***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[AEA18]

Trickle down economics working exactly as it was designed to.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Interesting thing about manufacturing though, there are some manufacturers thriving in America, and I work for one of them. Pretty much any manufacturer with military/aerospace contracts is thriving right now with all the military spending. That and the fact that the tariffs on certain materials coming in from outside the US, domestic material suppliers have jacked up prices across the board. Since we process large amounts of material we were locked into pre tarrif material costs for some of the most expensive materials today which have doubled in some cases and we adjusted our prices to reflect the market while being locked into to lower material price costs. No better time to work for a company that does profit sharing on top of bonuses.

What sucks for a lot of, if not most small and medium American manufacturers is that it costs a grip to get all the neccessary certifications to even qualify for a government manufacturing contract even remotely related to military applications, so the windfall is going right over them.

 

[blastercombo]

Well here’s the thing with taxing the top.......... they can just make that back by cutting benefits or downsizing ........ aka trickle back up

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Well here’s the thing with taxing the top.......... they can just make that back by cutting benefits or downsizing ........ aka trickle back up

Well you hope that an increase in taxes for the wealthy is coupled with breaks for the lower and middle class. The more money that lower/middle class people have in their pockets, the more they spend. Why do conservatives suddenly forget that a rise in consumerism almost always trickles back up to them. We don’t have to play this “choose the winner” game.

 

[blastercombo]

Well you hope that an increase in taxes for the wealthy is coupled with breaks for the lower and middle class. The more money that lower/middle class people have in their pockets, the more they spend. Why do conservatives suddenly forget that a rise in consumerism almost always trickles back up to them. We don’t have to play this “choose the winner” game.

It’s odd man. It’s like all they see is the first step and throw all logic into the wind just becuase. Money is all they have

 

[Chester McFloppy]

 

[Belgium]

Pretty significant news if it is enacted

That sounds like a good move if it gets through.

Here we have a largely independent government agency that is charged specifically with investigating police misconduct. It was established after a string of very high profile cases starting in the 80s went nowhere, resulting in mass suspicion some police (specifically special forces) were involved in both the underlying crimes and obstructing the investigations. This eventually resulted in our entire existing police system being abolished and replaced.

Amongst the legislative responses to rampant allegations of corruption, obstruction, ... in our police system was the establishing of the "Committee P" federal agency, which functions as independent police oversight. We have another agency tasked specifically with the same type of oversight role but only for the intelligence agencies. That one is called "Committee I" and for the most part operates the same way.

The members of those agencies are appointed by parliament but they mostly work on their own. They are authorized to investigate any potential police misconduct on their own or by referral.
The agency doesn't necessarily have to take into account what a police department's internal affairs division is doing. Generally if Committee P decides to investigate a matter that they have come across or has been referred to them, it's because they're unsatisfied with the work internal affairs has been doing or if there was no involvement from internal affairs to begin with.
The conduct doesn't need to be criminal, most of the time it isn't. Back in 2016-17 a police diversity commissioner in Antwerp was fired from a police department after falling out with the top officials. She claimed she had been confronted with racism and not much later a bunch of private Whatsapp group texts between high ranking officers leaked. Amongst them were racist imagery and comments about that police diversity commissioner.

The Committee P set out to investigate and publicly released a pretty scathing report. All the texts were out there for everyone to see, anonymous testimony from officers within the department describing a "culture of silence" and fear of retaliation, anonymous officer testimony on how a minority officer was roughed up by fellow white officers in some back alley, ...
A significant portion of the texts included disparaging numerous other police officials at the department.
The report also accused the department's leadership of doing almost nothing in response to a 2011 report from the agency that described a troubling culture of racism with little to no punishment.

The department's leadership saw the Committee P's public report as untenable and they ended up cleaning house. I don't think they suddenly starting caring about racism or anything but the public pressure was mounting as a result of the report. It essentially exposed all the officers' private communications in which they disparaged eachother in various ways. Obviously you can't function properly if the whole department knows what each and everyone has been saying about eachother in private.

The agency does not have any prosecutory powers but it is forced to send final reports on all its investigations to Congress Parliament. It can also release those reports publicly depending on the circumstances. I'm not entirely sure how that is decided. Sometimes they do and other times they don't. While they have no prosecutory power, the status as a federal agency and their ability to publicize reports detailing misconduct is a powerful discouragement tool and they can still recommend all sorts of disciplinary measures.
The agency's mandate is not to investigate individual matters to sanction them but to investigate, detail the problem and formulate a solution. That solution isn't necessarily recommending disciplinary measures but it can be.

I think the power of the agency is evidenced mostly by the degree of cooperation they receive from police departments. In that racism/discrimination investigation mentioned above they managed to get all the private communications, interrogations with involved officers, witness testimony and a whole host of other documents without forcibly compelling anyone to do so.
If an officer refuses to cooperate then the agency will simply go above him and demand the next ranking official order them to cooperate. Technically you can refuse cooperation with them but then you're essentially guaranteeing your name will be in a scathing public report for refusing to cooperate.

 

[Chester McFloppy]

 

[fargin]

Please tell me, this isn't it:

-Your foundation displays a shocking pattern of willful and repeated illegalities.
-Well...
-So as punishment you have to cease all ilegal activities and shut down the foundation.
-Okay then.
-And promise never to do it again.
-That's asking for a lot.
-No, you really have to stop breaking the law.
-Yeah, yeah.
-Justice has been served.

 

[Belgium]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-ready-to-pounce-on-trumpworld-concessions-to-moscow?ref=home
Mueller Ready to Pounce on Trumpworld Concessions to Moscow
New court filings by Mueller’s office could answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What did the Kremlin hope to get from its political machinations?

For more than a year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has questioned witnesses broadly about their interactions with well-connected Russians. But three sources familiar with Mueller’s probe told The Daily Beast that his team is now zeroing in on Trumpworld figures who may have attempted to shape the administration's foreign policy by offering to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia.

The Special Counsel’s Office is preparing court filings that are expected to detail Trump associates’ conversations about sanctions relief—and spell out how those offers and counter-proposals were characterized to top figures on the campaign and in the administration, those same sources said.

The new details would not only bookend a multi-year investigation by federal prosecutors into whether and how Trump associates seriously considered requests by Moscow to ease the financial measures. The new court filings could also answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What specific policy changes, if any, did the Kremlin hope to get in return from its political machinations?

“During his investigation, Mueller has shown little proclivity for chasing dead ends,” said Paul Pelletier, a former senior Department of Justice official. “His continued focus on the evidence that members of the Trump campaign discussed sanction relief with Russians shows that his evidence of a criminal violation continues to sharpen. This has to come as especially bad news for the president.”

Mueller’s interest in sanctions arose, at least in part, out of his team’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Special Counsel’s Office noted in a court filing last week that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak concerning U.S. sanctions. But other portions of this court filing were left redacted.

Mueller’s team is looking closely at evidence—some of it provided by witnesses—from the transition period, two individuals with knowledge of the probe said.

“Sanctions conversations that happened after November are more serious,” said Angela Stent, a former national intelligence officer for Russia under President George W. Bush. “At that point Flynn, for example, would have already known he was going to be part of the administration and those conversations would have included plans for what might happen [next].”

And Flynn wasn’t the only figure talking sanctions during that transition period, three sources with knowledge of the probe said. Several individuals in Trump’s inner circle were developing their own plans to put pressure on other parts of the government to roll back the sanctions, which have cost the Russian economy more than $100 billion, according to Kremlin estimates.

It’s still unclear if Trump adviser Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds, spoke about sanctions in their now-infamous meeting in the Seychelles held during the last days of the transition. But The Daily Beast previously reported that the two spoke broadly about Russian investment opportunities in the U.S. and the potential for peace in Ukraine.

Just a week after Trump took office, Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii V. Artemenko handed Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, a “peace plan” that would lift sanctions. Accounts differ on how seriously the proposal was considered by the administration.

Around the same time, Trump reportedly asked staffers in the State Department to come up with a plan to roll back sanctions. But the department’s transition team was disorganized and understaffed, according to one person on the team. The request never made its way to people tasked with advising the White House on sanctions, according to two former national-security officials.

“The Russians were definitely looking to ease sanctions, or the relaxation of sanctions,” said one former Treasury official. “There was clearly a person they supported in the election and Trump clearly had a favorable view of Russia. But the transition was a mess and it took more time to get their feet under them. By the time they got their stuff together, Congress was increasing sanctions.”

The U.S. implemented sanctions on Russia in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea. Those sanctions were broadly supposed to make it more difficult for Russia to make money and to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies. Several of Russia’s financial entities, including the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Moscow’s sovereign wealth funds, and VTB, one of the leading banks in the country, were put under sanctions but still allowed to transact with Americans under certain circumstances. Others, though, including top government officials like Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, the formerly state-owned Russian oil enterprise, were blacklisted.

When Trump began campaigning in 2015, the Russian sanctions had started to take a toll on local Russians. Trump, unexpectedly, vowed to roll them back. “I don’t think you’d need the sanctions,” the future president said in response to a question from Russian provocateur Maria Butina, who pleaded guilty this month to conspiracy to violate restrictions on foreign agents.

Meanwhile, Putin was in the midst of implementing measures to insulate the economy from total collapse, compliance lawyers told The Daily Beast. With the careful maneuvering of business deals, Russia continued to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies, two former Obama officials involved in drafting the sanctions said.

But compliance lawyers said investors and U.S. businesses were wary of the legal risks of doing business with Moscow. The lifting of sanctions, lawyers told The Daily Beast, would have allowed for Russia to conduct business with American and European investors with more ease. It would have allowed international businesses and individuals to lend money to Russia as well as borrow, which the sanctions currently broadly restrict.

The topic kept coming up during the campaign. In the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, for example, Donald Trump Jr. reportedly suggested a review of sanctions law.

But since Trump took office, the Treasury Department has increased the number of sanctions on Russia. In April 2017, for instance, the government blacklisted another set of Russian oligarchs and government officials, many of whom have close connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Congress is considering a number of pieces of legislation that would further punish Moscow for its interference in the 2016 elections.

 

[dacomeup]

 

[blastercombo]

Boys in their singing becuase their punishments are a joke

 

[Belgium]

Nice try Trump & co.

Excerpt:
Sullivan asked defense attorney Robert Kelner if it was the defense’s contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime, or that “Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI.”
“No, your honor,” Kelner said.
The judge asked whether any of the FBI’s actions “raised any degree of doubt that Mr. Flynn intentionally lied to the FBI.”
“No, your honor,” Kelner said, adding that Flynn stood by his guilty plea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ed4be475fced
At sentencing, Michael Flynn admits he knew lying to the FBI was a crime and declines to withdraw guilty plea
Under questioning from a federal judge, President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn conceded Tuesday he was aware lying to the FBI was a crime when he did so and declined to withdraw his guilty plea to the offense — a mea culpa that could rankle supporters who have suggested he was duped by law enforcement into committing a crime.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan began Flynn’s sentencing in an unusual way, noting another judge had accepted Flynn’s guilty plea and forcing the former Trump ally to answer questions under oath. Sullivan reminded Flynn he could get into “more trouble” if he were to lie in court, then asked, “Were you not aware that lying to FBI investigators was a crime?”

“I was aware,” Flynn said.

The judge asked if he wanted to postpone the sentencing, or reconsider his plea.

“I would like to proceed your honor,” Flynn said.

“Because you are guilty of this offense?” the judge responded.

“Yes, your honor,” Flynn said.

The questioning marked a dramatic beginning to what might have been an uneventful hearing.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys had urged that Flynn face no prison time for his crime, noting that he was an early cooperator in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and had provided information useful to several other ongoing probes.

But in their sentencing submission, Flynn’s attorneys suggested he might have been fooled into lying to the FBI because he had not been warned in advance that doing so is a crime. That prompted the judge to request more documents, and the special counsel’s office last week vigorously pushed back on the idea that Flynn was mistreated.

“The Court should reject the defendant’s attempt to minimize the seriousness of those false statements to the FBI,” prosecutors wrote. “Nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI.”

Flynn will probably make a personal plea for Sullivan to show him leniency, though he first had to convince the judge he fully he accepts responsibility for the crime to which he has pleaded guilty.

“I cannot recall an instance of a court ever accepting a guilty plea from some who did not maintain he was guilty and I do not intend to start today,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan asked defense attorney Robert Kelner if it was the defense’s contention that the FBI was legally obligated to remind Flynn that lying to the FBI is a federal crime, or that “Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI.”

“No, your honor,” Kelner said.

The judge asked whether any of the FBI’s actions “raised any degree of doubt that Mr. Flynn intentionally lied to the FBI.”

“No, your honor,” Kelner said, adding that Flynn stood by his guilty plea.

The concession from Flynn and his attorney is likely to disappoint supporters, who for months have advanced the notion that Flynn was wronged. Reluctance to admit guilt, though, could have prompted the judge to tear up Flynn’s plea, or reduce the benefit he might have gotten from cooperating. Outside the court Tuesday, a small group of demonstrators carried signs that bore messages supportive of Flynn, such as “Stop the witchhunt” and “Flynn is Innocent!”

In a Tuesday morning tweet, Trump wished Flynn “good luck today in court.”

“Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign,” Trump wrote. “There was no Collusion!”

Flynn pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe more than a year ago, admitting that he lied to the FBI about conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States at the time. Flynn had talked with the diplomat in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration about efforts to blunt Obama administration policy decisions — on sanctions against Russia and a U.N. resolution on Israel. On Monday, prosecutors revealed the FBI notes of the interview with Flynn — reinforcing the notion that he lied.

The filings show that Flynn was asked about Obama-era sanctions that were announced Dec. 29, 2016, as punishment for Russia’s interference in the election, and that he insisted he had not discussed them with Kislyak. Flynn claimed he had not even known about the newly announced sanctions because he had been on vacation in the Dominican Republic, where he did not have access to television news and his government BlackBerry was not working.

In fact, Flynn had called a senior transition official at Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, to talk about what he should say to Kislyak about the sanctions that had been announced, and he followed up later to report the upshot of the conversation with the ambassador, according to his plea agreement. People familiar with the case have said the official was Flynn’s deputy, K.T. McFarland.

The lies — which prosecutors said Flynn repeated to Vice President Pence and The Washington Post, among others — ultimately cost Flynn his job. Flynn said as a part of his plea that in talking to Kislyak, he was acting in consultation with senior Trump transition officials, including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. No evidence has publicly emerged, however, that they told him to lie to investigators.

Flynn also admitted in his plea deal that he had lied about his business dealings with the Turkish government. On Monday, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia charged two of Flynn’s associates with acting as agents of a foreign government and detailed how the trio had worked during the heart of Trump’s campaign to persuade the United States to expel a rival of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Lock him up!

 

[Belgium]

Flynn should be very happy in any case with his sentencing if you look at yesterday's 2 indictments of his business associates where he was a clear part of conducting a criminal scheme under the direction of the Turkish government.
Almost the entire scheme in the indictment is laid out in email conversations between Flynn, the co-founder of Flynn Intel Group and a Turkish national who was reporting directly to the Turkish government.

Rather than "is you taking notes on a criminal ****ing conspiracy?", this is more like "is you taking notes on every step of the criminal conspiracy and sharing them with at least 2 other people?"

I summarized the indictments here yesterday and Flynn's role in them:

Spoiler: Long post

Person A refers to Mike Flynn. Company A is Flynn Intel Group.
https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/12/17/USvKian_Alptekin.pdf

Rafiekian, co-founder of Flynn Intel Group, conducted an unlawful influence campaign in an attempt to secure the extradition of Fethullah Gülen.
The Turkish government directed this effort through Kamil Ekim Alptekin and that involvement was then concealed by using Alptekin's company to serve as Flynn Intel Group's client.
Flynn Intel Group was also to receive its fee from Alptekin's company. The Turkish government approved a budget for this operation and received regular updates on Flynn Intel Group's progress.

Not that the clear involvement of Flynn Intel Group in this scheme isn't enough to point to Flynn's role but here he is mentioned specifically discussing the covert influence campaign.

2 days later, Alptekin met with a Turkish minister who apparently showed interest in exploring this "Truth campaign" as they call it. The Minister asked for details on an indicative budget and what kind of output Flynn Intel Group could produce on the short and mid-term.

As all great minds do, the individuals proceeded to discuss their criminal activities via email. What could possibly go wrong?
"At this time, this conversation shall remain limited to you, Michael Flynn and myself."

A couple days later the individuals continued their email discussions about the influence campaign.
"You, Flynn and I are the only cleared entities on this at this time"
Around August 4, Flynn emailed Rafiekian and Alptekin regarding the "Truth campaign" and responded to Alptekin about some sort of question about the US Secretary of State's staff.
"I'll get with Refiekian today on your question regarding John Kerry's staff."

Rafiekian then sent an email stressing to Alptekin and Flynn the need to begin working on the Truth Campaign project.

Several days later, Alptekin emailed the two again and discussed his meetings with several Turkish Ministers. He also inquired once more about John Kerry, asking "do we know anyone on his team?"
Around August 10, Alptekin emailed Rafiekian and Flynn to tell them that has the "green light to discuss confidentiality, budget and the scope of the contract" after meeting with two unidentified Turkish Ministers.

The next day, Rafiekian emailed back that he and Flynn had discussed "campaign design" and "resource allocation" and reassured Alptekin that he "did not touch the advisory support we discussed at 20%."
On that same day, Alptekin changed the name of the project from "Truth Campaign" to "Project Confidence."
Sidenote, who comes up with these project names?

Alptekin also changed the source of the funding to a company he owned and controlled in the Netherlands.
"Company B" then became the client of Flynn Intel Group to disguise the Turkish government funding.

The email detailing the "new" project was formatted in the same 9-step plan (see 2 images above) as the original Truth Campaign project.

On August 25th, Rafiekian emailed Alptekin, copying Flynn according to the document, and thanked him for his decision to engage Flynn Intel Group on Operation Confidence.
He also noted that Alptekin would receive 20% of the money Flynn Intel Group received for the project.

Despite communicating the criminal conspiracy in detail via email, Rafiekian added that he would sent Alptekin a contract but noted "it will not contain operational details for obvious reasons."

Unsatisfied with their level of self-incriminating up to this point, around August 26 Alptekin told Rafiekian via Skype that "we are confirmed to go."
He also told Rafiekian "I think I'm meeting Turkish Minister 1's boss, not direct boss but you know who."

Alptekin also told Rafiekian on Skype that "we are scheduling a meet with Flynn and Turkish Minister 1 and perhaps even Senior Turkish Leader 1 in third week of NY"

But the self-incrimination was not yet finished.
Rafiekian sent Alptekin an email enclosing a contract between Alptekin's company in the Netherlands (the front for the Turkish government) and Flynn Intel Group.
In this email, Rafiekian further linked Project Confidence to the initial Truth Campaign project by noting "we've been at work on this engagement since July 31st. However, we decided to set the start date as August 15, 2016"
That was when the project's name was changed and Alptekin's company in the Netherlands was enlisted as a substitute for the Turkish government.

Flynn Intel Group was set to receive $600k in 3 installments of $200k. The contract also noted that Company B (the Turkish government) expected Flynn Intel Group to "deliver findings and results incloding but not limited to making criminal referrals" against Fethullah Gülen, the Turkish cleric.
The contract directly links Company B, which has previously been established as a substitute for the Turkish government in their previous email communications, to Flynn Intel Group.

Around September 5, Rafiekian sent Flynn a draft playbook for the project. It referred to Fethullah Gülen as "Person X" and referred to Turkey as "Country X."
It also noted that the public registration would claim that a Dutch entity was the client. As they laid out in full detail in previous emails, that "Dutch entity" was owned and controlled by Alptekin and set was used as a substitute for the Turkish government, which funded the project.

The next day, Rafiekian emailed Flynn and said "Client (Turkish government) is seeking high level meeting in NYC on September 19 or 20."
3 days later he emailed Flynn again and said that "the meeting is with high level audience (Cabinet+) related to CONFIDENCE"

Around that same day, Alptekin wired $200k to Flynn Intel Group. Rafiekian then emailed a Flynn Intel Group employee and said that the company needed to wire $40k back to Alptekin.
He claimed that Alptekin was Flynn Intel Group's "outside advisor on the Confidence Project."

On or about the same day, he then emailed Flynn a draft agreement between Flynn Intel Group and Alptekin that claimed Alptekin was an outside adivser.
Rafiekian added that "we need this to create an audit trail on properly documenting the relationship."

On or about September 18 in preparation of the high level meeting with Turkish officials, Rafiekian sent Alptekin a document titled "background and talking points", which contained about 20 talking points all about Fethullah Gülen. These talking points contained the exact same "apple tree" comparison between Khomeini and Gülen that Rafiekian had previously emailed to Alptekin as part of the initial Truth Campaign project, which was later renamed to Confidence Project as part of disguising the Turkish government funding.

On or about the evening of September 19, Rafiekian, Alptekin and other members of the project met with Turkish Minister 1 and 2.
The conversation centered around Gülen and the Turkish government's efforts to convince the US to extradite him.

2 days later, Rafiekian emailed Flynn that he met with Alptekin that day and that "the feedback from the late evening meeting was positive."

The indictment states that on or about September and October 2016, Rafiekian and others involved in the project met with and lobbied a member of Congress, a congressional staffer and a state government official in an effort to depict Gülen as a threat who should be extradited. The efforts also included attempts to persuade them on holding congressional hearings on Gülen.

On October 7, Rafiekian sent Alptekin the Flynn Intel Group company's invoice for $200k.
4 days later, Rafiekian emailed an employee and instructed him to send a wire transfer to Company B as soon as Alptekin sends an invoice for his "consulting" on the Confidence Project, which was the 20% cut he was supposed to receive as part of the contract.
Alptekin then caused $185k to be wired from a Turkish bank account in his name to Flynn Intel Group. On October 14 he then sent a $40k invoice to Flynn Intel Group.
Rafiekian then caused $40k to be wired to a Dutch bank account in Company B's name. For reference again, Company B is owned and controlled by Alptekin and functioned as a substitute for the Turkish government who was funding the project.

On or around November 10, Rafiekian sent Alptekin an invoice for the final $200k installment.
4 days later, Alptekin caused $145k to be wired to Flynn Intel Group from a Turkish bank account in his name.



On an approximately weekly basis, Rafiekian, Flynn and other Flynn Intel Group team members (presumably Flynn's son, who was reported to be in some legal jeopardy as well) held telephone conference calls with Alptekin on the project.
Alptekin then relayed those conversations to Turkish government officials and informed Rafiekian and Flynn on whether the Turkish officials were satisfied.

Around October 22, Flynn sent a text message to the project team saying that he "walked Alptekin through the social media analysis, which he found very interesting and worth talking to Turkish Minister 1 about as well as all the other talking points."

On or aroud November 2, Alptekin complained that Flynn Intel Group had not published enough negative information about Gülen.
He asked for a "smoking gun" and amongst other things wanted negative media coverage of Gülen, private investigate work targeting Gülen's supporters, congressional hearings, ...

Around that same day, Rafiekian emailed Alptekin a draft op-ed calling for Gülen's extradition.
The next day he wrote to Flynn and said "I asked the editor to review and edit my 1000 word draft to make sure it is tight before I send it out to you. The plan is to go out with the piece of Monday."

The next day, Rafiekian emailed Alptekin about the op-ed and said "I just left Flynn. The arrow has left the bow! . . . This is a very high profile exposure one day before the election."
An attached draft of the op-ed argued that the US should not provide "safe haven" to Gülen.
On or about November 5, Alptekin emailed Rafiekian and said "Flynn is right on target."

The op-ed was published in The Hill and listed Flynn as the author.

After Flynn published the op-ed, the DOJ sent a letter to Flynn requesting additional information to determine if Flynn, his company and/or others had an obligation to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
From approximately January 2017 to March 2017, outside attorneys for Flynn Intel Group sought information to determine if the company had to register under the FARA.
The indictments state that during this time, Rafiekian and Alptekin knowingly and deliberately provided a variety of false information to those outside attorneys in an effort to conceal the involvement and funding from the Turkish government in the project.
Those outside attorneys then relayed those false statements to the DOJ. Rafiekian reviewed the filings before they were submitted and did not suggest any of the multitude of false statements be changed.


Conclusion: If you're engaging in a criminal conspiracy, it may be a good idea to refrain from discussing virtually all of it with multiple co-conspirators via email.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Blew my mind when I was reminded that Nixon actually secretly recorded all the Watergate tapes.

It don't even be your own people, It be your own self. That's crazy.

 

[blastercombo]

Witch hunt!


*people go to jail


Ahhhhhh rigged witch hunt!

Ahhh not illegal!!

 

[Belgium]

Blew my mind when I was reminded that Nixon actually secretly recorded all the Watergate tapes.

It don't even be your own people, It be your own self. That's crazy.

Since Flynn was not indicted along with them despite the extent of his role laid out in the indictments of the 2 associates, it would suggest that Flynn was out there singing like a nightingale about these 2 individuals. Though they don't really need much, if any, testimony on Flynn's part given that they all incriminated themselves at every step of the way in their email communications.
Mueller's sentencing memo on Flynn contained a fully blacked out page regarding an unrelated criminal investigation, which appears to have been the one that resulted in the 2 indictments yesterday.

Flynn's lawyers said in their sentencing memo that Flynn started cooperating almost immediately after the FBI interview and handed over troves of electronic communications.

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

Da best people, b

#BeBest

 

[wavycrocket]

 

[wavycrocket]

 

[harlemtothebronx]

A Trump tweet about snitches would be particularly deliciously timed right now.

 

[the qbz]

Hope the witch hunt leaks to next year

PTO balance reset Jan 1.....

Hashtag ready

 

[blastercombo]

Where’s the ignored content? All gone for some reason......

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Since Flynn was not indicted along with them despite the extent of his role laid out in the indictments of the 2 associates, it would suggest that Flynn was out there singing like a nightingale about these 2 individuals. Though they don't really need much, if any, testimony on Flynn's part given that they all incriminated themselves at every step of the way in their email communications.
Mueller's sentencing memo on Flynn contained a fully blacked out page regarding an unrelated criminal investigation, which appears to have been the one that resulted in the 2 indictments yesterday.

Flynn's lawyers said in their sentencing memo that Flynn started cooperating almost immediately after the FBI interview and handed over troves of electronic communications.

The irony of this all is really just too much to bear.