https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/app...dge-to-respond-to-demand-to-dismiss-case.html Appeals court orders Michael Flynn judge to respond to demand for dismissal of case against ex-Trump advisor A federal appeals court ordered the judge handling the criminal case of President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, to respond to a request by Flynn’s lawyers to dismiss the case. The Department of Justice two weeks earlier made the surprise move to abandon its own prosecution of Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration. But the judge appointed a former federal judge to argue against the request, and submitted a schedule to allow third parties to submit arguments in the case.
Good to see Judges standing for the rule of law https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...efusal-rubber-stamp-case-dismissal/111893452/ Flynn judge defends refusal to rubber-stamp case dismissal The judge overseeing Michael Flynn’s prosecution defended his decision not to rubber-stamp the Justice Department’s dismissal of its case against President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington said in a brief filed Monday that he has the discretion to further consider the matter, which has sparked debate about the independence of both the judiciary and the Justice Department. “The question before this court is whether it should short-circuit this process, forbid even a limited inquiry into the government’s motion, and order that motion granted,” Sullivan said. “The answer is no.” Sullivan said the unique facts of Flynn’s case required that dismissal be weighed carefully, including the fact that the defendant was claiming innocence after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime. The judge also noted that the dismissal request was signed by a prosecutor not previously involved in the case. “It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea,” Sullivan said in his brief. The lead prosecutor in the case stepped down just before the request was filed. The judge also said the government’s request cited “minimal legal authority” and omitted important facts. “For now, it suffices to say that the unusual developments in this case provide at least a plausible reason to question’ the bona fides’ of the government’s motion,” Sullivan said. Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents during the Russia probe, has argued that Sullivan has no choice but to grant the government’s May 7 motion to dismiss the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington last month ordered the judge to respond to Flynn’s claim that he exceeded his authority by not immediately doing so. While judges are often overruled by appeals courts, it’s rare for judges to be required to personally explain their actions. Sullivan’s unusual brief is the latest twist in a case that the president and his allies in recent months have slotted into a narrative that casts the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election as a plot by Obama-era officials to undermine the incoming administration. Attorney General William Barr’s Justice Department on May 7 filed a surprise request to dismiss the case, saying Flynn’s lies weren’t “material” to the Russia probe and that the FBI agents did not have a proper “investigative purpose” in interviewing him. But instead of immediately granting the government’s request, Sullivan named a former federal judge and mob prosecutor, John Gleeson, to argue against the Justice Department’s position and address whether Flynn should be held in contempt of court for perjury. Sullivan has also accepted outside briefs on the matter. Flynn admitted lying to the FBI agents about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. in December 2016. Trump fired Flynn after it was revealed that he’d also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Sullivan, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, hired Washington litigator Beth Wilkinson to file his response with the appeals court. Taxpayers will be footing the bill for Wilkinson’s work. Wilkinson is no stranger to politically charged cases. She represented Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his fraught confirmation to the high court. But she is also representing Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s reality TV show “The Apprentice” who sued the president for defamation after he publicly denied her claims that he sexually assaulted her.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-m...-the-court-proceedings-still-matter-heres-why The Mike Flynn Fix Is in, But the Court Proceedings Still Matter. Here’s Why. FLYNN NOIR The DOJ’s concern here isn’t with Flynn, but with the threat to the “integrity” of the “Executive” if they have to explain to a judge why they’re letting Trump’s pal walk away. Friday, Justice Department attorneys argued before a federal appellate court that they shouldn’t have to explain themselves at all, after former federal judge John Gleeson— appointed by Sullivan to argue for the position that the Justice Department abandoned when they walked away from a conviction obtained by Robery Mueller—called the Trump administration’s reversal a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” and “an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michae...m-u-s-agency-meant-to-counter-disinformation/ Trump administration purges news execs from U.S. agency meant to counter disinformation, leaving staff fearing more to come The overnight purge of top news organization officials at the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has raised concern among its federal government employees and reporters that their jobs, immigration status, and editorial independence may soon be at risk following the arrival of new CEO Michael Pack. Pack, a conservative filmmaker and close ally of one-time Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who had just stepped into the job after being confirmed by the Republican-led Senate earlier this month, did not respond to a request by CBS News for comment or explanation. "Pack uses deep state language. Is Bannon calling the shots?" A USAGM source said this is the question being pondered by executives and journalists inside the organization now. Four news division heads were removed from their positions, including Middle East Broadcasting Network chief Alberto Fernandez, who is a former U.S. Ambassador, Radio Free Asia's Bay Fang, Emilio Vazquez of the office of Cuba Broadcasting, and Radio Liberty's Jamie Fly. Replacements have yet to be named. Steve Capus, former CBS and NBC News executive who had been serving as a senior adviser at USAGM, was also dismissed. Earlier this week, the top director and deputy director at Voice of America resigned as did the head of the Open Technology Fund, which promotes global internet freedoms. "These people are doing extraordinary things to push back against China and Russia," the USAGM source said, emphasizing that the work these journalists do is to counter disinformation from authoritarian regimes. Yet it appears that Pack was willing to stomach any congressional outcry related to the firings even just five months out from the U.S. presidential election. "What I see from colleagues is concern. There is big concern," a Voice of America journalist told CBS News, adding that in particular, there is fear that independent journalism will be replaced with propaganda. "We have a firewall in place, and I hope it remains. But yes, the arrival of this man is concerning." The USAGM is an independent federal agency, and under its umbrella is the Voice of America and other networks which broadcast what is described on its website as "unbiased news and information in countries where the press is restricted." It was formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Another source familiar with what happened told CBS News that Wednesday's purge was demoralizing considering that the agency networks' focus is to tell the stories that aren't being told by authoritarian regimes. A co-worker of the now dismissed head of Radio Liberty, Jamie Fly, described how dedicated the executive had been in defending his reporters who often faced intimidation and threats while reporting on Russia. Fly had recently relocated his young family to Prague. The recent pioneering reporting of Radio Free Asia has revealed details of China's mass internment camps of more than a million Muslim minorities, mostly Uyghurs, in Xinjiang province. Yet its head, Bay Fang, was unceremoniously removed from her position on the same day President Trump signed the Uyghur human rights bill into law. CBS News obtained an email from Fang to her staff at RFA following news of her dismissal, in which she obliquely mentioned "structural changes" as the reason for the transition out of her role. She also urged staff to remain focused on the mission of bringing unbiased news and information otherwise unavailable to their audiences in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Cambodia, and described that mission as "even more important at this time." Meanwhile, Ambassador Alberto Fernandez had recently launched an investigative team at the Middle East network, and had been praised for work on corruption in Iraq. Yet Fernandez was alerted via email of his firing. In tweets posted Wednesday night, he said: "Wish the incoming people at @USAGMgov well. I hope they know what they are doing." He declined further comment. A coworker familiar with Fernandez's work described the long-time diplomat as a republican with rock solid credentials. In fact, Fernandez had been harshly critical of the Obama administration, as an CBS exclusive interview with him had indicated in 2015. Yet, he was still pushed out by Pack who was described to CBS as enigmatic, and distrustful of the agency. This same coworker said that before Pack arrived at the office Wednesday, he had security go through the trash and sweep for listening devices. Another USAGM employee told CBS News that there is fear that the new management may also choose not to renew visas for some of the journalists who work to create the non-English language broadcasts, which could mean that journalists would have to leave the U.S. "The CEO signs off on the visas. This is my fear. We also have a backlog of J-1 visas that Mr. Pack has to sign that he has not signed yet." Two more sources familiar with the internal workings of USAGM said that there had been little or no communication between the network heads or leadership prior to Pack's dismissal of them. Their outreach to Pack and his team had been largely ignored, including inquiries on operational details such as how to handle new COVID19-related procedures to reopen the buildings for employees. When Pack reached out to the directors on Wednesday, essentially his first day on the job, he provided no reason for the firings. One source said that notices were sent out Wednesday evening informing the heads of the agency's networks that the board had been dissolved and replaced by an assortment of appointees from various agencies without including anyone from the State Department. According to a copy of one of these notices obtained by CBS News, the new board members include senior counsel of Liberty Counsel Action Jonathan Alexandre, a senior advisor to the US Department of Housing Secretary, a communications director from the Office of Management and Budget, a USAID deputy, and the agency's Chief-of-Staff Emily Newman. The overnight firings has added to uncertainty among the staff of the networks who had already been shaken by the resignations of the Voice of America director and deputy director. According to the agency's website, there is a firewall meant to prevent interference by US government officials in the reporting of the news by USAGM networks, and the reforms made by the 2017 National Defense Authorization are meant to maintain 'the longstanding statutory firewall language protecting the professional independence'. Senator Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blasted the firing of the news chiefs, saying in a statement on Wednesday: "This latest attack is sadly the latest – but not the last – in the Trump Administration's efforts to transform U.S. institutions rooted in the principles of democracy into tools for the President's own personal agenda". The U.S. government funded democracy watchdog organization Freedom House on Thursday called the removals "deeply concerning", and said "The US should be an exemplar, not a detractor of press freedom."
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...s-court-orders-judge-to-dismiss-flynn-charges Appeals court orders judge to dismiss Flynn charges
https://www.businessinsider.com/don...in-christopher-steele-uk-boris-johnson-2020-6 Evidence of Russia's 'likely hold' over Trump was covered up by the UK government, according to a former British spy The former MI6 agent Christopher Steele said the UK government covered up evidence about US President Donald Trump's ties to Russia, The Guardian reported on Monday. Steele reportedly told a UK parliamentary investigation in 2018 that "a blanket appeared to be thrown over" the information he provided Prime Minister Theresa May's government. Steele said that he had handed over a dossier on Trump's links to Russia in 2016 but that "no inquiries were made or actions taken thereafter." UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson suppressed the publication of the parliamentary committee's report before the UK general election in December. The UK government covered up evidence of Russian President Vladimir Putin's "likely hold" over US President Donald Trump to protect its relationship with the US, a former British spy said, The Guardian reported on Monday. Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent, told a UK parliamentary investigation in 2018 that Prime Minister Theresa May's government ignored evidence of Putin's relationship with Trump. The committee responsible for the investigation, the Intelligence and Security Committee, was due to publish its report last year. However, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson refused to publish it before December's general election, and it is still unpublished. Steele said May's government, in which Johnson served as foreign secretary for two years, threw a blanket over the allegations about Trump's relationship with Putin. The former spy said he presented a dossier on Trump's relationship with Russia to UK security officials in 2016, the year Trump won the US general election. However, Steele said that "on reaching top political decision-makers, a blanket appeared to be thrown over it," according to The Guardian. "No inquiries were made or actions taken thereafter on the substance of the intelligence in the dossier by" the UK government, he said. Steele, who led the MI6 Russia desk for three years, included the claim in evidence he provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee in August 2018 for its investigation into Russian interference in British democracy, The Guardian said. In his evidence, Steele said May's government decided not to act on the information it received in order to protect the UK's close and long-standing relationship with the US. "In this case, political considerations seemed to outweigh national security interests," Steele said, according to The Guardian. "If so, in my view, HMG made a serious mistake in balancing matters of strategic importance to our country." He added that "a prospective trade deal should never be allowed to eclipse considerations of national security." Steele said the UK government was reluctant to act when it would present "difficult wider political implications," using allegations of Russian interference in the UK's 2016 referendum on EU membership as an example. "Examples of this include reporting on the Kremlin's likely hold over President Trump and his family/administration and indications of Russian interference in and clandestine funding of the Brexit referendum," Steele said, according to The Guardian. Though it was completed in October and sent to Johnson, the ISC's report into Russian interference has not been published. Johnson refused to release it before the UK's general election in December. The UK government has insisted that the highly anticipated report cannot be published until a new ISC is formed. However, six months on from the general election, the committee has still not been formed. The BBC reported last week that the holdup was due to Johnson's Conservative Party failing to agree on MPs to nominate as committee members. A cross-party group of opposition MPs last week urged Johnson to publish the report. The letter, shared exclusively with Business Insider, pointed out that six months was the longest that Parliament had ever had to wait for the ISC to be formed. It said that Johnson's failure to release the report was an "affront to democracy" and that it was "untenable" for Johnson "to continue to block the publication of the Russia report." Before last year's general election, The Times reported that Johnson's government held back the report because of the "embarrassing" links it revealed between the Russian secret service and donors to the Conservative Party. A representative for Johnson on Monday indicated that the committee would be formed in the coming weeks. "Work to establish the committee is ongoing and it will be established as quick as current circumstances allow," they said, adding that "further announcements including members of the committee will be made in due course." Trump's relationship with Russia and Putin has been scrutinized since the 2016 presidential campaign. The special counsel Robert Mueller found that Russia worked to get Trump elected, though his investigation did not find enough evidence to suggest that Russia coordinated with the Trump campaign. Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and Russia, and he said he trusted Putin's word over that of the US intelligence agencies that found that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, said in an ABC News interview last week that Putin did not see Trump as a "serious adversary." "I think Putin thinks he can play him like a fiddle," Bolton said. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...donald-trump-ex-spy-christopher-steele-claims Johnson and May ignored claims Russia had 'likely hold' over Trump, ex-spy alleges Exclusive: Christopher Steele claims May government turned blind eye to Trump allegations Boris Johnson and Theresa May ignored claims the Kremlin had a “likely hold” over Donald Trump and may have covertly funded Brexit, the former spy Christopher Steele alleges in secret evidence given to MPs who drew up the Russia report. In testimony to MPs, the MI6 veteran accused the government led by May and in which Johnson was foreign secretary for two years of turning a blind eye to allegations about Trump because they were afraid of offending the US president. Steele first presented a dossier about Trump to senior UK intelligence figures in late 2016, who he says took it seriously at first. But, he writes, “on reaching top political decision-makers, a blanket appeared to be thrown over it”. “No inquiries were made or actions taken thereafter on the substance of the intelligence in the dossier by HMG [Her Majesty’s government],” Steele says in the critical document. The allegation is contained in a short summary of a larger file of information presented in August 2018 by Steele to parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC), inquiring into Kremlin infiltration into British politics and public life. Steele accuses May’s government of selling British interests short by not taking matters further: “In this case, political considerations seemed to outweigh national security interests. If so, in my view, HMG made a serious mistake in balancing matters of strategic importance to our country.” The Russia expert concluded: “A prospective trade deal should never be allowed to eclipse considerations of national security.” Steele’s confidential testimony is revealed for the first time in a book by the Guardian journalist Luke Harding, Shadow State: Murder, Mayhem and Russia’s Remaking of the West, to be published next week. Downing Street said on Monday it could not comment on the Russia report or its evidence until it was published. The cross-party committee finished the report in October 2019 but, ahead of December’s general election, Johnson refused to release it. After the election, he cleared the report for publication in principle, but doing so would require the ISC to be reconstituted. The committee is yet to be formed amid growing speculation that there is a row about who will chair it. Downing Street has indicated it wants the former transport secretary Chris Grayling to do so. But No 10 needs the Conservative nominees to the nine-strong committee to agree to support Grayling because the opposition minority want to vote for somebody else. In law the appointment of the chair is a matter for the committee. As a result the long-awaited document is still yet to be released, prompting complaints in Westminster and accusations from Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats of an attempted cover-up. PM accused of cover-up over report on Russian meddling in UK politics Read more “We increasingly think the real reason this is all being held up is because of No 10,” said an SNP source. The Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson, Alistair Carmichael, said the delay was “utterly reprehensible”. Steele’s summary evidence is likely to raise concerns that Downing Street may have suppressed the ISC’s final Russia report to avoid embarrassing questions in the run-up to the election, and afterwards, as Britain left the EU, although No 10 has consistently denied that is the case. These include whether Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 EU referendum in support of Brexit and whether Vladimir Putin holds compromising information on Trump, Johnson’s ally. “My understanding, arising partly from personal experience with the ‘Trump-Russia dossier’, is that this government perhaps more than its predecessors is reluctant to see (or act upon) intelligence on Russian activities when this presents difficult wider political implications,” Steele writes in his testimony to MPs. “Examples of this include reporting on the Kremlin’s likely hold over President Trump and his family/administration and indications of Russian interference in and clandestine funding of the Brexit referendum.” Steele was one of several Russia experts who gave evidence to the ISC. He spent 22 years working for MI6 and led its investigation into the 2006 polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Later Steele went into private business intelligence. In 2016, he wrote a dossier on Trump’s links with Russia on behalf of the Democratic party under Hillary Clinton. It alleged the Kremlin had been cultivating Trump for at least five years and had mounted an extensive espionage operation to back his campaign for the White House. Last year, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, described Russian government interference as “sweeping and systematic”. Steele’s dossier also featured claims that Putin’s FSB spy agency filmed Trump in a Moscow hotel room with two sex workers in 2013. Trump has denied the allegations. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump shake hands during a bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka last year FacebookTwitterPinterest Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump shake hands during a bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka last year. Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters It is unclear how much of Steele’s testimony and the information he provided is reflected in the Russia report. The document has a public section and a classified annexe. Some of those who have read it hint that its public part is discursive and does not include recommendations. It is expected to say there is no evidence of any successful interference by Russia in recent British elections, but will highlight a surprising lack of coordination across Whitehall to examine what Moscow has been attempting to achieve. In his memo to MPs, Steele also argues that Russia under Putin has become a “powerful rogue state”. A lack of pushback from the UK and others has emboldened its bad behaviour, he writes. This trajectory was not inevitable and, he says, has been driven by a “corrupt political elite” fearful of regime change and seeking to protect its “ill-gotten” wealth. He cites seven “paradigm shift” moments that have surprised and wrong-footed successive western governments. They include the breakup of the oil company Yukos, the poisonings of Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal, and the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. He also mentions Russian election meddling, in particular during the 2016 US presidential vote. In each case the west’s response was limited. Moscow perceives this as “weakness”, he writes. According to Steele, Putin and his associates have a particular “love-hate” obsession with Britain. Vast amounts of “illegitimate” wealth is hidden in the UK; at the same time London is home to an influential émigré community, which the Kremlin views with suspicion. Putin wanted to embarrass and humiliate the UK in order to “cow” other countries and to further his corrupt and amoral agenda, the ISC was told. Over the years, Russia’s elite has established a powerful presence in London, the committee heard, thanks to lavish expenditure and investment. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and lobbyists have all helped oligarchs penetrate “British political and business life”. Not all of these London firms are “bad actors”, Steele says, but many are party to “corrupt and destabilising forces” emanating from the Kremlin. “This gradual and more subtle erosion of our norms and politics, including our political parties, poses a significant threat,” he told the MPs. In Steele’s analysis, Putin always had malign intentions but lacked the resources to follow through. Russia under Putin now represents potentially a greater threat to the UK and its way of life than terrorism, the MPs heard. “No terrorist group has to date successfully deployed a weapon of mass destruction, either nuclear or chemical, in the UK. Russia has deployed both,” Steele points out, adding: “If not effectively deterred going forward, clearly Putin’s regime will stop at little to achieve its objectives.” Topics