the rush to keep the case open was an administrative measure--in order for FBIHQ to pull off their Logan Act interview ploy with regard to Flynn's 12/29/16 conversation with Russian Ambassador Kislyak they needed an open investigation.

It's necessary to understand that the Logan Act ploy was not set in stone. The upper levels at both FBI and DoJ were looking for some way to attack the incoming Trump administration--if possible to abort the inauguration of Donald Trump as president. Nevertheless, due to the highly suspect constitutionality of the Logan Act, as well as the near certainty that it could not be applied to Flynn as an authorized person in the transition, the Logan Act could never really be anything but a colorable excuse for talking to Flynn. For FBIHQ to have opened an actual investigation of Flynn based on a WAT (wild ass theory) of a Logan Act violation was a non-starter. The hope was to catch Flynn in an inaccuracy that could be trumped up into a false statement under 18 USC 1001. Ousting Flynn and thereby putting Trump under suspicion would ultimately always have to be a PR op rather than a legal one--thus the leak to David Ignatius at the WaPo. If things went south in the interview, the Logan Act ploy was basically just a CYA device for the plotters. It was never really serious.

Fortunately for the plotters Peter Stzrok was on the ball and, as soon as he got wind of WFO's intention to close the Flynn case (codenamed CROSSFIRE RAZOR - CR), he texted WFO to keep CR open. The EC had been written, but the actual case closing administrative procedures hadn't been completed. CR remained open while the plotters made their plans.

What I find so interesting about WFO's closing EC is not so much what we learn about the machinations described above--although that's of interest too. It's what we learn about the actual opening of the Flynn case. Recall that in AG Bill Barr's recent bombshell interview with Laura Ingraham he uttered the memorable phrase regarding the entire Russia Hoax: "without any basis." In real legalese, when he says "basis" he means "predication." There was no predication (basis) for anything that was done to destroy the Trump presidency under the color of law. It was truly, as Barr added, the "biggest scandal in American history."

That memorable phrase, "without any basis" (or, predication) applies to the Flynn case, as well. Whatever happens with the Flynn case going forward--whether criminally or civilly--that lack of any basis or predication will loom ever larger. The combination of an official FBI investigation that was lacking any predication--should never have been opened--with the unquestionable ethical violations of Team Mueller will provide Team Flynn with a powerful one, two, combination.

So, let's take a closer look at that EC, and what was behind it.

To begin with, while all of the administrative details have been redacted from the EC, we have the case caption. The caption tells us that Flynn was being investigated as a foreign agent for Russia under the Foreign Agents Registration Act:


The Foreign Agents Registration Act is 18 USC 951 and, like "1001" (False Statements), is a law whose reach has, in recent years, been expanded far beyond the original intent of Congress. FARA was originally passed in 1938 with the intent of having a tool on hand to prosecute propagandists for Nazi Germany--probably with the example of German - American sympathy for Germany during WW1 in mind. DoJ's stated policy aim has always been to induce propagandists to register--to go public. As a result, FARA violations have almost never been prosecuted. However, it has been increasingly used as a "criminal predicate" when one is needed for other types of violations, and especially in FISA applications.

The Act itself is pretty straightforward. Here are the essentials as they applied in the Flynn case, stripped of exceptions and so forth:

(a) Whoever, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attaché, acts in the United States as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to the Attorney General if required in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term “agent of a foreign government” means an individual who agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official, except that such term does not include—

As you can see, the heart of FARA is in the definition of an "agent of a foreign government." Basically, it means someone who operates "subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official". Thus, the question for the investigators was: Was Michael Flynn operating subject to the "direction or control" of the Russian government or of an official of the Russian government?

Next we turn to the FBI's AG Guidelines for National Security Investigations, which tell us under what circumstances the FBI is able to open an investigation of this sort. It's unclear to me from the EC--partly because all administrative details have been redacted--whether the Flynn case was a Preliminary Investigation (PI) or a Full Investigation (FI). On the one hand, the use of the word "may"--and this will make more sense when we get to the actual text of the EC--tends to indicate that this case was opened as a PI. On the other hand, the use of a codename would be very unusual in a PI (but not impossible in a sensitive matter). Telling most strongly in favor of an opening as a FI is the stress placed on there being "an articulable factual basis" for the investigation, as well as offering "specifics" regarding that factual basis.

A quick look at the Guidelines will show what I'm talking about. Here are the portions that govern the opening of investigations of foreign agents--edited down to the essentials.

First we have provisions that apply to both PIs and FIs--either can be used to investigate an individual who "is or may be" an agent of a foreign power:

1. Circumstances for Opening an Investigation 
The circumstances on which the initiation of a preliminary investigation or full
investigation may be based are:
a. An individual is or may be an ... agent of a foreign

Next we turn to provisions for opening a PI, and there we see the word "may", and the explanation that the purpose of the PI is "to determine whether the basis exists for a full investigation." In other words, a PI is used as a stepping stone when there may be an allegation but there aren't sufficient "specific and articulable facts" to support a FI:

1. Initiation
A field office or FBI Headquarters may initiate a preliminary investigation:
a. when there is information or an allegation indicating [an individual is or may be an ... agent of a foreign power] in order to determine whether the basis exists for a full investigation; 

Finally, provisions for opening a FI, and there we see that the word "may" is replaced by "is," and the stipulation is made that a FI requires "specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe" that the person under investigation is an agent of a foreign power. What that means, concretely, is that in the case of a FARA investigation there must be specific and articulable facts to believe that the individual, here Michael Flynn, is acting "subject to the direction or control" of Russia.

1. Initiation
FBI Headquarters or a field office may initiate a full investigation if there are specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that [an individual is  ... an agent of a foreign power].

The fact that the WFO closing EC addresses the prior opening of the case in terms of "an articulable factual basis" and offers "specifics", but mentions no "allegations," leads me to believe that the FBI opened a FI on Flynn.

So, what exactly was that "articulable factual basis" for claiming that Michael Flynn, Lt. General (Ret.), was an agent of the Russian government, acting subject to the direction or control of Russia?

Below are the first two paragraphs of the EC, which lay out the basis for the investigation of Michael Flynn. You'll see that the language of the EC closely tracks the language of the Guidelines as well as of FARA. But first some preliminary explanations.

When the EC speaks of "the FBI," I believe that it is almost always referring to the Washington Field office of the FBI. However, since the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella investigation was opened by FBIHQ, courtesy of Peter Strzok, that means that the "predetermined criteria" for opening sub-investigations under that umbrella would have been set by FBIHQ. It also means that the "lead information" that WFO received almost certainly came from Strzok, as well.


The FBI opened captioned case based on an articulable factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (FLYNN) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security. The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received during the course of the investigation. Specifically, FLYNN was cited as an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate DONALD J. TRUMP for foreign policy issues since February 2016; FLYNN had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open source information; and FLYNN traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source information. Additionally, FLYNN has an active TS/SCI clearance.
The goal of the investigation was to determine whether the captioned subject, associated with the Trump campaign, was directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security and/or possibly a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 18 USC section 951 et seq, or other related statutes.

Now let's break out the elements of the "articulable factual basis," the "specifics." There are four specific elements. When the EC states "as reported by open source information" you should feel free to read: We read it in the NYT, or on the interwebs, or something like that.

FLYNN was cited as an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate DONALD J. TRUMP for foreign policy issues since February 2016;  
FLYNN had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open source information;  
and FLYNN traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source information.  
Additionally, FLYNN has an active TS/SCI clearance.

Can you see anything at all in that that would lead anyone to believe that Michael Flynn was "directed and controlled by ... the Russian Federation"? Me neither. In fact, despite the boilerplate language about "articulable facts" and "specifics", this laundry list is notably lacking in virtually anything specific at all.

Flynn was part of the Trump campaign. Right. Does that somehow mean he was directed and controlled by Russia? Is this serious?

Flynn had "ties" to "various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation"--according to the newspapers. Virtually anyone who travels to Russia for business or pleasure has some sort of "ties." That's because so many "entities" in Russia are "state-affiliated." Duh! The ties in question, for purposes of opening this investigation, need to be ties that form an articulable factual basis for asserting that Michael Flynn was directed and controlled by Russia. There is nothing here to suggest that. NOTHING. No mention of specific "ties" to any nefarious entity or person.

Flynn traveled to Russia! I can tell you that back in the Evil Empire days lots of people traveled to Russia. They traveled on business, they traveled for study, they traveled to visit family and friends, they traveled as tourists. Some of them lived there for years. And I can tell you that we, the FBI, did not open FARA investigations on them just because they had traveled to Russia. Now, with travel to Russia exponentially increased, the likelihood of that happening--except to Michael Flynn--is about zero.

FLYNN has an active TS/SCI clearance. Gotcha?

It should come as no surprise at all that after about five months of finding "nothing derogatory" about Michael Flynn in this hoax investigation, WFO decided to call it quits (I have substitued FLYNN for the case codename):

Following the compilation of the above information, the CH team determined that FLYNN was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case. A review of logical [] databases did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts. While a CHS provided some information on FLYNN's interaction with [LOKHOVA?] the absence of derogatory information on [LOKHOVA?] limited the investigative value of the information. The writer notes that since FLYNN was not specifically named as an agent of a foreign power by the original CROSSFIRE HURRICANE predicated reporting, the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. Per the direction of FBI management, FLYNN was not interviewed as part of the case closing procedure. 
The FBI is closing this investigation. If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the activities of FLYNN, the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if warranted.

But then, the FBI already knew there was "no there there." And if the FBI knew that, then all the smart prosecutors on Team Mueller--who had this EC from the get go--knew that the who Flynn case was a hoax from the start.

Anyway, Strzok got wind of this on 1/4/17 and immediately texted, Don't close, repeat, do NOT close--7th Floor at FBIHQ (where disgraced former FBI Director Comey and disgraced former Deputy Director McCabe had their offices) involved.

The next day, 1/5/17, Comey went to the Oval Office. Present for that meeting were: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, and James Comey. Since Rice mentions "IC leadership" I think we can assume that James Clapper and John Brennan were also present for the general "Russia Hoax Hacking" part of the meeting, before that smaller Obama/Comey/Yates meeting. Here is the famous Susan Rice to self email that describes that meeting:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present. 
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. 
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. 
(Long Redacted Paragraph) 
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
Declassification Date: 1/20/27

Note--this meeting was conducted in the immediate context of WFO determining that there was NOTHING derogatory known about Michael Flynn, who would be Trump's National Security Adviser. And yet there's talk of not sharing classified information? That tells us a bit more about why WFO was instructed to keep the Flynn case opening--to justify not sharing. But that later small group meeting with Comey and Yates, who we know were already speculating about a Logan Act gambit. Hmmmm.


  1. Not clear:

    But that later small group meeting with Comey and Flynn, who we know were already speculating about a Logan Act gambit. Hmmmm.

    1. Sorry-what's not clear? Oh, wait. This is what I'm talking about:

      "Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates"

      That's what I'm calling the "later small group meeting." Maybe not so clear.

      BTW, do you know anything about overall mortality rates, year to year, in CA? I see that CA essentially doesn't test--not when you take the size of the population into account. Is it possible they're doing that to conceal Covid tests?

    2. Mark - I think you meant Yates, instead of Flynn. I was typing from my phone, so I get terse in my comments. Back home now so a clearer answer!

      I assume CA = California. For Canada, no idea.

      Death Rates per State, I assume per 100,000 for 2017.

      For 2012-2014, it was 629.1 per 100,000 on page 7.

      2015-2017 it was 668.1, with 262,663 deaths per year on average with a population of 40 Million.

      CA is currently doing around 23,000 tests per day, and positives have dropped to 8% from 12%. 2,000 deaths to date, and with a yearly total of 262,000 overall, it's not much. Total tests done so far is 625,337.

      Testing is becoming more available in California. I am hearing reports that patients are told, unless they are really sick, just stay home and gargle. Nothing about taking hydrochloride in Riverside County.

      What I am not seeing is an age breakdown. My gut feeling is with the CA state rule that Covid 19 positives patients get admitted to rest homes, it's causing a lot of deaths in them.

      Interesting NY, which is basically NYC, death rate is going down, only 306 deaths per day, down from a peak of 800. Two guesses (no proof) is they started using hydrochloride and herd immunity (using Steve Sailer's formula of deaths x 1000 for # infected). Positives are down to 34%, they were at 40%. I am in shock, that NYC is finally starting to talk about cleaning up their subway stations and cars. This only happened after Cuomo showed a NY Daily News with a picture of a dirty subway car. This should have been done a month ago. From what I can tell the homeless are using them as shelters.

      What I am not seeing in Ca, is information about where the infections are coming from. For some reason the stay at home really does not seem to have done a lot. But, I am hitting rush hour traffic again, so my guess a lot of people are back to work, defying the CA Governor.

    3. Hope this helps:

    4. Tx, Ray and Anon. Fixed to Yates.

    5. Ray, what is the source for your posted information on testing in California? Would you post a link, please…

    6. Ray, maybe this is where you got your numbers? Age breakdown is shown here…

    7. Has test data for the us and states. I put the info into a spreadsheet to see trends.

  2. I think your interpretation leaves open the possibility that Obama was hoodwinked by Comey et. al. I really wonder what Obama would say about what happened in that meeting. Rice's email clearly was meant to leave a breadcrumb inoculating Obama from blame, so I think there is reason to still be suspicious of Obama's conduct in this as well. But I'm not su sure this implicates Obama in the way sundance says. I wouldn't exclude the conspiracy going all the way to the top, but I think we'd need a lot more to prove it did.

    1. "your interpretation leaves open the possibility that Obama was hoodwinked"

      I think that was the purpose of the meeting--it was Obama's wink and a nod. Obviously he wasn't going to incriminate himself to a roomful of people. It was all a fiction: by the book.

    2. At the time (Jan 2017), Flynn was a sideshow. Obama didn't need to know the details. He was already directing/enabling Brennan & Comey to spy on Trump & Associates to invent "collusion" with mysterious "Russians".

    3. I think a better way to put it would be that Flynn was a way of getting at Trump. A means to an end. Without Trump there'd be no one to support Flynn and his radical plans for USIC.

    4. Without Trump, there would have been no reason to do any of the things they did. They were on a mission. You can almost sense esprit de corps in those Strzok-Page texts, and Comey’s bragging was that he/they had pulled it off. Gotten away with it. It was all about getting to Trump via one way or another, so they pulled the lever on as many as they could. We’re all in this together and (from Page) "POTUS wants to know everything we are doing”. No one will ever be able to tell me that Obama’s being involved, albeit relatively quietly, didn’t provide impetus and a sense that they were doing something really big and important. Heady stuff.

    5. You don't think there was esprit de corps when the Obama admin was stonewalling Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious--all long before Trump. According to FISC the abuse of NSA databases goes back "at least" to 2012--political spying with FBI began in first Obama term. All long before Trump.

    6. Mark, I believe all the abuses were there before Trump, and they were terrible. But there seemed to be a kind of bravado about being engaged in taking Trump down that was different. It showed in Comey’s attitude, in McCabe’s, in Strzok-Page’s. Arrogance.

      When I watched Patrick Kennedy (Hillary’s #2 at State) and that dreadful Charlene (?) woman who handled the purse strings for security for our missions around the world, and who denied additional security to Benghazi, I saw something different. They were just typical bureaucratic stonewallers. Arrogant, but didn’t seem to be joyful about it the way the FBI plotters came off…

      Just my take. Didn’t get to see what was going on behind the scenes. The whole lot, through all of the things you cite, could have been doing happy dances and giving each other high fives. We just weren’t as aware of it.

  3. Occam's Razor (no pun intended).

    All of the above makes perfect sense if you begin with the assumption that the Jan 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting was conducted by a cabal of criminals in furtherance of a pattern of criminal acts; of which, the targeting of Mike Flynn for entrapment and persecution was considered to be a rational criminal act. In other words, if you have been illegally spying on private US citizens for political purposes for many years, and there is a risk that this criminal activity may be exposed by the incoming National Security Advisor to newly elected President Trump, well that is a serious threat that must be taken seriously.

    And all of this nefarious planning and decision-making is an easy next step because what's one more criminal act when you're already up to your ears in prior criminality.

    It's really no different than a bloody coup attempt in a Banana Republic. In for a penny, in for a pound. And there's no turning back. This whole debacle is a life imitating a bad Hollywood movie.

    God help us.

    1. That's what I fear--that there's no turning back from where we've gone.

    2. So the insurance policy was to first to decapitate the NSA, then the DOJ, then leave the entire place 'wired to blow', figuring nothing would be found in the wreckage. Brilliant.

      Only who was assigned the case but detective Barrumbo.

    3. "That's what I fear--that there's no turning back from where we've gone."

      That's one reason why I advocate the death penalty if any of these cretins are convicted. Their actions strike at the very heart of our constitutional republic. While to the letter of the law, their actions may not be treasonous, their actions ARE treasonous. I'd literally publicly hang the conspirators in D.C. Radical? Yes. It sends a strong message that this isn't tolerable.

      This is a cancer on our nation's body and only radical surgery can save the patient, i.e., our republic. It's a big reason why I am pro-Trump. The me of thirty years ago would not have supported Donald Trump, due to his past and his aggressive manner of speaking ill of others.

      Our nation has sunk so low morally, we need a junkyard dog and Trump is just that. He's the only one willing to stand up to a bully.

      Reelecting him, and more Reps with spines, will send a message. And then it's up to We the People to say no more to Leftism.

  4. Comey seems full of himself in a way that transcends politics. Yes, he "exonerated" Clinton, but he also muddied her up politically to extract his price for doing so. Comey is clearly who Barr was thinking of when he described a praetorian guard mentality he was concerned about within the ranks of government. I could believe either version of events--Obama was at the top of the conspiracy, or the praetorian guards of government (Comey et al) manipulated Obama into giving them a green light to proceed.

    1. Will Chamberlain was saying today that there's one helluva book to be written. I think several.

  5. Elephant 🐘 in the room, Manafort.

    FBI passed until Mueller got more evidence. Evidence procured appears illegally. At one time, this was standard. Didn’t matter if you faked it until you got something real. That changed long ago, Miranda, etc. Cant’t kill a fleeing felon to “arrest” unless a danger to public, which is truly rare.

    Fruit of the poisonous tree should mean Manafort gets out.


    - TexasDude

    1. Agreed. But here's the thing I can't shake. I know the story about how he was brought to the campaign, but I can't help wondering whether he was somehow maneuvered onto the campaign to try to be the main Russia Hoax bad guy. That's how the dossier started out. Coincidence that just the guy needed to make the Russia Hoax story work ended up on the campaign?

    2. My working hypothesis is the coup plotters were working up various narratives to fit a variety of GOP candidates and their associates in late 2015/early 2016, so they had all contingencies covered.

      We only see the ones that fit the Trump campaign because he's the one who got the nomination.

      I assume they were working on fabricating scandals for any/all GOP primary contenders, because they could risk ANY GOP candidate winning, and exposing the criminality that had been going on for years, potentially by both political parties.

    3. Even Manafort thing was fake. The so called Black Ledger was fake. What a bunch of evil a**holes.

      Rob S

  6. Regarding President Obama. It does not matter if he was manipulated or not. He was supposedly the Constitutional Scholar President. There is no way he was not involved, period. He was. He was, at best, of what informed and approved. At worst, he personally directed. Probably both. Nothing like this would have ever escaped the President’s attention directly or by staff informing:

    - TexasDude

  7. Sally Yates was saying that Flynn was not merely violating the Logan Act. She was saying that Flynn had made himself vulnerable to Russian blackmail because he was violating the Logan Act.

    Do you have any comment about Flynn's allegedly being vulnerable to Russian blackmail because he violated the Logan Act?

    1. That it's one absurdity on top of the other. Every lawyer in DC knows about the Presidential Transition Act, and that the incoming foreign policy team contacts foreign leaders. In fact, most campaigns do so as well before the election. That's why that narrative never flew.

    2. Why was Yates saying that about the Russian blackmail. (Yes, it was another layer of absurdity.)

    3. I believe it was just another fig leaf to provide an implausible cover for what they did--a sandbag interview of Flynn. It was one of those it-may-be-implausible but try to disprove it things. Or, it may sound crazy, but it's not illegal to believe that.

  8. In open, free association, idea sessions no idea is automatically too outrageous to deny out of hand.

    Trump just stated that he would consider bringing Flynn back in to his administration. What if Flynn was never in any real jeopardy? What if Flynn was a ruse to get this treasonous cabal out in the open to the effectively deal with.

    Yeah, I don’t believe it either, but I am not the first to suggest this.

    - TexasDude

  9. Lastly, not their first rodeo ...

    “ This is not a defense of the FBI. What the agency did to Flynn was wrong, not because he worked for Trump, but because it is wrong to induce an otherwise not-guilty person to break the law. And it's something FBI interviewers do regularly so that they can use their dishonesty as leverage when there's little evidence of actual criminal behavior. Ken "Popehat" White, Reason contributing editor and a former federal prosecutor who is now a defense attorney, has written extensively about the FBI's tactic of luring suspects into lies. After Flynn pled guilty, White used his plea deal to explain precisely why no one should sit down for an interview with FBI agents without extensive preparation.

    On Wednesday, White tweeted out a useful thread explaining precisely how the FBI gets away with this and how federal laws could be reformed to eradicate the practice. Federal statute 18 USC 1001 makes it a crime to lie to the feds on a "material" matter, even if the FBI already knows the truth, aren't misled, and the lie doesn't affect the investigation. This incentivizes the FBI to play these games in the first place, to try to trick suspects into a lie that could be used against them. White argues that if people truly care about these tactics, they should lobby Congress to change the federal statute that makes the practice legal.“

    - TexasDude

    1. Thanks for the link. The author is wrong in saying what was done is business as usual and perfectly legal. Misstatements and perjury or false statements are very different things. Flynn may have made misstatements, but he apparently did not lie with intent.

      He's right about the abuse of 1001, which is led more by prosecutors than FBI--FBI can't charge anyone. But FBI doesn't have to play along. I've written on this in the past, maybe I'll have another stab at it. Scalia defending this use of 1001 was a low point in his career.

    2. Tex, I just read the Twitter thread. It's all good up to a point, but he keeps using the word "lie". That's not what goes on in so many of these high profile cases. What does go on is misstatements or mistakes. Those aren't lies, but the government has so much leverage that they can treat them as lies. Scooter Libby was a perfect example and Flynn is another.

      Here's one post that I've written on 1001. In the case concerned Scalia took the truly dumbass view that everyone should always tell the truth to LE. Second only to his dumbass view that no harm would come of treating FISA as constitutional even though it isn't. In his ivory tower world LE and prosecutors are presumptively white knights, so what harm could come to anyone from trying to explain things to them?

  10. The government has way too much power. They hold most of the cards. There are too many laws regulating conduct. They win 97% of the cases they bring. I assume that the 97% factoid includes plea agreements. They have knowledge superiority through electronic and other means of monitoring. Tolman explained that there is a penalty if a defendant fight for exoneration instead of copping a plea in the form of a harsher sentence. There is one set of rules for those with power and another set that applies to the 99.99% of us who don't have this privilege.

    This is not what our Founding Father intended.

    1. Part of the problem is that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all come from the same pool.

  11. Thanks Mark for taking the time to write these amazing analysis. With your past experience you notice a lot of significance, that is missed.

    If you can Fisk the reason article...

    1. Thanks Ray.