- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Bob Mueller submitted his remarks regarding Gen. Flynn's sentencing (addendum). I gotta say, it was a joy to read that document, for it's clear and dictionally precise prose whereof the authors communicate all they could and intend to, what they wrote means all of what it says, yet not more and not less. Clearly politicians didn't write the document, or at least not its unredacted parts. That it's written thus makes it so much easier to analyze and comprehend because despite the redactions, one knows the limits of what one can legitimately infer from what's written.
Among my observations are the following:
Among my observations are the following:
- Mueller seems keener on the nature and extent of Russia's actions to influence in the US political process and the nature and extent of influence Russia may potentially exert, and not as concerned with incarcerating folks. is clear from how generously he's rewarded Flynn for exhibiting probity, leadership and being forthcoming.
- That's unsurprising insofar as Mueller once was the FBI's Director. He's doubtlessly looking at the investigation from that vantage point and with a "big picture" strategic eye that sees little value in throwing people in jail when what's really of concern is how badly Russia harmed the US and how ably positioned Russia may be to do so going forward. Even as it's no shock, one must ask oneself why might Mueller have implicitly adopted that stance. I think Mueller'd have more of an prosecute-and-jail focus were he not a principal and were the potential subjects not the most senior members of US government, including the POTUS.
After all, what appears to have happened is that incoming senior WH/cabinet level US officials were either willfully or unwillfully in-/direct Russian assets. To the extent that is so (if there's a hint that may be so, investigating it is mandatory), the investigation's key aim isn't justifying jailing US citizens, for having compromised top of the US government is far more disconcerting. - As the news has heavily emphasized, "substantial assistance" -- read that as "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- may keep one out of jail, despite the gravity of one's crimes. Sure, "substantial assistance" is a "Stewartesque" so to speak, term of art.
- That's unsurprising insofar as Mueller once was the FBI's Director. He's doubtlessly looking at the investigation from that vantage point and with a "big picture" strategic eye that sees little value in throwing people in jail when what's really of concern is how badly Russia harmed the US and how ably positioned Russia may be to do so going forward. Even as it's no shock, one must ask oneself why might Mueller have implicitly adopted that stance. I think Mueller'd have more of an prosecute-and-jail focus were he not a principal and were the potential subjects not the most senior members of US government, including the POTUS.
- A major portion of the investigation is 100% unknown to the public. Perspicacity suggests it can be two classes: (1) counterintelligence (CI) or (2) POTUS-related. From where I sit, the CI aspect seems most likely.
- Lt. Gen. Flynn lied to the FBI about having a conversation he had to have known was being taped.
- What of that nature might merit lying about? Being compromised by a foreign power and knowing one is seems like the kind of thing one'd lie about if there's more afoot than is evident from a recorded conversation about which one lied, and one thinks investigators may not know of that "bigger" matter.
- As the incoming NSC head, one's got reason to converse with highly placed officials in foreign governments, including Russia's. Why, then, lie about having done so? I mean, really. Were you, like Flynn, a former Democrat, would you feloniously lie about such a thing, thus risking going to jail merely to save the POTUS some political embarrassment? I wouldn't.
- Sen. Rubio recently stated in a CNN "New Day" interview that because he sits on the Intel. Cmte., he wouldn't remark on Flynn's sentencing document's content.
- The signatories to the addendum are prosecutors who specializes in CI and counterterrorism rather than "standard" criminal matters, the latter being the norm for contributions re: non-national security crimes.
Of all the Russia Inv. stuff we've been hearing in the news, none of it had to do with espionage or terrorism, yet those are the subject matter specialities of the men who most closely managed Flynn's cooperation with the investigation. - The Russia investigation began in, what, July 2016 as a CI investigation, not as a "get Trump" investigation.
- The language of one of the sentencing document's three major threads expressly describes one of matters to which Flynn substantially contributed as "a criminal investigation." If the wholly redacted investigation were also criminal in nature, it'd have been included with the first "criminal investigation contributions section, or, at least, they'd repeat, for the third focus, that Flynn contributed to an investigation of criminal behavior...yet they didn't.
- The addendum notes the temporal germanity of Flynn's contributions. Timeliness is key to everything involving CI because one must often act quickly to interdict an adversary's undertakings. With any investigation, sooner bests later, but not in the same way as with CI.
- Lt. Gen. Flynn lied to the FBI about having a conversation he had to have known was being taped.