You can read about it and listen to Maria interviewing Devin Nunes and Doug Collins here. There's not much in the way of actual hard information on offer, except this--Maria is talking about the new documents that AG Barr's handpicked USA, Jeffrey Jensen from St. Louis, turned over to the court and to the Flynn team (led by Sidney Powell) after Jensen reviewed the Flynn case. And she slips a nugget of pure gold in. That nugget is very important for where Durham is, and where Durham is going:
Bartiromo: Those documents are exculpatory evidence. They were not shown to the court initially, and basically what they say are, they are notes about Michael Flynn's meeting at the White House and the FBI, that it was a complete setup. And that he never lied. It's all in Mr. Baker's notes. That's the exculpatory evidence.
Mr. Baker? Uh, that would be James Baker, former General Counsel for the FBI--basically the official personal lawyer (in re FBI business) for disgraced former FBI Director James Comey. That's the same James Baker that Joe diGenova recently claimed is cooperating with John Durham's investigation. Oh sh*t! as we used to say. I'll bet Baker has a lot more to tell Durham. Actually, he probably already has. Think of him as a consultant. Every time something comes up, something Comey or just about anyone else involved in the Russia Hoax says, Durham asks Baker: What about it?
I'd say Brandon Van Grack better cut a deal very quickly--if he hasn't already. And that will put John Durham right at the center of Team Mueller. Are you paying attention, Andrew Weissmann? I'll bet he is. And plenty of others Team Mueller alumni, too.
If you want to read about Van Grack's role on Team Mueller, here's a handy reference.
And, of course, Durham and Flynn will also be having some long conversations.
Grand Jury time for all the Russia Hoax boys and girls. This won't be fun for them.
I also caught the nugget you cite here. And yes, very interesting that James Baker is cooperating with Durham. If one goes back, Baker was the first one we knew was under investigation by Durham long before Barr appointed him to look into the origins of FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. What confuses me a little is how the US Attorney from EDMO plays into Baker's notes.ReplyDelete
Baker would have been involved in the discussions surrounding the Flynn interview because Comey himself was involved, and so those notes became Brady material when it was learned that there had been intense debates about the interview before and after the fact. That material was withheld. Jensen was reviewing the entire case and Baker's notes would have been directly relevant, especially re Powell's allegations of misconduct, withholding of Brady material.Delete
So who had Baker's notes, which are (should be) gov't records. Baker? Or did Baker advise Durham if he could obtain them from the FBI, they would reveal exonerating facts? It seems unlikely the FBI would have wanted to provide them if Boente was the guy obstructing. Little details, perhaps, but I think important ones.Delete
I assume they were in FBI custody.Delete
I know that Flynn can sue the government.ReplyDelete
Can he bring civil suit on the individuals?
I believe so: https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individualsDelete
From that link:Delete
"the [absolute] immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be protected only by qualified immunity."
The argument I've expressed is that the actions taken in the Flynn case--"investigating" Flynn for no official FBI purpose, i.e., "outside the scope of their office or employment"--leaves them unprotected. Like you, Tex, I don't believe qualified immunity would cover them. Qualified immunity covers "reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions" but not knowing violations of law.
Some attorneys are like poker players and use skillful bluffing as a weapon against the other players. They do this because they are good at it and it works most of the time.ReplyDelete
Sydney Powell is the exact opposite of that archetype. She never bluffs and never speaks unless she has the goods to a certitude of nearly 100.000%. When she spoke up last week about Fylnn being entrapped and railroaded, she let the world know that she was going to war and the other side could either capitulate or get slaughtered. And she's done this before, many times.
When the history is written of how and when the tide turned against the Deep State, Sydney Powell will get a chapter to herself and she will be holding a sword above her head in victory.
Respectfully, Powell declared war long before last week.Delete
Yes. Powell was at war before she even took over from Covington. There was never a shadow of a doubt.Delete
Who ever is paying her, is getting their monies worth. She is earning every penny.Delete
This is great news. Justice has been delayed and is a long time coming.
Can you imagine what General Flynn will have to say once he has been completely exonerated? I imagine that his words will be hotter than a blowtorch.
I am looking forward to all these evil men giving an accounting for what they have done. They need to pay a stiff price.
I'm waiting to listen to Joe diG re this. He should be over the moon.Delete
Joe didn't disappoint. I'd be interested in your take of what he had to say, assuming you heard it on Howie Carr a bit ago. One thing he added to the exculpatory evidence was the missing 302s of the Flynn interview by Strzok and Pientka. Also interesting to hear commentary re Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.Delete
Howie's segment with Joe begins at 17:45.
The part I actually found most amazing was when he said Sullivan was repeating word for word Rachel Maddow talking points.Delete
Oh, also the part about Wray and Boente, basically dead men walking.Delete
Scary if Judge Sullivan is deriving motivation from Rachel Maddow, for sure. To your last comment, that's rather interesting. Assuming Trump can win the election again, it means there's an opportunity to really clean house at the FBI; maybe Durham would like the job! Better yet, maybe you should take the job. ;-)Delete
I know that Flynn can sue the government.ReplyDelete
Can he bring civil suit against the individuals? For starters, I want him to tap McCabe's GoFundMe haul.
My comments from Brave browser almost never get through, so I re-posted from Firefox.
I monitor comments, and I was out for my walk. As I've maintained in the past, the conspiracy to deprive Flynn of his civil rights was at no time legit FBI business. Therefore Flynn should have a cause of action. But I'm no expert, no experience in that.Delete
That wasn't a comment on your monitoring. Typically, only comments I make from my phone get through.Delete
But since these two got through, I'm thinking maybe my office computer network interferes with them..
Had the same problem recently. Did you recently update to the new version of Edge. I did and suddenly was unable to comment. Decided to switch over to Brave, same problem when finished downloading and installed. Had to go to Settings in each browser, then find Site Allowance, and designate this site as one that would allow cookies and site data collection. Everything worked fine after that. Windows and Google must have their pound of data, I suppose. Had to do essentially the same thing with Brave.Delete
I've been using Linux and open source browsers since 1997, so I'm a bit nonplussed to hear this stuff.Delete
Have any of you tried using Chromium, the open source version of Chrome? I used it in the past with good success.
I had not heard that James Baker, FBI counsel, was working with Durham. The last I’d heard of Baker, he had fled to Lawfare and was working with Ben Wittes’s merry band. He must really be afraid to have jumped from there to Durham...ReplyDelete
Baker was privy to a lot of info, and that would be guilty knowledge. Having failed initially to come clean he would have been in a perilous situation once Durham started digging.Delete
The public learned Baker was under investigation by Durham in mid-January 2019 according to many sources, Catherine Herridge (at Fox then)for one. It came to light in a letter from Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows to Durham seeking more information. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows learned of the investigation in a Summer-Fall 2018 House hearing where Baker testified with his lawyer present, Daniel Levin. As Mark W. noted above, it probably became readily apparent in short order he would have to accept an offer to cooperate because he had PLENTY of guilty knowledge. And here we are!Delete
The news of Baker cooperating with Durham started to surface in late October 2019 when Jack Posobiec (OANN) was interviewing Ned Ryun of American Majority where Ryun said HIS sources, many who know Baker well, said he had flipped.Delete
Maybe I missed your mentioning Flynn's declaration.ReplyDelete
No, you didn't miss it. I just didn't think I had anything to add. But thanks for the link.Delete
There are potentially several reasons for Trump scaling back his Corona news conferences. The situation is stabilizing and there may not be as much "news" on the topic. But Trump hates stepping away from the limelight. I wonder if another potential reason is the other developments in the Flynn case and Russia conspiracy. It's hard to talk about both in the same conference. Scaling back Corona conferences may give breathing room to air developments by Barr.ReplyDelete
I think you're definitely on to something. Trump, despite appearances, doesn't just ad lib. His actions are choreographed.Delete
>His actions are choreographed.Delete
Agree, this comes to mind Alinsky Rule #7
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
The news conferences were becoming a distraction, and taking away from more important areas.
Three areas Trump wants move coverage:
1. Governors re-opening States
2. Flynn Debacle
3. Biden Sexual Harassment
Andrew McCarthy's analysis of the latest FLynn revelations:ReplyDelete
Tx. Will take a look.Delete
Look upthread at the comment re "immunity." McCarthy focuses on what I've been urging as the key to the Flynn case that would ultimately be its undoing:Delete
"There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn."
Overall, looks like a very good article. Similar issues discussed as Margot Cleveland.
I end up disagreeing with McCarthy. He claims Trump should have pardoned Flynn. That would have done nothing to restore Flynn's good name--which, really, is what the Deep State was attempting to strip him of. McCarthy also claims that nothing illegal was done to Flynn. I disagree, and I'm betting that Durham will, too.Delete
McCarthy is too often wrong to be credible.Delete
McCarthy is often late to the party. Then he tends to spin off of the work of others. He may be respected for having been in important positions, but I don’t find him to have a very interesting mind. He is also very careful to stay on the line down the middle of the road, rather like a trained parade horse.ReplyDelete
Too true. I think you'd hafta hold a gun to his head to get him to say anything critical about a prosecutor unless the CW had already got there.Delete
More news; Court orders responses to Motion to Dismiss:ReplyDelete
>> https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1254867212868911111/photo/1 <<
That should be interesting--who's gonna respond for the government?Delete
Tucker Carlson reporting moments ago he was spoken with two people today who have both seen the actual documents. He said both characterized the content of the documents in a similar way, quoting one of them directly: "this is the most shocking case of entrapment I have ever seen." (or words to that effect)
Andy McCarthy was on and reiterated the point I have always maintained -- there was no justification for the FBI to interview Flynn in the first place, as they already had the transcript of his phone calls with Kislyak. As McCarthy put it, the ONLY purpose he can imagine for interviewing Flynn without letting him hear the recording or read the transcript before asking him questions about the conversation was to hope he made some minor mistake they could then use to accuse him of perjury or false statement.
Final comment from Carlson: the documents (or at least some of them) could be made public as early as TOMORROW.
I'll look forward to seeing the docs.Delete
Sydney Powell said she expects the docs (or some of them) to be unsealed Tuesday or Wednesday.Delete
>> Sidney PowellReplyDelete
#BREAKING: Prosecutors have provided @GenFlynn
defense with redacted copies of the few pages of emails and notes produced this past Friday. We will be filing a consent motion (under seal) jointly requesting the exhibit be unsealed immediately. Stay tuned. <<