Pages

Showing posts with label Brandon Van Grack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brandon Van Grack. Show all posts

Friday, October 2, 2020

SWC Defends The Legal Ethics Of Brandon Van Grack

Questions are coming up about Shipwreckedcrew's defense of Brandon Van Grack's conduct in the Flynn case, and SWC is getting a lot of pushback on his twitter feed. Rather than update the previous post--SWC Now Thinks It's Van Grack Who's Cooperating With DoJ--I'll do a new one. I believe many readers will be interested to see how Shipwreckedcrew tries to field objections to his minimization of possible misconduct by Brandon Van Grack in the Flynn case. I don't find it very satisfactory myself.

Commenter MjH wrote:

Mark, reading your article and Cassander’s comments, isn’t Van Grack doing the threatening of Flynn’s son without legal basis and withholding exculpatory info?
So he is looking at misconduct and loss of law license before his conscience may kick in? Seems like lots of leverage to me or am I not following? I do recall
seeing a govt. submission in Flynn case suggesting FBI may have been hiding some info from Van Grack, Hard to believe he wasn’t involved there to a large extent, though. Thx.

I responded:

Should he have known better, been less willing to accept what he may have been told by the FBI? Almost certainly yes. But we're talking criminal liability here rather than moral liability.

Right now at https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew SWC is fielding lots of angry tweets from people who feel the same way as MjH. Read his responses to see how convincing you find his defense of the process. He basically wants to push the blame off onto the FBI, but one does wonder.

Also, one wonders about Barnett's role

These are serious issues, and if you're interested I urge you to read SWC's twitter feed--which is longer than I want to reproduce here. Certainly there was an awful lot of public information that should have put Van Grack on notice that there might be something very hinky going on that he was part of.

SWC Now Thinks It's Van Grack Who's Cooperating With DoJ

Yesterday evening we had a flurry of rumors on twitter, suggesting that AG Barr's Russia Hoax Team has made a breakthrough--they have secured the cooperation of a former Team Mueller attorney in addition to the recently disclosed cooperation of FBI agent William Barnett. For details regarding Barnett see two recent posts:



In the second of those two posts I pointed out that, despite all the activity in the last few months regarding the Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack--who had been the lead Team Mueller attorney on the Flynn case--has basically disappeared from view. However, we know that he has returned to DoJ to head the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) section, and so last night I pointed out that Van Grack fits the profile of the type of attorney from Team Mueller who might cooperate with Barr's Russia Hoax Team:

He is still with DoJ, and thus subject to DoJ disciplinary policies--he could have a lot to lose.

While he was not one of the "star" attorneys on Team Mueller--in no way comparable to Michael Dreeben, Jeannie Rhee, or Andrew Weissman, to name three--he nevertheless ended up in charge of the Flynn case. And the Flynn case has turned out to be by far the most consequential of any of the Russia Hoax cases that Team Mueller attempted to make.

Given Van Grack's role in the important Flynn case, even though he was not a "star" on Team Mueller he would surely have been privy to the overall legal strategy, methods, and attitudes of Team Mueller's leaders. He could, in other words, turn out to be an important witness for Barr's Russia Hoax Team.

Shipwreckedcrew initially speculated, yesterday evening, that Van Grack isn't the cooperating attorney, reasoning that--since we have heard nothing negative about him since he left the Flynn case, whereas we've heard a continue stream of criticism of the FBI's conduct--there was probably no circumstance that could be used to pressure Van Grack. This morning, however, SWC has come around to the view that Van Grack may, in fact, be the cooperator: Clues About Who From SCO Prosecution Team Is Cooperating Are Found in Interview of FBI SA Barnett. In making that switch he notes that cooperation need not be as a result of pressure--it can also be purely voluntary, and he speculates that that my be the case if Van Grack is the cooperator.

Here are what I take to be the main points SWC is making, and they're worth considering.

First of all, as I pointed out in the linked posts (above), it's notable in the Barnett 302 that three Team Mueller attorneys are singled out--by name--for criticism by Barnett: Weissmann, Rhee, and Andrew Goldstein. There are references to other Team Mueller attorneys, but their names are all redacted. The inference I drew from this circumstance was that Barr's Team is focusing on those three named attorneys--Weissmann, for one, has been squealing loudly in public--and that one or more of the attorneys whose names were redacted could be cooperating. This circumstance goes to the overall issue of whether, in fact, any former Team Mueller is cooperating with Barr's Team--and it tends to support a positive conclusion.

Secondly, as readers here probably noted themselves, it's also notable that in his interview Barnett appears--in rather stark contrast to Barnett's views regarding the named threesome--to have a positive attitude toward and relationship with one Team Mueller attorney in particular: "SCO Atty 1." In point of fact, Barnett recounts that he shared his negative views of the named three with SCO Atty 1, with whom he said he had worked in the past and whom he liked. My experience is that prosecutors get quite uptight and defensive when an agent criticizes other prosecutors in their presence, so to me that's an indicator that SCO Atty 1 must have shared at last some of Barnett's negative views of those named three.

Third, proceeding from the supposition that the cooperating former Team Mueller attorney may be cooperating voluntarily, SWC suggests that a likely candidate could be SCO Atty 1, who appears from the Barnett 302 to identify to at least some degree with Barnett's negative attitude toward the named three.

That SCO Atty 1 is, in fact, Van Grack appears likely. Van Grack is a relative newcomer at DoJ--having only about four years of experience. That experience was in the rather specialized field of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. What was SA Barnett doing for the years prior to being recruited to be case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane Team's Manafort and Flynn cases? He was working Chinese and Russian espionage cases, according to the 302, making it likely that he would have been in contact with Van Grack.

All in all, Van Grack seems to be a likely cooperator. It's speculation at this point, but it seems an educated surmise.

NOTE: I've taken to referring to those investigating the Russia Hoax as "Barr's Russia Hoax Team." That seemed advisable since we know that John Durham is now working with at least two additional US Attorneys--Jeff Jensen and John Bash--and the exact lines of demarcation, especially with regard to Durham and Jensen, aren't totally clear. What we do know is that they all report to AG Barr, and we can be sure that Barr is requiring close coordination among them.


Thursday, May 7, 2020

BREAKING: Quelle Surprise! Brandon Van Grack Withdraws From Flynn Case

Techno Fog broke the news--well, that's where I found it. No reason given--and that's no surprise either. My guess is that his days are too full cooperating with Durham's investigation for him to spare any time on the Flynn case which, in any event, should soon be resolved:























Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Who's Responsible For Turning Over Brady Material?

This is something I was discussing with my wife at dinner yesterday--really!

I was explaining that, despite all the talk of the FBI concealing documents, the responsibility for turning over Brady material--exculpatory material--actually belongs to the prosecutor(s). Obviously, if the FBI becomes aware that the prosecutors aren't performing their duties the FBI is culpable as well, but investigators aren't charged with the same legal understanding as prosecutors.

I was reminded of this by a Techno Fog tweet just now, which lays out DoJ Regs:

Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog
Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack has zero excuses for not producing this info.
Per DOJ regs:
"The investigative agency’s entire investigative file. . . should be reviewed for discoverable information." 



5:36 PM · May 5, 2020

How would you like to be in Van Grack's shoes right now? I'll bet he's been asked to respond to some pretty difficult questions already. And don't imagine Van Grack is the only prosecutor who was aware of the Brady material that wasn't turned over. It all goes to prove conspiratorial intent.

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Save Joe's Voice!

Among the newly released documents relating to the Flynn case are previously unreleased text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Among those messages is an exchange dated February 10, 2017.

The part you want to focus on is the blue part beneath the yellow. In that exchange we see that Lisa Page has been asked by Strzok to review his work on a document. Page gets back to Strzok and accuses him of "lazy work," producing a document that isn't "cogent and readable."

Strzok defends his work by saying,

Lisa, you didn't see my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1) trying [not]* to completely re-write the thing so as to save [Joe's]** voice and 2) get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon. I greatly appreciate your time in reviewing and your edits. I incorporated them. Thank you.

* The "not", as you can see, is Strzok's correction in a follow-up text.
** I inserted "Joe's" for the short redacted space because it's logical and it fits. More below.

What's going on here?

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

USA Jensen To Join Powell: Release The Docs!

USA Jeffrey Jensen is AG Bill Barr's handpicked "reviewer" of the Flynn case. Jensen made waves when he released to Flynn's legal team 5 pages of frankly, IMO, incriminating notes from FBI planning sessions in preparation for the attempted framing of Flynn. Those notes are said to have been taken by Comey's right hand man and top FBI lawyer, James Baker, who is said to be cooperating with the Durham investigation.

Now we learn that Jensen will join Sidney Powell in calling on Judge Sullivan for those records to be unsealed--presumably the first 5 pages. There are now reported to be 11 more pages of related records being redacted.

Catherine Herridge
@CBS_Herridge
#FLYNN DOJ official confirms @CBSNews US attorney will join Flynn Attorney @SidneyPowell1 calling for new records to be unsealed. AG Barr directed US attorney Jeffrey Jensen to scrutinize Flynn case. First batch docs small, including handwritten notes.  But review delivering more 
2:48 PM · Apr 29, 2020

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber 
DOJ provides 11 pages of additional materials to Flynn’s defense team, material “even more appalling” according to Sidney Powell
Quote Tweet

Sidney Powell 
@SidneyPowell1 
While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even more appalling that the Friday production.  We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.
@GenFlynn
@BarbaraRedgate

4:25 PM · Apr 29, 2020

It seems significant to me that Jensen is joining Powell in calling for the unsealing of these documents--for two reasons.

1) It appears that Jensen has not only reviewed the Flynn case, he also seems to have taken over the handling of the case. Brandon Van Grack does not appear to be playing any role in what's now unfolding. Perhaps he's too busy answering questions that various investigators are putting to him.

2) In these circumstances it's difficult to understand how the government would oppose Powell's motion to dismiss the prosecution. It's conceivable that Jensen is simply doing the right thing in releasing clear Brady material to the defense, but joining in in calling for the material to be unsealed immediately suggests that he agrees with Powell's view as to the nature of the material. It's also always possible that there could be some procedural reasons for delay, but it's very difficult for me to conceive that this charade of justice is not coming to an end. And that eftsoons or right speedily.

It's also difficult to believe that, given what we're hearing about the nature of these documents, that John Durham doesn't have a number of people in his crosshairs for their role in the Flynn case, some of whom may already be cooperating: James Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Joe Pientka, Lisa Page, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, David Laufman, Rod Rosenstein, Team Mueller generally, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad, Brandon Van Grack. And possibly more.

Monday, April 27, 2020

The Coming Flynn Exoneration--What Does It Mean?

I've always been confident that it would eventually happen, and last night Maria Bartiromo tweeted that this week is THE week for Flynn.

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.