Newly released declassified transcripts of call transcripts and summaries between Flynn and Kislyak contradict key claims made against Flynn by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Davis' basic point regarding the dishonesty of Mueller is well taken. In any 1001 False Statement prosecution, the statements in question, as made by the defendant, should actually be false--what a concept, eh? Mueller stands that concept on its head. In the Flynn prosecution the actual false statements were made by the prosecutors, a prosecutorial technique spearheaded over preceding years by the likes of Mueller, Comey, and Weissmann. Example:
According to the charging documents from Mueller, Flynn allegedly falsely claimed to Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents that he did not ask Kislyak to “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsion of Russian diplomats and falsely claimed that he did not ask Kislyak to help defeat an anti-Israel resolution pending before the United Nations at the time. Mueller also claimed that Flynn lied when he said he didn’t remember Kislyak telling him that Russia would “moderate its response” to the expulsions.The transcript of the December 29 conversation, which was cited by Mueller, does not include a request from Flynn that Russia “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsions of Russian diplomats. According to the transcript, Flynn asked Kislyak for Russia’s response to be “reciprocal” so that the U.S.–not Russia–would not be forced to escalate beyond the expulsions.
This is really shocking, even by previous liberal political standards of dishonesty. This type of behavior by prosecutors should be dealt with severely--by prosecuting the prosecutors!
At the end Davis touches on an aspect that interests me, because it deals with something that will play out in the next few days:
Following the release of the evidence that Mueller’s team had illegally withheld from Flynn and his defense team, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn. That motion is awaiting judgment in federal trial court.
The DoJ is not merely "awaiting judgment." Sullivan's response to Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus directed to Sullivan is due Monday. DoJ was invited by the DC Circuit panel to submit its own response--and the DoJ spokeswoman has stated that there will be a response. What interests me is whether DoJ will reference these now released Flynn Transcripts. Will they point out that these transcripts, which give the lie to Team Mueller's own false statements, were withheld from the Flynn defense team by Sullivan?
Here we have the spectacle of a "judge" enlisting outside counsel in an attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of false statements made, not by the defendant, but by the prosecution. Was there any reason that Sullivan could not have demanded to see those Flynn Transcripts? No. This should prove shocking to the Court of Appeals.
What has become of our country?
Andrea Widburg has a nice summary of Davis' article, in which she emphasizes the key aspect--political, not really legal--and highlights the insanity of the Left's positioning and talking points--The Kislyak-Flynn phone call transcripts are a national Rorschach Test:
On the conservative side, Sean Davis wrote a comprehensive article explaining why the transcripts vindicate Flynn. Here’s the short version:The December 29 transcript, as Bongino guessed, makes no mention of sanctions. It discusses only expulsions, and that’s what he talked to the FBI about. On the subject of expulsions, Flynn was concerned lest Russia escalate matters, forcing the Trump administration instantly to meet one escalation with another. He asked for a tempered, reciprocal response.The two men also discussed their shared interest in ending Middle Eastern terrorism. Regarding Israel, the men spoke of it on December 23rd, not the 29th, so Flynn could not have lied about it vis-à-vis the call on the 29th (which was the subject of the FBI interview). In any event, American policy under Obama was to be neutral, meaning any discussions could not have violated the policy.Ultimate, the December 29 transcript shows Flynn trying to prevent a dangerous tit-for-tat scenario so as to protect American interests.But that’s not how leftists see it. In their alternate reality, the transcripts confirm that Flynn is a traitor. It’s impossible for these two realities to exist in a unified country.To leftists, the key takeaways were Flynn’s request to Kislyak that, “Do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay?” and “What we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we’re gonna go.” Fundamentally, anything Trump and his team did that ran counter to Obama was treason.
It's the usual craziness. Elections make no difference--US policy is Leftist policy. Once set in place the agenda of the Left can never be changed. Not even by an election.
The transcripts give a nice out for Judge Sullivan, I we wonder if he will use it.ReplyDelete
I’m surprised at the nothingness of the transcripts. And how the Mueller team twisted them.
Due to the constitutional doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, I don’t expect much will happen to Flynn’s s Prosecution. It’s in the Emanations and Penumbras section of the constitution.
And why were Schiff and Rice calling for their release of the transcripts? Were they hoping they would not be released?
Would Durham have had a copy of the transcripts?
While the transcripts are government property, I'm not sure at what point Durham would have got them. I'm not that familiar with internal investigations, but I assume that as in all investigations you have to have a need to know. Without a basis to review the investigation and prosecution, Durham would have had no need to know. Thus Jensen. Of course, IMO, there was a basis long ago, but Barr may be playing this very conservative to avoid 'appearances' of bias.Delete
I'm curious as to who generated the "summaries" that have been released as well.ReplyDelete
They contain numerous spelling errors and mis-comprehended words and phrases, plus parts are written in the third person.
The parts that are supposed to be quotes are almost certainly computerized voice-to-text conversion, which explains the mis-comprehended words/phrases compared to the actual transcription. I'm curious who wrote the third person verbiage, and why this was produced, and for what purpose. It matters, because it is very easy to mis-comprehend what was meant by Flynn's responses of "Good.", "Yes/yeah." , etc. In the summaries, it sometimes superficially appears as if he is signifying agreement, but in the transcript it is obvious from context he's simply indicating he heard and understood what Kislayk had just said, and did not necessarily signify agreement with Kislyak stated position. I can see how the summaries could be used to create a false impression that Flynn was agreeing the Russian position, which was in fact the exact opposite of what Flynn was indicating, as shown by the full transcript.
A comparison of the 29th call transcript and summary of that SAME call illustrates what I'm talking about. The summaries are misleading; the question is, was that just an artifact of a very hurried summary (like a call read-out) or was it more nefarious?
One thing to add to the mix; Van Grack et al were very careful to point out they never used the original 302 of the Flynn interview, nor the call transcript, in any pleadings to the court, including the Statement of Offense. This was the basis on which they tried to claim they were not obligated to turn them over to Flynn an his attorney after the plea deal was made. This seems to be by design, not by happenstance.
It is as if Van Grack and the other Mueller Thugs prosecuting Flynn knew that the guilty plea would not stand up to deep scrutiny in court if they relied on the original 302 and the actual call transcripts, and so they carefully scripted everything to avoid bringing those documents into play, so as to be able to plausibly deny having to turn them over to Flynn if he had second doubts about his plea deal.
Do you have a link for the summaries? What you describe as "call read-outs" sounds to me like tech cuts. Those would have been done first, then when someone higher up said, hey, we're interested, give us a transcript, the transcript would have been done. SOP. Those tech cuts are produced by translators/support staff.Delete
IIRC the summaries are included in the link I posted a day or so ago here on you blog; I don't have it handy, but I think it' s the replies to the "News" Post you did a few days ago.Delete
Your characterization of the summaries as "tech cuts" makes sense, and is consistent with misspellings and mis-comprehended words/phrases, especially if they use voice to text conversion software employed to get a quick first impression of the intercept.
When the DoJ said that there will be a response, should we expect that to appear, after Sullivan's response?ReplyDelete
On the latter being due Monday, could the Court's deadline of ten days mean "business days"?
No and no. DoJ needs to file by Monday. Not business days. That's my understanding. I've seen accounts specifically noting that the deadline included the long Memorial Day weekend.Delete
Sorry, I meant the deadline on Sullivan's reply.Delete
I don't see that the Court gave DoJ a deadline.
The whole RussiaHoax OP was planned, implemented, and managed by Brennan after being greenlighted in a meeting at the White House in February 2016. And anytime a problem arose, it was Brennan's job to come up with a solution.ReplyDelete
It was Brennan who tasked Mifsud and Halper as entrapment dangles, and recruited Downer to launder the planted information hook into the State Department before being passed on to the FBI. Brennan also worked through Nelly Ohr to interface with Steele via an MI6 handler working out of the British Embassy in DC. Whenever Strzok needed some new information in order to keep the Crossfire Hurricane investigation moving forward, Brennan acting through Ohr acting through Steele would provide the goods.
The Flynn-Kislyak call on December 29, 2016 was a planned setup; albeit hurriedly due to failed prior efforts to find some dirt on him. They waited for him to leave on his vacation in the Dominican Republic, then announced the Russian deportations knowing Flynn would likely converse with Kislyak, then tasked the Brit GCHQ with monitoring the call on foreign soil, then received a call summary which was relayed to Strzok, who used it to justify the interview with Flynn on January 24, 2017.
Everything seems hinky about the call summaries because the actual call dialog never provided the smoking gun that was needed and anticipated. As with the original interview 302, they needed to massage the documentation in order to justify the allegation of a crime.
It is now Rosenstein's job to use this muddle of a transcript to claim legitimacy in the original CH/CR investigations. If Lyndsey has any balls, Rosenstein will crumble under intense questioning.
>> Dana Boente, a longtime lawyer for the FBI, resigned on Saturday allegedly at the request of the Justice Department, following earlier allegations that he had worked to block the public release of exculpatory evidence in the Michael Flynn case.
Boente had been at the FBI for just under 40 years. Anonymous sources told NBC News on Saturday that the request for his resignation came from "high levels" of the Justice Department. [snip] <<
>> https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/top-fbi-lawyer-resigns-allegedly-request-justice-department <<
Very interesting--and encouraging. Barr will pull the trigger on anyone. That seems to be the message.Delete
I ran WrongWayWray's statement through the Universal Defibulator and this is what came out: “For 38 years, Dana has served the Deep State."Delete
It’s a cliche, but as in all cliches, there is some amount of truth, history repeats itself.ReplyDelete
The transition from Hoover’s administration, Republican, to Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, Democrat, is, I think, the first time that a prior administration attempts to set up the successor to fail with intentional actions and landmines. This also gave rise to the “resistance” in federal government that preferred Hoover over FDR.
Granted, Hoover did not do what Obama did, but Obama and the Democrats were not first.