The Mike Flynn Interviews (Updated)

Yesterday, DOJ turned over what was supposed to be all the Mike Flynn 302s to BuzzFeed (though they withheld at least the EDVA ones on his Turkish influence-peddling). Twice before (one, two), I’ve tracked his interviews. This post will attempt a third.

Below, I’ve got a list of Flynn’s known interviews, with the pre-December 2018 aborted sentencing numbered (there were supposed to be 19 before then). Generally, the headings consist of one of three things:

  • My summary of what got included in the Mueller Report (which is helpful to see what is new to this declassification)
  • “Missing” and/or EDVA, which is a reflection of what Bijan Kian’s lawyers claimed they had gotten by June 2019
  • New, with a description of the content

For the 302s released yesterday, I also include the Mueller attendees, when the interview got entered, and any notable remaining redactions (which may reflect ongoing investigations or suspect redactions). I’ll do a few posts on what this all shows, but generally, Flynn’s “cooperation” proceeded as follows:

  • Flynn lied extensively in his first proffer meeting (as prosecutors suggested he had as things started blowing up).
  • Even when he cooperated more, he was not always forthcoming; it took a while, for example, before he disclosed his full involvement in efforts to find Hillary’s deleted emails.
  • On January 19, 2018, Flynn professed absolutely no recall about whether Trump knew of his calls to Kislyak.
  • In spring 2018, he had several meetings that blended a discussion about WikiLeaks (another area he became less forgetful about) and the effort to get the Hillary emails.
  • In May 2018, he was asked twice about his IC badge being used to access an IC facility on April 3, 2017, after he had been stripped of clearance. No explanation ever appears in the 302s.
  • After that point, the interviews seemed to focus more on finding the sources for stories about the investigation and efforts by SJC staffer Barbara Ledeen and HPSCI staffer Derek Harvey to undermine the Mueller investigation.

1. November 16, 2017: Trump appoint Flynn as NSA, first call with Putin, Israel vote, communications with Kislyak, December Kislyak call

Mueller attendees: James Quarles, Aaron Zebley, Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered: January 5, 2018

Nine months after Mike Flynn got fired, ostensibly for lying to the Vice President, Mueller’s team invited him for a mulligan on his January 24, 2017 interview in which he lied several times to the FBI. In advance discussions about that interview, Brandon Van Grack alerted Flynn’s lawyers that there were likely things Mueller’s team knew that Flynn’s did not.

There is information that you or your client might not be aware of. From where we’re sitting, there might still be value in sitting down with your client. We have a good sense of what Flynn knows and what Flynn doesn’t know.

As one indication of how badly Flynn had misled his attorneys, Rob Kelner expressed surprise that Flynn might be exposed for false statements from his interview at the White House.

Frankly, we are surprised by that. That is not consistent with what we have learned from press reports and other sources.

Zainab Ahmad warned,

You don’t know everything he knows.

This first interview, then, might be considered a test, whether Flynn was willing to tell the truth about his actions and those of Trump’s associates. He failed.

The interview front-loaded general information (how he came to work for Trump, though even there, later interviews would offer slightly different details as to timing), and questions about topics that Flynn was a tangential participant in — the DNC emails, the June 9 meeting, meetings with Egypt and Mueller’s suspicion that Trump got $10 million from them, ties with Qatar, Manafort’s role in the platform change, Brad Parscale’s operation, an the hush hush meeting with the UAE.

Only after asking questions about all that did Mueller’s team ask Flynn the same questions the FBI had asked him nine months earlier. He answered the questions the same way. He lied to hide the specific requests of Russia on Egypt’s UN proposal and he lied about whether he had discussed sanctions with Sergey Kislyak and discussed them with the Transition team at Mar-a-Lago with Trump.


  • How he came to work for Trump
  • The $10 million campaign contribution (Mueller suspected it to be sourced from Egypt)
  • Hillary’s emails (Flynn lied and claimed he had never looked for them)
  • The DNC emails (Flynn lied about discussions about the topic)
  • No knowledge about June 9 meeting
  • The meeting with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (and those suspected of brokering it); Flynn later admitted he met with Egyptians on more than one occasion
  • A reference to Qatar
  • Flynn’s views about Manafort, including the platform change
  • Flynn’s views on Russia
  • Flynn’s review of Parscale’s operations
  • Early congratulation calls, including Egypt, a botched one to Taiwan, and the first call with Putin
  • The meeting with Kislyak (Flynn claimed a back channel did not come up)
  • The call with Sergey Kislyak on 12/6/16, which he always insisted he didn’t remember, and a follow-up on December 7
  • The UAE meeting in NY
  • The UN vote (Flynn repeated his lies from earlier that year, twice)
  • The sanctions discussion (Flynn repeated his lies from earlier that year)


  • 9/15/16 email to Bannon regarding Egypt (A)
  • 12/7/16 email RE: Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (regarding deferring all conversations until after inauguration) (B and C)
  • 3/27/2017 NYT article describing Kushner meeting (D)
  • 12/12/16 meeting keep UAE meeting to small circle (E)
  • Another email on Egypt

That night, Flynn’s lawyers told him he had botched the interview.

That same evening, after concluding the first proffer, we returned to the Covington offices where my attorneys told me that the first day’s proffer did not go well and then proceeded to walk me through a litany of conceivable charges I was facing and told me that I was looking at the possibility of “fifteen years in prison.”

2, November 17, 2017: Israel vote, December Kislyak call, especially comms with Mar a Lago, re Ignatius Flynn said he had not talked sanctions, Mar a Lago with Trump, Flynn’s last meeting with Trump, “we’ll take care of you”

Mueller attendees: James Quarles, Aaron Zebley, Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad (Zebley and Quarles in and out)

Entered: 1/5/18

According to Flynn, overnight his attorneys coached him on language to

“get through” the next day’s proffer and satisfy the special counsel.

Flynn shaded the truth in his November 17 interview — about the Trump Transitions contacts with their predecessors, about his discussions about sanctions with KT McFarland and Steve Bannon, about why he left no written record of having discussed sanctions. Still, it was a better interview, and after being confronted with just a selection of the communications that had recorded these communications in real time, his story edged closer to the truth, even while denying things (such as the explicit nod to their calls from Kislyak) that were in FISA transcripts. Among the things Flynn admitted that day was that he “knew he got involved in U.S. policy when he called KISLYAK.”

In addition, Flynn provided Mueller’s team what must have been important insight. He said that when he resigned, “TRUMP was tired and visibly shaken or upset.” But then when Sean Spicer explained his resignation, “It bugged FLYNN that SPICER said he (FLYNN) had been untruthful.” Flynn’s sense of betrayal would, at times, be powerful motivation for his cooperation with Mueller, until it wasn’t anymore.


  • Calls with Kislyak, including January 12 one, (several iterations); Flynn lies abt Bossert speaking with Monaco, claims not to remember specifics of discussion with McFarland, makes excuses for not including sanctions in email, then backtracked somewhat, makes excuse for not telling Trump, claims he didn’t discuss it with Bannon
  • Flynn’s lies to others, including knights of the round table
  • His first FBI interview (several iterations)
  • Covington asks who he spoke with after the call, includes people (like Ted Gistaro) whom he didn’t tell
  • His resignation


  • 12/29/16 Text messages to Sara Flaherty (possible some withheld on b3) (A)
  • Michael Ledeen report on sanctions (B)
  • 12/30/16 email from McFarland relaying the talking points (C)
  • D [possibly comms from after he spoke with Kislyak]
  • 12/31/16 Keith Kellogg email (E)
  • Probably Ignatius article

Ongoing: Individual words redacted to hide an investigation into Ignatius’ source

3. November 20, 2017: Whether he told others at MAL, response to Ignatius

Mueller attendees: James Quarles, Aaron Zebley, Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered : 1/5/18

On November 20, Flynn inched still closer to the truth about what happened during the Transition period. He clarified a key detail about the $10 million infusion of cash that, Mueller suspected, had come from Egypt. Flynn described how Trump blamed him for not informing Trump that Vladimir Putin had been the first to call Trump after inauguration — something Trump had told Jim Comey.

And after being shown texts of the communications he had with Mar-a-Lago surrounding his calls with Sergey Kislyak, he effectively admitted that he had coordinated with Mar-a-Lago. There were still gaps. He had no explanation for why there was a meeting between him, KT McFarland, and Trump at 5PM, which would have been shortly after his call with Kislyak. Flynn inched closer to admitting that he and McFarland had agreed to leave mention of sanctions out of his text summarizing the call. And he admitted that he may have spoken about the sanctions discussion in some meetings with Steve Bannon at the latter’s townhome after the calls.

Once Flynn’s admissions about his own actions got closer to the truth, Mueller’s team asked him questions about Jared Kushner’s actions, especially a secret meeting with Mohammed bin Zayed in mid-December 2016.


  • The Infusion of cash (correcting earlier explanation)
  • Theresa May arrival (included in Comey’s notes)
  • Calls with Kislyak (including texts with Flaherty)
  • Texts excluding sanction discussion
  • Meeting with Trump at 5PM on 12/29
  • Meeting with Bannon
  • Kushner’s blueprint for Russia
  • McFarland January 5, 2017 email
  • January 6, 2017 ICA briefing
  • Dossier
  • Cohen’s Ukraine plan
  • Someone who also believed CIA was bloated (and discussed UAE and Libya)
  • Seychelles meeting
  • Egypt package


Classified: Rex Tillerson? Some details about early January

Ongoing: Two b7A paragraphs in follow-up to Egypt package

4. November 21, 2017: Whether he told others at MAL, response to Ignatius, meeting with Trump [Missing]

Mueller attendees: James Quarles, Aaron Zebley, Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad; Mueller, briefly; Zebley left

Entered: 1/5/18

Having given Mueller’s team a passable explanation for his own actions, they focused the last interview on fine tuning that — particularly his admission to discussing the sanctions with Bannon — while getting him to talk about all the times he had been thrown under the bus by those who were in the know on the sanctions discussion, Bannon and McFarland.

Mueller’s team also got him to go over Kushner’s involvement in foreign policy, the relationship with Egypt, and the UAE meeting.


  • Logan Act
  • Bannon’s townhouse (Bannon already knew content of conversation)
  • Knights of the round table meeting, Bannon and McFarland silent
  • Another instance of being thrown under the bus
  • Kushner on Mexico
  • Egypt
  • Rick Gerson and Tony Blair, the UAE meeting (April 2017 Flynn contact with Gerson)

Backup [large b4 redactions likely hiding a bunch]

  • Email on el-Sisi meeting
  • 9/16/16 email between Ivanka and Phares
  • Photo of Rick Gerson
  • Kushner email on keeping meeting small

Large b4 redactions (trade secrets), addressing two topics, which leads into Kushner on foreign policy.

5. November 29, 2017: Peter Smith [Missing]

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered: 1/5/18

The November 29, 2017 meeting, when the two sides were already discussing a plea deal, seems to be focused on answering questions that Mueller’s team didn’t know the answers to, unlike the prior proffers. This covered some of Flynn’s other legal exposure (such as his non-disclosure of foreign travel on his clearance form and his financial disclosure), just bits about his ties with Turkish officials, WikiLeaks and the Peter Smith attempt to find Hillary’s email, as well as other election year digital activities.

The interview ended with a discussion about language in a draft statement of offense admitting that Flynn had initially not told the government that he and Steve Bannon discussed sanctions. That language was cut from the final statement of offense, but it provides important background to interviews with others, including McFarland and Bannon.


  • Op-ed on Libya relying on WikiLeaks docs
  • Discussions about WikiLeaks having Hillary’s emails, no direct contact
  • WikiLeaks following Flynn starting in October or November 2016, DMs him on 12/5/16
  • An NSC hire
  • Flynn notes on index cards
  • Meeting with Turkish officials, including sitting with Foreign Minister at Trump International Hotel in January
  • More Turkish
  • Svetlana Lokhova, including congratulations sent after election
  • Jobs after DIA
  • Meetings Flynn set up
  • Foreign travel not included in SF-86, financial disclosure
  • Peter Smith (original contact cyber business), probably downplaying extent of their contacts
  • Rick Gates during transition
  • Putin congratulatory phone call (possibly different details than original version), asked about a “signal”
  • Rick Gerson notes on 12/14/16
  • WikiStrat
  • PsyGroup
  • Donbass
  • Meeting with Susan Rice
  • Strong dollar
  • Bannon townhouse language in statement of offense


  • 10/6/16 Curtis Ellis email, possibly relating to an op-ed on Libya, using classified information that had shown up on WikiLeaks
  • Possible b7A
  • Possible SF-86 and financial disclosure form
  • 12/4/16 notebook entries re Rick Gerson meeting
  • Possible media report that Trump asked him about strong dollar

b7E redactions

Ongoing: Four b7A redactions in discussion of what he did after he left DIA.

6. January 11, 2018: November 30 meeting with Kislyak [Missing]

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, James Quarles

Entered: 2/22/18

Starts with admonishment.

In Flynn’s first interview after pleading guilty, Mueller’s team asked him more generic details — about how he used his classified phone, whether he used encrypted apps, whether he knew about the Seychelles meeting. It’s not clear he told truth about those questions or not, but he did provide other useful information, such as how often Erik Prince was at Transition headquarters.


  • Classified emails
  • Flynn claims he only used classified phone with Susan Rice
  • Encrypted apps (he preferred Signal), especially whether Bannon and Kushner used them
  • Kislyak meeting, starting w/12/1/16 (obtained his bio), still claimed no back channel, did not recall sanctions discussion
  • UN calls (including Nikki Haley’s, Bannon’s involvement)
  • Rebuff of Manafort’s 1/15/17 email (Manafort at National Prayer Breakfast)
  • UAE meeting
  • Another discussion of fire-the-CIA guy (could be Prince)
  • Prince at Trump Tower on daily basis, no knowledge of Seychelles
  • Kevin Harrington: Russia trying to usurp US role
  • Gitmo transfer
  • Parscale meeting in September 2016
  • Whom he has heard from post-plea


  • NYT article (described as WSJ one) on UNSC vote on Israel
  • 1/15/17 KT McFarland email chain involving Manafort
  • Possible b7A
  • Possible referral consult

Ongoing: Two b7A paragraphs between discussion of Manafort and Egyptian.

7. January 19, 2018: Flynn did not have specific recollection about telling POTUS on January 3, 2017

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, James Quarles, Andrew Goldstein

Entered: 6/21/18 [note: several other 302s have an entry date of 5/21, so this may be a typo]

In Flynn’s January 19, 2018 interview, he protected the President. He said, over and over, that he had no idea if he had spoken directly with Trump about sanctions, or even what he had said to KT McFarland. The Mueller team did not prompt him with information that might have been useful to force him to admit that he had told Trump.

Flynn did, however, admit that Trump had a better understanding of the timeline of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak than Flynn did, including a probable reference to Trump’s involvement in the December 22 call about Egypt.

This 302 was not finalized until June 21, a testament to how important Flynn’s claim not to remember discussing this with Trump was to Mueller’s case.


  • Contacts with Mar-a-Lago, claims he assumed McFarland talked to Priebus and Bannon
  • Meeting with Bannon on 1/1/17
  • Whether it came up on 1/3/17
  • Ignatius, now says he’s worried he broke the law
  • His interview (with b5 that may have covered discussion within WH afterwards)
  • Trump corrects his date
  • Whether Trump specified calls with Daily Caller
  • Correcting Nikki Haley on Crimea


  • Possibly Ignatius article

8. April 25, 2018: Peter Smith

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann, Aaron Zelinsky

Entered: 5/21/18

On April 25, 2018, after most Trump associates had had their first interviews and the Mueller team had begun to unravel Roger Stone’s role, Flynn had his first interview discussing those issues. It appears he shaded the truth, disclaiming to have been certain that Russia had hacked the DNC and disclaiming awareness of all the discussions in the campaign about WikiLeaks.

Nevertheless, Flynn likely said things at this interview that betrayed knowledge of far more, even if he didn’t understand that.


  • How he got involved in the campaign, including discussions of Russia and Sam Clovis’ role in it, dates involvement from 2/22/16; officially joined June 2016
  • RT trip
  • Regular contact with retired military officer, including email 6/29/16
  • DNC hack, Flynn claims he was uncertain abt attribution [break to walk Flynn through specific dates], Ledeen on missing emails, no memory of Stone, contact with FBI
  • Debate prep included “leverage” discussions about Assange, Flynn did not know under indictment (??)


  • 6/29/16 Paul Vallely email

9. May 1, 2018: Peter Smith

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Aaron Zelinsky

Entered: 5/21/18

In this interview, Stone prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky tried to pinpoint Flynn’s vague memories from August 2016, specifically regarding his first flight with the campaign on August 3, 2016, in the middle of a period when Stone was in close contact with the campaign about WikiLeaks. In this interview, Flynn admitted that he had much higher certainty that Russia had done the hack than he had said weeks earlier.

Mueller’s team also asked him what amount to counterintelligence questions and started to figure out who in the FBI was undermining their case in Flynn’s name.

The meeting ended with a question about who used his IC badge to enter a classified facility on April 3, 2017.


  • First trip on plane was 8/3/16, to Jacksonville, Flynn’s own assessment would be high likelihood Russia did the hack
  • Russian born investment capitalist talked about Clinton’s emails a lot
  • WikiLeaks reaches out to Flynn on 6/22/16 via publisher (recurring)
  • Flynn email 7/24/16 about attribution showing certainty–he walked back his certainty by August 3
  • Series of emails with someone military who moved to DIA, around first meeting with Manafort on 6/23/16
  • Question abt bots and social media
  • Email 11/2/16 may have clicked on the link
  • Trump’s 7/27/16 comment, specifically asked if Stone put it in his head
  • Contact in USDI
  • Retired general
  • 6/29/16 email from someone he was respectful of
  • Email 9/10/16 about speaking to Russia on Syria, someone pro-Russian
  • Dmitri Simes
  • Email sent to someone he met in August 2015 on 8/20/16
  • Contacts in FBI
  • Digital response team v. Parscales
  • Email 10/9/16 with link to Podesta
  • Extended discussion of Erik Prince, including transition
  • DIA visit on 4/3/17 (discussion about his IC badge)


  • 7/24/16 email on who hacked DNC (when he believed it was Russian)
  • 7/15/16 email oninformation war
  • 6/21/16 emails starting on 6/21/16 (Vallely?)
  • 6/22/16 WikiLeaks outreach
  • 11/2/16 email
  • 10/29/16 email
  • 6/29/16 email (Vallely?)
  • 9/10/16 email (Vallely)
  • 8/1/16 email
  • 8/29/16 Chatham House email wrt Dmitri Simes
  • 8/20/16 email
  • 9/22/16 email involving Parscales (OPSEC)
  • 10/9/16 email including link to Podesta emails
  • Possible b7A
  • Wickr introduction

Ongoing: Two b7A paragraphs abt discreet subject/person between discussion about WikiLeaks and about Prince.

10. May 4, 2018: [New: Manafort, Ledeen, and badging]

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Aaron Zelinsky

Entered: 5/21/18

The next meeting started with the unexplained use of his badge (Flynn claimed he still hadn’t found it). It hit on his efforts to find Hillary’s emails with Barbara Ledeen, their search for the emails on servers in Ukraine, and a long call Flynn had with Manafort in June, when the WikiLeaks effort first began.


  • Use of his badge 4/3/17
  • Barbara Ledeen, including password protected email on 10/29/16
  • Servers in Ukraine
  • Micro-targeting
  • Hour-long call with Manafort on 6/23/16; first met Manafort on 6/30/16
  • The dossier and ICA briefing
  • Transition meeting, some Captain sharing information, and KT McFarland

11. May 17, 2018: [New: Ledeen’s tampering]

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered: 6/1/18

Most of this meeting focused on ways that Flynn’s people were undermining the investigation, with a focus on Barbara Ledeen and Sara Carter (who published several false stories about the investigation). It also returned to the issue of what secure communications he used.


  • Ledeen’s probes of the investigation
  • Sarah Carter’s propaganda (starting with possible immunity on 3/30/16)
  • Discussions about the investigation
  • Secure communications

12. May 23, 2018:

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered: 5/29/18

While this meeting returned focus to two key prongs of the Middle Eastern part of this investigation, UAE and Qatar, it also probed more about Flynn’s current job and the FBI agents tracking his case.


  • Qatar
  • 12/12/16 Trump Tower meeting, possibly with QIA
  • His then-current consulting gig
  • FBI agents, including retired, who are tracking his case

b3: An entire discussion covered by b3

13. June 13, 2018: [EDVA, Missing]

14. June 14, 2018: [EDVA, Missing]

15. June 25, 2018: [EDVA, Missing]

17. July 26, 2018, [EDVA, Missing, possibly two 302s]

18. September 17, 2018: [New: someone else’s tampering, probably Derek Harvey]

Mueller attendees: Brandon Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad

Entered: 9/28/18

The entirety of this, Flynn’s last meeting with the Mueller team, seems to focus on the role of Derek Harvey, whom Flynn hired into the NSC, and who played a key role in helping Devin Nunes undermine the entire investigation.


  • Relationship with someone on HPSCI, probably Derek Harvey

September 26, 2018: Proffer response on meetings with Foresman

January 28, 2019: [EDVA Missing]

February 28, 2019: EDVA

April 5, 2019: [EDVA Missing]

June 6, 2019: EDVA — Flynn blows up his plea deal

40 replies
  1. John Langston says:

    Sticking to me guns here. Flynn’s pardon was the culmination of Trump’s plot of conspiracy to obstruct justice by pardoning for silence as outlined by Mueller.

    Since the whole deal was a crime, the logical answer is the pardon itself was invalid. Some have made the argument that Trump was guilty but Flynn’s pardon is still valid. I say no, not only are the subsequent actions by Trump crimes, Flynn’s original crimes aren’t pardoned either.

    If there’s precedence to the contrary it should be reviewed by USSC.

    It’s crazy to think a president could pardon criminals in an ongoing crime spree so they could continue the crime spree. Nope, the pardons are invalid, the original crimes should stand.

    • Tom S. says:

      Your opinion is in keeping with, “no one is above the law” but the Trump intimidated Senate majority voted in February, 2020, not to remove Trump, and the Trump stacked SCOTUS will be the final arbiter, if there is one, concerning the issues you raise. So, how far back can your “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument, sustain? If the Senate trial vote was coerced, and that seems confirmed these past ten days, and the 2016 election is proven invalid… Stormy Daniels and the Trump Tower meeting, the pinging of the Alfa Bank server being on top of the iceberg, how deep into the poisoned tree can invalidation proceed, again with an illegitimately appointed, SCOTUS majority?

      Doesn’t your argument also follow, all actions… including legislation and E.O.’s signed by Trump, are illegitimate, if he gained his position and authority by provably illegal means?

      Unprecedent, unanticipated by the founders….

      • John Langston says:

        I think the “fruit of the poisoned tree” argument goes so far as the involvement with the original or ongoing crimes. Insofar as the other actions taken, whether legitimate or not, the reach is too far and unrelated actions have to be judged by their specific circumstances. But if Flynn was pardoned for his silence, a direct quid pro quo, I can’t imagine that his original crime should go away. That’s not logical, and I’d question any precedent that would point otherwise.

        • Cate E. says:

          Your clear and concise explanation as to why Trump’s corrupt pardons should not stand seem to me to be common sense.

          Yet I keep hearing all these Constitutional lawyers, (not talking about the Fox Tv lawyers ) telling us why Trump just might get away with it & that the Presidents Pardon Power is vast.

          I just don’t understand the thinking that a man who swears an Oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land can simultaneously abuse the constitution to be an unbelievably corrupt American Oligarch.

          Make it make sense!!!

          • John Langston says:

            My intent, reinforcing my point (OK, to repeat myself), is because we see those famous constitutional lawyers on the media say -as they wring their hands- that “he might get away with it”. So, if a crook bribes for pardon, that’s saying the original crime goes away, although the crook could be prosecuted for the bribery alone? That’s nuts!

            Common sense, if the pardon is part of an ongoing crime, the original crime doesn’t go away.

              • John Langston says:

                I’d like to know the precedent and rationale about the law regarding that. Again, abuse of pardons is a means of perpetuating an ongoing crime spree.

                • bmaz says:

                  Um, the “rationale” is that the the Article 2 Section 2 pardon power is plenary. There are no such limitations on it. It may make folks feel good to clamor that that is not the case, but it indeed is.

                  And people get paid to assist getting defendants pardons all the time. Heck, I was once paid to try to get one for a client. The only difference is that I tried to do it through the pardon office, not directly to the White House, but don’t think that necessarily makes a difference.

                  • John Langston says:

                    Plenary power. Absolute. But a pardon for an ongoing crime and a free pass for conspirators?

                    Again, I’d like to see the litigation. Is there precedence or just an assumption?

                    BTW- There a big leap from legal fees and lobbying for bribes. Maybe there shouldn’t be but c’mon.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Listen, this is not even a question. You are grasping at a completely bogus straw. I’ll give you a challenge: Go find something that militates in the alternative. Don’t demand that others prove the negative you seek.

                    • John Langston says:

                      I’m not the lawyer here. if there is precedent saying I’m wrong, fine. I’m just saying it should be reviewed again. If there isn’t, well then there are lots of scholarly opinions.

                      BTW- no one is trying to prove a negative. Either there is precedence or there isn’t. I don’t know.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Yeah, you are. We do not exist to do your research. If you have something, post it. Otherwise stop. And, by the way, maybe you should post your precious “scholarly opinions” to the contrary. Or, again, STFU.

    • John Langston says:

      Last night I saw ex-Mueller prosecutor Wiseman on the tube. He indicated all this pardon business wasn’t so cut and dry. That it’s up to prosecutors to indict and the courts to decide if the pardons are valid. That’s more or less my point. There seems to be scant litigation about pardons. Lots of opinions. I have my common sense view, however unaccepted it is by bright legal minds. At least Wiseman opened the door a crack.

      • bmaz says:

        Yes, it really is cut and dried. If the pardon covers a charged crime and is lodged with the court, it must be accepted. There is no discretion. Quit misleading people here.

  2. PeterS says:

    Fox News says “Lindsey Graham on Friday released a slew of additional documents and transcripts related to his panel’s investigation into the origins and aftermath of the Trump-Russia probe”.

    I don’t know to what extent if any these documents tie in with what the DOJ turned over Buzzfeed also yesterday (the Fox article was basically Graham talking shit about Crossfire Hurricane). I suspect it’s just a coincidence (?).

    • PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

      Not a coincidence, Graham is still amazingly deflecting from CH by flooding the zone with shit at this late a date.

    • John Langston says:

      Funny watching Lindsey sweating and cracking during his desperate speech after the insurrection and then seeing him literally on the “Trump Plane” thereafter. That guy must’ve been desperate for his bipolar meds. (my remark isn’t meant to offend anyone so afflicted but this guy ain’t right)

      • Chris.EL says:

        Is this amazing? From

        “Democrats Introduce Resolution to Permanently Ban Trump from Stepping Foot on U.S. Capitol Grounds
        COLIN KALMBACHER Jan 14th, 2021, 8:01 pm”

    • emptywheel says:

      I haven’t looked yet–I need to figure out what browser I can open them in from GDPRtopia, but they’re basically interviews of anyone associated with the Page FISA applications.

      • Desider says:

        Opera VPN often works easy enough – just choose “Americas” and it seems to find a working proxy most times. (No messing around with entering IPs)

  3. PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

    Thanks for this, it gets really hard to remember who said what when a year later. Is there a permalink for some of these painstaking timelines if we wanted to find them again 6 months later and don’t remember the post title?

    • rosalind says:

      at the top of the page you’ll see “Timeline Collection” – this has several categories to choose from. “Posts” to the left has a “Posts by Category” section with multiple choices. You can also use the search function to find posts w/a certain word or phrase in them.

      • Chris.EL says:

        On my Android phone there’s a ‘find in page’ feature — I use it when I’m in the post.
        Here’s something OT – guaranteed to leave you speechless!

        “Oregon Carjacker Lectures Mother Who Left Her Toddler in the Car He Stole, Threatens to Call the Cops on Her

        Blake Montgomery
        Updated Jan. 16, 2021 9:01PM ET
        Published Jan. 16, 2021 8:52PM ET

        In a role reversal fit for a movie, a carjacker chastised his victim for leaving her 4-year-old in the SUV he had stolen from her, according to police in Beaverton, Oregon. Officer Matt Henderson said, “He actually lectured the mother for leaving the child in the car and threatened to call the police on her,” The Oregonian reports. The mother, whose identity police did not disclose, popped into a grocery store for milk and meat, never going further than 15 feet away from the car, according to police, but she left the vehicle running and the keys in the ignition. The thief hopped in and drove away before realizing the 4-year-old was sitting in in the back seat. He then returned to the store, where he gave the mother a talking-to and returned the toddler before taking off again. He has not been caught, nor the car recovered. “

  4. BobCon says:

    I assume Leopold will be refiling a ton of FOIA requests to try to shake loose documents or uncover redactions made by overzealous appointees.

  5. Chris.EL. says:

    Don’t know what to make of this: vice president Pence is in California ?
    From Twitter
    “Andrew Solender @AndrewSolender”
    1/16/2021 ~17:40 ET
    “Pence at Naval Air Station Lemoore (via @dustingardiner):”

    “I’m proud to say, with just a few days left in this administration, this this is the first administration in decades not to get America into a new war.”
    My two cents: no, just a war — here at home, among our fellow citizens!!!

  6. klynn says:

    Re Ellis:
    Any chance Ellis is being placed to plant fake intelligence about the election and then perform an, “Oh look what I found” moment?

  7. CD54 says:

    What other questions do you dream about Flynn answering under oath on live prime time national TV during a Senate Committee hearing aside from “What did you understand it to mean when Trump said, ‘We’ll take care of you.’?”

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Speaking of the Vindmans, Biden’s DoD should immediately offer to reinstate their rank and privileges (and award Alex the rank of colonel). It should do the same for a basket of others, including Navy captain Crozier, who should be given flag rank. The same for dozens or scores of civil servants. It would be partial recompense for Trump’s abuses of office and unlawful conduct.

  8. PhoneInducedPinkEye says:

    First I’ve heard about someone using Flynn’s card to access an IC site. Any details on this and why it was brought up?

    Also Trade Secrets redactions RE Kushner? That was around the time Rick Perry was selling off Nuclear tech to the Saudis was it not?

    • John Paul Jones says:

      That stuck out for me too, and it appears to be a detail newly released from the redaction dungeon. He’s been an intelligence officer at the highest levels and he “loses” his badge? Was the entry specifically to a DIA facility? Is the facility so large that even if they know who used the badge, they still don’t know who the badge-user visited? Plus, even if he “lost” the badge, whoever “found” it had to have knowledge of where it could be used, so not just some random civilian.

      The question came at the end of the session, so, maybe an attempt to throw him off balance?

      I gotta say, if this were a crime novel, this would be a scene where the investigators throw somebody a question designed to make them go home and think, and then pick up the phone and call somebody because they already have a wiretap in place. If life were so simple…..

  9. greengiant says:

    Recall Mike Ellis joined Eisenberg and the Vindeman brothers and attorney Yevgeny after Trumps Ukraine call.

  10. klynn says:

    Anyone watch WaPo’s 41 Minutes of Fear Timeline at the Capitol video? I cannot link to it hear because I cannot get a clean link on my end.

    Anyone notice Gosar’s speaking? Is he like that all the time in terms of body movement?

Comments are closed.