DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn

ace's n 8's · Aug 7, 2020

stumbler said: ↑

Oh its Joe and Hunter Biden who are the crooks.

Feds seizing allegedly laundered assets from Ukrainian oligarch Giuliani asked for Biden dirt

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/fe...inian-oligarch-giuliani-asked-for-biden-dirt/
Click to expand...

So.

ace's n 8's · Aug 7, 2020

stumbler said: ↑

Oh its Joe and Hunter Biden who are the crooks.

Feds seizing allegedly laundered assets from Ukrainian oligarch Giuliani asked for Biden dirt

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/fe...inian-oligarch-giuliani-asked-for-biden-dirt/
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets talk about some ''connections'' huh?...Ihor Kolomoisky....

After former president Barack Obama made then-Vice President Joe Biden his “point man” in Ukraine, the Veep sent $3 billion in aid to Ukraine, and Burisma Holdings—where his son Hunter sat on the board—was implicated in the disappearance of $1.8 billion of that money.

The Feb. 18, 2016 alert to Ukraine came from the Latvian prosecutorial agency responsible for investigating money laundering, and it specifically questioned whether Vice President Joe Biden’s younger son and three other officials at Burisma Holdings were the potential beneficiaries of suspect funds.

“The Office for Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity … is currently investigating suspicious activity of Burisma Holdings Limited,” the Latvian agency also known as the FIU wrote Ukraine’s financial authorities.

The letter identified “a series of loan payments totaling about $16.6 million that were routed from companies in Belize and the United Kingdom to Burisma” through Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank between 2012 and 2015.

The flagged funds were “partially transferred” to Hunter Biden, a board member at Burisma since May 2014, and three other officials working for the Ukrainian natural gas company, the Latvian memo said.

The letter asked Ukrainian officials for any evidence about whether the funds were involved in corruption and whether Ukrainian officials were investigating Burisma and the recipients of the money.

The U.S. State Department placed Kolomoisky on a visa ban list prohibiting him from entering the country due to allegations that he had ordered murders and beheadings.

ace's n 8's · Aug 7, 2020

Senate Judiciary Committee grills fmr. Deputy AG Sally Yates

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates took the hot seat on Capitol Hill where she was grilled by GOP lawmakers. She made a video appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to answer questions on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which is better known as the Russia probe.

Yates continued to deny allegations that Obama-era White House was investigating then-president-elect Donald Trump and his advisers after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pressed her on a suspicious meeting former President Obama had with then FBI Director James Comey.

“That meeting was not about an investigation at all and I can tell you that is something that would have crossed the line,” said Yates. “And if President Obama or Vice President Biden or National Security Advisor Rice was in anyway trying to influence an investigation, that would have set off alarms for me.”

Senators were suspicious of why former President Obama seemed to know about Michael Flynn’s conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak before she did. Yates said the purpose of that meeting was to find out if the transition team needed to be careful about sharing sensitive information with Flynn.

Yates also later claimed that Comey did not consult with her beforehand and “went rouge” when he met with the president as well as when he had the FBI interview Flynn. That interview was what initially led to Flynn pleading guilty.

She then pivoted to defend the charges against Flynn by saying there was evidence that warranted the Obama administration’s skepticism of him. She referenced his alleged conversation with Kislyak.

However, Senate Judiciary chairman Lindsey Graham (R) maintained that, instead, Yates took issue with Flynn’s desire to change policy regarding Russia. He insisted the general was prosecuted based on politics.

“You didn’t like Flynn changing the policy or talking about changing the policy,” said Graham. “He had every right to do that and what we’re doing here is we’re criminalizing policy differences, that’s why Flynn got prosecuted because they hate his guts.”

stumbler · Aug 11, 2020

Sally Yates coolly destroys Trump’s phony ‘treason’ conspiracy

History matters, especially when an unscrupulous president constantly seeks to revise and distort fundamental facts as events unfold. This week, a courageous law enforcement official stepped forward to correct the record at last, and under oath.

Over the past two years, as the Russia and Ukraine investigations unfolded, President Donald Trump has tried repeatedly to turn the expanding indictment of his own criminal misconduct into a case against his political adversaries. “Treason!” he tweets every few days, punctuating his outlandish claim that the investigations of sleazy and potentially unlawful behavior by him, members of his family, his campaign aides and his appointees represented a nefarious “deep state” conspiracy.

Although Trump himself lacks any capacity to articulate these absurdities — let alone prove them — the usual suspects at Fox News Channel and on Capitol Hill have spent many hours fabricating a narrative (while occasionally fabricating “proof,” too). They claim that the original investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia was illegitimate, as was the stunning indictment of national security adviser Michael Flynn during the new administration’s early days.

Republican lawmakers have promoted those same themes to deflect attention from the Trump administration’s offenses and failures, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), perverting the Senate Judiciary Committee he chairs for that purpose. In his zeal to promote conspiracy theories, however, Graham made the mistake of calling former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to testify on Wednesday.

Yates, who also served as acting attorney general, turned out to be a devastating witness whose sworn account coolly debunked the Trumpian fantasies on every point.

In countless tweets, Trump has accused former President Barack Obama of “spying” on him and his associates both during and after the election. It’s the greatest scandal in American history, worse than Watergate, et cetera, et cetera! But Yates pointed out that neither Trump nor any of his aides was ever wiretapped or surveilled. Instead, the Justice Department was conducting a counterintelligence operation that targeted Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

That was how the FBI discovered and recorded Flynn’s perfidious contacts with the Kremlin.

What Yates and her fellow prosecutors learned from those recordings was that the former general (once famously entertained by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself) had undermined U.S. sanctions imposed after Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election. Those same recordings later showed that Flynn had deceived Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his contacts with Russia. She testified that the probe continued because of the revelations about Flynn’s subversion.

There was no attempt by the Obama administration — including then-Vice President Joe Biden — to direct the investigation to harm Trump or his incoming administration, she said. There was no effort to interfere with Trump’s campaign using a falsified intelligence warrant. Such claims barely merit discussion, since it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not Donald Trump’s, that was undone by the public revelations about an FBI investigation.

Having established the basic facts, Yates bluntly rebuked the machinations by Attorney General William Barr to protect Flynn from the consequences of his acts — which have enraged and embarrassed nearly every lawyer who ever served the United States. She contradicted Barr’s weak claims exonerating Flynn of lying to the FBI, which the attorney general used to dismiss his guilty plea. And Yates didn’t hesitate to point out the terrible consequences for the integrity of the justice system when the highest law enforcement officer uses his power to rescue the president’s guilty accomplices.

Covering Yates’ testimony, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin described Sally Yates as a straight professional, free of partisan taint — in short, the opposite of the badly bent Bill Barr. When Trump and Barr and their ilk are at last gone, it will be figures of integrity like Yates who restore the rule of law and repair the depredations of this regime.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Click to expand...

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/08/sally-yates-coolly-destroys-trumps-phony-treason-conspiracy/

stumbler · Aug 31, 2020

CS natureboy said: ↑

The criminals in the FBI need to be held accountable. I hope those involved in this case get long prison sentences.

DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

K.T. McFarland tells Brian Kilmeade it was more than just Peter Strzok who was involved in taking down General Flynn. 'It had to be multi-agency,' McFarland says.

The Justice Department on Thursday moved to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in a stunning development that comes after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI.

The announcement came in a court filing "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information," as the department put it. DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis."

Later Thursday afternoon, Flynn tweeted a video of his grandson reciting The Pledge of Allegiance, along with the message, "and JUSTICE for ALL."

General Flynn

✔@GenFlynn

The federal judge overseeing the case would have to make the final determination to dismiss it.

The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case and conduct. But, the case has been plodding through the court system with no resolution ever since his original plea, even amid speculation about whether President Trump himself could extend a pardon.

The DOJ move to dismiss the case would appear to put an end to that process.

Earlier Thursday, the top prosecutor on the case, Brandon Van Grack, abruptly withdrew from the case, without explanation, in a brief filing with the court.

Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be reconsidered. Documents unsealed a week ago by the Justice Department revealed agents discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he pleaded guilty.

The latest DOJ filing noted Flynn's false statement plea pertained to a crime that required a statement "to be not simply false, but 'materially' false with respect to a matter under investigation." The filing showed that the government "is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn's statements were material even if untrue."

Video
The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended dropping the case to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

"Through the course of my review of General Flynn's case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case," Jensen said in a statement. "I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed."

President Trump reacted from the Oval Office just minutes after the DOJ filing surfaced. "He was an innocent man... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said, while criticizing Obama administration officials. "They're human scum. ... It’s treason."

Trump critics decried the decision Thursday.

Former FBI Director James Comey tweeted: "The DOJ has lost its way."

And House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who was a key figure during Trump's impeachment proceedings, called the decision "outrageous."

"The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement, while urging an inspector general investigation.

Meanwhile, the DOJ on Wednesday released a mostly unredacted version of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s August 2017 "scope memo," outlining the authority then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller had for his investigation. That document revealed for the first time that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was known previously.

Rosenstein's memo was known to have authorized Mueller to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," and "any other matters within the scope of [obstruction of justice laws]."

But, the new document made clear that Rosenstein authorized a deep-dive criminal probe into the Trump campaign that extended well beyond Russian interference efforts.

Video
The memo revealed that Mueller was, among other things, looking into whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition."

That was an apparent reference to the Logan Act, an obscure statute that has never been used in a criminal prosecution successfully and was intended to prevent individuals from claiming falsely to represent the United States government abroad.

Meanwhile, the handwritten notes showing agents discussing his interview – which the FBI's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap penned after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – sparked even bigger reverberations for the case.

The notes, released last week, showed agents considered various options in the run-up to the fateful January 2017 interview, including getting Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

"What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

Another note read, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide." The memo appeared to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths, while cautioning: "If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious."

Aside from swiftly being ensnared in Mueller's investigation in the fallout from that interview, Flynn was fired from his prominent post as national security adviser in February 2017. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak.

Flynn's communications with Kislyak in December 2016 had been picked up in wiretapped discussions, apparently unbeknownst to him. The FBI agents in January 2017 questioned him on the communications and later used his answers to form the basis for the false-statement charge and his guilty plea.

Flynn's supporters have insisted he was innocent but was pressured to plead guilty when his son was threatened with prosecution and he exhausted his financial resources. The release of the handwritten FBI notes fueled accusations from Flynn's defenders that agents did not conduct themselves properly in the case.

Meanwhile, the Rosenstein scope memo further authorized a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) review into Flynn's dealings with Turkey. Prosecutors have suggested Flynn's guilty plea on one count of false statements to the FBI allowed him to escape liability for a possible FARA charge – in other words, the FARA case may have provided leverage.

FARA prosecutions have picked up dramatically in recent years, and prosecutor Van Grack, who led the DOJ's case against Flynn, was appointed to head up the new FARA unit at the Justice Department in 2019.

Van Grack has been under scrutiny for claiming to a federal court that he had turned over all relevant exculpatory informing involving Flynn – even though a slew of "exculpatory" documents surfaced last week.

The case has come at an enormous cost for the retired three-star Army lieutenant general and his family, as he racked up millions of dollars in legal bills, was forced to sell his house, lost his job and saw his reputation sullied.

Attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News last week that Flynn paid his first law firm, Covington & Burling, approximately $3.5 million. The total amount of Flynn’s legal bills was unclear, but reports suggested last year that he had more than $4.6 million in unpaid legal bills at that time.

Flynn earlier this year moved to withdraw his guilty plea for making false statements to the FBI regarding his communications with Kislyak. His legal team, at the time, said the move was "because of the government's bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement."

In December 2017, and on the brink of financial ruin, Flynn was forced to put his home in Old Town Alexandria, Va. – located just outside Washington ,D.C. – on the market with an asking price of $895,000 to pay his mounting legal bills.

The townhouse sold for $819,995 in September 2018, Zillow showed. Powell confirmed the sale of the house to Fox News.
Click to expand...

Yeah not so fast.

Appeals Court Rejects Flynn Bid To Force Judge To End Criminal Case, No Questions Asked

Michael Flynn cannot force a federal judge to agree to drop criminal charges against the former national security adviser, a full panel of the D.C. appeals court ruled on Monday.

The ruling means that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia can proceed in examining why the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of dropping its criminal case against Flynn, after Flynn had pleaded guilty and then sought to withdraw his plea.

In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit said that Flynn’s request for an intervention came prematurely, because Sullivan had not yet ruled on the DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn’s case.

“Petitioner has not cited any case in which our Court, or any court, issued the writ to compel a district court to decide an undecided motion in a particular way—i.e., when the district court might yet decide the motion in that way on its own,” the opinion said.

It said that Flynn would suffer no “extraordinary harm” by waiting until Sullivan formally acted on the dismissal request, at which point he could appeal a hypothetical ruling denying the dismissal.

The fallout from the Justice Department’s May decision to walk away from Flynn’s prosecution has been extraordinary and unprecedented. Rather than immediately grant the DOJ dismissal request, Sullivan indicated that he would be considering the advice of outside parties on what he should do next and had even asked that a retired judge file so called “friend of the court” briefings opposing the DOJ request.

The latest appeals court order is a reversal of the intervention a three-judge appellate panel made in the case earlier this summer, when it commanded that Sullivan immediately dismiss that case. The full appeals court had already blocked that order, in an early indication that it was skeptical of the move to intervene in the district court proceedings at this time.

The two appeals court judges — both GOP appointees — who had initially ordered Flynn’s case dismissed dissented from Monday’s decision, while another GOP-appointed appellate judge, Thomas Griffith, filed a concurring opinion. Judge Greg Katsas, who previously worked in Trump’s White House, did not participate in the decision.

In Monday’s opinion, the en banc court squarely rejected the panel’s rationale for ordering that Sullivan dismiss the case.

“t is simply not the case that the Executive will be irreparably harmed by the procedures ordered by the District Court such that mandamus should issue to forestall them,” the full appeals court said.

The Justice Department had expressed fear that Sullivan would use the proceedings to elicit affidavits or other testimony that could expose how the Trump administration reached its decision to seek to drop charges against Flynn.

The appeals court said that “those harms are speculative and may never come to pass.”

Monday’s opinion also emphasized that Flynn and the DOJ had raised concerns to the appeals court about Sullivan’s handling of the case without first raising those issues to Sullivan himself

Click to expand...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...judge-to-end-criminal-case-no-questions-asked

stumbler · Sep 24, 2020

Federal Judge Hands Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe a Big Procedural Win Against Bill Barr

Fired FBI Deputy Director-turned-CNN contributor Andrew McCabe got some good news on Thursday from the federal judge presiding over his lawsuit against the DOJ: Attorney General Bill Barr’s motion to dismiss was denied.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, said that he would set a schedule for * discovery and further proceedings in McCabe’s lawsuit against DOJ, which alleges that McCabe was “unlawfully demoted” and fired for political reasons in violation of his constitutional rights.

McCabe, the judge noted, argued he was demoted as Deputy Director of the FBI in Jan. 2018 and then “fired from his career civil service position in March 2018—on the night of his planned retirement.” McCabe maintained that this decision was “based on his perceived political affiliation, decision not to vote for then-candidate Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and unwillingness to pledge his personal loyalty to President Trump”—a violation of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.

The DOJ argued, among other things, that McCabe was not fired for political reasons, but because he lied under oath when he said he didn’t authorize and didn’t know who authorized the disclosure of the Clinton Foundation investigation to the press.

Here’s how the court summarized the DOJ’s claims:

In Defendants’ view, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory claims, while his constitutional claims fail on both the law and the facts. Most significantly, Defendants contend that Plaintiff was not fired because of his perceived political affiliation, vote in the 2016 presidential election, or refusal to pledge personal loyalty to the President but because he lacked candor (including under oath) in an investigation conducted by the FBI’s Inspection Division and the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General. Dkt. 23 at 13–18.

Judge Moss said that there were a couple of reasons why Barr’s motion to dismiss should be denied. He said DOJ’s arguments were “premised on a misunderstanding of the claims that Plaintiff asserts (and does not assert)” and that the “remainder of the motion turns on disputed questions of fact that the Court cannot resolve at this stage of the proceeding.”

“In short, it is too early in the case to determine which, if either, of the parties’ competing versions of the relevant facts is correct,” the judge said, allowing the case to move forward to discovery.

McCabe focused heavily in the lawsuit on President Donald Trump’s negative tweets about him. The judge decided discovery was needed in order to determine whether then-Attorney General ** Jeff Sessions was motivated by political pressure—applied by the president—to punish McCabe:

Without providing some opportunity for discovery, however, the Court cannot foreclose the possibility that Attorney General Sessions felt overwhelming pressure from President Trump to take punitive action against Plaintiff (based on the President’s belief regarding Plaintiff’s political affiliation and personal loyalty) and that, to avoid angering or disappointing the President, he fired Plaintiff late on a Friday night before Plaintiff could voluntarily retire and receive all of his accrued benefits.

“Defendants might ultimately show that the Attorney General was not swayed by the President’s tweets and comments, but Plaintiff is entitled to test his claim of improper influence through discovery and the usual rules of civil litigation,” the judge ruled.

Read the opinion and order below:
Click to expand...

*That is the whole key right there. All McCabe and his attorneys have really wanted to do is get to discovery so they can start putting people under oath and subpoena documents and records. And they will probably have a field day.

**Gee I wonder how much Jeff Sessions will be willing to protect Trump after he ended his political career?

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/fed...ccabe-a-big-procedural-win-against-bill-barr/

stumbler · Sep 29, 2020

Peter Strzok’s Lawyer Sends Letter to Judge in Michael Flynn Case: Flynn’s Lawyers Filed ‘Altered’ Notes and Irrelevant Texts

Fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, fresh off of a procedural win against the Department of Justice in a lawsuit over the release of his text messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, has through his lawyer inserted himself into the never-ending Michael Flynn case.

In a letter on Monday to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman took issue with exhibits that Flynn’s lawyers filed as a supplement to their stance that the criminal case against Flynn should be dismissed. Those documents, which again included Strzok’s texts, also included Strzok’s notes. According to Goelman, “some” of Strzok’s notes “appear to have been altered.”

“On at least two occasions, there were handwritten additions, not written by Mr. Strzok, inserting dates, apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written,” Goelman began. “On at least one occasion, the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did.”

“I’m attaching to this letter a copy of these two pages of notes, with highlighting to indicate the handwritten notations that Mr. Strzok did not write,” the letter went on.
“I also note that the texts of Mr. Strzok’s that were attached to the defendant’s pleadings include portions that had not previously been released and have nothing to do with the Flynn case or, more broadly, with the Department of Justice.”

Goelman ended by saying Flynn’s filing “appears to violate the Court’s Order not to file any additional supplements to pending motions until the governments ‘Brady‘ production is complete.”

These were the documents Goelman highlighted:

On Sept. 24, Flynn’s lawyers Sidney Powell and Jesse Binnall filed the documents in question, claiming that they were evidence of “outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national hero.” Per that filing:

Late last night, the Government produced yet another tranche of documents—its fifth production of exculpatory evidence since April of 2020, and its third since filing its massive Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 198, 231, 237. According to the Government’s production correspondence:“The documents include handwritten notes of former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok (23501 & 23503) and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (23502); and internal text messages between FBI analysts who worked on the Flynn matter (23504- 23516); . . . additional text messages between former DAD Strzok and Lisa Page (23516-23540).” The 41 pages of additional evidence demonstrate (i) his innocence; (ii) the absence of any crime; (iii) government misconduct in the investigation of General Flynn; and (iv) continuing prosecutorial misconduct in the suppression of evidence favorable to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland and this Court’s Brady order. ECF No. 20.

These documents provide information long known to the agents and others at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI; information long concealed by the Special Counsel and FBI. This evidence shows outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national hero. It negates multiple essential elements required for the prosecution of a false statement offense and any “offense” even considered in relationship to Flynn Intel Group’s review of open source information regarding Fethullah Gulen and the Muslim Brotherhood.

You can read the Strzok exhibits below:
Click to expand...

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ers-filed-altered-notes-and-irrelevant-texts/

stumbler · Oct 15, 2020

36-year DOJ veteran resigns in protest over Bill Barr’s ‘slavish obedience’ to Trump

An attorney who has served in the United States Department of Justice for the past 36 years is now resigning in protest over what he calls Attorney General Bill Barr’s “slavish obedience” to President Donald Trump.

Phillip Halpern, who until recently spent decades working at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego, writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune that he’s now “fleeing” the DOJ after having served “19 different attorneys general and six different presidents.”

The chief reason, he says, is the way that Barr has turned the DOJ into the president’s personal law firm that gives preferential treatment to his allies.

“Over the last year, Barr’s resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will in his selective meddling with the criminal justice system in the Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone cases,” he writes. “In each of these cases, Barr overruled career prosecutors in order to assist the president’s associates and/or friends, who potentially harbor incriminating information.”

He also hammered Barr for parroting the president’s baseless conspiracy theories about mail-in voting.

“This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy,” he writes. “There is no other honest explanation for Barr’s parroting of the president’s wild and unsupported conspiracy theories regarding mail-in ballots.”

Read the entire editorial here.
Click to expand...

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/36...t-over-bill-barrs-slavish-obedience-to-trump/

latecomer91364 · Oct 16, 2020

Hahaha...

And again... sooooooo what?
Would that be the DOJ that is still rife with Deep State Trump haters?
This jerkoff's opinion means nothing - and neither does the ex-DOJ guy's.

shootersa · Oct 16, 2020

You notice how many former government employees criticize this administration?

Kinda like digruntled fired employees getting on glassdoor and bitching about their former employers.

latecomer91364 · Oct 16, 2020

Pissed off swamp rats

thinskin · Oct 16, 2020

shootersa said: ↑

You notice how many former government employees criticize this administration?

Kinda like digruntled fired employees getting on glassdoor and bitching about their former employers.
Click to expand...

On the other hand you could say this guy has served six different administrations but only this one caused him to resign.

Thirty six years service suggests no reason to resign other than his disappointment or perhaps corruption.

Instead you belittle and bemoan like the sad little shitter that you are!

An alternate hypothesis.

Thinskin

shootersa · Oct 16, 2020

36 years?
That would make him at least 66 years old, retirement age.

Parting shot from a disgruntled butt hurt despicable is what it sounds like.

Not that it much matters what this guy thinks. Certainly, no more valued an opinion than anyone else's.

stumbler · Oct 28, 2020

That's another thing Trump holds the record for. Disgruntled employees. Which is what he calls anyone who reveals his corruption. There has been more of those come out against Trump than any other president in US history.

DOJ faces new questions about accuracy of Flynn filings

The Justice Department is already facing sharp questions from a judge about altering sensitive documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Now, two lawyers connected to the case say DOJ has made new mischaracterizations in its attempt to clean up the mess.

The department claimed late Monday that it had consulted with lawyers for former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and former FBI agent Peter Strzok and confirmed that two sets of handwritten notes — key evidence in Flynn’s case — were valid and free of any alterations.

But correspondence between the two attorneys and DOJ reveal that neither vouched for the accuracy of the documents. In fact, McCabe's lawyer Michael Bromwich and Strzok's lawyer Aitan Goelman affirmatively refused to do so, according to a review of their email exchanges with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jocelyn Ballantine.

Instead, Bromwich explicitly declined to cooperate, citing disagreement with the Justice Department's efforts to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn. And Goelman said he could not vouch for the documents without more time.

"We are unable to certify the authenticity of all of the attachments or the accuracy of the transcriptions," Goelman wrote to Ballantine Sunday afternoon. "To do so, we would need both more time and access to the original notes, particularly given that U.S. Attorney Jensen’s team has already been caught altering Pete’s notes in two instances."

Yet in DOJ's filing, Ballantine said both attorneys had "confirmed" the accuracy of the notes taken by McCabe and Strzok.

"The government reiterates, however, that the content of those exhibits was not altered in any way, as confirmed by attorneys for both former FBI employees," Ballantine wrote in the filing, which was submitted just before a midnight deadline.

The discrepancy between Ballantine’s assertion and the two lawyers’ claims is significant. The judge, Emmet Sullivan of the federal district court in Washington D.C., has already raised loud alarms about the credibility of the Justice Department's earlier filings in its attempt to drop the case against Flynn. Sullivan is weighing whether to dismiss the case — which Trump himself has loudly demanded for months — or to take the rare step of rejecting DOJ’s dismissal and potentially sentencing Flynn to prison.

The notes in question relate to internal FBI discussions about the case against Flynn.

Strzok’s notes describe a Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting in which President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and top national security officials discussed the Flynn case. But an alteration made by DOJ — which the department described as inadvertent — indicated erroneously the notes might have been taken on Jan. 4, an error that lined up with a false attack Trump lodged against Biden during the first presidential debate.

McCabe’s notes, which are undated but which were altered to indicate falsely that McCabe briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 10, 2017, generally described the status of the Flynn case at the time.

In an email to POLITICO on Monday, Bromwich confirmed he did not vouch for the accuracy of the notes filed by DOJ.

"I did not verify the content of Mr. McCabe's notes," he said. "We specifically declined to provide any assistance to the government because we view its conduct in the Flynn matter as shameful and reprehensible."

DOJ’s late-Thursday filing was the result of Sullivan's demand the department verify that all of the exhibits it has submitted to support dropping the case were accurate and unaltered. Sullivan made this demand after learning from Strzok and McCabe's lawyers that their clients' notes had previously been altered to include dates — in Strzok's case a verifiably inaccurate one — that were not part of the original notes.

During a hearing last month, Sullivan told attorneys for DOJ and Flynn that he was "floored" by the revelation of the added dates, and last week he ordered DOJ to itemize and certify the accuracy of all of its other evidence, and to verify that no other alterations were made to the Strzok and McCabe documents. Those certifications were due by midnight Monday.

The discrepancy over whether Bromwich had verified McCabe's notes was first identified by national security writer Marcy Wheeler. The U.S. Attorney's office for Washington D.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ballantine reached out to Bromwich on Sunday at 4 p.m., according to the email correspondence, to ask whether McCabe's handwritten notes were accurate in all respects other than the previously misapplied date. Bromwich replied that he had consulted with McCabe and that they opted not to participate in DOJ's efforts to drop the charge against Flynn.

Goelman, Strzok's attorney, declined to comment on the matter but shared correspondence with Ballantine as well.

As with Bromwich, Ballantine reached out at 4 p.m. on Sunday. Goelman responded on Monday declining to cooperate and to indicate that another exhibit appeared to be mislabeled. He also objected to DOJ's characterization of one of Strzok's text messages during oral arguments before Sullivan last month. When Ballantine asked him to characterize whether another document in the case — a set of notes chronicling the FBI's Jan. 24, 2017 interview of Flynn — was attributable to Strzok and FBI agent Joe Pientka, Goelman replied, "They appear to be."

It's unclear whether Sullivan will be made aware of the additional discrepancies. Strzok flagged them on Twitter earlier Tuesday afternoon. But the issue arises amid DOJ's five-month-old effort to dismiss its case against Flynn, an abrupt reversal that occurred amid a review of the case ordered by Attorney General William Barr in January.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying about his contacts with Russia's U.S. ambassador in the weeks leading up to Trump's inauguration. The outgoing Obama administration had just leveled sanctions at Russia for interference in the 2016 election, and Flynn had urged the ambassador to convey to the Kremlin not to escalate the situation — to which Russia ultimately agreed.

But Flynn told FBI agents who interviewed him in January 2017 that he didn't recall discussing sanctions with the ambassador. Flynn was preparing for sentencing in December 2018 when Sullivan offered him an opportunity to complete his cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller and other prosecutors. Shortly after that hearing, Flynn replaced his legal team with Sidney Powell, an anti-Mueller firebrand, and soon sought to unravel his guilty plea, accusing the FBI and DOJ of "egregious misconduct in the case. DOJ's decision to dismiss the charge accelerated that effort.

Rather than acquiescing, Sullivan appointed an outside adviser to review DOJ's decision to dismiss the case. The adviser, former judge John Gleeson, accused the department of seeking to protect a political ally of the president under the thinly veiled pretense of FBI misconduct.

Sullivan heard arguments from Gleeson, Flynn and DOJ late last month and was weighing the matter when he made the demand for DOJ to certify its evidence.

In the rest of Thursday’s filing, which was lodged on the court docket at 11:42 p.m. on Oct. 26 by Ballantine, DOJ includes sworn affidavits from current FBI and DOJ personnel asserting that the bulk of the exhibits were “true and correct” copies of the original documents, and contained no alterations beyond the ones previously identified.
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-faces-questions-accuracy-flynn-193902814.html

stumbler · Nov 25, 2020

CS natureboy said: ↑

The criminals in the FBI need to be held accountable. I hope those involved in this case get long prison sentences.

DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

K.T. McFarland tells Brian Kilmeade it was more than just Peter Strzok who was involved in taking down General Flynn. 'It had to be multi-agency,' McFarland says.

The Justice Department on Thursday moved to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in a stunning development that comes after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI.

The announcement came in a court filing "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information," as the department put it. DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis."

Later Thursday afternoon, Flynn tweeted a video of his grandson reciting The Pledge of Allegiance, along with the message, "and JUSTICE for ALL."

General Flynn

✔@GenFlynn

The federal judge overseeing the case would have to make the final determination to dismiss it.

The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case and conduct. But, the case has been plodding through the court system with no resolution ever since his original plea, even amid speculation about whether President Trump himself could extend a pardon.

The DOJ move to dismiss the case would appear to put an end to that process.

Earlier Thursday, the top prosecutor on the case, Brandon Van Grack, abruptly withdrew from the case, without explanation, in a brief filing with the court.

Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be reconsidered. Documents unsealed a week ago by the Justice Department revealed agents discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he pleaded guilty.

The latest DOJ filing noted Flynn's false statement plea pertained to a crime that required a statement "to be not simply false, but 'materially' false with respect to a matter under investigation." The filing showed that the government "is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn's statements were material even if untrue."

Video
The U.S. attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended dropping the case to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

"Through the course of my review of General Flynn's case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case," Jensen said in a statement. "I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed."

President Trump reacted from the Oval Office just minutes after the DOJ filing surfaced. "He was an innocent man... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said, while criticizing Obama administration officials. "They're human scum. ... It’s treason."

Trump critics decried the decision Thursday.

Former FBI Director James Comey tweeted: "The DOJ has lost its way."

And House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who was a key figure during Trump's impeachment proceedings, called the decision "outrageous."

"The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement, while urging an inspector general investigation.

Meanwhile, the DOJ on Wednesday released a mostly unredacted version of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s August 2017 "scope memo," outlining the authority then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller had for his investigation. That document revealed for the first time that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was known previously.

Rosenstein's memo was known to have authorized Mueller to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," and "any other matters within the scope of [obstruction of justice laws]."

But, the new document made clear that Rosenstein authorized a deep-dive criminal probe into the Trump campaign that extended well beyond Russian interference efforts.

Video
The memo revealed that Mueller was, among other things, looking into whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition."

That was an apparent reference to the Logan Act, an obscure statute that has never been used in a criminal prosecution successfully and was intended to prevent individuals from claiming falsely to represent the United States government abroad.

Meanwhile, the handwritten notes showing agents discussing his interview – which the FBI's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap penned after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – sparked even bigger reverberations for the case.

The notes, released last week, showed agents considered various options in the run-up to the fateful January 2017 interview, including getting Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

"What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

Another note read, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide." The memo appeared to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths, while cautioning: "If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious."

Aside from swiftly being ensnared in Mueller's investigation in the fallout from that interview, Flynn was fired from his prominent post as national security adviser in February 2017. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak.

Flynn's communications with Kislyak in December 2016 had been picked up in wiretapped discussions, apparently unbeknownst to him. The FBI agents in January 2017 questioned him on the communications and later used his answers to form the basis for the false-statement charge and his guilty plea.

Flynn's supporters have insisted he was innocent but was pressured to plead guilty when his son was threatened with prosecution and he exhausted his financial resources. The release of the handwritten FBI notes fueled accusations from Flynn's defenders that agents did not conduct themselves properly in the case.

Meanwhile, the Rosenstein scope memo further authorized a Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) review into Flynn's dealings with Turkey. Prosecutors have suggested Flynn's guilty plea on one count of false statements to the FBI allowed him to escape liability for a possible FARA charge – in other words, the FARA case may have provided leverage.

FARA prosecutions have picked up dramatically in recent years, and prosecutor Van Grack, who led the DOJ's case against Flynn, was appointed to head up the new FARA unit at the Justice Department in 2019.

Van Grack has been under scrutiny for claiming to a federal court that he had turned over all relevant exculpatory informing involving Flynn – even though a slew of "exculpatory" documents surfaced last week.

The case has come at an enormous cost for the retired three-star Army lieutenant general and his family, as he racked up millions of dollars in legal bills, was forced to sell his house, lost his job and saw his reputation sullied.

Attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News last week that Flynn paid his first law firm, Covington & Burling, approximately $3.5 million. The total amount of Flynn’s legal bills was unclear, but reports suggested last year that he had more than $4.6 million in unpaid legal bills at that time.

Flynn earlier this year moved to withdraw his guilty plea for making false statements to the FBI regarding his communications with Kislyak. His legal team, at the time, said the move was "because of the government's bad faith, vindictiveness and breach of the plea agreement."

In December 2017, and on the brink of financial ruin, Flynn was forced to put his home in Old Town Alexandria, Va. – located just outside Washington ,D.C. – on the market with an asking price of $895,000 to pay his mounting legal bills.

The townhouse sold for $819,995 in September 2018, Zillow showed. Powell confirmed the sale of the house to Fox News.
Click to expand...

shootersa said: ↑

Butt hurt despicables would be best served if they let this one slide.
They got nailed weaponizing and politicizing the FBI and DOJ.
Best just to walk away now. Pressing a bad position will not end well for them.
Click to expand...

So hows this going after six months. Is Flynn a free man yet?

CS natureboy said: ↑

Bill Barr Blasts FBI ‘Perjury Trap’ of Flynn, Hints More Coming on the ‘Whole Pattern of Conduct’
Posted at 12:30 pm on May 8, 2020 by Nick Arama

Attorney General William Barr appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to make his Justice Department budget request, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

With the decision by the DOJ to drop the charges against Gen. Michael Flynn, he knew that he would again be attacked and vilified by the left, but he is focused on doing the right thing and isn’t allowing the flak to dissuade him.

He gave an interview to another professional, Catherine Herridge at CBS, to talk about the Flynn decision and hinted that there might be more to come.

Barr said he came back to the job that he held previously because he wanted to ensure that one standard of justice was restored for all.

From CBS

Well, as I said in my confirmation hearing, one of the reasons I came back is because I was concerned that people were feeling there were two standards of justice in this country. And that the political and that the justice, or the law enforcement process was being used to play political games. And I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.

He said that he was not doing the President’s bidding but “doing the law’s bidding” and had not spoken with the President about the decision.

Barr explained that the call with the Russian ambassador was perfectly normal, that as the incoming National Security Advisor, it’s something that would be done and that the FBI knew there was nothing improper in the call because they had a transcript of the call. So the only reason to try to investigate the call would be to set a “perjury trap.”

I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it.

And that when they heard about the phone call, which is – the FBI had the transcripts too – there’s no question as to what was discussed. The FBI knew exactly what was discussed. And General Flynn, being the former director of the DIA, said to them, you know, “You listen, you listen to everything. You know, you know what was said.”

So there was no mystery about the call. But they initially tried some theories of how they could open another investigation, which didn’t fly. And then they found out that they had not technically closed the earlier investigation. And they kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.

They didn’t warn him, the way we usually would be required by the Department. They bypassed the Justice Department. They bypassed the protocols at the White House and so forth. These were things that persuaded me that there was not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation going on.

He said he was prepared for the flak from the left.

Yeah, I’m prepared for that. I also think it’s sad that nowadays these partisan feelings are so strong that people have lost any sense of justice. And the groups that usually worry about civil liberties and making sure that there’s proper procedures followed and standards set seem to be ignoring it and willing to destroy people’s lives and see great injustices done.

Asked about where he thought some of the impetus to set such a trap came from, he responded “the seventh floor.” Herridge replied that the seventh floor meant the Director at the time, James Comey. To which Barr responded, “Comey and the deputy’s office.”

Barr said he “made clear” he was going to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 and 2017, before and after the election and that included Flynn.

But he hinted that more might be coming in regard to the actions against Flynn and the “whole pattern of conduct.”

That is part of John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham’s portfolio. The reason we had to take this action now and why U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen came in was because it was prompted by the motions that were filed in that case. And so we had to sorta move more quickly on it. But John Durham is still looking at all of this.

This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct. [….]

Well, you know, I don’t wanna, you know, we’re in the middle of looking at all of this. John Durham’s investigation, and U.S. Attorney Jensen, I’m gonna ask him to do some more work on different items as well. And I’m gonna wait till all the evidence is, and I get their recommendations as to what they found and how serious it is.

Click to expand...

And how's this working out for you. How many have been indicted by Barr?

latecomer91364 said: ↑

There are plenty of early indications that land this scandal right in the oval office - Obama's oval office.

This promises to get really really fun.
Click to expand...

How'd those early indications work out for you? Tell us all about the huge scandal that Barr uncovered and all the people he's charged.

shootersa said: ↑

Shooter is getting the sense that despicables are beginning to realize that their people in the FBI and DOJ fucked up, have been uncovered, and all of them are now running for cover like cockroaches uncovered and exposed to daylight.

The despicables around here are standing around going "Well, ............ Well, but hell, they did it first!
Click to expand...

Here there @shootersa tell us all about how the FBI and DOJ fucked up and what all has been exposed. Because if you can't and/or won't I guess that makes you the cockroach running for cover.

So hey all you guys why would Trump do this if the DOJ dropped the charges?

Trump Confides He Plans to Pardon Flynn: Report

President Donald Trump has told people close to him that he plans to pardon former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pled guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Axios reports. Attorney General William Barr and the Justice Department controversially decided to drop all charges against Flynn in May despite the retired Army lieutenant general’s confession. The decision is still under review by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

Read it at Axios
Click to expand...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-confides-he-plans-to-pardon-michael-flynn-report?ref=home

anon_de_plume · Nov 26, 2020

stumbler said: ↑

So hows this going after six months. Is Flynn a free man yet?
Click to expand...

Only after Trump pardoned him...

When does Trump try and pardon himself?

Dearelliot · Nov 26, 2020

I'm wondering Just because Trump pardons himself, couldn't he still be indicted and tried and if he was found guilty sentenced. Just after the trial he walks. Or does a pardon mean you cant be charged or tried for a crime.

anon_de_plume · Nov 26, 2020

Dearelliot said: ↑

I'm wondering Just because Trump pardons himself, couldn't he still be indicted and tried and if he was found guilty sentenced. Just after the trial he walks. Or does a pardon mean you cant be charged or tried for a crime.
Click to expand...

He can only pardon federal offenses. But there is still some question if a president can pardon themselves. If they could, then there is incentive for them to commit crimes without consequences. Not that that has stopped Trump.

But I wouldn't put it past himto resign on the 18th of January, only to have Pence sworn in to pardon him on the 19th, as his one and only act as president.

Funnier still would be if Pence, once president, refused to pardon him, and then undone every executive order!

stumbler · Nov 26, 2020

anon_de_plume said: ↑

Only after Trump pardoned him...

When does Trump try and pardon himself?
Click to expand...

It begs the question if the DOJ was trying to drop the charges and the case was in court why did Trump pardon him when there's like a 90% chance of Flynn walking away a free man? And I am sure the answer is because Flynn saw time running out and didn't want to have to take that 10% so he told Trump if he wants him to remain silent he needs a pardon right now.

Which could be a mistake because now Flynn can be forced to testify and can't plead the 5th.

And the word is Trump definitely intends to try and pardon himself which might not be legal but he will try it anyway.

Dearelliot said: ↑

I'm wondering Just because Trump pardons himself, couldn't he still be indicted and tried and if he was found guilty sentenced. Just after the trial he walks. Or does a pardon mean you cant be charged or tried for a crime.
Click to expand...

It is very debatable if Trump can pardon himself but word from inside the WH is he intends to do it. The pardon only covers federal crimes though so Trump can still be charged, tried, and sentenced in state courts. He can also be charged with any new federal crimes.

However, if Trump tries to pardon himself that will be immediately challenged in court because the pardon(s) amount to obstruction of justice which would make all the pardons of himself and his associates invalid.

ace's n 8's · Nov 26, 2020

anon_de_plume said: ↑

Only after Trump pardoned him...

When does Trump try and pardon himself?
Click to expand...

Trump to pardon himself for what?...

Haven't the leftist already violated every orifice Trump has looking for a crime?...YEPPERS.

Flynn has a full presidential pardon, now the federal fucking government has a big fucking check to cut to Flynn and his family.

Log in or Sign up

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

shootersa Frisky Feline

latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

Dearelliot Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn

Log in or Sign up

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

shootersa Frisky Feline

latecomer91364 Easily Distracte

thinskin Porn Star Banned!

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

Dearelliot Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Useful Searches