DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (1 Viewer)

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

Barr's motion to dismiss clearly provided plenty of fodder for Trump defenders to second-guess the FBI's work as part of the "deep state" narrative about the government being out to get Flynn. I am simply pointing out that unraveling the DOJ's own work on Flynn's case and giving Trump defenders ammunition to cry foul over his prosecution is exactly what Barr's motion was designed to do.

I went back and read all the replies spun off from my Flynn synopsis just to make sure I'm seeing this from all angles. The documentation of the reasons for opening the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn in one of SFL's posts stood out to me. The document was dated August 16, 2016, and it said the CI investigation was opened to determine whether Flynn was "being directed and controlled by and/or coordinating activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which may be a threat to the national security and/or possibly be a violation of [FARA] or related statutes." I do not recall ever having seen that document before.

As it turned out, Flynn did coordinate activities with the Russian Federation, in that he later secretly (1) requested that they not engaged in a "tit-for-tat" in response to Obama's sanctions over election interference, and (2) sought to ask them to vote against Egypt's UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was also, at least by election day, in violation of FARA with respect to Turkey when he wrote an op-ed praising Erdogan while having received half a million dollars from the government without having disclosed himself as an agent for Turkey (think, for a moment, about the significance of Flynn literally being an unregistered foreign agent while being a national security advisor). As of August 2016, Flynn was engaged in his own search to obtain Hillary Clinton's stolen emails, emails which were later confirmed to have been stolen by Russian hackers. Flynn was part of a number of clandestine meetings during the transition involving foreign nationals or cut-outs, including Russians. And he was negotiating a deal to sell nuclear tech to the Middle East that stood to benefit him personally as long as the incoming administration lifted Russian sanctions.

If we just focus on Flynn's secret sanctions negotiations with Kislyak, it's not hard to see why that posed a potential national security threat. First, these negotiations were going on at a time when Trump and Flynn had already received a private national security briefing in which they were informed that the intelligence community believed with high confidence that Russia was behind the hacks. Given the combination of Trump making statements in public casting doubt about Russia's involvement after receiving that briefing, and Flynn secretly telling Russia not to retaliate, there is a national security threat posed by the unmistakable message to Russia from the incoming administration: that they will not be held accountable for their cyber-crimes. In addition, Flynn's lies about the call put him in a compromising situation because it was almost certain that Russia also had a recording of the call. So when Pence declared publicly that Flynn had not discussed sanctions, Russia had leverage over the president's national security advisor, Flynn, because they had proof that he had lied to Pence.

If we look objectively at what Flynn was up to toward the end of the campaign and during the transition, it's not hard to understand why there was a counterintelligence investigation into his conduct, nor is it hard to understand why the FBI expected Flynn to lie when they interviewed him. If we look objectively at the danger Flynn still poses to Trump, it's not hard to figure out why there's been a years-long campaign by Trump, et al. to exonerate him. I even mentioned him in my February 2020 post about Stone:

The harsher the sentence for Stone, the more pressure there is to flip on Trump, and the harder he is for Trump to pardon. Trump knows all of this; of course, the right wing campaign to convince Trump defenders to feel sorry for Stone ("poor guy was dragged out of bed at 5:00 AM, blah blah blah") is not an accident (same for Flynn, Manafort).

This was always the end game for Barr with respect to Flynn. Trump defenders have been thoroughly convinced that he is a victim of a malicious prosecution, and therefore have no problem with the DOJ effectively pardoning someone they had been prosecuting until Barr's upheaval of the investigation. This is going on with Stone and Manafort as well, and we can expect these sorts of shenanigans from Barr as long as he's in charged of the DOJ.

Setting aside whether or not Flynn lied to prosecutors, I am wondering whether any Trump defenders have a problem with his secret calls negotiating Obama's sanctions policy with Russia, his lobbying on behalf of Turkey, his secret deals to sell nuclear policy to the Middle East, etc. When I look at the whole picture of Flynn's behavior from late 2015 through early 2017, it appears to me that his involvement in US foreign policy was primarily focused on how to use it to benefit himself personally. I find his behavior to be the opposite of patriotic, and am disappointed at how unpopular a view that is among those who support Trump.

 

[SaintForLife]

Barr's motion to dismiss clearly provided plenty of fodder for Trump defenders to second-guess the FBI's work as part of the "deep state" narrative about the government being out to get Flynn. I am simply pointing out that unraveling the DOJ's own work on Flynn's case and giving Trump defenders ammunition to cry foul over his prosecution is exactly what Barr's motion was designed to do.

I went back and read all the replies spun off from my Flynn synopsis just to make sure I'm seeing this from all angles. The documentation of the reasons for opening the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn in one of SFL's posts stood out to me. The document was dated August 16, 2016, and it said the CI investigation was opened to determine whether Flynn was "being directed and controlled by and/or coordinating activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which may be a threat to the national security and/or possibly be a violation of [FARA] or related statutes." I do not recall ever having seen that document before.

As it turned out, Flynn did coordinate activities with the Russian Federation, in that he later secretly (1) requested that they not engaged in a "tit-for-tat" in response to Obama's sanctions over election interference, and (2) sought to ask them to vote against Egypt's UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was also, at least by election day, in violation of FARA with respect to Turkey when he wrote an op-ed praising Erdogan while having received half a million dollars from the government without having disclosed himself as an agent for Turkey (think, for a moment, about the significance of Flynn literally being an unregistered foreign agent while being a national security advisor). As of August 2016, Flynn was engaged in his own search to obtain Hillary Clinton's stolen emails, emails which were later confirmed to have been stolen by Russian hackers. Flynn was part of a number of clandestine meetings during the transition involving foreign nationals or cut-outs, including Russians. And he was negotiating a deal to sell nuclear tech to the Middle East that stood to benefit him personally as long as the incoming administration lifted Russian sanctions.

If we just focus on Flynn's secret sanctions negotiations with Kislyak, it's not hard to see why that posed a potential national security threat. First, these negotiations were going on at a time when Trump and Flynn had already received a private national security briefing in which they were informed that the intelligence community believed with high confidence that Russia was behind the hacks. Given the combination of Trump making statements in public casting doubt about Russia's involvement after receiving that briefing, and Flynn secretly telling Russia not to retaliate, there is a national security threat posed by the unmistakable message to Russia from the incoming administration: that they will not be held accountable for their cyber-crimes. In addition, Flynn's lies about the call put him in a compromising situation because it was almost certain that Russia also had a recording of the call. So when Pence declared publicly that Flynn had not discussed sanctions, Russia had leverage over the president's national security advisor, Flynn, because they had proof that he had lied to Pence.

If we look objectively at what Flynn was up to toward the end of the campaign and during the transition, it's not hard to understand why there was a counterintelligence investigation into his conduct, nor is it hard to understand why the FBI expected Flynn to lie when they interviewed him. If we look objectively at the danger Flynn still poses to Trump, it's not hard to figure out why there's been a years-long campaign by Trump, et al. to exonerate him. I even mentioned him in my February 2020 post about Stone:



This was always the end game for Barr with respect to Flynn. Trump defenders have been thoroughly convinced that he is a victim of a malicious prosecution, and therefore have no problem with the DOJ effectively pardoning someone they had been prosecuting until Barr's upheaval of the investigation. This is going on with Stone and Manafort as well, and we can expect these sorts of shenanigans from Barr as long as he's in charged of the DOJ.

Setting aside whether or not Flynn lied to prosecutors, I am wondering whether any Trump defenders have a problem with his secret calls negotiating Obama's sanctions policy with Russia, his lobbying on behalf of Turkey, his secret deals to sell nuclear policy to the Middle East, etc. When I look at the whole picture of Flynn's behavior from late 2015 through early 2017, it appears to me that his involvement in US foreign policy was primarily focused on how to use it to benefit himself personally. I find his behavior to be the opposite of patriotic, and am disappointed at how unpopular a view that is among those who support Trump.

I'll respond in detail to your post when I have more to research some of your claims.

Once again, you are leaving out the fact that the Mueller Prosecutor withheld evidence for over 3 years and only produced it once Barr said he was going to have US Attorney Jensen review the case. That evidence totally contradicted the case against Flynn. That same Mueller prosecutor lied to that judge multiple times.

Also you failed to acknowledge that the FBI was about to close the case on Flynn because there wasn't evidence of anything illegal until disgraced Strzok asked them to keep it open so he could try the likely unconstitutional Logan Act that has never been used to prosecute an American citizen.

In fact, it doesn't appear that you responded to or referenced a single one of the multiple new developments in the case except the August 16th document.

Your explanation on why Flynn asking the Russian ambassador not to retaliate to the sanctions being a national security threat doesn't make sense.

I'm sure you saw the under oath testimony from the Crowdstrike guy where he said they didnt have any concrete evidence that Russia stole the emails right?

 

[Lapaz]

Those Twitter posts that I posted had screenshots of the DOJ's motion to dismiss Flynn's charges, official court documents, and the under oath testimonies from Schiff's committee. If you want to ignore that evidence that goes against what you think happened then that's on you.

I can almost guarantee you won't be able to answer this question specifically but let's see. Can you explain exactly how Flynn was working for Russia? You know in the phone call with the Russian ambassador Flynn asked him to not escalate anything in response to the sanctions right?

You just posted screen shots which are likely cherry picked things that are out of context. If you post excerpts to official court documents, or even articles with the links, and then point us to the parts you're referring to, then we can analyze them in context. Until then, those twitter posts are not worth my time.

I don't know if Flynn was working for Russia, and I doubt you can prove he was NOT working for Russia. I'm sure he was not working for them officially. He seems to have been working covertly as a double agent for Russia. He was probably being paid unofficially by Russia, and that's obviously speculation, but what we do know is that he was doing Russia's bidding. On the other hand, he was working for Turkey as a lobbiest, but he illegally didn't report it. We also know he was undermining the Obama administration, which is treasonous. Also, you don't do things like that for free or the goodness of your heart, unless your heart is with another country.

Now, how about you refute Taylor's post on the home page?

 

[TaylorB]

Why is no one on your side of the fence discussing the actual charges that were brought against Flynn? At best, we hear conclusory statements that "he lied." I am not hearing any analysis whatsoever as to how you all reached that conclusion or why the DOJ is wrong in moving to dismiss the charges it brought.

The list of reasons I think he lied include the following:
(1) he said things that were objectively untrue, then admitted to lying under oath on multiple occasions;
(2) the likelihood is extremely low that he "forgot" that sanctions were discussed in the Kislyak call, as that was the whole reason for the call and there was a lot of back-and-forth with Mar-a-Lago to make sure he could discuss sanctions;
(3) Flynn summarized the call in a text to KT McFarland and admitted that he left out anything mentioning sanctions bc he didn't want to be viewed as undercutting Obama's foreign policy (meaning he didn't want to document that he had broken the law);
(4) The progression of KT McFarland's 302s suggest that they had come up with a cover story for the reason for the call, which she backed out of as she learned how much the FBI already knew;
(5) Flynn had demonstrated a pattern of keeping the bad things he was doing secret;
(6) Pence said Flynn lied to him about sanctions too, then Trump said Flynn lied to Pence;
(7) Flynn had reason to believe that lying was better than telling the truth at that point;
(8) Numerous other people in Trump's orbit who had contacts with Russians lied about those contacts at some point during the investigation.

It was a really big deal that Flynn was telling the Russians not to engage in a tit-for-tat on sanctions over election interference. He knew he couldn't admit to doing that. The FBI knew it, too. I was not there, and I could never say for a 100% fact that I'm right to believe it. But I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he deliberately lied to the FBI about negotiating sanctions with Kislyak.

 

[SaintForLife]

You just posted screen shots which are likely cherry picked things that are out of context. If you post excerpts to official court documents, or even articles with the links, and then point us to the parts you're referring to, then we can analyze them in context. Until then, those twitter posts are not worth my time.

Those Twitter posts contain the very excerpts to official court documents and with links you are asking for. The fact that you can figure out how Twitter works isn't my fault.

I don't know if Flynn was working for Russia, and I doubt you can prove he was NOT working for Russia. I'm sure he was not working for them officially. He seems to have been working covertly as a double agent for Russia. He was probably being paid unofficially by Russia, and that's obviously speculation, but what we do know is that he was doing Russia's bidding. On the other hand, he was working for Turkey as a lobbiest, but he illegally didn't report it. We also know he was undermining the Obama administration, which is treasonous. Also, you don't do things like that for free or the goodness of your heart, unless your heart is with another country.

I figured your answer to that question would be a no despite the fact you keep saying it like its a fact. You are the one who made the claim that he was working for Russia. It's not my job to prove the opposite. If you make the claim then back it up somehow.

Now, how about you refute Taylor's post on the home page?

I did respond to his last post and asked him questions from earlier in the thread that he still failed to address in his last post.

 

[Tony1Sainstfan]

Do you believe Flynn to be innocent of the crimes to which he plead guilty?

You do know that he plead guilty because the FBI promised not to go after his son if he did. That’s
pretty clear from the documents that were released. It’s also clear that the corruption goes all the way to the Oval Office under Obama. The democrats have been scream foul for 3 1/5 years. But it’s like that old saying the ones who screams loudest is usually the ones who are the most guilty.

 

[FullMonte]

It may be that you simply can't help yourself, but you did not need to break out the drama. Yes, there are reasons to believe that Flynn did not lie in the interview.

So, if that's the case, and Flynn did not lie to the FBI in their interview, that also means that:
--He told the FBI the truth, then turned around and lied to Mike Pence (OR) Mike Pence was lying when he said that Flynn lied to him about his communications with Russia.
--He then turned around and lied to the courts in a sworn statement TWICE, admitting that he lied to the FBI.

Either one is difficult to believe. I find it hard to believe that Mike Flynn was able to rise through the ranks of the military to one of the higher ranks, was appointed by two different presidents as a National Security Adviser, yet told the FBI he didn't remember a particular conversation, and then pleaded guilty to lying. I mean, it's almost like he wasn't smart enough to realize that the FBI had nothing on him.

Oh yeah, they threatened to prosecute his son. But, how bad would the FBI look if it came out that they threatened Mike Flynn's son to get Flynn to plead guilty to lying. What was the end game here. What did the FBI expect to get out of this? Ok, they got Flynn prosecuted.....and?? Multiple FBI agents were willing to do something that could end up getting them fired, and potentially face jailtime....just so they could trap Mike Flynn? That was their ultimate goal?

 

[TaylorB]

I'll respond in detail to your post when I have more to research some of your claims.

Once again, you are leaving out the fact that the Mueller Prosecutor withheld evidence for over 3 years and only produced it once Barr said he was going to have US Attorney Jensen review the case. That evidence totally contradicted the case against Flynn. That same Mueller prosecutor lied to that judge multiple times.

Also you failed to acknowledge that the FBI was about to close the case on Flynn because there wasn't evidence of anything illegal until disgraced Strzok asked them to keep it open so he could try the likely unconstitutional Logan Act that has never been used to prosecute an American citizen.

In fact, it doesn't appear that you responded to or referenced a single one of the multiple new developments in the case except the August 16th document.

Your explanation on why Flynn asking the Russian ambassador not to retaliate to the sanctions being a national security threat doesn't make sense.

I'm sure you saw the under oath testimony from the Crowdstrike guy where he said they didnt have any concrete evidence that Russia stole the emails right?

I read all of your responses carefully. You often ask me to go down these "you fail to acknowledge X" rabbit holes without really responding to the point I've made. I am aware that there are countless twitter threads from anonymous handles that break down every one of Sidney Powell's conspiracy theories and purport to discredit the entire Russiagate hoax. Respectfully, I feel like you use these rabbit holes to poke holes and distract, in lieu of substantively responding.

I think the context of what Flynn was doing at the time of his call with Kislyak is important for people to understand why Barr and Trump are on a campaign to exonerate him. I think it is natural for Trump defenders to gravitate toward the anti-FBI angle because it's easier to convince people who know little about criminal investigations that certain conduct fits the "deep state" narrative they already believe than it is to come up with an innocent explanation for Flynn's conduct.

I don't really know what Flynn defenders think is the best piece of evidence that "exonerates" him anyway. It was a prosecution for making false statements. What is the exculpatory evidence? That the FBI wasn't always sure whether they were going to charge him with a crime? Barr said they shouldn't have been investigating him anyway -- does that make it not a crime to lie to the FBI? That he was entrapped? No one tricked him into negotiating with the Russians in secret. I'll engage in this discussion further if you'll substantively respond to my posts.

 

[SaintForLife]

I read all of your responses carefully. You often ask me to go down these "you fail to acknowledge X" rabbit holes without really responding to the point I've made. I am aware that there are countless twitter threads from anonymous handles that break down every one of Sidney Powell's conspiracy theories and purport to discredit the entire Russiagate hoax. Respectfully, I feel like you use these rabbit holes to poke holes and distract, in lieu of substantively responding.

I think the context of what Flynn was doing at the time of his call with Kislyak is important for people to understand why Barr and Trump are on a campaign to exonerate him. I think it is natural for Trump defenders to gravitate toward the anti-FBI angle because it's easier to convince people who know little about criminal investigations that certain conduct fits the "deep state" narrative they already believe than it is to come up with an innocent explanation for Flynn's conduct.

I don't really know what Flynn defenders think is the best piece of evidence that "exonerates" him anyway. It was a prosecution for making false statements. What is the exculpatory evidence? That the FBI wasn't always sure whether they were going to charge him with a crime? Barr said they shouldn't have been investigating him anyway -- does that make it not a crime to lie to the FBI? That he was entrapped? No one tricked him into negotiating with the Russians in secret. I'll engage in this discussion further if you'll substantively respond to my posts.

Rabbit holes huh? Those "conspiracy theories" are actually official government documents, Brady material withheld by Van Grack for over 3 years, and under oath testimonies from Schiff's investigation that he refused to release until recently.

The fact that you won't even comment on the Mueller Prosecutor lying to Judge Sullivan, withholding evidence for over 3 year that totally contradicted the case against Flynn, all of the former Obama officials admitting under oath that they never saw any evidence of collusion, and the Crowdstrike guy saying under oath that they didn't have any concrete evidence that the Russians stole the emails tells me you aren't interested in having a good faith debate.

Those are all new developments that came to be known this week.

 

[TaylorB]

Rabbit holes huh? Those "conspiracy theories" are actually official government documents, Brady material withheld by Van Grack for over 3 years, and under oath testimonies from Schiff's investigation that he refused to release until recently.

The fact that you won't even comment on the Mueller Prosecutor lying to Judge Sullivan, withholding evidence for over 3 year that totally contradicted the case against Flynn, all of the former Obama officials admitting under oath that they never saw any evidence of collusion, and the Crowdstrike guy saying under oath that they didn't have any concrete evidence that the Russians stole the emails tells me you aren't interested in having a good faith debate.

Those are all new developments that came to be known this week.

What is the best piece of evidence that came to light this week that exonerates Flynn?

 

[FullMonte]

What is the best piece of evidence that came to light this week that exonerates Flynn?

Right now, I think the most interesting thing is that I'm supposed to believe that the FBI knew that Flynn was innocent, but pressured him to plead guilty or they would go after his son.

I'm also supposed to believe that the FBI knew that there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russians.

Therefore, I am supposed to believe that members of the FBI were willing to risk their careers on getting Mike Flynn to plead guilty to something they knew he didn't do simply so they could put him in jail. They weren't pressuring him to flip on Trump and give them evidence, because again, they knew that Trump's campaign hadn't done anything wrong. So, they were simply pressuring him....because.

 

[Beach Friends]

What is the best piece of evidence that came to light this week that exonerates Flynn?

Hard to say, but I think by far the most interesting development has been the extent to which the bad guys use leakes to the media and that is looking more and more like we are going to find out just how involved Barry was.

And those two points tie in nicely. The leaked Obama call this week was strange. The purpose was not that clear - IMO, it made Obama look scared that the hounds of hell are clearly on his trail. On the other hand, desperate people make mistakes, plus it is not entirely unreasonable for him to believe that his followers will buy whatever he is selling. It's not that they are stupid, they just want to believe.

Anyway, thanks to @SaintForLife I now know that Barry used the same reporter they used to push the Steele dossier.

Remember Grenell's trip to the DOJ with the satchel? Looks like that contained, among other things, a list of names from the Obama administration involved in the Flynn unmasking.

 

[Savage]

None of that even matters. The FBI had run amuck and was not conducting a legitimate investigation. The investigation into Flynn was going to be dropped but Strozk intervened...and as a bonus reminder, Obama himself was tracking Lisa Page and Strozk's activities directly as all this was happening. This all came from the top- it's all coming out slowly but surely.

 

[Lapaz]

Hard to say, but I think by far the most interesting development has been the extent to which the bad guys use leakes to the media and that is looking more and more like we are going to find out just how involved Barry was.

And those two points tie in nicely. The leaked Obama call this week was strange. The purpose was not that clear - IMO, it made Obama look scared that the hounds of hell are clearly on his trail. On the other hand, desperate people make mistakes, plus it is not entirely unreasonable for him to believe that his followers will buy whatever he is selling. It's not that they are stupid, they just want to believe.

Anyway, thanks to @SaintForLife I now know that Barry used the same reporter they used to push the Steele dossier.

Remember Grenell's trip to the DOJ with the satchel? Looks like that contained, among other things, a list of names from the Obama administration involved in the Flynn unmasking.

You’ve woven a giant conspiracy theory and fantasy based on Obama saying what everyone knows is objectively true about the Covid 19 response of the Trump administration because it was purportedly leaked by the same reporter. All the while the most obvious corrupt actions of a Justice Department lackey can’t be true because of some fringe mistakes.

 

[Beach Friends]

You’ve woven a giant conspiracy theory and fantasy based on Obama saying what everyone knows is objectively true about the Covid 19 response of the Trump administration because it was purportedly leaked by the same reporter. All the while the most obvious corrupt actions of a Justice Department lackey can’t be true because of some fringe mistakes.

Nah, I wasn't even thinking of Obama's comments about the virus. That's just garden variety hysterics that he threw in for the benefit of the Karens who are already mad because people are walking against the Corona arrows at Wal Mart.

I am talking about the fact that Obama was hyperventilating over the Flynn situation. It appears to me that he is worried that the investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax is picking up speed. All of a sudden, the guy who could not have seemed more disinterested in the upcoming election is now saying this is the most important election in the history of the universe.

 

[Savage]

Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can’t prove it

The FBI agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of their interview, hoping to trip him up.

thehill.com

Excellent opinion piece by Andrew McCarthy.

Allowing the conviction to stand would have been a travesty. This basic fact, this utter lack of sufficient evidence, is obscured by the DOJ's heavy reliance on a legal rationale for dropping the case. In its 20-page memorandum in support of dismissal, the DOJ contends that any false statements by Flynn could not have been material because there was no legitimate basis to investigate or interview him. Federal law makes materiality an essential element of a false-statements charge.

A more indisputable rationale for dropping the Flynn case would have focused, not on a legal flaw, but on the factual inadequacy of the prosecution's evidence. Simply stated, there is no way prosecutors could have proved Flynn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, Flynn's statements to investigators were equivocal. That creates significant questions about whether inaccuracies in his description of the Kislyak discussions were honest failures of recollection, not lies. The interview happened about a month after the Kislyak communications. In the interim, Flynn had hundreds of conversations with foreign counterparts. It would have been a challenge for anyone to remember the words of a conversation under those circumstances; and, in their legerdemain, the FBI strategically refused to refresh Flynn's recollection by playing recordings or showing a transcript.

Second, the FBI and prosecutors took inconsistent positions on whether Flynn intentionally misled them. The interviewing agents believed he was truthful, if forgetful. Director Comey reportedly said the question of whether Flynn lied was a "close call." Assuming this is so, a close call is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, the agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of the interview, at which they hoped to trip him up. It is rote for FBI "302" reports - used to summarize witness interviews - to start by recounting that interviewing agents advised the subject of the nature of the interview. But they did not do that with Flynn. He was discouraged from consulting counsel and from reporting the FBI's request to speak with him to his White House chain-of-command. He was not given the customary advice of rights - the FBI, after officials acknowledged among themselves that they owed it to Flynn to advise him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution, willfully withheld this admonition from him.

Let's put aside that Flynn now disputes whether he lied. In criminal proceedings, due process is not optional. If the FBI were interviewing a hardened criminal who had been arrested so many times he could recite Miranda warnings by heart, agents still would give the bureau's standard advice of rights; they would make certain to tell him that a false statement could be grounds for prosecution. With Flynn, though, they did not go "by the book." They did the thing that "the book" is supposed to prevent: Eliciting statements by deceiving a person about his legal rights.

Fourth, the two government witnesses in the case have monumental credibility problems. Under federal law, Flynn's statements confessing guilt during his plea proceedings would not be admissible against him at trial if the plea were vacated. And Flynn would claim, in any event, that his plea statements were induced by coercion and fraud - a threat to prosecute his son if he did not plead guilty, and the prosecutor's commitment not to prosecute his son, which was illegally withheld from the court.

 

[The moose]

Why dismiss the Flynn case? Because the FBI can’t prove it

The FBI agents went out of their way to deceive Flynn about the purpose of their interview, hoping to trip him up.

thehill.com

Excellent opinion piece by Andrew McCarthy.

Hey is that the same McCarthy that works for fox?

The one that pushed the death panel junk when trying to pass the affordable care act?

Is that the same McCarthy that was touting that Obama's autobiography was actually written by the leader of the weather underground organization Bill Ayer?

The same guy that authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a "Sharia Agenda"?

He is a nut job that worked under Rudy for years.

Just making sure we all know who wrote that opinion piece and the other nonsense he has pushed.

But thanks for posting that.

 

[Beach Friends]

Hey is that the same McCarthy that works for fox?

The one that pushed the death panel junk when trying to pass the affordable care act?

Is that the same McCarthy that was touting that Obama's autobiography was actually written by the leader of the weather underground organization Bill Ayer?

The same guy that authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a "Sharia Agenda"?

He is a nut job that worked under Rudy for years.

Just making sure we all know who wrote that opinion piece and the other nonsense he has pushed.

But thanks for posting that.

Sooo, what did you think of the article?