From Jonathan Turley today:
.... What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal, commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.
The calls, and Flynn’s identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama administration left office — a serious federal crime, given their classified status. The most chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, “l am a very practical guy, and it’s about solutions. It’s about very practical solutions that we’re — that we need to come up with here.” Flynn said he understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.
Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn’s later denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions. However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials....
So if I have this right, Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak only in the way of trying to tamp down tensions between Russia and the US as the new administration was getting its sea legs. No actionable quid pro quo.
And Flynn in the perjury trap, ambush interview lied/misspoke—alright let’s say lied—about his benign and lawful discussion of sanctions with Kislyak by denying he spoke with Kislyak about sanctions.
And this is what the Ds spun into an alarming, deeply troubling concern pointing to collusion; and this is what Mueller went after Flynn for in order to lever him into turning against Trump!
The actual conversation was benign; and it seems wasn’t material to any criminal investigation and by definition wasn’t material because the truth behind the lie was already known by the FBI who wanted to close down the investigation (but McCabe, Strozk, Page, Comey, others?, kept it going for a tactical way into Trump.)
...For a lie to be a crime under federal law, it must be material to the investigation – meaning that the lies pertain to the issues being legitimately investigated. The role of the FBI is to investigate past crimes, not to create new ones. Because the FBI investigators already knew the answer to the question they asked him—whether he had spoken to the Russian Ambassador—their purpose was not to elicit new information relevant to their investigation, but rather to spring a perjury trap on him. When they asked Flynn the question, they had a recording of his conversation with the Russian, of which he was presumably unaware. So his answer was not material to the investigation because they already had the information about which they were inquiring...Dershowitz
I don’t know how anyone with no ax to grind in these matters isn’t outraged by the powers that were’s abuse of all norms in the treatment of Flynn.
No comments:
Post a Comment