Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[TwiceHorn 31291]

Didn't keep up with this.  Interesting.  Thanks for the pxp, JBJ.

So looks like Sullivan was pretty straightforward on exploring all of the options, including dismissing without prejudice, which was an angle I hadn't really considered fully.

[Goodman 3273]

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

If the plan was to keep Flynn out of Trump’s orbit, the job is almost complete. (I don’t count being part of Doug Collins’s Ner-Do-Wells).

 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

1 hour ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

If the plan was to keep Flynn out of Trump’s orbit, the job is almost complete. (I don’t count being part of Doug Collins’s Ner-Do-Wells).

 

Well that certainly looks like a lot of words.  Surly legal types?  Translate please.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

A bunch of the documents supplied to indicate that there was "no investigative basis" for the Flynn interview leading to the "immaterial lies," have redactions, alterations, and other miscellanea.

Sullivan is ordering the government to provide further proof of their accuracy and completeness.

Normally, all you have to do is assert that it is a "true and correct copy" of the document that it purports to be.  That, with the ability of the opponent to raise any valid (or invalid) questions about the authenticity of the documents is usually sufficient safeguard against the court relying on suspicious evidence.

Here, there is no opposition and Sullivan is wary of the government's candor with the court.  He's making them go a little further.

Edited October 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well that certainly looks like a lot of words.  Surly legal types?  Translate please.

I’ll  translate. The judge is pissed and trumps DOJ is lying it’s ass off and the judge knows it. The next step is figuring out who to send to jail for it and the DOJ attorneys are shitting their pants. 

[Captainant 27468]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

A bunch of the documents supplied to indicate that there was "no investigative basis" for the Flynn interview leading to the "immaterial lies," have redactions, alterations, and other miscellanea.

Sullivan is ordering the government to provide further proof of their accuracy and completeness.

Normally, all you have to do is assert that it is a "true and correct copy" of the document that it purports to be.  That, with the ability of the opponent to raise any valid (or invalid) questions about the authenticity of the documents is usually sufficient safeguard against the court relying on suspicious evidence.

Here, there is no opposition and Sullivan is wary of the government's candor with the court.  He's making them go a little further.

Not only that, but Sullivan is saying that since the government's entire argument to dismiss is supported by these allegedly falsified documents - they must supply and individually identify the true and correct documents to the court, along with transcriptions of any handwritten notes for purposes of comparison.

Basically saying the government has to actually show its work and can't rely on the presumption of accuracy of their assertions, because the government has (per their own filings) already supplied the court with inaccurate documents.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Captainant

[Francisco 2.0 32344]

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/23/judge-emmet-sullivan-just-created-four-big-problems-for-doj-in-the-mike-flynn-case/

 

Quote

This is going to create four problems for DOJ.

First, there’s no way they can finish this by Monday. Even if the lawyers on this case were as familiar with these documents as they claimed to be, it would take more than this weekend to transcribe and double check everything. They will likely ask for an extension, one that would extend the order past the election.

 

Quote

Plus, once they do transcribe these documents, it will become crystal clear that parts of the notes — most notably, the Bill Priestap notes they’ve claimed are a smoking gun — in fact confirm that every single witness agreed on the purpose of the January 24, 2017 Mike Flynn interview: to see whether Flynn would lie. By submitting a transcript, then, they will have to admit they’ve misrepresented the substance of the documents.

 

Quote

Then, this order will catch them in their past false claims about the date of (at least) the January 5, 2017 Peter Strzok notes. As I’ve noted, DOJ has submitted several documents in this docket making it clear that Strzok’s notes must have been written on January 5, 2017. Except they falsely claimed not to know. There’s probably no easy way out of this problem.

 

Spoiler

Finally, there is this exhibit, which also had a date added, but a date added via means that cannot have been accidental.

 

It’s possible that that redaction doesn’t cover over an existing date (but my annotation, in red, may show the hash marks of a date). But I don’t see how DOJ can authenticate this, and they’re going to have to tell Sullivan who wrote it, making it really easy for journalists to call up the author and get him to confirm or deny the date.

Notably, after Strzok and McCabe’s gave notice that DOJ had altered their notes, Sidney Powell submitted a demand that Judge Sullivan prevent anyone else from telling him their notes had been altered. So maybe she has exhibits about which she has specific concerns.

The false Strzok claims, by themselves, are going to make a truthful declaration here difficult, if not impossible. But that’s not even the only problem this order will create for DOJ.

 

 

[orangecat92 306]

So, congratulations to Sullivan, he found a way to make this last past the election.  This could be very valuable to his future.  If Biden wins and the left convinces Biden/Harris to add the 4 necessary Supreme Court justices, I expect Sullivan to become a Supreme Court justice.  My questions are now:

1. What does this do to Sidney Powell’s case? Does this give her more grounds for appeal to Supreme Court, or is she stuck as a bystander for now?

2.  Or does Powell appeal to the court between Sullivan and Supreme Court? If so, now or after election?

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31291]

My best guess is that Sullivan will ultimately dismiss but with a scathing opinion that excoriates the government.

But, in answer to your questions, I think she's a spectator for now. 

Any appeal of this will go to the DC Circuit.  In view of their recent reaffirmation of the narrow standard for grant of mandamus relief in this very case, I don't think anyone will be trying that again, unless Sullivan denies the motion to dismiss, and even then it's conceivable that the DC Circuit would say "wait til after sentencing and appeal."

Edited October 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[orangecat92 306]

Thought of another possibility.  Could DOJ show up Monday morning, give Sullivan the middle finger, say we refuse to do what u want, make your ruling, and we will go to a higher court?

[Captainant 27468]

8 minutes ago, orangecat92 said:

Thought of another possibility.  Could DOJ show up Monday morning, give Sullivan the middle finger, say we refuse to do what u want, make your ruling, and we will go to a higher court?

Even if trump loses, they have two more months to ratfuck

[orangecat92 306]

Update ?  

[Bateshorn 9905]

If this goes on long enough, Trump is going to be forced to pardon Flynn, which Flynn is desperate to avoid, because the Pardon doesn’t wipe out the conviction, which would preclude Flynn from ever working in a Nat. Sec. adjacent private job.  

[Francisco 2.0 32344]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/27/justice-department-michael-flynn-filings-432851

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

 

Spoiler

"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.

 

[TwiceHorn 31291]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

If this goes on long enough, Trump is going to be forced to pardon Flynn, which Flynn is desperate to avoid, because the Pardon doesn’t wipe out the conviction, which would preclude Flynn from ever working in a Nat. Sec. adjacent private job.  

Well, if he pardons Flynn before entry of a final judgment of conviction, including a sentence, then arguably he is not convicted.

[The Royal We 3066]

Sooooooo, what happens to these DOJ attorneys if they perjured themselves while attempting to clean up previous perjurious acts?

[Bateshorn 9905]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, if he pardons Flynn before entry of a final judgment of conviction, including a sentence, then arguably he is not convicted.

Can you pardon somebody who hasn’t been convicted of a crime? 

[TwiceHorn 31291]

26 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Sooooooo, what happens to these DOJ attorneys if they perjured themselves while attempting to clean up previous perjurious acts?

Well, they would be subject to some form of sanctions from Sullivan.  Ordinarily, those sanctions might favor the defense, such as payment of attorneys fees, exclusion of evidence, or even dismissal of the indictment.  But since the DOJ attorneys and the defense are on the "same team" for purposes of this motion, none of those are really on the table.

Referrals to the OIG or Office of Professional Responsibility for criminal prosecution or other, internal sanctions, to include termination, would seem to be on the table, more or less.  As would findings of civil or criminal contempt of court and a referral to the DC Bar, or other applicable bar, for consideration of professional discipline, to potentially include disbarment, would seem to be on the table.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

12 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Can you pardon somebody who hasn’t been convicted of a crime? 

Yes.  See, Nixon, Richard M. and Arpaio, Joe.  Arpaio was pardoned between "adjudication of guilt" and sentencing, similar to how this might shake out.

It still might pose a barrier to a security clearance, but would give Flynn an argument, at least.

Edited October 27, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Ghost of LL 15493]

11 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Can you pardon somebody who hasn’t been convicted of a crime? 

Yes--e.g., Ford pardoned Nixon.  But it has been pretty well-established (in part through the pardoning of Nixon) that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission that the pardonee committed crimes that needed pardoning.

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

Not putting this in the USPS thread because DeJoy will ignore it, but Sullivan is making a name for himself.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by TheStoicPaisano

[orangecat92 306]

I think it is pretty obvious Sullivan is campaigning for Supreme Court justice.  His stock is up huge, if Biden wins. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

8 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes--e.g., Ford pardoned Nixon.  But it has been pretty well-established (in part through the pardoning of Nixon) that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission that the pardonee committed crimes that needed pardoning.

Burdick established the principle. After pardoning Nixon, Ford carried a wallet-sized page from the Burdick Decision in his pocket because it stood for the principle that Nixon was guilty. 

Quote

 

One of the very interesting personal facts about Ford is that he, for the rest of his life, kept in his wallet a page from an opinion of the Supreme Court in a case called Burdick v. United States.

Gerald R. Ford:   I have the card in my pocket, which I carry with me. Let me try to find it here.

Dan Kobil:  Is that the Burdick case?

Gerald R. Ford:   The justices found that a pardon, quote, carries an imputation of guilt, comma, acceptance, comma, a confession of it, end quote.

So, whether Nixon agreed to the pardon, the fact that he accepted it is the confession."

 

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/pardon-me/

 

[HenryJames 65890]

 

[orangecat92 306]

Just noticed Sidney Powell fired from the Trump team in the election "fraud" thing.  She has a really good reputation, correct?   Any updates to this case? 

[TwiceHorn 31291]

She did have a very good reputation as an appellate litigator.  But the last-listed case on her website was from 2009.  That may be an oversight, but she's very inclusive on it, so you'd think more current cases would be listed too.

In I think 2014, she published a book about federal prosecutorial abuses, and again in 2020.  That is a laudable topic, but not precisely jibing with a conservative outlook, until you get to the Flynn case.

There's nothing really in her pre-Trump background to indicate this kind of lunacy.

It looks like Sullivan may have succeeded in keeping this pending until the change of administration and DOJ.

[HenryJames 65890]

She lost her fucking mind just like her client.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Flynn got his pardon. Hope he gets hit by a bus tomorrow b

[Biff Tannen 45500]

On 10/27/2020 at 2:28 AM, orangecat92 said:

Update ?  

Pardoned 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

Traitors gonna...trait?

[NWBuck 8548]

So it's "Out Like Flynn" now?

Noted.

[Fastbreak 3959]

Benedict Arnold! WHOOOP!

He owned the libs!

[pacman 7331]

Party of law and order is okay with lying to the law. Go figure.

[Sawbonz 27440]

Only lame duck presidents issue this type of pardon. Trump just acknowledged he lost

[Bullneck 18987]

Counterpoint:

 

 

[wildcat09 29262]

Michael Flynn is also exactly the kind of stupid to go right back to committing similar types of crimes. I’d be surprised if he isn’t convicted of some extremely stupid crime within the next five years or so.

[Brisketexan 104635]

Michael Flynn is also exactly the kind of stupid to go right back to committing similar types of crimes. I’d be surprised if he isn’t convicted of some extremely stupid crime within the next five years or so.

This. Arrogance is a strong factor in future criminal liability.

[Sawbonz 27440]

But since he doesn’t work for the government at this point can’t he just register as a foreign lobbyist and go back to business as usual?  I thought he only lied about the shady shit he was doing because he was doing it under the auspices of his government title. 

[kevwun 15658]

That is true, but his usefulness to foreign governments is pretty much finished since he will have zero influence in Biden’s admin and is going to be persona non grata with military brass.  Outside of straight up using him to spout propaganda, he can’t do anything for Turkey or Russia anymore.

Edited November 27, 2020 by kevwun

[Biff Tannen 45500]

8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Counterpoint:

 

 

This assumes Dotard or anyone in his family is ever actually is charged with anything. I’m feeling pretty downtrodden about this possibility as of late.  @Mrs Whiggins

[TwiceHorn 31291]

I rather seriously doubt Trump will be charged with anything arising during/from his term of office.

The tax fraud and bank fraud occurring systematically prior to his taking office seems pretty likely though.  Money laundering, also.  A lot of it is probably barred by limitations, though.

[Biff Tannen 45500]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I rather seriously doubt Trump will be charged with anything arising during/from his term of office.

The tax fraud and bank fraud occurring systematically prior to his taking office seems pretty likely though.  Money laundering, also.  A lot of it is probably barred by limitations, though.

Doesn’t this point to something insanely wrong with our system of justice?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

50 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This assumes Dotard or anyone in his family is ever actually is charged with anything. I’m feeling pretty downtrodden about this possibility as of late.  @Mrs Whiggins

It’s always possible. I’m fairly pessimistic about it. I was thinking about the topic lately as the day of Trump’s departure nears.  Watergate was a watershed; one when folks could watch on television and take in the solemnity of the hearings. Out of the main seven, some actually did serve time. Same with the second group. 

With Iran Contra,  deals were made in exchange for testimony, charges overturned on appeal, and pardons. IIRC, maybe one agent served a partial sentence. Lots of pardons that shouldn’t have happened, IMO. 
 

Those were all “political” crimes and so maybe different? But I don’t have confidence that even other types of crime will bring about much save for arguing back and forth between legal entities.

I cannot help but think of the tangled threads of Trump’s history and his mentor, Roy Cohn. I don’t know if the story he told was the truth, but Cohn asserted he was the one who influenced the choice of prosecutors in the *Rosenberg trial and he supposedly recommended the death penalty to the attorneys. Roy later goes on to assist Joseph McCarthy and work with the Trump family and throughout it all, this seedy notion that each stone in the corrupt pyramid goes higher and higher with no end in sight. The saddest thing is that there is no noble cause here, no fight for anything other than power and greed with a strong measure of sadistic cruelty. 
 

@TwiceHorn knows about the tax and other charges to the nth degree, but again, in the short time that exists for this to be accomplished before the next assault (midterms); I cannot see any headway being achieved. He might disagree, but I have some concerns about how quickly the courts can wash the idea of partisanship out of the justice system that Trump attempted to install.  Also unknown how many of those loyalists are now embedded within different agencies, now putting their heads down and keeping their ears open. IRS, USPS, and on and on. 
 

If the GOP thinks the Trump brand is in any way sustainable (and hopefully the answer is no), then Ivanka will be protected, wouldn’t you agree? If they want to jettison all of them, then who knows. Serve her right if she gets thrown under the bus. Don’t forget about that voting machine trademark though. I think they’ve got something going on with that. 
 

 

*They were the first American civilians to be charged and executed for  espionage.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Doesn’t this point to something insanely wrong with our system of justice?

Well, for one thing, a lot of the things Trump did in office aren't easily prosecuted as crimes.  His obstructive actions may be defendable on the ground that it is his prerogative, for example.  There's nothing criminal about emoluments violations, for another.

But, more than the practicalities of prosecution, it may be a precedent that no one really wants to set.  It would be decried, not completely inaccurately, as politically motivated.  There is some validity to the notion of just letting it go for the sake of the nation.  There are probably multiple criminal offenses, pushing it hard, that multiple Presidents could have been prosecuted for.  But no one has had the stomach for it.

Criminality before taking office is a different matter.

And, who knows where that leads.  I think there's less militating against prosecuting crimes that may have occurred while in office, but not connected to official duties, like ongoing depredations of the Trump family and "organization" for which teh Donald may be liable.

 

[Bullneck 18987]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Michael Flynn is also exactly the kind of stupid to go right back to committing similar types of crimes. I’d be surprised if he isn’t convicted of some extremely stupid crime within the next five years or so.

This.  And for some of the handwringing on this page my guess is that Trumpco will go back to "business as usual" and get hammered in the next few years.  I can see it being a stretch for Trump to wear an orange jumpsuit but not his kids.  

[TwiceHorn 31291]

37 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It’s always possible. I’m fairly pessimistic about it. I was thinking about the topic lately as the day of Trump’s departure nears.  Watergate was a watershed; one when folks could watch on television and take in the solemnity of the hearings. Out of the main seven, some actually did serve time. Same with the second group. 

With Iran Contra,  deals were made in exchange for testimony, charges overturned on appeal, and pardons. IIRC, maybe one agent served a partial sentence. Lots of pardons that shouldn’t have happened, IMO. 
 

Those were all “political” crimes and so maybe different? But I don’t have confidence that even other types of crime will bring about much save for arguing back and forth between legal entities.

I cannot help but think of the tangled threads of Trump’s history and his mentor, Roy Cohn. I don’t know if the story he told was the truth, but Cohn asserted he was the one who influenced the choice of prosecutors in the *Rosenberg trial and he supposedly recommended the death penalty to the attorneys. Roy later goes on to assist Joseph McCarthy and work with the Trump family and throughout it all, this seedy notion that each stone in the corrupt pyramid goes higher and higher with no end in sight. The saddest thing is that there is no noble cause here, no fight for anything other than power and greed with a strong measure of sadistic cruelty. 
 

@TwiceHorn knows about the tax and other charges to the nth degree, but again, in the short time that exists for this to be accomplished before the next assault (midterms); I cannot see any headway being achieved. He might disagree, but I have some concerns about how quickly the courts can wash the idea of partisanship out of the justice system that Trump attempted to install.  Also unknown how many of those loyalists are now embedded within different agencies, now putting their heads down and keeping their ears open. IRS, USPS, and on and on. 
 

If the GOP thinks the Trump brand is in any way sustainable (and hopefully the answer is no), then Ivanka will be protected, wouldn’t you agree? If they want to jettison all of them, then who knows. Serve her right if she gets thrown under the bus. Don’t forget about that voting machine trademark though. I think they’ve got something going on with that. 
 

 

*They were the first American civilians to be charged and executed for  espionage.

On the "voting machine" trademark.  I wouldn't attach much significance to that.

When you file a trademark registration application that originates in the US in China, all kinds of weird shit happens because English does not translate nicely to Chinese.  In addition to the actual recitation of goods covered by the registration, they are also "classified" by an international system.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classification_of_Goods_and_Services   For example, if your trademark is for "luggage," that fits in Nice Class 18, which also covers " umbrellas and parasols; walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery; collars, leashes and clothing for animals."  

When the Chinese can't literally translate a good recited in an English-language trademark application, sometimes they look at the Nice system and kind of fill in gaps.  So your registration application may say "handbags," but the Chinese turn that into parasols, harnesses, and leashes if they have no word for handbag.

Also, what they do in China can get fucked up being translated back to English.  You get some weird-ass shit sometimes.  My best guess is that if "voting machines" appears in one of her registration applications, it is the result of a translation error.

Also, in the US, you can't get a registration for anything that you aren't actually using the trademark on.  That is, if you aren't actively selling voting machines bearing your trademark, you can't get a registration here.  In most other countries, you can register a trademark that you aren't using at all.  So you can preemptively register Ivanka Trump for garden tractors if you want.  It can be taken away if you haven't used it and someone else applies, but their systems permit it.  As far as I can tell, all of her trademarks were filed first in the US and "extended" under international treaties to China.  It seems highly unlikely that Ivanka would file for voting machines in the US and pay the fees to extend to China.  And there's no evidence in the US records indicating that she did so.

There are a variety of innocent explanations for why a trademark that started out in the US, in English, would become fubar in China.

Further, as to the trademarks she was allegedly granted by China, the information on that is pretty unclear.  It is notoriously difficult to look up information on the Chinese IP Authority website, unless you speak/write Chinese so it's hard to "go to the source."  But from what I can see, the registrations were applied for in 2016 and "granted" in 2018, or later.  That is a completely normal timeframe for that sort of thing,  It's even slow.  There's no evidence of expediting or anything else.  That whole thing is just one step above Sydney Powell stuff.  Also, patent and trademark offices generally employ sort of the pinnacle of nonpartisan, civil servant bureaucrats who would be some of the least likely government employees to be influenced by politics.  Of course, if Xi tells the office to do something, they'll probably do it.  But it seems fairly unlikely here.

Edited November 27, 2020 by TwiceHorn