THREAD. The AG dropping the case on Flynn turns the entire purpose of the Special Counsel regs onits head. The SC is appointed *precisely* to insulate an investigation from influence by a political appointee, namely, the AG. 1/
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
2. The opportunity to object to investigatory and prosecutorial decisions taken by the Special Counsel was in the hands of Rod Rosenstein (Trump's own appointee), during the course of the investigation. Rosenstein had to APPROVE each major step, and he did. 2/— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
3. These decisions have already been vetted. Once by Rosenstein, and then again by a separate branch of government: the judiciary. Judge Sullivan had to review the case, and accept Flynn's plea. His view was that Flynn "arguably sold out the country." 3/— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
4. It makes zero sense to appoint a Special Counsel, have his decisions reviewed and approved by both the DAG and a fed judge, and allow a future AG to come in and simply substitute his judgment. Especially an AG who lied about the findings of the investigation from the get-go.— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
5. Had Rosenstein overruled Mueller's decisions, he would have been required to notify Congress, and explain his reasons. Barr needs to answer to the judiciary committees for his actions -- these decisions are, ultimately, not really his to make if the SC regs mean anything.— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
6. Basically, Barr provides the workaround for any future president (D or R) for whom a Special Counsel is appointed. Let the investigation take its course. Then fire the AG who appointed him. Hire another, who undoes and dismisses all the actions the SC took. Voila!— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
Bonus round! Glenn Greenwald proves why he's a very incompetent lawyer (does the fact the judge accepted the plea mean nothing? Or is the judge part of the conspiracy?)
I'm glad you asked! I wrote a whole piece about it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. https://t.co/vF3jaA0NWM https://t.co/DSvZz3aV9r— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
L'etat, c'est Trump.
Judge Sullivan to Michael Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out."— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) December 18, 2018
Yeah, this is bad, no doubt about it.
The independence of law enforcement has always been the jewel in the crown of American government. We used to be able to say, "In America, no one is above the law, not even the President."— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
No more. https://t.co/U2m8l16e7J
The recovery from this cannot merely be "We'll do better next time!" Because they will; but "better" won't mean what you think it means.
Lordy, they had TAPES! (Which, by the way, they referenced indirectly in their interview, as in, "Do you recall saying [practically verbatim language]?" Flynn 302: "Good reminder [then lie]" or "I did not.")— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 7, 2020
302 here: https://t.co/IJYI9qEtH0 https://t.co/BqdtzOfGG2
This is not a matter of a political disagreement. This is from Rangappa's column, referenced above:
As a result, a PNG [persona non grata, i.e., expulsion of a diplomat, something usually done as quietly as possible] request involves a tug-of-war between the FBI, the CIA and the State Department (with the final decision taken by the White House), and is most often denied. Of the cases I was involved with, the only time a PNG was approved was when allowing the spy to remain would have resulted in actual physical harm to a U.S. person.Actions have consequences:
This is the complex process [she describes it, I have elided it here] and very high threshold to keep in mind when looking at President Obama’s actions against Russia last December. In response to Russia’s election hacking, the U.S. expelled not just one, but 35 spies posing as diplomats — the strongest response ever to a cyberattack against the U.S.
In addition, President Obama made a public statement on the expulsions, calling them a “necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.” Both the magnitude of the sanctions and the public condemnation by the president was intended to send as sharp a rebuke as possible to Russia’s attack on our democracy.
As Flynn’s plea deal reveals, the Trump transition team immediately made a concerted effort to undermine the signal that the United States was sending. In particular, Flynn, with the approval of “senior transition officials” (identified in reporting as Jared Kushner and Katie McFarland), sought to discourage Russia from escalating the situation. Flynn reportedly promised that the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals would be more conciliatory.
By relaying this message covertly (and in spite of a "pointed request" by the Obama administration to avoid sending mixed signals to foreign officials), the Trump team negated the message being sent by the United States to Russia — and effectively put its stamp of approval on Russia’s efforts.
The repercussions of the Trump team’s covert efforts are not merely symbolic; they have also had serious long-term consequences on our intelligence capabilities against Russia. After secretly “reassuring” Russia that it need not worry about facing consequences, the Trump administration did not deliver. In July, Congress passed (and the president after much delay signed) a sanctions bill against Russia. Putin, either angry for being misled or having to save face from taking no action at all in December (or both), retaliated much more forcefully than he likely would have otherwise. Russia expelled 775 American diplomats in response, severely crippling our intelligence and diplomatic apparatus in that country.Yes, but watch the donut, not the hole:
In fact, this pattern of deception helps explain why Obama took the step of PNG’ing so many diplomats at all, and at such a late stage in his administration. If the intelligence community by November believed (correctly, in retrospect) that evidence of Russian election hacking and interference might be denied and even “buried” by the incoming administration, a strong public stance was necessary. It’s telling that the FBI, CIA and NSA issued their own unclassified public report of Russian election meddling eight days later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Had Obama and the intelligence community not taken these actions, it’s possible that the American public would still be in the dark about Russia’s active measures.William Barr's only concern is getting Donald Trump what he wants. Trump's actions should not just be swept away as "policy differences" in 2021.
Focusing on whether the Trump campaign and transition team broke the law misses the bigger picture. By secretly sabotaging a measure designed to protect America’s sovereignty in the face of a foreign attack, these individuals acted against the interest of the United States and aided our adversary. Now they are the stewards of the country and its institutions. Whatever happens in a court of law, that is what should concern us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment