Fuck that bitch and here is one comment from the article that sums it up nicely..............................This opinion is not only self-serving and disingenuous, it is also irrelevant.
The mere fact that the prosecutors withheld over 17,000 exculpatory documents, including the original, handwritten, 302 (which we know to have been fraudulently altered by Strzok) is grounds to dismiss the case with prejudice.
In addition, the contents of the exculpatory documents the prosecutors withheld expressly exonerate Mr. Flynn.
Yeah this aticle is this biych complaining she was cited in the case drop, and shes false equivocating that the misunderstanding of her notes is why case was dropped,...lol....no, the case was dropped for things much more innaccurate and misleading than her notes.....and way beyond her pay grade
Deepstate is trying desperatly to add legitimacy to flynns removal, they KNOW it was barry
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.
By Mary B. McCordMay 10, 2020, 3:39 p.m. ET
At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”
Mary McCord in 2017.
Mary McCord in 2017.Susan Walsh/Associated Press
I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.
Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.
Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.
The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.
Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically hones in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.
Editors’ Picks
Bangkok Opens Up as Virus Caseloads Drop, and Pretty Pups Benefit
May 10, 2020
Portraits of Single Moms by Choice
May 5, 2020
The Grapelord of Napa Faces a Threat Worse Than Plague
May 9, 2020
These Are the Things That New Yorkers Achingly Miss
May 9, 2020
Will Coronavirus Kill Astrology?
May 9, 2020
This Is Your Brain on Motherhood
May 5, 2020
11 of Our Best Weekend Reads
May 8, 2020
Russia Was Ready to Celebrate a Glorious Past. The Present Intervened.
May 8, 2020
Working From Home, Celebrities Grapple With Revealing Too Much
May 4, 2020
Have I Been Cleaning All Wrong?
May 6, 2020
The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.
Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
A clue: if you use Firefox or Chrome, create a different "person" and access the site with the paywall. The cookie will be assigned to the new user, and you can get access to the site. Note this doesn't work for sites based off of IP address alone, but that assures that husbands and wives (of whatever gender) cannot access the NYT independently, and that would be whatchacall "bad"...
There you go!
https://archive.is/49XRj
Thanks Pede - Fuck me is McCord a CUNT!
PS: Ms McCord might be going to women's prison - oh, I apologize for making a gender assertion....
Fuck that bitch and here is one comment from the article that sums it up nicely..............................This opinion is not only self-serving and disingenuous, it is also irrelevant.
The mere fact that the prosecutors withheld over 17,000 exculpatory documents, including the original, handwritten, 302 (which we know to have been fraudulently altered by Strzok) is grounds to dismiss the case with prejudice.
In addition, the contents of the exculpatory documents the prosecutors withheld expressly exonerate Mr. Flynn.
Yeah this aticle is this biych complaining she was cited in the case drop, and shes false equivocating that the misunderstanding of her notes is why case was dropped,...lol....no, the case was dropped for things much more innaccurate and misleading than her notes.....and way beyond her pay grade
Deepstate is trying desperatly to add legitimacy to flynns removal, they KNOW it was barry
Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.
The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.
By Mary B. McCordMay 10, 2020, 3:39 p.m. ET At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”
The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.
That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.
But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”
Mary McCord in 2017. Mary McCord in 2017.Susan Walsh/Associated Press I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.
Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.
Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.
The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.
Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically hones in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.
Editors’ Picks
Bangkok Opens Up as Virus Caseloads Drop, and Pretty Pups Benefit
May 10, 2020 Portraits of Single Moms by Choice
May 5, 2020 The Grapelord of Napa Faces a Threat Worse Than Plague
May 9, 2020 These Are the Things That New Yorkers Achingly Miss
May 9, 2020 Will Coronavirus Kill Astrology?
May 9, 2020 This Is Your Brain on Motherhood
May 5, 2020 11 of Our Best Weekend Reads
May 8, 2020 Russia Was Ready to Celebrate a Glorious Past. The Present Intervened.
May 8, 2020 Working From Home, Celebrities Grapple With Revealing Too Much
May 4, 2020 Have I Been Cleaning All Wrong?
May 6, 2020 The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.
Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.
This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.
This should be enough:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/mmccord
A clue: if you use Firefox or Chrome, create a different "person" and access the site with the paywall. The cookie will be assigned to the new user, and you can get access to the site. Note this doesn't work for sites based off of IP address alone, but that assures that husbands and wives (of whatever gender) cannot access the NYT independently, and that would be whatchacall "bad"...