Flynn’s Category C (or B iii) Cooperation: Mueller’s Expanded Investigation
Yesterday, I argued that the structure of the addendum describing Flynn’s cooperation looks like this.
The section on cooperation describes Flynn’s assistance in three investigations. The Mueller investigation is actually the second thing listed, which I take to suggest that the the Mueller investigation is just the second most important. My wildarse guess is that these consist of A) a criminal national security investigation (the Turkish investigation tied to Reza Zarrab could be one possibility), B) the Mueller investigation, and C) a counterintelligence investigation into the Russians. But obviously the first and third are just a guess.
Between the three investigations, Flynn sat for 19 interviews with prosecutors.
Here’s the structure of how the body of the cooperation section describes the three investigations:
A Criminal Investigation:
11+ line paragraph
6.5 line paragraph
2 line paragraph
B Mueller investigation:
Introductory paragraph (9 lines)
i) Interactions between Transition Team and Russia (12 lines, just one or two sentences redacted)
ii) Topic two
10 line paragraph
9 line paragraph
C Entirely redacted investigation:
4.5 line paragraph
On Twitter, Elizabeth de la Vega argued that the ordering of the addendum doesn’t necessarily mean Category A is any more important than Mueller’s investigation, but that Category C was instead something under Mueller’s supervision.
That would mean the structure of the addendum looks like this:
A Criminal Investigation:
11+ line paragraph
6.5 line paragraph
2 line paragraph
B Mueller investigation:
Introductory paragraph (9 lines)
i) Interactions between Transition Team and Russia (12 lines, just one or two sentences redacted)
ii)Mueller investigation into something else:
10 line paragraph
9 line paragraph
iii) Mueller investigation into something else:
4.5 line paragraph
The description of SCO’s investigation covering “a range of issues” would be consistent with more than two topics.
If that’s right, we might learn the subject of that B iii cooperation by looking at more recent descriptions of the scope of Mueller’s investigation that show up in Jerome Corsi’s draft statement of the offense. As that describes, one of the things Mueller’s office told Corsi they were investigating pertained to any ties between Trump’s campaign, the Russian government, and WikiLeaks.
the nature of any connections between individuals associated with the U.S. presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and the Russian government or Organization 1.
That roughly correlates to the unredacted description of the parts of Mueller’s investigation in the addendum (though Wikileaks got added somewhere along the way).
the Special Counsel’s Office’s (“SCO”) investigation concerning any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald J. Trump.
But there were two other categories Mueller was investigating by September 6 when they interviewed Corsi: GRU’s theft of the Democrats’ emails, and GRU’s provision of them to WikiLeaks.
the theft of campaign-related emails and other documents by the Russian government’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (“GRU”);
the GRU’s provision of certain of those documents to an organization (“Organization 1”) for public release in order to expand the GRU’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign;
Even if one of those two categories describes the area on which Flynn provided cooperation (it’s possible, after all, that these are just the aspects of the Mueller scope that were pertinent to Corsi’s testimony, and there are other categories, like the Middle Eastern graft, that have also been included), it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything. Though — particularly given Corsi’s own ties to the Peter Smith effort — that could be one possible area of cooperation.
Still, I agree her reading may be the correct one (which would also explain why there’s not an introductory paragraph for what I had labeled Category C).
Update: In this post I lay out that we don’t yet know what extradition expert and Arabic speaker Zainab Ahmad has been working on. She has only shown up in Flynn’s docket thus far. She would be a likely candidate to oversee an investigation into the Middle Eastern graft that Flynn was involved with (in which the Seychelles meeting is key). So it may be that B(i) is the transition, B(ii) is the Middle Eastern graft, and B(iii) is another part of the investigation.
As I disclosed in July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post.
Trying to refresh myself on the the wrangling over scope. Sort of remember the gyrations around seeing the unredacted “scope memo”. Is there a good link to reporting on the resulting meeting(s) with Congress?
It would be useless in any case because they want the original August 1 memo. The scope, as I noted when that first got released, has been demonstrably expanded since that time.
Possible topics Flynn could be cooperating about (some of which could be subsumed under other things):
Trump campaign conspiracy w/ Russia
Russia hack/Wikileaks
Peter Smith effort
Pardon offers from Trump
Turkey influence operation
UAE/Saudi/Israeli PsyOps project
Nuclear project with Bud MacFarlane & Tom Barrack
Totally non-public thing
Anything I’m missing here?
Brexit via Bannon.
Jared Kushner’s back channel to Russia?
I wouldn’t rule out any major figure knowing about or being involved in pay to play schemes, like the one Cohen seemed to be running. Flynn’s consulting group was pretty shameless about going after contracts after he first left the government, and it’s possible that he was involved in schemes to get more business into 2017. Even if he wasn’t, he may also have a good idea which corporations and special interests were throwing money around, and which Trump figures were receptive.
How sad to see Flynn fall. Was he hurt because Obama dismissed him? Was this revenge so he went to the criminal side for perks, power and greed?
To me Mueller is rewarding bad behavior. I understand Flynn sang like a canary; however he still screwed his country. That he will have to live with.
Just read this thread by David Rothkopf which I resonate with:
https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1070312974894665729
Yep. He removed classified docs, too.
I know the real definition of treason (as described by attorneys here), but damn, his actions were treasonous in the colloquial sense. Screwing over the country by assisting shitty gov’ts and self-dealing. Whatever Obama did or didn’t do to him, and whether or not it was unjustified, there was clearly an overwhelming element of greed attached with Flynn’s actions.
Trip, well said. Here are a few Flynn quotes. Yep – Be careful of what you say because words can come back and hit you in the face like a pile of poop.
“What I believe in is I believe in law.”
“I’ve always operated so far outside my lane, I’m not sure what lane is mine anymore.”
“The lack of trust between the federal government and the American citizens of this country is a wide gap, we have to renew that trust for the people of this country going forward.”
“When you are given immunity that means you’ve probably committed a crime.”
Not to worry, the UCMJ covers most of this stuff and as a three-star Flynn is still subject to it even if retired.
Army Regulation 600-8-24 I think covers this topic (it’s on the olive drab side of things… Go Navy!) and it basically means he’s dismissed on a BCD or DD level of sanctions although for officers those terms are not used.
He’ll probably be a lifelong informant for the gov’t, now, which he might actually be happy with. But he is a nutball of the highest order.
I agree with the sentiment of disgust for Flynn also…
But surely a couple of “Get Out Of Jail Free” cards passed out when they aren’t deserved to those who signed up early to cooperate gets those who haven’t ‘fessed up yet reconsidering their path.
Surely Mueller is highlighting a difference in the fates of Manafort and Flynn and this will be on the minds of those knowing they are guilty but have not yet come to the table.
Exactly. It’s a game of prisoner’s dilemma. I have been wondering who has flipped in the Trump Organization once they announced in August that the CFO had immunity and I would assume is naming names.
Flynn’s dismissal was not just an Obama thing. From a Politico piece in Oct 2016:
As for Mueller, he’s not rewarding Flynn’s bad behavior. He’s making a deal that allows him to go after larger bad behavior.
Gotta’ believe that Obama knew something we don’t yet know, to publicly rebuke a three star general. And not for nothing, the military is under civilian control, primarily to prevent right wing nuts from rationalizing their actions and covering up the disastrous results. The judge, a civilian federal employee, will make the final determination of Flynn’s payment to society; hopefully based upon all of the facts in the case, not just the recommendation for leinency, however timely and helpful the cooperation from a guilty and disgraced general.
However Flynn acquired his three stars, a long story I bet, by the time he had them, he had to have fucked up badly and persistently to be dismissed from running as something as central to the DoD mission as the DIA.
Senior executives of any large institution hate washing their dirty linen, let alone in public, and that’s what firing someone as senior as the head of the DIA is.
The abusive with staff and bad manager thing would have been irritating, but not fatal. The “worked against policy” thing must have been egregious and a positive danger.
Well, we still don’t know the canary’s song. It might be of unparalleled beauty in terms of it’s insight.
If there is firm evidence of conspiracy to kidnap by Flynn then that song must be truly unparalleled.
I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
That might be the criminal rap, as an accessory at least if not a full-blown accomplice. It’s pretty clear-cut as well. Since the kidnap peccadillo is out in the press already, why bother redacting it, unless someone else (cough, KQ, cough or someone equally sensitive like Pence) was involved?
Throwback:
Also, what has James Woolsey been up to all of this time? He quit in May 2017, I think. He told of overhearing the extraordinary rendition plot.
Couple of wrong perspectives (I don’t suggest you yourself have either of them.):
1. From a number of articles I’ve read about Flynn, apparently he went, to borrow from how President Muffley described Gen. Ripper, “well, a little funny in the head”. That didn’t happen due to anything President Obama did: Flynn’s increasingly erratic & contemptuous behavior AFTER he went “you … funny” was what (eventually) led to the action Obama took with him.
2. At the end of the Rothkopf subthread you link to, there’s a comment from one “Not Complaining”, quite apart from the fact that clearly he IS complaining, raises another bullshit rightwing meme shown in the body of his comment:
“Comey and McCabe said he didn’t lie to the FBI, so your judgment seems quite biased.”
I have a stronger recollection of what Comey said on this but also my recall is that, on that topic, each of Comey & McCabe was fairly consistent with the other and BOTH of their comments a) were in response to set-up questions from Republican congress critters, and b) went NOT to an ultimate judgment as to Flynn’s having lied or not but rather to the observations of FBI agent interviewers who dealt directly with Flynn (which may have included one or both of Comey & McCabe but if so that’d be noteworthy because generally FBI senior desk jockeys are not directly involved in ‘modern’ Bureau interviews), to the effect that Flynn did not display outward indications of stress off which, per FBI-think, agents fancy they can ‘read’ that a subject being interviewed is conscious of lying.
The complaint by “Not Complaining” is by no means the first appearance of this bullshit rightwing assertion: from what I can tell, it’s made its way thru the wingosphere repeatedly, like the flu thru an elementary school. In that connection, I recall it being observed a number of times that in his career Flynn didn’t just go thru training for controlling against giving out such ‘tells’ during non-friendly examinations, he actually participated as a lecturer & teacher on the techniques available to protect against that. IAE, unsurprisingly, winger nutjobs just keep repeating the meme, with zero reflection on the fact that winger nutjobs came up with it in the first place.
Imagine what effects there must be on the analytical capacity and judgment of folks who do this – and not just to other birds of their feather but to themselves!
Ha, Ha!!!
You’re right that the “not lying” claim is garbage, and it’s gotten play in more mainstream settings — Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post did one of his frequent dumb reads and gave it a sympathetic view in a fact checking piece.
If you read what Kessler cites, he’s quoting Nunes and Grassley, who are undoubtably cherry picking and taking out of context what the FBI agents said and meant. These guys are pros and aren’t stupid — they know that even polygraphs aren’t that hard to fool, and judging lies based on supposed visual and vocal tells is hardly better than chance. Their main job is to get statements that can be used as evidence, and if necessary, stand up in a courtroom. They do this all the time and are used to people who act like liars but are telling the truth, and also people who act like truth-tellers but are lying their pants off. Any comment about appearance of truthfulness is not meaningful.
I understand your point about rewarding bad behavior and sympathize. Unfortunately, without cooperators it is very difficult to get successful prosecutions in challenging cases like these. Flip the little fish in order to put the big fish in jail.
with SEVERAL ongoing investigations: [A](Redacted), [B] the SCO, [????] (redacted).
Several means >3
proper sentence structure is “:A, B, C, and D.
You cant see the “and” and he uses “several,” so it likely says “:A, the SCO, C, and D. (“C, and D.” readacted.
So there is at least 3 we don’t know about… SCO + 3
Several doesn’t mean >3
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several
I was thinking that it might be A & B (i,ii,iii), but that initial paragraph beginning with “The defendant has assisted with several ongoing investigations:” would seem to me to need a coordinating conjunction (“and”) before “the Special Counsel’s Office’s” if it were only split into two sections, wouldn’t it? Grammatically, B seems to be in the middle of three.
Not that I know how these things are usually written.
Something that occurred to me just now: We’re all expecting the full text to read “…ongoing investigations: {A}, {B}, and {C}.” The slightly strange thing of it is that this would mean that the word “and” has been redacted. That would run counter to the principle of not redacting more than strictly necessary — an “and” here would convey pretty much zero information. And note that whoever was doing the redaction was careful enough to avoid redacting the comma after {A} and the period at the end of the sentence, suggesting that he or she would not be likely to carelessly over-redact. So… maybe the first word under that redaction isn’t “and.” Maybe it’s “who.” As in “who is also under investigation by the SCO for obstruction of justice,” or something to that effect. That would be worth redacting…
I think that’s a good point. Also, if that is the case, then your hypothetical would necessarily be “[“individuals [pl] associated with the campaign […]], “who ARE also under investigation by the SCO […]”
But then wouldn’t we expect it to read: “..ongoing investigations: {A}, and {B}”?
At first, the word “several” was interfering with my various interpretations (“…has assisted with several ongoing investigations”), because it contradicts my assumption that the word “and” was NOT accidentally redacted after the Oxford comma toward the end of the first full sentence of the Addendum (which would mean that first paragraph is referring only to two ongoing investigations). But I think it’s more likely that it’s not an Oxford comma, and that “several” does indeed refer to 3 or more distinct issues: the criminal investigation detailed under “A” (issue #1), the interactions between Transition Team & Russia in paragraph B(i) (issue #2), then the almost entirely redacted section under B, including B(ii) and B(iii) (issues #3 and #4) (as Elizabeth de la Vega suggested and Marcy agreed might be the correct reading). Here’s why I’m fairly confident this is so.
Because section B includes a subsection i, there must also be subsections ii, iii, etc. No reason to use a sub-i otherwise. Based on my (absurdly-OCD) analysis of the length and margins of the redacted lines, I think section B has a total of 3 subsections, only one of which is unredacted.
The addendum starts on page 8 of the 13-page PDF, and the margins all the way to the middle of p. 10 are fully justified, in both the typed text and the redacted lines. But starting with “i. Interactions Between the Transition Team and Russia,” the text is aligned only on the left. That left-margin justification continues to the middle of p. 11, above the paragraph starting, “The defendant also provided useful information.” Note the line right above that sentence: it’s indented but does NOT reach the right-side margin, and it’s followed by a new paragraph. It has to be the heading of sub-ii.
The text on the lower half of p. 11 and top half of p. 12 is all redacted, and the lines have fully justified margins, until you reach the end of the first full paragraph on p. 12. At that point there’s another redacted line that is indented but ends before it reaches the right margin, and the following line is also indented beginning a new paragraph. That has to be the heading of sub-iii.
Reading it this way makes me feel better about how the introduction was constructed, so I hope I’m correct. Someday when the unredacted version is made public, if I discover I was wrong about this, I will be disappointed in those lawyers’ Legal Writing instructors.
#notkiddingaboutOCDtendencies #easiertofocusonlittlethingslikethis #ostrichbehavior
You are right. On further reflection, the sentence would be ungrammatical without an “and” somewhere. So what I wrote above must be wrong. Either the first redacted word is indeed “and” or there’re four items in the list: “…ongoing investigations: {A}, {B}, {C}, and {D}.” Though there’s not a lot of space to fit two items under that redaction.
But if it is only A & B, then wouldn’t we expect the text to read, “…ongoing investigations: {A}, and {B}.”
I wondered whether that was an Oxford comma or, merely, pre-conjunction.
Another reason why the Oxford comma should be exfiltrated back to England, and its adherents banished or imprisoned.
There is something fucked-up about Flynn. If he doesn’t get jail he should (at the very least) be fitted up with an ankle bracelet.
you… funny
HaHa, the two of you.. funny.
“Whaddya mean, I’m funny?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcy15ZUE2c
One other redaction of interest is: “As part of his assistance with these investigations, the defendant participated in 19 interviews with the SCO or attorneys from other Department of Justice (“DOJ”) offices, provided documents and communications [redacted].” So there’s a third act of assistance, and it’s worth redacting. What could that be? Did Flynn wear a wire? It could be that whatever this is, it has to do with one of the other two investigations.
So do you think these sentencing memos (Flynn, Manafort, Cohen) constitute an important part of the ‘Mueller Report’ you’ve been arguing is being released through court filings? One fascinating part of this whole saga is getting a much deeper understanding of the complex relationship between Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches (I’m a Canadian, so I never thought about it before). It seems like as Mueller is under the Executive (Trump), and the report will belong to Congress (eventually), these filings appear to move this information into control of the Judiciary (through individual judges), which can of course decide to unseal this information at any time, meaning this is another way to mitigate Trumps ability to control the disclosure of this information. For that reason, I expect a lot of redactions in the upcoming memos (although Isakoff’s reporting indicating much of Manafort’s memo will be mostly unredacted) and that this is why it is important to file these memos asap, with Whittaker looming and Trump losing his shit
I can’t help but wonder if Obama snookered Trump.
Knowing that Trump would do everything the opposite of Obama, did Obama have something up his sleeve when Obama warned Trump about Flynn? As I recall, wasn’t it Obama who warned Trump to watch out especially for Flynn? What better way to push Flynn further into Trump’s arms…
Flynn pleaded guilty to crimes against the United States. Obama didn’t cause him to commit those crimes. Obama warned Trump about him.
What good reason is there for speculating that Obama’s motive was cynical or consciously manipulative and not merely an expression of his concern for the country?
Seems most likely that the ordering of the investigations is in relation to how much assistance Flynn provided. Under A, his assistance is described as “substantial assistance.” Under B, it’s just “assisted,” “firsthand information,” and “useful information.”
Another turning point came when Michael, then a teenager, ran into trouble that landed him in a night of juvenile detention and a year of probation. In his book, Flynn describes himself as “one of those nasty tough kids, hell-bent on breaking rules for the adrenaline rush and hardwired just enough to not care about the consequences.”
Flynn wrote that his “misguided mindset” led to his arrest — he doesn’t say what he did — and that the sentence was “no comparison to the punishment at home.”
“The light switch went on in his head,” Joe Flynn said. “It also helped him be who he is. It humbled him.”
https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/17/michael-flynn-seeks-sanctuary-from-russia-scandal-in-hometown-surf/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html
I have to wonder if there’s an intersection between Flynn and Gatestone.
Flynn was one of McCrystal’s groupie military jocks who convinced McCrystal he was a rock star and who more amazingly let a writer hang with them for weeks and RECORD them getting drunk and say their bosses were stupid A hole. Rolling Stone ran the story and Obama dumped the Gen and Flynn flunked off to the Orange Hole. By then EVERYONE thought Flynn untrustworthy and a bit deranged.
Someone speculated holding Flynn up in a high official capacity in the latest sentencing recs is a signal. D’aquerdo.
Mueller is playing Flynn; Flynn ultimately will probably get his due. Total shite.
So, “Dr. Strangelove” was a documentary after all.
It actually took Flynn a bit longer to fall from grace. He not only survive McChrystal’s resignation, he was promoted several times afterward and in mid-2012 Obama appointed him head of the DIA. It was his tenure at DIA that proved to be his downfall.
Does anyone make anything of the redacted phrase after “participated in 19 interviews …, provided documents and communications.
It’s short, and seems likely to be generic, since the phrases it should be parallel to are generic, offering no topics or details.
I’m trying to think of a generic activity he undertook as part of his cooperation that would need to be redacted. All I can come up with is “wore a wire.”
Anyone have any other thoughts on this?
“testified before the grand jury” would also be redacted, I think
Translated Russian parliament comments, calling Trump, Flynn and Tillerson the ordenonosets to “unfold American policy” (in re Russia). So much time has passed, so much drama, I had forgotten about Tillerson.
He was not part of the transition team. But Rebekah Mercer was (on the Executive Committee), and her family has long funded denials of climate change.
Vernes Mujic @vernesm
https://twitter.com/vernesm/status/1070525190185070592
And just for trivia-sake: Trey Gowdy was added Nov 29. This all seems like a million years ago.
Marcy/Bmaz,
Apologies in advance if you’ve already covered this topic, but out of curiosity, do you intepret i) “individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald J Trump” to include C*hen and S!Ter?; ii) A and B to be mutually exclusive or could certain individuals overlap (e.g. criminal charges against members of Trump Org who also were part of the campaign)?
Along these lines, I wonder whether Mueller may be delineating between Trump Org/Campaign connections to ROC with that of “Trump Campaign” connections to “Russian Government.”
It’s obviously widely believed that certain high level ROC figures (e.g. M*ogil!vich) have a quid pro quo type of relationship with Putin (allowed to operate but are expected to share intel, etc). Because of this, up until now, I had sort of been thinking of the two (Putin, ROC) as one in the same. But the connection between the two is something that would be very difficult for the SCO to prove (certainly not something they would want to rely on having to prove), so perhaps Mueller is delineating between the two even when dealing with circumstances that share very similar fact patterns.
For example, if the S!ter-C*hen-Artamenko (“SCA) Meeting were the initiative of a powerful ROC member (blessed by Putin) who used ROC-connected Trump Org associates/advisors (ie C*hen, S!ter) as the communication channel, then maybe Mueller is characterizing/viewing that as different than a Kremlin-initiated Trump Tower Meeting involving members of Trump’s campaign/transition team?
Continuing with this line of thought, given the relatively small Trump-orb and the fact that the peace plan had been delivered to Flynn’s desk, it seems likely that he would have been made aware of the meeting and, at a min, knew some high level details about it (including possibly having a hard copy of the peace plan itself). This presumably would have been relevant to Mueller’s investigation but again may have required Mueller to include some clarification language in terms of it falling slightly outside the referenced “Russian government” definition. If so, and if Mueller felt the clarification language had sensitive info (ie name of ROC; Sater role, etc), then it could theoretically explain the pg 3 (B) redaction and the pg 4 + 5 (Bi) redactions.
This next suggestion is a little bit more of a leap (definitely is the longer shot than the Turkey pick that NYT is reporting!) but I think is still within the realm of possibility. If the SCA meeting had in fact been an ROC-initiated meeting, the strong likelihood is that the ROC leader/syndicate was i) of Ukrainian descent; and ii) had close business ties with S!ter and S!ter’s business network (otherwise, there’s no need or explanation for S!ter to be in that meeting).
Two of S!ter’s closest business connections are Ar*f and Semb0l – both Turkish (Ar*f born in Kazakhstan). Another one of S!ter’s (and Ar*fs) biz connections is Alexander Mashkevich, member of the Kazakh trio and former B@yrock partner. Given that i) Flynn has an intelligence background; ii) in this hypothetical, he would have been at least tangentially involved in the ROC syndicate’s peace proposal; iii) he and S!ter were both in the somewhat small Trump universe; iv) some of his Turkish govt/biz relationships (ie Zarrab) likely ran in the same circle as Ar*f and T@mince; and v) M@shkevich’s alleged attendance at the Jan Seychelles mtg, it seems quite possible that Flynn would have knowledge/intel that would be of significant value if there were an ongoing “criminal investigation” into a major ROC money laundering network that involved the Trump Org (possibly being run by SDNY or by a European govt entity).
Between Trump Org’s ties to the $3B Azerbaijani Laundromat (Mammadov, Agelrov. Baku), $6B+ Kazakh Launder (Khrapunov’s, Ablyazovs. Soho), S*lntskev@ya Br@tva (Birshtein/Shnaider. Toronto); Silk Road Group (Batumi. Tbilisi); $100m Taiwanchik Trincher ring (Trump Tower); etc; I just find it almost impossible to believe that there’s not a “there there.” With Mueller’s investigation starting to get as far along as it is and with the amount of recent activity taking place w/Danske (Azerbaijan)/Deutsche/Mossack/etc, I’ll take 10-1 odds that Flynn has been a source for either an SDNY probe or one being managed by a European country.
My 100-1 shot is counterintelligence against FS.