I'll bet they wish now they never heard the name "Sidney Powell."
And who are these Covington "professionals"?
Robert K. Kelner - Kelner's profile is strangely shy about mentioning Michael Flynn as one of his prominent clients.
Stephen P. Anthony - Anthony is a partner. He's also strangely bashful about his representation of Flynn. Before going into private practice:
U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section, Trial Attorney (1996-2000)
Assistant US Attorney, District of Columbia (1991-1996)
I think I get it. He's a Clintonista who followed his former boss, Eric Holder, to Covington.
Alexandra Langton - Alexandra is a proud Biden supporter and an alumna of the Obama White House:
The White House, Office of Cabinet Affairs, Intern (2013)
United States Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs, Intern (2011-2012)
Michael Chertoff - Senior Of Counsel, Mr. Deep State himself.
For the 2016 presidential election, Chertoff, who was involved as special counsel investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton for Whitewater in the 1990s, endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Brian D. Smith - Partner, another veteran Clintonista--he came to Covington from the Clinton White House:
The White House, Office of the Counsel to the President (1997-1998)
U.S. Department of Labor, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor (1996)
U.S. Department of Labor, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (1995)
Rep. Alan Wheat (D-Mo.), Assistant Campaign Manager (1994)
My first question is why is Kelner -- Flynn's lawyer at the time -- emailing Van Grack and Zainab (Mueller's thugs who squeezed FLynn into the plea deal he acquiesced to only a month or so earlier) about this, instead of following up with the reported to get more information, or notifying the court?ReplyDelete
ADn did FLynn's now former attorney share the results of the discussion Kelner requested with Van Grack adn Zainab with Flynn's current attorney, Sidney Powell? If not why not?
And if Van Grack and Zainab had any info about the McCabe ordered manipulation of the 302, why was it not turned over to Flynn's attorneys under Judge Sullivan's standing order re: Brady/Giglio material?
Smoking gun... one of possibly many, and likely more to come.
All good questions. And I doubt there are good answers.Delete
Is this one of the documents Covington turned over to Powell today?ReplyDelete
I assume so. Powell would have asked for all correspondence between Covington and the prosecutors.Delete
Weissmann and his friends must think they're pretty smart guys but they seem to have forgotten that:ReplyDelete
When you strike at a king, you must kill him.
Another thought on the import of this letter: if Pientka "blew the whistle" on McCabe to the IG (Horowitz) for bullying him into altering his 302 on the FLynn interview, then it logically follows that Pientka is another candidate for a "Cooperating witness" with Durham's investigation.ReplyDelete
The fact he was working out of WFO at the time makes it even MORE likely he was not part of the 7th Floor conspiracy to commit coup.
Quite a long time ago it was believed that Pientka was cooperating, but then when we learned how involved he was in the entire Russia Hoax--especially with the FISA--I began to wonder. We're back where we started.Delete
With respect to Pientka, Rosenstein and maybe a few others, I can hazard a guess.Delete
The first thing that I'd point out is that we as commentators are looking back in time at what happened. But the players were in an environment that was occurring in real time with events unfolding.
Perhaps they started out believing their colleagues when said colleagues told them Trump and company were crooked. Over time, they saw that their was no evidence and that their colleagues were the ones who were corrupt.
Another guess is that they realized when one finds himself in a hole, the best course of action is to stop digging.
It's just a guess and we will learn more in the near future.
James Gagliano had an excellent column in the Washington Examiner about the FBI framing Flynn. And I apologize upfront if someone already mentioned this in a prior comments section.Delete
He, like McCarthy, finally realizes what went down. Both of these gentlemen are former DOJ/FBI men who initially couldn't believe that this could occur. Now, they realize that it did occur.
The two are influential, in that they have large platforms from which they speak. Gagliano, in particular, is a CNN consultant who will reach some liberals who are open to the truth.
@Joe, re Pientka and RR, yes that could be it.Delete
I did a little more thinking about this and Pientka might have started out with corrupt intentions. That's why I threw in the comment about realizing that he was in a hole and decided to get out while he still could.
He and RR could've really searched their souls and thought "Do I really want to go to prison for this and for these clowns"?
It's hard to guess; particularly for Pientka, has he has never publicly spoken, to the best of my knowledge.
Andy McCarthy discussing this memo on John Batchelor Show at this moment.ReplyDelete
Says the memo likely "advances the ball" for Flynn's effort to have his plea vacated. He further opines that if the judge vacates, there is virtually no way for prosecutors to successfully prosecute Flynn.
Off topic, but thought readers might want to know that the SSCI (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) begins John Ratliffe’s DNI confirmation hearing tomorrow at 9:30 ET.ReplyDelete
These are indeed interesting times...
Yeah, who knew the Senate could move so quickly on nominations?Delete
I wrote over a year ago that I believed Flynn's original legal team was working to bury their client for political reasons. This memo just reinforces this belief. Why would the attorneys go directly to the prosecution with this e-mail? Why not go directly to the reporters to see if they had something more than an assertion? Was Flynn ever told about this e-mail by his previous attorneys? I doubt it.ReplyDelete
It's undoubtedly suspicious. McCarthy pointed it out in that light--his words were "the plot thickens."Delete
As an aside, I wonder what John Roberts thinks of the certain fact that he will be in the history books as the Chief Justice who presided in the complete collapse of the Rule of Law.ReplyDelete
The Rule of Law, as a concept, rests entirely on a foundation of public confidence in the judicial system. A cornerstone is at least the pretense that a person's designated advocate is foresworn to not betray the accused interests for political favor or gain. The Flynn case, when all is said and done, will do permanent, irreparable, damage to that essential public trust.
This, along with the Roger Stone dog and pony show, the recent history of judge shopping to elicit blatantly political decisions and the FISA CYA fishing scam, may well cement in a large portion of America's mind that our legal system is more in sympathy with the Marquis Evrémonde than Darrow, Bryan or Atticus Finch.
The self-styled Resistance have no idea what the word means compared to a society that has become convinced that the law and courts only exist to serve as a boot on their neck.
Tom, this will be a very interesting aspect to watch. It's possible that the FISC has been holding back because of the Horowitz/Durham investigations. The FISC is in an anomolous position. It's not acting as a normal court, but it's separate from the other branches. Its options for taking action without simply shutting itself down are pretty limited, so it may prefer to cooperate with the investigators. Roberts, too, is in a strange position. He appoints the FISC judges, but has no other statutory powers. Does he advise behind the scenes? Who knows? But he has no real authority to take action. Has he spoken with Barr? Possibly.Delete
Indeed I recognize that he has no statutory authority to act against any particular judge, ruling, or judicial jurisdiction; however, he has some authority/responsibility based in tradition/position. He was johnny-on-the-spot to school us on his view that there is no such thing as an "Obama judge", but has been noticeably silent about prosecutorial abuse, judge shopping, and some courts that make such remarkably consistent decisions that if they were an automobile they would have left the factory with nothing but a left turn-signal installed.Delete
He has the Bully Pulpit of the judicial world and he had better use it least he be remembered as the Ernst Janning of the 21st century. Then again, perhaps that doesn't bother him as long as no one forgets that it's "Chief Justice" Janning when they address him.
Believe me--I'm not a fan.Delete
I still dont understand why Flynn selected Covington as his defense team given their connections to the Obama/Clinton mob. Was that part of the setup?ReplyDelete
Joel Pollak interviewed Sidney Powell Sunday and he speculated that Flynn had been advised to hire a well connected DC firm. You don't get much better connected--to the Deep State--than Covington. Naive?Delete
He was naive to let the two FBI goons into his office too. For a 3-star intel expert he certainly didn't have much spidey senseDelete
I totally agree. Given all that had happened over the previous 6 mos., it's hard to see how he could be so trusting.Delete
And especially given the leak against him. What did he think was going on? Weird.Delete
Also, he had every reason in the world not to trust McCabe.Delete
He is a registered Democrat. He may have thought that was his “insurance policy.”Delete
stole my thunder, Texas.Delete
Imagine the cognitive dissonance experienced by the rare Democrat that actually has to account for their transgressions!
I still can't get over that massive mistake. Particularly in light of Flynn questioning Comey about the FBI's alleged "credible" source about whom Flynn had already received a memo from MI-6 advising that Steele was "untrustworthy". For Flynn to put Comey the weasel on notice and then get a call within days from FBI requesting a friendly chat, no need for any of those "by the book" procedures or attorneys to be involved. 2+2. He should have been wary of nefarious intent. Perhaps he was. But, good grief, man.
Same with the character assassination of Tara "I'm will still vote Democrat" Reade.Delete
They would never do 'that' to their own, would they?
For some reason, looking from the inside, they cannot comprehend that Socialism is utterly utilitarian in all aspects. There is not the least part of it, as a philosophy/ideology, that is humanitarian. A persons only value is how they can be used to support/advance the Party. Broken/defective tools cannot be merely discarded but must be ground to dust.
Now they are saying a 3rd wave possible, really guys someone needs to check out this long read, kinda caught me off guard. stateofthenation2012.com/?p=132812ReplyDelete
Philly Mob Boss ready to squeal on ballet drop!!! Is this a true story?ReplyDelete