from time to time, both @HansMahncke and myself have observed that the word "sanctions" didn't actually occur in the Flynn 302, yet was used over and over in the Flynn Statement of Offense. Today I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before and AFAIK is not in pleadings

2/ the term sanctions in the Statement of Offense nearly always occurs as defined term "U.S. Sanctions", which are the sanctions against Russia announced in Executive Order 13757.

3/ subparagraph (c) of Statement of Offense used the defined term "U.S. Sanctions" is used in relation to topic of conversation between Flynn and Transition official

4/ subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) each use the defined term "U.S. Sanctions" to characterize topics supposedly discussed by Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak

5/ the defined term "U.S. Sanctions" is used once again in the concluding subparagraph (h) to describe Flynn's final conversation of December 31.

6/ recall that the term "U.S. Sanctions" is defined as the sanctions issued in Executive Order 13757, which was published on Jan 3 https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber2_eo.pdf (after being issued in press release on Dec 29 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/executive-order-taking-additional-steps-address-national-emergency

7/ the Executive Order entitled "Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities" contained three substantive paragraphs. Here's the catch. I doubt that Flynn ever talked about THESE paragraphs with anyone.

8/ paragraph 1 ordered the blocking of property in or controlled by US of persons listed in the Annex and gave authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation) to similarly block property of persons involved in cyber attacks

9/ the organizations listed in the Annex included the GRU and FSB, while individuals included Igor Korobov, Sergey Gizunov, Igor Kostyukov and Vladimir Alekseyev.

10/ paragraphs 2 and 3 are technical drafting that don't add anything material to paragraph 1.

11/ so "U.S. Sanctions", as defined, consists of the blocking of US property of the GRU and FSB, a couple of other Russian organizations and of Messrs Korubov et al. It's hard to believe that Kislyak (let alone) Flynn cared two figs about blocking of US property of Korubov etc

12/ needless to say, there was more going on. In addition to the "U.S. Sanctions", as defined in Executive Order 13757, Obama issued a separate Statement re expulsions and closures https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

13/ however, van Grack and Ahmad appear to have been sloppy in their drafting of the Statement of Offense, as their defined term "U.S. Sanctions" is limited to the Executive Order 13757 sanctions and does not include the contemporary expulsions and closures

14/ turning once again to the 302 - even after all of Lisa's editing, it reports that Flynn was asked about the "expulsions" and "closing" of properties. Then it ends. Nothing about "sanctions" or "U.S. Sanctions".

15/ distinction between "sanctions" and other measures is not merely after the fact Clintonian parsing, but was clearly reflected in contemporary news coverage. In NYT article of Dec 29 http://archive.is/n1kjG  , "ejecting" intel operatives and "sanctions" were disjunct measures

16/ in another contemporary article (Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-adviser-had-five-calls-with-russian-envoy-on-day-of-sanctions-sources-idUSKBN14X1YX, "expulsion" of diplomats and "sanctions" on intel agencies are distinct measures

17/ here's an important addition which I just noticed. On Feb 16, WaPo article observed that Flynn had acknowledged discussing "expulsions" but denied discussing "sanctions". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-in-fbi-interview-denied-discussing-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador/2017/02/16/e3e1e16a-f3d5-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html archive http://archive.is/1Wct0 

18/ this was passing comment in article which leaked information about Flynn's answers to FBI agents on Jan 24 about whether Flynn had lied about talking about sanctions.

19/ in Feb 14 interview with Daily Caller, published at 3:22 pm, https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/14/exclusive-defiant-flynn-insists-he-crossed-no-lines-leakers-must-be-prosecuted/ Flynn had stated that issue (in this part of Kislyak call) was expulsions, not sanctions - a distinction in original Obama announcement and a distinction for Flynn

20/ so Flynn was very clear about distinction between expulsions and 13757 sanctions on Feb 14 - hours after his resignation. Makes it that much more of a mystery why he pled guilty to lying about Ex Order 13757 sanctions to FBI, when it is pretty clear that he didn't.

21/ there's an interesting irony in the inconsistency between the indictment (sanctions) and the evidence (expulsions, if anything) under present circumstances. If the prosecution wanted to, I presume that it could file a Superseding Indictment to tidy up van Grack's defect by

22/ amending the indictment to say that Flynn lied about expulsions, rather than sanctions, since the 302 at least mentioned expulsions and there is at least a triable issue. Whereas on sanctions as defined, there really isn't a triable issue as a matter of law.

23/ but here's the problem for Sullivan and Gleeson: it's hard enough for them to push the case forward, but, if they need to force the prosecution to file a Superseding Indictment because their existing indictment is defective on its face, their task is that much harder.

24/ plus, it would be (and ought to be) pretty humiliating for them to realize that they've been torturing Flynn for an indictment count that is contradicted on its face by the 302.

25/ there is, of course, a second count re Flynn's answers in respect to his calls on the Israeli settlement vote, where his call to Russia was merely one of dozens. (An editorial: on the substance of this lobbying, I am much more supportive of Obama policy than Trump's)

26/ the DOJ's materiality argument is really strong on any issue with Flynn's answer on lobbying re Israeli settlements. Flynn's contact with Russia on this issue was no different than his contact with tens of other nations.

27/ so his answer on Israeli lobbying had no materiality whatever to the supposed "Russia" investigation. So both counts are easily disposed of.

28/ ' @danbongino covers this topic forcefully and well in middle block of May 15 program (with nice acknowledgement). https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=779&v=VZ9cqYSMWFs&feature=emb_logo

I disagree with Dan's last block on Papadop but wish to focus on points of agreement. I agree with importance of issue in first block

29/ i.e. the precise provenance and legal rationale for distribution of Flynn transcript. I think that Dan is over the target on importance as an issue, but am not sold on specific diagnosis. I think that it remains a dig-here.

30/ very important thread by Undercover Huber.
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1261447300984913920 Covington, who, according to memos, didn't believe Flynn had committed felony, asked Mueller thugs for 302s. Which would have revealed tht FBI didn't even ASK about sanctions. Mueller refused, instead leaked

31/ threats to NBC and ABC against Flynn's son. A week later, Flynn begins series of interviews with Mueller.

32/ a new find: by Dec 4, 2018, Van Grack was almost certainly aware that definition of "U.S. Sanctions" in Indictment failed to cover questions and answers in the 302 (which was even then withheld from Flynn defense).

Watch the pea.

33/ in Sentencing Memorandum (Van Grack for Mueller), https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.46.0_2.pdf. In a sentence about Ignatius' story, Van Grack slyly defined "sanctions" to COLLECTIVELY include "sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to that government’s actions"

34/ this re-definition (without usual capital to denote defined term) amalgamated expulsions, questions on which were in 302, with sanctions of Russian intel agencies (U.S. Sanctions) charged in Indictment but not documented in 302.

35/ van Grack used the same trick in Jan 7, 2020 Supplemental Memorandum on sentencing, carrying forward the deceptive language from the Dec 4, 2018 Sentencing Memorandum.

36/ an obvious question for Van Grack: when did you realize that definition of US Sanctions in Statement of Offense did not include incidents (expulsions) discussed in 302? What steps did you take to notify defense of this exculpatory inconsistency?