Mike Flynn Speaks

Revolver has a 50 minute or so minute interview with Mike Flynn. It's billed as a sort of a tell all for conservatives:

Revolver Exclusive: For The First Time Ever, Gen. Flynn Reveals High-Ranking GOP Were Behind Plot to Silence Him

In fact, it's nothing of the sort. Flynn makes vague accusations about high ranking persons in the Deep State being out to get himself and Trump, but if you're looking for names named, new facts presented, truths revealed, etc., forget it. It'll only be time lost from your life. I would hope that readers at this blog who listen to Flynn will not come away feeling more knowledgeable.

Actually, the interview comes across as the kind of interview a prospective candidate for high office might give, if he were going to attempt to run as a non-establishment outsider, running to clean up Washington DC and restore the greatness that used to be America. Heard that before? But there are no details there. Yes, Flynn hints broadly at a cultural war, but I have to say that there's a real moral emptiness at the core of what he's saying. No suggestion whatsoever of any steps that he would champion. That becomes especially clear in the final segment in the terms with which he urges young people to enlist in the military. One comes away wondering: What does America stand for, in Flynn's mind? What makes it worth fighting and even dying for--in his mind?

Flynn Leak Case Closed

Because nobody did anything wrong. Yes, you read that right. It's not that they've given up trying to find out who showed David Ignatius Top Secret information (a tech cut)--they know that. Believe me, they do. No, it's that it's OK to do that when the person targeted is President Trump's National Security Adviser:

In one inquiry, code-named Operation Echo, investigators opened a leak case into a Washington Post column about phone calls in late 2016 between Sergey I. Kislyak, the former Russian ambassador to the United States, and Michael T. Flynn, then Mr. Trump’s incoming national security adviser. The leak was one of several matters under scrutiny by John H. Durham, the special counsel investigating the officials who opened the Russia investigation.

Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington investigated whether the disclosures came from former Obama administration officials who had access to sensitive information about the phone calls, according to two people familiar with the investigation. The investigators ultimately found no wrongdoing, one of the people said.

Prosecutors in Washington also recommended that the office close its investigation into Walid Phares, a former Trump campaign adviser suspected of secretly working on behalf of the Egyptian government in the months before Mr. Trump took office to influence the incoming administration.

Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, signed off on closing both of the cases on prosecutors’ recommendations, according to a person familiar with the investigations. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

 

I can't wait for the coming Durham indictments. But don't kid yourself--I'm no longer kidding myself. This is about Bluto Barr's DoJ. The hypocrisy in all this is enough to take your breath away.

UPDATE: You wanna see hypocrisy? Actually, the depravity that Tucker reveals in his monologue goes far beyond mere hypocrisy:

Flynn Case Finally Dismissed

H/T to Anonymous commenter. Techno Fog reports that Sullivan has finally dismissed the Flynn case, following the Pardon. This comes after he started making noises about attempting to contest the motion to dismiss as well as the pardon, by inviting more briefing. I take it someone higher up the judicial food chain finally told him: Enough already! Knock-It-Off!

If this is it, I have to say I find it very unsatisfactory. Moreover, if Durham doesn't come up with some significant indictments I'll be very angry at the DoJ handling of the Flynn case--my only reason for patience in the past was that I thought DoJ was keeping cooperating witnesses under wraps. But there's more going on in the world than this, so I'll just leave this to Techno Fog:

Accompanying Judge Sullivan's order is a spiteful opinion supportive of the broader Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations.

He labels the DOJ dismissal as "pretextual" and "dubious"

Full doc:https://t.co/09DHj4brlt pic.twitter.com/g7qDwdosE8

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) December 8, 2020

Highly Recommended: Why Sullivan MUST Disqualify Himself From The Flynn Case

I wish I could simply paste in the entire article by Leslie McAdoo Gordon:

Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Must Disqualify Himself From Michael Flynn’s Case

Sullivan’s apparent animus toward Flynn's attorney and his fixation on Flynn being punished demonstrate bias in this case — sufficient to require his disqualification.

It's really well reasoned and expressed. As the subtitle indicates, the author focuses on two primary issues. 

First, Sullivan has exhibited extreme and improper bias against Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell. McAdoo Gordon begins this section by pointing out disparities in Sullivan's treatment of Powell, as compared to the other attorneys involved--a manifest lack of respect. But she then moves on to an even more serious issue demonstrating Sullivan's animus against Powell--his unfounded and, really, rather unhinged attempt to paint Powell as in some way unethical. I say unhinged because this attempt follows a pattern of conduct by Sullivan--beginning with his accusation of "treason" leveled against Flynn, that appear to demonstrate appalling ignorance of basic matters both of law as well as of legal ethics. That, to me, is most easily explained not by ignorance per se but by an animus that is so consuming as to lead Sullivan to make grossly unfounded accusations in open court:

Manafort, Flynn--And A Dog That Hasn't Barked Yet

John Solomon continues to plow through the FBI spreadsheet that purports to fact check the Carter Page FISA application. He's come across an interesting detail:

Memo suggests FBI opened Manafort probe before Trump hired lobbyist but gave no warning

Some question why bureau didn't give Trump a defensive briefing in spring 2016.

A footnote (#332) appears to indicate (it's redacted) that the FBI opened an investigation on Manafort on January 13, 2016, but never provided the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing about Manafort. 

Solomon consulted Kevin Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. Brock laid out the general principles behind providing defensive briefings:

Not Exactly News: Sullivan Continues To Delay

In a totally transparent delaying tactic in the Flynn case, Sullivan issued an order requiring the government to "authenticate" FBI documents that that were mistakenly scanned without removing "sticky" notes bearing dates. The government has already explained what happened, and indeed it was totally obvious:

Just more delaying tactics from Judge Sullivan. The unfortunate fact is that this stall campaign has worked. It’s all down to the election now whether Flynn goes free https://t.co/d6Rig0y8ph

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) October 23, 2020

BREAKING: @GenFlynn case. I'm old enough, and yet young enough, to remember when Special Counsel & holdovers misrepresented AUTHOR of notes to Judge Sullivan and he shrugged! pic.twitter.com/LMO0NuyMZT

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 23, 2020

A commenter on UCHuber's thread noted:

He’s trying to force @realDonaldTrump‘s hand - make him issue a pardon so the dismissal motion becomes moot.

IMO: Not gonna happen. Flynn, with Powell's support, will go to the SCOTUS if that's what it takes to get the dismissal with prejudice. At some point along the way some judge will ream Sullivan a new one for disgracing the federal courts in this way. OTOH, even if Sullivan folds and grants the government's motion as written, Powell and Flynn--and probably Trump--will have plenty to say. I'd like to say Barr will, too. IMO, DoJ has a duty to speak up about judicial miscarriages and unconstitutional trespassing on executive authorities.

It's Official: Sullivan Is A Clown

Yesterday Sidney Powell demanded that Sullivan remove a letter that Peter Strzok's lawyer, Aitan Goelman, had sent and which Sullivan allowed to be placed in the Flynn court file (in what follows, below, when Powell says "the court" she means "Sullivan"). Strzok's lawyer had written to Judge Sullivan, alleging that someone had modified Strzok's handwritten notes that DOJ gave to Flynn's legal team and which were then submitted to the court. The modifications consisted of adding dates, including a wrong date. 

Before considering Powell's complaint concerning Sullivan's conduct, here is the relevant portion of Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, to which Powell refers:

Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested.

With that in mind, this is what Powell wrote with regard to Sullivan's handling of the letter from Goelman in her MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE EMMET SULLIVAN AND FOR OTHER RELIEF:

The Flynn Case: The Day After

Yesterday, in addition to filing a motion demanding that Sullivan recuse himself from the Flynn case, Sidney Powell also filed her

FIFTH SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AGREED DISMISSAL

This fifth supplement contains a copy of one page of handwritten notes that were taken by "a lawyer in the FBI's Office of General Counsel" (which was headed at the time by James Baker). The notes were taken on 1/25/2017 at a meeting that was held by the FBI and DoJ to discuss the Strzok/Pientka interview of Michael Flynn on the previous day, 1/24/2017. The note taker is not further identified--it could have been Kevin Clinesmith, who was assigned to the Flynn case ("Razor"), but that is only a likely surmise. Clinesmith, of course, worked in the OGC, several levels below Baker.

First, let's look at what Sidney Powell has to say about the significance of the these notes--what we can learn from them about the FBI/DoJ view of the case at that time:

Today the Government produced a single page of FBI notes from January 25, 2020 taken by a lawyer in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. In that meeting it was clear, the day after the FBI’s interview of General Flynn, that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a Logan Act charge regarding the December 29, 2016 phone call with Ambassador Kislyak, which was similar to communications by “other transition teams.”

Moreover, the FBI knew on January 25, 2017, that none of the statements made by General Flynn to the FBI the day before could be material to any legitimate FBI investigation or action. These notes are further exculpatory evidence—standing in direct violation of this court’s Brady order—showing that General Flynn has been innocent all along, which the FBI knew from the beginning.

To summarize, Powell makes three points which, as we'll see, require some "reading into" the notes, but which also seem entirely reasonable:

Sidney Powell Demands That Sullivan Recuse From The Flynn Case

As she promised at the last hearing, Sidney Powell has filed a motion today in which she demands that Sullivan recuse himself from any further involvement in the Michael Flynn case:

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE EMMET SULLIVAN AND FOR OTHER RELIEF

There's not much point going through the details at this time. We've seen most of Sullivan's antics described before--beginning with his outrageously ignorant claim that Flynn had somehow committed "treason," the only criminal offense that is actually defined in the Constitution:

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Even the Team Mueller attorneys were stunned when Sullivan made that incredible assertion in open court.

There is one issue that Powell notes that I do want to draw attention, further down. First, however, to give some idea of the red meant that Powell's motion contains, here is an excerpt from the table of contents:

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:

The Barnett 302

Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

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.

Might Sullivan Dismiss The Flynn Case--Without Prejudice?

Shipwreckedcrew has a provocative article today: My Take on Yesterday’s Hearing on DOJ Motion to Dismiss Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn. He doesn't offer much analysis of the actual hearing--which dragged on for an almost unconscionable span of time. However, he offers a prediction as to how he believes Sullivan will rule on the DoJ motion to dismiss.

He believes that Sullivan will ultimately grant the motion to dismiss--but with a twist. DoJ is asking that the case be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that DoJ would not be able to reinstitute prosecution of Flynn on the same charges. SWC believes that Sullivan will follow the advice of Andrew Weissmann, and dismiss the case without prejudice. And that would mean that DoJ could--at least theoretically--reinstitute the prosecution.

I'm treading on ground here that I freely admit is well beyond my experience. SWC doesn't seem to see much problem with this outcome, but I'm not so sure.

SWC sees this outcome as protecting the interests of US district courts generally and, to that extent, as justifiable.

First, you need to understand the “equities” of Judge Sullivan in this dispute.  He’s fighting against the idea that a district court judge like himself does not have the authority to “check” what he might see as “abuses” in the decision-making process of the Executive branch AFTER they bring matters into his court. On this issue, I suspect he’d have broad support from district court judges all over the country. They are the gatekeepers to the federal court system. By asserting a strong role for the trial judge under Rule 48, Judge Sullivan — aided by Judge Gleeson — is saying to DOJ:

“You brought this case, you occupied my time, you made representations and arguments on the record to me and asked me to do certain things in my role as a district court judge, and you don’t get to just walk away from all that without an explanation that is to my satisfaction.”

He is defending institutional turf that he believes belongs to the Judiciary once a case is filed — and in this case a guilty plea is entered.

My problem with this line of argument is that it seems to me to ignore the whole reason for having courts to begin with--to see that justice is done. There is no mention here of the one person in the process with by far the most at stake: the defendant, in this case Michael Flynn. If we grant for the sake of argument that Sullivan may feel his time has been wasted and that DoJ's feet should be held to the fire, does the bankrupted Michael Flynn have no equities in this? What about his good name? This result--dismissal without prejudice--would mean that Flynn would not "get to just walk away." 

Sullivan Makes A Pig's Breakfast Of The Hearing

Sullivan is a shocking idiot. Remember how he previously had no clue about the constitutional definition of "treason"? Now it turns out that he has no clue about the First Amendment right to petition the government. He thinks there was something improper about Sidney Powell writing a letter to AG Barr!

From Wikipedia, about the right to petition the government:

In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted,[1] many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right.[2][1]

According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,[3]

the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition."

So now check this out (again per Leslie McAdoo Gordon). Note that Sidney Powell is pulling no punches (JS = Judge Sullivan):

The DoJ States Its Position In Flynn Case

Per Leslie McAdoo Gordon, these are the four points Hashim (“Hash”) Mooppan presented:

Mr. Mooppan has 4 points. 

First is that there is no case or controversy, which Sullivan said he wasn't going to discuss. 

He's saying it's not a separate issue. It's one of the govt's grounds for dismissal. 

Second issue: Court isn't a rubber stamp, but the examples Gleeson used don't apply here. This isn't a case of a rogue prosecutor. This case is the "considered view" of the US. 

3rd: The US has exclusive authority to dismiss; Fokker give court no role to disagree with DOJ's determination. Nixon and Fokker are controlling. 

4th: materiality. DOJ cited Safavian - he gives the page. Says that is about whether a jury "could" convict, not "should" and certainly not whether the DOJ "should" pursue. 

After Mooppan, Ken Kohl reviews some of the evidentiary problems with any prosecution of Flynn. Brief examples:

Barnett 302

Comey's testimony to HPSCI: 

saying it was a "close one" - he doesn't know if Flynn lied. Kohl says that would be a problem for DOJ. DOJ doesn't prosecute people unless they are SURE there is a crime; not that there might be.

Calling Strzok as witness? Who misled the FISC?

It's simply a weak case, even assuming there had been a reason for it to begin with.

I assume Sullivan will deny the motion--because he can. To delay.

Has Sullivan Found A Way To Keep Flynn Case Going Past Election?

 H/T to commenter Bruce from Oz, who points out:

Sullivan has granted 'Leave for filling' on the Goelman letter (also contains the letters in question). This is going to drag on.

Aitan D. Goelman is Peter Strzok's lawyer, and this is his letter. In the letter Goelman complains that Strzok's handwritten notes have been "altered." What he means is that dates have been added to show the date of the notes (these additions by document reviewers are set off in boxes), and he complains that one date is inaccurate. He also complains that Sidney Powell has violated an order not to supplement pleadings until the government's "Brady" production is complete.

You can view the two pages of notes that Goelman is complaining about by following the link above.

Roscoe Davis argues that this signals that Sullivan will seek to hold additional--evidentiary--hearings to drag the case past the election. Davis also points out that none of this has anything to do with Flynn himself, or with the DoJ decision to dismiss the prosecution. 

I hasten to add that Sullivan allowing this letter to be filed doesn't mean that there actually will be hearings on the matters discussed in the letter--nor does Goelman request any particular action. It's all up to Sullivan. However, it seems to me that if Sullivan seizes on issues of this sort to prevent expeditious dismissal of the Flynn case, then AG Barr needs to find a way to play some hardball with the Judicial Branch, which is increasingly out of control. Joining an appeal to the SCOTUS would seem appropriate.

UPDATED: Mental Health Day

I'm taking a bit of time off today--or at least this morning. Also to rest my eyes. 

Two quick comments. 

The next Michael Flynn hearing is coming up. FWIW, what will interest me the most will be how aggressive the DoJ attorney is. We know Sidney Powell will push hard on the theme of government misconduct and that Gleeson will be unhinged. So I'm interested in how DoJ intends to react to having been stonewalled--in the face of all evidence and legitimate constitutional concerns--at both the District and Circuit court levels. Powell has stated that, if balked again, she'll "go straight to the Supreme Court." Will DoJ adopt a similarly aggressive posture?

And now a request.

Shipwreckedcrew has an article out today in which he maintains--IMO convincingly--that the "insurance policy" that Strzok and Page texted about was, in fact, simply the Michael Flynn case. I say his argument is convincing. It's extended and draws in most of the available evidence. Here's his conclusion. As you'll see, he's echoing points made here--both by me as well as by commenters--while expanding on them:

Might Justice Amy Play A Role In The Russia Hoax?

That's right--I've already promoted Barrett from Judge Amy to Justice Amy.

And the answer to the question is, Yes, she just might play a role in the Russia Hoax.

We've referenced 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights in the past. it's the federal law that allows people to sue the ass off people who deprive them of their constitutional rights. There is a problem with that and--sit down for this--it's a judge made problem. Judges decided that this law was too hard on law enforcement types, so they came up with a doctrine of "qualified immunity" in such cases. That doctrine can be summarized--and, indeed, the SCOTUS did summarize the doctrine--this way:

"[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

When--not if--the prosecution of Michael Flynn is dismissed for government misconduct, Michael Flynn will be suing the ass off those who were responsible for violating his rights. It's called a Bivens action.

It just so happens that Judge Amy, soon to be Justice Amy, has a track record on Bivens and qualified immunity, and it's not the kind of track record that potential Bivens defendants will be happy with. You can read about it here:

UPDATED: Is The Barnett 302 A Downpayment On More To Come?

In my original post regarding the fascinating 302 of USA Jensen's Flynn Team interview of SA William Barnett, I briefly made the point that this 302 may actually not be the full story on Barnett's cooperation with the Barr led DoJ investigation of all things Russia Hoax--an investigation that has expanded now to include at least three aggressive and very competent US Attorneys: John Durham, Jeff Jensen, and John Bash. Jensen has been making a lot of waves in the last few months, because--among other aspects of the Russia Hoax--he has the lead on the Michael Flynn case, which has gone very public with the lurid details of government misconduct.

Here's that brief point I made--with the surrounding paragraphs for a bit more context:

The result was that very little real investigation of Flynn ever took place. Instead, the open case appeared to Barnett to be a sort of placeholder--a case without real predication that was being kept open "just in case". Just in case Flynn became a target of opportunity (as in fact happened) and the FBI could then say, Oh yeah, we've been investigating him as a foreign agent all along--to provide added credibility to the setup interview of Flynn. 

That, of course, is not how investigations are supposed to be managed. In this regard, there are signs in the 302 that this write-up may be only one of several. For example, regarding the lack of predication and the lack of actual investigative activity, the 302 briefly notes that Barnett mentions a "very frank discussion" on that score with "Analyst 1." But no details. I suspect a more detailed account of that aspect exists.

This perspective on how the Flynn investigation was managed is important, because it narrows down USA Jensen's focus on the Flynn case. Presumably, Barnett's account will also be supported by or will confirm what Joe Pientka has already told investigators regarding who directed it all. This in turn will help Jensen to pin the decision on opening a basically unpredicated Full Investigation of Flynn on Strzok--and possibly others above Strzok.

I probably should have gone into a bit more detail on my thinking here. However, Shipwreckedcrew has done more on that. After citing him, I'll make one additional point that I think indicates that Barnett's 302--as we've seen it--may only be a small part of the whole picture. That will also illustrate why there's reason to believe that the "sprawl" of this investigation could be quite extensive. So, here's SWC, retweeting Sidney Powell and offering his take:

The Barnett 302

I'll do this in a sort of impressionistic way--concentrating on overall impressions taken from the FD-302 of FBI Agent William Barnett. That "302" memorializes the interview of Barnett that was conducted by FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the handling of the Michael Flynn case.

First of all, imagine how Barnett felt going into this interview, and what the circumstances of the interview tell us.

Barnett, a law enforcement official of the federal government, had hired an attorney to be present with him at the interview--even though he was just a witness. He may have been just a witness, but he knew this was a high stakes interview and he couldn't simply trust to his own integrity.

He was interviewed by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors--one of them Jeffrey Jensen, a USA who had also been an FBI agent. Barnett knew there'd be no BS-ing his way through this interview, and that this interview was supremely important from the government's standpoint.

Right at the start we learn something very important. Barnett had worked on both the Flynn and Manafort investigations. In fact, he was the case agent for both investigations at the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO), having been specifically recruited to join the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) team by SSA Joe Pientka. He continued working those cases once Team Mueller was set up. That means that he would have interacted regularly with the prosecutors who led those investigations for Team Mueller. We learn later that Barnett is able to recall the attitudes and words of Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, so it's a good guess that Durham/Jensen are very much interested in those two Team Mueller alumni.

Good For Sidney!

Speaking to Lou Dobbs this evening, Sidney Powell said that if Sullivan doesn't dismiss the case she'll take it straight to the SCOTUS--to bypass the corrupt Obama DC Circuit. I have an idea that the SCOTUS will take the case if it comes to that. 

Good for Sidney--our judicial emperors no longer have clothes.