|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 10, 2017 12:03:45 GMT -5
From the AP: "Tweets by Russia-backed accounts such as 'America_1st_' and 'BatonRougeVoice' on Oct. 7, 2016, actively pivoted away from news of an audio recording in which Trump made crude comments about groping women, and instead touted damaging emails hacked from Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta...Within an hour of the Post's story, WikiLeaks released its own bombshell about hacked emails from Podesta's account, a release the Russian accounts had been foreshadowing for days." Let's see: damaging news about Trump is deflected almost immediately by a WikiLeaks data dump that just happens to have come from Russian hackers, and was "foreshadowed" by Russian trolls. Nah, no collusion there, lol! BTW, it worked! The NYT, for example, had six reporters sorting through those Podesta emails, ultimately reporting there was nothing there except the usual office gossip, while one poor slob was left to do second-hand coverage of the Donny-Billy grope tape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 14, 2017 10:50:55 GMT -5
The collusion story moves forward:Donald Trump Jr. had multiple online conversations during the 2016 presidential campaign with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that last year released a hacked trove of Democrats’ emails, according to four congressional officials...The correspondence, which began weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election and continued through much of this year, is the second time it has been publicly revealed that Mr. Trump communicated with people and organizations with ties to the Russian government who were trying to undermine the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton...
“Hiya, it’d be great if you guys could comment on/push this story,” WikiLeaks said in a message to Mr. Trump on Oct. 3, 2016, that included a quote from Mrs. Clinton in which she said she wanted to “just drone” Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.
“Already did that earlier today,” Mr. Trump said in response...In a message a week later, WikiLeaks asked Mr. Trump to have his father Tweet a link to a site where users could search through hacked emails from Democrats...Mr. Trump did not respond. Fifteen minutes later, however, his father tweeted: “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!”We now have closed the circle: Russia hacks Hillary's/DNC's emails, turns them over to their agent Assange, and just when things look bad for Trump (Access Hollywood tape), Assange works with Trump Jr. to dump them and distract the media/public. This is "collusion" by any definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 14, 2017 11:18:18 GMT -5
Sessions changes his story on campaign-Russian meetings: At confirmation hearing: “I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did, and I don’t believe it happened.” Today in Congress: “I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. After reading his account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government, for that matter. But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and I would gladly have reported it had I remembered it because I pushed back against his suggestion that I thought may have been improper.” Classic, "now that you refresh my memory with that guilty plea" defense. LOL! Alabama is providing a lot of entertainment value this month, and not just on the football field.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Nov 14, 2017 20:44:13 GMT -5
Sessions changes his story on campaign-Russian meetings: At confirmation hearing: “I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did, and I don’t believe it happened.” Today in Congress: “I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. After reading his account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government, for that matter. But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and I would gladly have reported it had I remembered it because I pushed back against his suggestion that I thought may have been improper.” Classic, "now that you refresh my memory with that guilty plea" defense. LOL! Alabama is providing a lot of entertainment value this month, and not just on the football field. OB have you ever seen a more thoroughly compromised Attorney General than Sessions? Looks like congress basically caught him red-handed in contempt. Trump is pissed at him for not doing his bidding. He had direct interaction with the Russians, whose records of that and other interactions (?) would be compromising material - kompromat - on him. I assume Mueller has Russia info on him in addition to a role in obstruction of justice. In the meantime, the Papadapoulos experience shows that lying for this boss gets you: 1) in more trouble; 2) sold down the river by the boss. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 15, 2017 0:22:20 GMT -5
OB have you ever seen a more thoroughly compromised Attorney General than Sessions? Not since John Mitchell. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 15, 2017 14:24:19 GMT -5
Did Russia funnel money to the US for campaign purposes last year? They say the money was to support overseas voting in their own elections, and no doubt Trump will find that explanation "sincere", but the FBI isn't so sure: "On Aug. 3 of last year, just as the US presidential election was entering its final, heated phase, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent nearly $30,000 to its embassy in Washington. The wire transfer, which came from a Kremlin-backed Russian bank, landed in one of the embassy’s Citibank accounts and contained a remarkable memo line: “to finance election campaign of 2016.” That wire transfer is one of more than 60 now being scrutinized by the FBI and other federal agencies investigating Russian involvement in the US election. "The transactions, which moved through Citibank accounts and totaled more than $380,000, each came from the Russian Foreign Ministry and most contained a memo line referencing the financing of the 2016 election. The money wound up at Russian embassies in almost 60 countries from Afghanistan to Nigeria between Aug. 3 and Sept. 20, 2016. It is not clear how the funds were used. "At least one transaction that came into the US originated with VTB Bank, a financial institution that is majority-owned by the Kremlin. After discovering the $30,000 transfer to the embassy in Washington, Citibank launched a review of other transfers by the Russian Foreign Ministry. It unearthed dozens of other transactions with similar memo lines. Compliance officers in Citibank’s Global Intelligence Unit flagged them as suspicious, noting that it was unable to determine the financial, business, or legal purpose of the transactions. "Much as checks include a memo line, wire transfers often include a note that states what the money is for. The note on this set of transfers did not indicate what election the money was to be used for, or even the country. Seven nations had federal elections during the span when the funds were sent — including the Duma, Russia’s lower house of Parliament. The FBI was first made aware of the suspicious transactions two months ago. Two FBI sources said that FBI legal attaches in other countries are now investigating whether the money may have been used for the US presidential election and, if so, how."
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 16, 2017 23:43:25 GMT -5
Lies and the lying liars who tell them:"I spent part of my convalescence from a recent illness reading some of the comprehensive timelines of the Russia investigation (which indicates, I suppose, a sickness of another sort). One, compiled by Politico, runs to nearly 12,000 words — an almost book-length account of stupidity, cynicism, hubris and corruption at the highest levels of American politics. In all of this, there is a spectacular accumulation of lies. Lies on disclosure forms. Lies at confirmation hearings. Lies on Twitter. Lies in the White House briefing room. Lies to the FBI. Self-protective lies by the attorney general. Blocking and tackling lies by Vice President Pence. This is, with a few exceptions, a group of people for whom truth, political honor, ethics and integrity mean nothing." The latest installment came just hours after that op-ed by Michael Gerson was published: "President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner received and forwarded emails about WikiLeaks and a “Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite” that he kept from Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, according to panel leaders demanding that he produce the missing records. "Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Kushner’s lawyer Abbe Lowell on Thursday charging that Kushner has failed to disclose several documents, records and transcripts in response to multiple inquiries from committee investigators. "In the letter, Grassley and Feinstein instruct Kushner’s team to turn over “several documents that are known to exist” because other witnesses in their probe already gave them to investigators. They include a series of 'September 2016 email communications to Mr. Kushner concerning WikiLeaks,' which the committee leaders say Kushner then forwarded to another campaign official. Earlier this week, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. revealed that he had had direct communication with WikiLeaks over private Twitter messages during the campaign." Kushner lied to a Senate committee? About something they found out from other sources? Just how stupid is he? And has Abbe Lowell lost his edge, or did he lie to his lawyer, too? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of "Putin's Lying Puppets" on this station.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 17, 2017 14:33:25 GMT -5
"WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has issued a subpoena to the Trump campaign asking multiple campaign officials to produce Russia-related documents, according to a source with first-hand knowledge of the matter. The subpoena was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which also said that the subpoena does not compel testimony by any of the officials. The source said the campaign has already turned over some 20,000 documents voluntarily, so it’s not clear why the subpoena was issued. A subpoena ratchets up the stakes for noncompliance." Keeps on ticking! |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 28, 2017 11:08:33 GMT -5
So a few days ago Michael Flynn's lawyer called Donald Trump's lawyer to say that they no longer could communicate about the Mueller investigation, on which they had been cooperating. Decoded: Flynn has or is trying to cut a deal with Mueller to become a cooperating witness. One reason may be that his son also is in Mueller's cross-hairs. But there's more: Flynn may have violated federal law in a way not previously reported. It seems the General was involved at various times in the past couple of years with two different consulting firms that were trying to broker deals with Middle Eastern countries to buy nuclear power plants from Russia or China. Yeah, Russia, again, and China. He lied about that to Congress, naturally: while advising a company named ACU that had spent decades trying to get countries such as Saudi Arabia to buy Russian nuclear plants, he told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, “I don’t want Russia to be talking to Jordan about building nuclear plants, I don’t want the Chinese or Pakistan to be talking to the Saudis about building potentially 10 to 15 plants. I don’t want the Russians to go over to Egypt and talk to them about building nuclear plants.” Of course he didn't want them to do that. He wanted them to talk to ACU about those Russian and Chinese power plants so they could get consulting fees, of which he would get his cut. And, of course, his work for ACU and later IP3, also in the nukes business, never showed up on his Conflict of Interest statements when he got appointed Trump's Chief of Staff. But that's not the part that has him in serious criminal jeopardy. Oh, no. This is: “It appears that General Flynn violated federal law by omitting this trip and these foreign contacts from his security clearance renewal application and concealing them from security clearance investigators who interview as part of that background check.” Note: "It is a criminal offense to knowingly omit material information requested by federal officials conducting such a review." I've been through at least three security clearance reviews, and been interviewed about a number of others' applications. This is not a trivial offense, not something you can say you "forgot" and change later. You are criminally liable if you fail to reveal such information, period. The evidence on this was turned over to Mueller by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, and almost immediately came the call from Flynn's lawyer to Trump's. Coincidence? Yeah, right. And just what the hell are so many retired military men (no women yet) doing brokering deals for the Russian Government (OK, Russian State-Owned Enterprises, if you want to be picky) after they retire? Why are they selling their contacts with people in countries where we have sensitive operations to the highest bidder, including our #1 and #2 national security adversaries? What the hell happened to good old-fashioned patriotism? Oh, I forgot: since Reagan announced that selling whatever to whomever was the highest form of "idealism" these guys no doubt figure that doing well by doing well beats doing well by doing good. Crass materialism at its finest. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 28, 2017 20:14:00 GMT -5
More detail on Flynn's little legal problem:"The week after President Trump’s inauguration, national security adviser Michael Flynn forwarded a memo written by a former business associate and told his staff to fashion it into a policy for President Trump’s approval, according to two people familiar with the exchange. The proposal — to develop a “Marshall Plan” of investment in the Middle East — was being pushed by a company that Flynn had advised during the 2016 campaign and transition. The firm was seeking to build nuclear power plants in the region. His advocacy for the project in the White House surprised some administration officials and raised concerns that Flynn had a conflict of interest. From August to December 2016, he served as an adviser to the company, IP3, reporting later on his disclosure forms that he ended his association with the firm just weeks before joining the administration... "Flynn advocated for a plan that would help the company after entering the White House, according to people familiar with the exchange. In late January, Robert “Bud” McFarlane, a co-founder of IP3 and a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, laid out in an email to Flynn what he called a “Marshall Plan for the Middle East,” IP3 officials said in a statement...Flynn forwarded the email to members of his National Security Council staff and instructed them to 'essentially put it on White House letterhead and send it to the president for approval,' according to a person with knowledge of Flynn’s directions... "Some of those who worked with Flynn on the National Security Council were aware of Flynn’s connection to IP3 and another company pursuing a similar project. John Eisenberg, a legal adviser to the council, worried that Flynn had a conflict and urged him to recuse himself from the project discussions, according to an administration official familiar with the conversations. Eisenberg declined to comment...Some of Flynn’s allies continued to pursue the idea, including one aide, Derek Harvey, whom he deputized to help work on the policy document, according to a person familiar with the efforts. Harvey did not return a request for comment." Scum
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 30, 2017 10:55:49 GMT -5
"President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, met this month with investigators working for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and answered questions about a meeting with a Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, according to a person briefed on the investigation. The questions focused on a meeting in December between Mr. Kushner, the ambassador and Michael T. Flynn, who at the time was the president’s incoming national security adviser, the person said on Wednesday. Prosecutors also asked Mr. Kushner about other interactions between Mr. Flynn and the Russian government, the person briefed on the investigation said. Mr. Flynn was fired in February after misleading Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations during the transition with Sergey I. Kislyak, who was then the Russian ambassador to the United States... "The interview does not mean Mr. Kushner is a particular focus of the investigation. Defense lawyers typically do not allow such interviews if they believe that their clients are the target of an investigation. The interview with Mr. Kushner would have been important to Mr. Mueller, who is building a case against Mr. Flynn. The special counsel’s interview of Mr. Kushner lasted less than an hour and did not touch on the range of topics Mr. Mueller is investigating. That leaves open the possibility that Mr. Kushner could be interviewed again." Two things stand out in this story: (1) If Kushner had anything damaging on Flynn, that's another data point explaining why Flynn's lawyers apparently have started negotiating for a deal with Mueller. (2) The fact that the discussion was limited to Flynn suggests the prosecutors were deliberately staying away from other topics on which Kushner himself might face legal vulnerability. And the fact that the leaker who provided this information to the NYT made that clear is itself telling. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 30, 2017 23:52:54 GMT -5
"President Trump over the summer repeatedly urged senior Senate Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to end the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, according to a half dozen lawmakers and aides. Mr. Trump’s requests were a highly unusual intervention from a president into a legislative inquiry involving his family and close aides." linkTrump keeps insisting there's nothing to find, yet he has pressed hard to prevent anyone from looking. What's he got to hide? Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 9:32:43 GMT -5
"President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, will plead guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about a conversation with the Russian ambassador last December. The plea was the latest indication that Mr. Flynn was cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Flynn was scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington at 10:30 on Friday morning." linkThe dam is bursting. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 11:05:42 GMT -5
More: "Flynn’s negotiations to cooperate with Mueller’s team began early last month, according to two people briefed on the discussions. Days after former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was indicted, Mueller’s investigators warned Flynn’s lawyers they planned to indict Flynn and also could charge his son, according to the two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Flynn’s lawyers, Kelner and Stephen Anthony, provided a proffer of what information Flynn could provide and then Flynn met with Mueller’s team...As part of Flynn’s negotiations, his son, Michael G. Flynn, is not expected to be charged, according to a person with knowledge of the talks." linkAt this moment, CNN is reporting from the federal courthouse that Flynn has pled guilty to on count of lying to the FBI, covering four specific false statements. The judge has accepted the guilty plea. Flynn is getting off pretty easily here, which suggests his proffer was something worthwhile to the prosecutors. Tick-tock. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 11:35:29 GMT -5
Flynn faced much more serious charges, some of which have not gotten a lot of attention. It has been known for a while that Flynn was acting as an agent for the Turkish government, without registering as one (itself a federal crime), but the Wall Street Journal reported this last week: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn’s alleged role in a plan to forcibly remove a Muslim cleric living in the U.S. and deliver him to Turkey in return for millions of dollars, according to people familiar with the investigation." $15 million, to be precise. Conspiracy to commit kidnapping is a lot bigger crime than lying about being a foreign agent, so it's no wonder he was anxious to cut a deal. That Flynn is pleading guilty to anything shows just how much trouble he was in. Back in March the WSJ reported that Flynn "has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter." Instead of a blanket immunity he's getting to plead to a charge that carries a 1-5 year prison sentence in exchange for whatever he proffered to Mueller against someone further up the chain--of which there are very few people, including You-Know-Who. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 12:17:30 GMT -5
Here's the official statement from the prosecutors to the court, with Flynn's confession of guilt, countersigned by his lawyers:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal N0.: Violation: 18 U.S.C. 1001 (False Statements) MICHAEL T. LYNN, Defendant.
The Special Counsel informs the Court:
INFORMATION
(A). On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, the defendant falsely stated and represented to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., that:
(I) On or about December 29, 20l6, did not ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the UnitedIStates had imposed against Russia that same day; and did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request; and
(ii) On or about December 22, 2016, did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian Ambassador subsequently never described Russia's response to his request.
(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2))
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Special Counsel
Zainab N. Ahmad
Brandon L. Van Grack
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
The Special Counsel's Office
STATEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the
charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of Prcsident?Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 201 presidential election, including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.
2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
3. On or about January 24, 2017, FLYNN agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI ("January 24 voluntary interview"). During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he Did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN's request. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:
a. On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").
b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official''), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The P'TT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.
d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
f. On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.
g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and infonned him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
h. After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request that Foreign Officials Vote Against or Delay a United Nations Security Council Resolution
4. During the January 24 voluntary interview, FLYNN made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries' positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia's response to FLYNN's request regarding the resolution. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:
a. On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on the issue of lsraeli settlements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.
b. On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
c. On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending vote. FLYNN infonned the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.
d. On or about December 23, 2016, FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
Other False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Contacts with Foreign Governments
5. On March 7, 2017, FLYNN filed multiple documents with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act ("FARA") pertaining to a project pcrfonned by him and his company, the Flynn Intel Group, Inc. ("FIG"), for the principal benefit of the RepubJic of Turkey (''Turkey project"). In the FARA filings, FLYNN made materially false statements and omissions, including by falsely staling that (a) FIO did not know whether or the extent to which the Republic of Turkey was involved in the Turkey project, (b) the Turkey project was focused on improving U.S. business organizations' confidence regarding doing business in Turkey, and (c) an op-ed by FLYNN published in The Hill on November 8, 2016, was written at his own initiative; and by omitting that officials from the Republic of Turkey provided supervision and direction over the Turkey project.
By:
Brandon L. Van Grack
Zainab N. Ahmad
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
The Special Counsel's Office
DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE
The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully. I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.
Michael T. Flynn
Defendant
ATTORNEYS' ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read this Statement of the Offense, and have reviewed it with my client fully. I concur in my client's desire to adopt and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense as true and accurate.
Robert K. Kelner
Attorney for Defendant
Stephen P. Anthony
Attorney for Defendant
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 15:10:47 GMT -5
"Flynn admitted that he called a senior transition official, whose name is not listed in court records, at the Mar-a-Lago resort on Dec. 29 “to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions.” And when the ambassador later informed him Russia would not retaliate, Flynn again told senior members of the transition team, court records say. The records say that a “very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team” directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, about the U.N. resolution on Israel. That official is also not named, but people familiar with the matter said it refers to Kushner. Abbe Lowell, Kusher’s attorney, declined to comment." link |
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 1, 2017 17:00:10 GMT -5
Calm down! You are losing your mind! Your hatred of President Trump has you going all Ann B. Davis on your own board! And no - I did not participate with even a single post in the ABD thread on the cool kid's board because I enjoyed both ABD's acting & your loony leftist posts. I had to ask where you had gone (because I missed you  ) just before I was removed by a perpetually-unemployed H-B Enterprises icon. Imagine, Professor, if you actually were one of the cool kids with a cheerleader on arm and were suddenly banished from staying cool forever by a cartoon character. That is my own troubling psychological dilemma... In any event, let us address your deeply-rooted Trump hatred... I think some rational & reasonable legal material about what the plea deal most likely means is the best for your psyche. It prepares you for the utter disappointment - for the nothing that is coming... www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation>O |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 18:41:56 GMT -5
Calm down! You are losing your mind! Your hatred of President Trump has you going all Ann B. Davis on your own board! Has nothing to do with "hatred of Trump" and everything to do with hatred of those who would sell out the country for money and/or power. And your National Review guy has been singing the "no there there" story for months, and yet more "there" seems to show up every week. But you are allowed to live in your delusions, just as my ex's granny did during the Watergate investigation, when she remarked that Nixon was "a marvelous President," just a few months before he resigned and got a presidential pardon for his crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 1, 2017 20:43:47 GMT -5
Of course I disagree, but you missed the most endearing part of my post!
As everyone was just attacking Alice, I thought differently, because...
>O
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2017 21:13:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 3, 2017 16:42:42 GMT -5
No wonder jon suddenly likes Russia! "A conservative operative trumpeting his close ties to the National Rifle Association and Russia told a Trump campaign adviser last year that he could arrange a back-channel meeting between Donald J. Trump and Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, according to an email sent to the Trump campaign. A May 2016 email to the campaign adviser, Rick Dearborn, bore the subject line ' Kremlin Connection.' In it, the N.R.A. member said he wanted the advice of Mr. Dearborn and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, then a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump and Mr. Dearborn’s longtime boss, about how to proceed in connecting the two leaders. Russia, he wrote, was 'quietly but actively seeking a dialogue with the U.S.' and would attempt to use the N.R.A.’s annual convention in Louisville, Ky., to make 'first contact.'... "The emailed outreach from the conservative operative to Mr. Dearborn came far earlier [than the election], around the same time that Russians were trying to make other connections to the Trump campaign. Another contact came through an American advocate for Christian and veterans causes, and together, the outreach shows how, as Mr. Trump closed in on the nomination, Russians were using three foundational pillars of the Republican Party — guns, veterans and Christian conservatives — to try to make contact with his unorthodox campaign. Both efforts, made within days of each other, centered on the N.R.A.’s annual meeting and appear to involve Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of the Russian central bank and key figure in Mr. Putin’s United Russia party, who was instructed to make contact with the campaign." The email was from Paul Erickson, who was more than just an NRA "member": he was the go-between connecting the NRA to Russia: "Indeed, evidence does appear to show deep ties between Mr. Erickson, the N.R.A. and the Russian gun rights community that were formed in the years when many American conservatives, put off by the Obama administration’s policies, were increasingly looking to Mr. Putin as an example of a strong leader opposing immigration, terrorism and gay rights...Mr. Erickson has known Maria Butina, a former assistant to Mr. Torshin and the founder of the Right to Bear Arms, a Russian gun-rights group, for several years. Ms. Butina, who helped Mr. Torshin make the request through Mr. Clay, hosted Mr. Erickson at a September 2014 meeting of the group at its Moscow office. And in February 2016, the two incorporated a company, Bridges LLC, together in South Dakota. What the company does is unclear." Yep, the NRA has ties to Putin. Quel surprise! And as for why Putin wanted to use the NRA, Christians, and veterans to help Trump: “Ever since Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, all senior Russian leaders consider her beyond redemption.” If you continue to deny that the Russians and Trump campaign were in league last year you are either lying or a fool. There's no third option. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 4, 2017 10:41:58 GMT -5
This is weird, even by Trump Administration standards. In explaining the infamous tweet he now claims to have authored on Trump's account: "President Trump’s personal lawyer said on Sunday that the president knew in late January that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had probably given FBI agents the same inaccurate account he provided to Vice President Pence about a call with the Russian ambassador. Trump lawyer John Dowd said the information was passed to Trump by White House counsel Donald McGahn, who had been warned about Flynn’s statement to the vice president by a senior Justice Department official. The vice president said publicly at the time that Flynn had told him he had not discussed sanctions with the Russian diplomat — a statement disproved by a U.S. intelligence intercept of a phone call between Flynn and then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Trump was aware of the issue a couple of weeks before a conversation with then-FBI Director James B. Comey in which Comey said the president asked him if he could be lenient while investigating Flynn, whom Trump had just fired for misleading Pence about the nature of his conversations with the Russian." Why is this important? Well, "several legal experts said the tweet, and some of Dowd’s comments about what the president may have known, could increase the president’s legal exposure. If Trump knew that Flynn might not have been accurate with the FBI, it could provide motivation for any alleged effort to obstruct justice, said Barak Cohen, a former federal prosecutor who does white-collar defense work at Perkins Coie law firm. 'It bolsters the intent for committing obstruction,' he said." It's unbelievable that Trump's own lawyer would screw up like this, making the legal equivalent of an own goal. But if he was too stupid to realize what he'd done, others were not: "A person close to the White House involved in the case termed the Saturday tweet 'a screw-up of historic proportions' that has 'caused enormous consternation in the White House.' The person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said that White House officials quickly realized the tweet could significantly assist Mueller if he chooses to pursue an obstruction case." No kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 5, 2017 10:23:38 GMT -5
From The Atlantic an intriguing story from last year: On Friday, October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape that showed Trump gloating about his penchant for grabbing women “by the pussy,” and instantly upended the campaign. Republicans across the country withdrew their endorsements, and conservative editorial boards called on Trump to drop out of the race. Most alarming to the aides and operatives inside Trump Tower, Mike Pence suddenly seemed at risk of going rogue. Trump’s phone calls to his running mate reportedly went unreturned, and anonymous quotes began appearing in news stories describing Pence as “beside himself” over the revelation. One campaign staffer told me that when she was asked on TV the day after the tape came out whether Pence would remain on the ticket, she ad-libbed that, yes, he was 100 percent committed to Trump. She remembers walking away from the set and thinking, “I have no idea if what I just said is true.” It’s been reported that Pence sent Trump a letter saying he needed time to decide whether he could stay with the campaign. But in fact, according to several Republicans familiar with the situation, he wasn’t just thinking about dropping out—he was contemplating a coup. Within hours of The Post’s bombshell, Pence made it clear to the Republican National Committee that he was ready to take Trump’s place as the party’s nominee. Such a move just four weeks before Election Day would have been unprecedented—but the situation seemed dire enough to call for radical action. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 5, 2017 10:50:57 GMT -5
Dana Milbank provides a roadmap to the changing story from Trump et al. on their ties to the Kremlin: Original position: “There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.” Revised position: Carter Page traveled to Russia when he was a Trump campaign adviser, but he was only “a low-level volunteer.” Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians, but he was only in a “voluntary position.” Former campaign manager Paul Manafort was indicted in the Russia probe, but this doesn’t count because “he was replaced long before the election.” Original position: Attorney General Jeff Sessions “did not have communications with the Russians.” Revised position: Sessions “did meet one Russian official a couple of times.” But Sessions conducted no “improper discussions with Russians.” Revised position 2: Sessions does “not recall any discussions” with Russians “regarding the political campaign.” But he does recall that he had no conversations with Russians “concerning any type of interference with any campaign.” Original position: Donald Trump Jr. did not set up meetings with Russians, or if he did he wasn’t “representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.” Revised position: The campaign meeting he set up with Russians was about “adoption of Russian children.” Revised position 2: The “adoption” meeting was with a Russian attorney promising Russian government dirt on Clinton. But Trump Jr. received “no meaningful information.” Original position: President Trump was “not involved” in the false Trump Jr. statement alleging the meeting was about adoption. Revised position: Trump “weighed in, as any father would.” Original position: When Michael Flynn, incoming national security adviser, called the Russian ambassador during the transition, they “did not discuss anything having to do with” Russia sanctions. Revised position: Flynn “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.” Revised position 2: Flynn “inadvertently briefed the vice president elect and others with incomplete information.” Revised position 3: Flynn “lied to the vice president and the FBI.” Original position: A report that Jared Kushner suggested a secret, secure “communications channel” with Russia was based on “a lot of facts that are not substantiated.” Revised position: Kushner asked the Russian ambassador whether he had a “communications channel” that could be used to relay information from the Kremlin. Original position: FBI Director James Comey’s firing “had zero to do” with Russia investigation. Revised position: Trump cited “this Russia thing” in firing Comey. Original position: “I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”
Revised position: The Trump campaign did not have “constant contacts with Russian spies.” Revised position 2: “There were no Russians in our campaign.” But there is one position on the scandal Trump hasn’t changed — his reluctance to accept what the entire intelligence community and his own CIA director do: That Russia meddled in the election.
Position: Election hackers could have been “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.” Position: U.S. intelligence agencies were led by “political hacks” and employ “the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” Position: Vladimir Putin “said he absolutely did not meddle in our election” and “I really believe that when he tells me that he means it.” That’s the exception that proves the rule. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-white-houses-new-russia-defense-who-cares/2017/12/04/e03e05d4-d93f-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.954ed5bda8c5 |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 5, 2017 11:12:34 GMT -5
Trump's lawyers now are claiming that he's above the law because he lives in the White House: “[the] president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.” The last time someone who'd lived in the WH made such a claim it was Richard M. Nixon, who infamously told David Frost in his post-resignation series of interviews, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." In both cases we are seeing their inner Louis XIV, who said, "It is legal because I wish it." This is not the legal argument of the President of a Republic; it's the calling card of kings and despots in all times and all places. Nothing better captures the authoritarian impulse at the heart of Trumpism than this outrageous assertion. Even his own WH is "baffled" over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 5, 2017 11:41:30 GMT -5
"President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and an associate with ties to Russian intelligence drafted an op-ed article last week about Mr. Manafort’s work for Russia-aligned interests in Ukraine, according to a court document filed Monday by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. The filing seeks tougher bail restrictions against Mr. Manafort, arguing that writing the op-ed flouts a judge’s admonition against trying to use the news media to influence the case against Mr. Manafort and Rick Gates, another former campaign official... "A person close to Mr. Manafort identified the associate as Konstantin V. Kilimnik, who worked for years as Mr. Manafort’s right-hand man in Ukraine and continued communicating with him throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Kilimnik was born in Ukraine when it was still a part of the Soviet Union, and he served briefly in the Russian Army as a linguist, later telling associates that he had a background with Russian intelligence." These guys were planning to ghost-write an op-ed supporting Manafort, then shop it under someone else's by-line. Mueller's people caught them at it, and now are revoking their bail agreement with him. But the really important point isn't Manafort's bad actions; it's what Mueller's filing disclosed about the Trump campaign and Russia: "Monday’s filing is notable because it marks the first official effort by Mr. Mueller’s team to connect Mr. Manafort to Russian intelligence. It appears to tie the case against Mr. Manafort more closely to the focus of the special counsel’s probe: connections between Russia and Mr. Trump and his associates, including whether they conspired to influence last year’s presidential election."
This is the same Manafort who ostensibly was kicked off the Trump campaign when his ties to Russia were disclosed, but who in fact lived at Trump Tower, and advised Trump to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan just as Russia was unloading precisely targeted social media messages to potential Trump voters in those two states. Inquiring minds, no doubt including Mueller's, might be asking: How did the Russians know which voters to target? How did Manafort happen to know those were the places to campaign? And why is a guy with ties to Russian intelligence advising a US campaign that subsequently winds up being investigated for its many ties to Russian intelligence? |
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 5, 2017 17:27:46 GMT -5
And I was right once again... So much so this time that I will send the Professor a SASE so he can send me his PhD & I will then take over the board.  The entire Trump / Russia investigation? Compromised & biased under what thinking minds would consider a logical extension of the Fruit of the Poison Tree legal doctrine. A radical left-wing extremist freak who loves Hillary & hates Trump essentially running the entire show!? Conducting interviews? Gathering evidence? What? The few remaining members of the somewhat rational left (WSJ) is already calling for the immediate resignation of Mueller under the foul stench of this latest liberal scandal. www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-credibility-problem-1512432318A radical witch hunt (silent coup) from bitter Birks who cannot accept that America despises their ideology so much that they would elect DJT over HRC. As we will also soon see in Alabama - nearly anything short or war, famine or the plague is preferable to advancing progressive policies. We can only hope that we still have a fleeting chance to save the republic from this political cancer. >O |
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Dec 5, 2017 23:02:49 GMT -5
The deal with Flynn, Manafort gets busted for violating bail by working with a suspect Russian, and now Mueller has issued a subpoena of Trump's accounts with Deutschebank. Perhaps we are finally going to learn how this guy with radioactive credit was able to secure such huge loans? Who came forth to guarantee them? What did they expect in return? |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 5, 2017 23:45:37 GMT -5
How fast has Mueller moved? Watergate went on for two years. At the rate he's going Mueller could Lock Him Up in one, lol!
Seriously, the Deutschebank investigation could be quite damning. There's little doubt Trump's been involved in sleazy dealings (he's been in NYC real estate his entire life), but the overseas money could be truly toxic, especially if it turns out that he was laundering Russian money.
The really depressing thing coming out of this whole investigation is just how many American political consultants and ex-military flag officers have been selling themselves to various despots around the world, especially Putin. What the hell are they thinking? China's moving to replace the US as the world leader, but Russia is an existential threat to Western European--and indirectly American--security. How could these people be so mercenary as to help the Russians? Really, it may not meet the legal definition of treason, but it sure comes close enough in its effects.
|
|
) just before I was removed by a perpetually-unemployed H-B Enterprises icon.