Did Mueller Withhold Evidence From Michael Flynn?

440px-Michael_T_FlynnThe court order for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to share exculpatory evidence with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has raised intriguing questions about whether evidence might have been withheld from Flynn before his plea deal.  As I stated on air, I do not believe that the issuance of this order by Judge Sullivan should be assumed as evidence of any second thoughts by Flynn. As I state in my column below in The Hill newspaper, I do not see a real option for Flynn in trying to undo his plea deal. However, the disclosure of the evidence could raise questions for Flynn.

Here is the column:

Last Friday, the media was in a frenzy over the indictment of 13 Russians and a couple Russian entities by special counsel Robert Mueller. As pundits debated the significance of the indictment, an order was filed by Judge Emmet Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The order itself was hardly noteworthy, even on a slow news day. Sullivan simply ordered prosecutors to comply with their obligations of disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense.

What was notable is that the prosecutors were members of the special counsel’s office and the defendant was their star cooperating witness, former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The order itself deals with the obligation of disclosure under Brady v. Maryland. Prosecutors must disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence to the defense. That might make for interesting reading by Flynn, given new disclosures that federal investigators doubted his guilt before the appointment of Mueller as special counsel.

At the outset, I am skeptical that this motion represents a clear break with the prosecution by Flynn. Sullivan wrote a Cardozo Law Review article in 2016 that said that he changed his practices following the scandal in the prosecution of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Prosecutors in that case unethically withheld evidence, which led to the throwing out of Stevens’s conviction. In his law review article, Judge Sullivan wrote, “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.”

Nevertheless, cooperating witnesses who pleaded guilty are not usually filing Brady motions. When a defendant cuts a deal with prosecutors, his sentence depends greatly on how the prosecutors view his cooperation. Moreover, in his plea, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.”

Even assuming that the court issued the order as a standard protection of a defendant before sentencing, it is interesting to contemplate how the information might impact Flynn’s view of his deal. It now appears that, before President Trump unwisely fired then-FBI Director James Comey, federal investigators had concluded that Flynn was not knowingly lying to them about his meeting in late December 2016 with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a meeting where sanctions were discussed.

Nevertheless, after Mueller was appointed special counsel, investigators zeroed in on Flynn and his son, Michael Flynn Jr., who served as his chief of staff. Flynn was rapidly drained of his savings in the investigation and pleaded guilty, reportedly to protect his son and any remaining assets.

The Flynn “information” filed by the special counsel was curious in a couple of respects. First, it did not make an express guarantee not to go after his son. Second, it did not detail the most serious allegations involving Flynn and his alleged work with surrogates of the brutal regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This includes alleged discussions about the seizure (or “renditioning”) of Erdoğan critic Fethullah Gülen to hand over to Turkish intelligence officials. Gülen, who lives in exile in eastern Pennsylvania, was likely to be tortured and executed by Erdoğan’s henchmen. The filing was crafted narrowly to focus on his false statement and the meeting with the Russians.

In comparison with Flynn’s alleged work on turning over dissidents for possible execution, his meeting with the Russians was hardly shocking. Flynn was the incoming national security adviser, and his meeting with foreign representatives was neither unprecedented nor unlawful. Yet, acting Attorney General Sally Yates cited the meeting as the reason for her own intervention with the White House. Yates cited the Logan Act as her concern, which was hardly credible.

The Logan Act, which makes it illegal for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments, is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen since it was enacted in 1799. Yates’s pushing of a Logan Act investigation seriously undermines her credibility in the actions that she took before being rightfully fired by Trump for ordering the entire Justice Department not to defend his first immigration order.

It is not clear what Mueller revealed to Flynn about these matters before Flynn took the plea deal. Likewise, it is not clear how much of the recent scandal over the controversial FISA surveillance orders impacted Flynn. Another reason Flynn might be having buyer’s remorse is that none of the indictments, including the massive indictment last week, has alleged, let alone established, collusion with the Russians and Trump. Collusion was the original purpose of the special counsel investigation. If the special counsel were to clear Trump of collusion, it could well prompt him to issue pardons to end what he claims to be a partisan “hoax.” If Flynn were to back out of cooperation, he might strengthen his case for a pardon.

Yet, the danger of backing out of a plea can be easily seen in the expanding case against Trump’s onetime campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Mueller has thrown every possible charge, short of ripping off a mattress label, at Manafort. Indeed, Mueller has raised mortgage fraud as a possible charge. A play for a pardon would be like putting everything on red at a Vegas roulette table: If you hit, it can be the best day of your life. If you hit.

One would hope that Trump’s aides would strongly counsel against such a move, particularly for defendants like Manafort, who faces an array of very serious (though unrelated) charges. The most obvious recipient of such a presidential action would be Flynn, who faces a questionable false-statement charge and had to sell his home to cover legal costs before finally accepting the plea.

If Flynn does feel that material evidence was withheld, he would face a tough task in walking this cat backwards. First, the view of investigators of his innocence does not prevent later investigators from reaching an opposing conclusion. Second, the general rule for plea deals is caveat emptor, or buyer beware. If you needed more evidence, you had to demand it before the deal. It is not clear if Flynn made such a demand and was not given material evidence. However, if the plea were tossed, it would release not just Flynn but Mueller.

The threat from Mueller is obvious: Break the deal, face the wheel. Flynn could be hit with an indictment with more crimes and a co-defendant in the form of his son. In the end, Flynn still has few options that seem to run the gambit from ruin to near-ruin. He is currently at near-ruin.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

87 thoughts on “Did Mueller Withhold Evidence From Michael Flynn?”

  1. Obama, Hillary, Rice, Power, Huma, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Yates,

    Farkas, Kadzik, Strzok, Page, Baker, Horowitz et al. are the parties in need of prosecution.

    How many of the names above have been removed, reassigned or have serious allegations against them?

    The mystery in American justice is Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is letting them all get away.

    For rational people who understand the crimes and “deals” committed by Hillary, how is it possible that

    Mueller did not have knowledge and prosecute her when he was the FBI Director?

    Mueller was and still is an integral part of the “deep state” “swamp” – Coups “R” Us.

      1. “Car 54, Where Are You?”

        Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the dupe which will live in infamy.

        1. George, You want it, you got it. Car 54 just got dispatched. It’s a gypsy curse case.

          1. Joe Friday,..
            Great series…too bad it was only on for two years.
            My favorite Car 54 episode is “The Beast who walked the Bronx”…about a mild-mannered Captain, assigned to a Lost & Found Dept. because he’s so kind-hearted and could not maintain any discipline with subordinate policemen.
            The rumor mill at Toody and Muldoon’s precinct mistakenly gets the idea that this Captain is a crazed,viscious tyrant when the guy temporarily fills in for their vacationing Captain Block.
            The terrified guys at the precinct are literally shaking with fear when this replacement captain shows

  2. Carol Leonnig: This story and others like it wrongly conjures up speculation that Flynn case is tainted. Judge Sullivan always gives these same instructions in every case, telling govt to turn over any evidence that exonerates. It means zip about Flynn case.

    Facts matter.

    Thank you.

    1. Facts matter.


      I absolutely agree. Which seems to make Judge Sullivan’s instructions all the more important if a defendant is considering a plea deal.

      So why does this mean zip about the Flynn case?

      1. Read Carol Leonnig’s comment again. The judge issues same instructions in every case, so trying to make this into yet another ridiculous conspiracy theory, this time about Flynn, is dumber than dumb.

        I swear, y’all need to ask your doctors for some Haldol.

        1. Well done buckley. You’ve managed to conjure up your own conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories. LOL!

          Try reading MY COMMENT again and this time use reason instead of emotion when replying.

          I couldn’t care less about Flynn’s innocence or guilt. What I do care about and is the purpose of JT’s post is whether a prosecutor is ALREADY obligated to turn over favorable or exculpatory evidence to the defense? If yes, then why is Judge Sullivan issuing the order in every case? If yes, then why would a defendant have to make sure to verify all evidence has been turned over prior to entering into a plea deal?

          You stated It means zip about Flynn case. If a defendant takes a plea deal knowing by law, all favorable or exculpatory evidence has been turned over, only to discover evidence had been suppressed, wouldn’t that mean more than zip to the defendant?

            1. Let me see now, I ask a non-partisan legal question and you respond with medical advice. I’m not surprised you are familiar with Haldol and its recommended dosages. I suggest you find a medical blog, because you are useless on a legal blog.

    2. The fact is that Flynn’s plea included an agreement that he waived access to information that was not yet on the table. In spite of this, Sullivan essentially overruled that agreement by requiring that Mueller turn over any other exculpatory evidence to Flynn and if Mueller believes that some evidence is not pertinent then he must turn it over to Sullivan who will decide whether or not it is. Why did Sullivan make this unusual ruling?

        1. That does not answer the question. Yes, I know that Sullivan instructs prosecutors to be sure to turn over exculpatory evidence. But this is different in that Flynn already plead guilty and as part of the plea he waived the right to all “further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided”. Sullivan essentially overruled the waiver. So, why did Sullivan make his unusual ruling about not only turning over exculpatory evidence but if Mueller had any doubts about whether evidence was material he has to turn it over to Sullivan who will decide, One might guess as to why but it is certainly unusual.

          1. Ole – Sullivan handled the Ted Stevens trial where he found federal prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence that should have been turned over under Brady, hence his standing order. He does not trust the DOJ. In this case, the judge who signed the FISA warrant was also handling the sentencing until it appears the other FISA judges got him to recuse himself. Sullivan was assigned and I don’t think he liked what he saw in the paperwork and issued the Brady order.

            1. Paul,
              If Brady already required the prosecutor to turn over all exculpatory evidence, then the extra order by Sullivan seems to imply the prosecutor cannot be trusted. Anyway, I would think a prosecutor cannot legally compel a defendant to sign a plea deal that effectively states even if it is discovered we violated your Brady rights you cannot change your plea.

              That’s not defending Flynn, that’s defending the rule of law. We could be next. Something buckley seemed unable to understand.

              1. Here is a good explanation of the purpose of Judge Sullivan’s order:

                But under the case law Sullivan relies upon, withholding material exculpatory evidence would mean Flynn’s plea was not knowing and voluntary.


  3. I am really torn about this Flynn guy. On the one hand, of course I wish to open my browser and find Mueller and his entire team are dead, some act of God, swallowed by a sink hole, whatever. Certainly, the charges to which Flynn plead now seem ridiculous. OTOH, Flynn apparently conspiring to rendition anyone for anything is about as despicable as it gets. I’d not mind seeing him personally destroyed for the rendition attempt (if true), but the current charges seem like a witch hunt.

    I read a report yesterday that Trump plans to pardon and re-hire Flynn; probably fake news, but would not surprise me if true.

    When do the many victims of this which hunt (like Carter Page) collect their civil suit award from retired British MI5 Agent Steele? That I want to see.

    1. Good post Joseph. The points you raise really gets to the heart of why the rule of law seems to be on life-support. We seem to function as a utilitarian democracy more than a constitutional republic. This means although law exists to guide society and administer justice, it should not limit well-intentioned people from doing things they believe to be a public good, as long as they have a majority supporting the act. To oppose this abuse of power is no longer considered a public good; especially if the abuse has influential support. The abuse of power might even have a morally justifiable motive, even garnering majority support. So this abuse of power is provided tacit approval simply because the cause is deemed right. Do this often enough and we end up right where we are today: a nation of men and not of laws.

    2. “…rapidly drained of his savings in the investigation and pleaded guilty, reportedly to protect his son and any remaining assets.”

      And there in a nutshell is the fatal flaw in our justice system.

      Faced with litigation induced poverty when in your fifties is no small thing – justice becomes less important as you contemplate an old age with no money.

      No idea if Flynn is as guilty as the indictments suggest, but the poverty weapon taints any victory claimed by prosecutors.

      1. I would think Flynn is financial safe. He was making good $$ in the service and Willing to do anything for money in his private biz. So I found Turley’s concern strange. Are public defenders available in federal court? Sad to feel sorry for a traitor.

        1. Public defender for a case like this?? ha ha ha I had no idea you had such a sense of satire. Hell, ordinary folks can barely get adequate help from a public defender as their case load is so large. I suggest you read “The Divide” by Matt Taibbi

          1. Autumn,…
            -I haven’t seen enough of the federal public defender system to know if they’re as overloaded with cases as PDs in other jurisdictions.
            The staffing/ funding for non-federal public defender offices can vary, too.
            It seems like “the luck of the draw” in some cases; i.e., a defendant might be charged in one jurisdiction and may get excellent representation, but a different defendant in another jurisdiction might have to relay on an understaffed, underfunded public defender program.

          2. You are on da side of da t rump 1 percent. He is makin da rich even richer while I type. Blue states and counties have budgets for public defenders. You red state T rumpers have budgets for executions of da poor.

            1. Whether Ken is actually retarded, or just pretending to be because itso enedlessllly ceute and ever-entutainig, I usually skip over that fool’s comments.
              This one happened to appear right below one of my comments, so I’ll make an exception in this case.

  4. Two things: If the law already requires prosecutors to turn over all exculpatory evidence in their possession to the defense prior to the plea deal, then why would this order from Sullivan be necessary? If they withheld evidence, isn’t that a violation of the law? It reminds me of Col. Jessup ordering the code red. Secondly, if evidence was withheld prior to the plea deal, wouldn’t Flynn be able to argue that was not part of the “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” provision of his deal? I doubt further discovery means discovering the prosecutor violated ethics rules.

  5. Turley: “The order itself was hardly noteworthy, even on a slow news day. Sullivan simply ordered prosecutors to comply with their obligations of disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense.”

    On the other hand, McCarthy notes: “Now, it could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides. But it is noteworthy that Flynn had already pled guilty, and in the course of doing so had agreed to Mueller’s demand that he waive “the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided” — in addition to forfeiting many other trial and appellate rights. (See plea agreement, pages 6–7.) It certainly appears that Sullivan’s order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt.”


    1. Out of curiosity, Ole, would McCarthy’s argument work just as well for Comey saying that Clinton had no provable intent carelessly to mishandle classified information on her private email server?

  6. Shouldn’t federal judges be concerned about our 21st Century crisis of our Independent Judiciary providing judicial review over the political branches? Isn’t the American Justice System starting to resemble the “Salem Witch Trials” – where you start with a guilty verdict then create a show-trial to make the verdict look legitimate. Then we torture or drown the suspect until they confess. If the suspect drowns, they are determined to be innocent (post-mortem). Prosecutors really net a lot of guilty pleas with such a system.

    America started the 21st Century by adopting torture techniques from the bloody Spanish Inquisition. We then paid huge bounties to tribal chieftains to turn over anyone they disliked – without evidence. We then kidnapped these people off the street and threw them into a gulag – without charge, without trial, without jury and without guilty verdict. 16 years later some have never gone to trial.

    At home we adopted the techniques of the Communist secret police from the Cold War – the East German Stasi. America now has at least one “Fusion Center” or blacklisting center in every state funded by Mueller’s employer – the U.S. Department of Justice. In the early days of our new American Stasi – states like Virginia blacklisted 100% of African-American college students attending all-black colleges. Possible lifetime defamation possibly, harming lifetime income, based on non-crimes and non-wrongdoing – just being black and attending college.

    Attorney General John Ashcroft essentially false-imprisoned native born Americans on U.S, soil abusing the federal Material Witness Statute – without sufficient evidence. In some cases it appeared to be purely political destroying Democrats that got in hus way. Ashcroft would force your employer to fire you (without telling you why), then Ashcroft would determine if you were allowed to earn an income, how much money you were allowed to earn and where you were NOT allowed to work. If you were allowed to earn an income, you would be interrogated and abused tortured by federal officials. The Communists called Ashcroft’s tactics “Zersetzung”. Ashcroft was severely reprimanded for his alleged criminal activity by a federal court and may lose his personal assets one day for his disloyal behavior.

    Jonathan Turley’s article above now reports American officials were considering sending a person to be likely tortured and even executed for essentially First Amendment exercises. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all persons – citizens and non-citizens – on U.S. soil are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    When is John Roberts and the federal Judiciary going to start providing Judicial Review over our new and improved Justice System?

    1. Flynn has Not been bound and dropped in the mill pond with rocks in his pockets. Your agonistic hyperbole is both irrelevant to, and disproportionate with, the issue of Flynn’s plea deal. Now go pull your hair, rend your garments and beat your breasts with self-flagellating ululation in the privacy of your own padded cell.

  7. Since Mueller is now interested in government corruption, shouldn’t he START with indicting the Bush torture attorneys? There is hard overwhelming evidence and due to loss of material evidence, now is time to indict.

    Mueller has already mission-creeped, so why not go after “slam-dunk” indictments with better evidence?

  8. This is much ado about nothing. The order issued by J. Sullivan is a standing order that he issues sua sponte in every case. The order reminds the government of its obligation to surrender all exculpatory material in its possession to the defense and directs the government to make such a surrender. The order is issued regardless of the posture of the case. The order was initially entered on December 12, 2017. However, apparently, the order that was entered on December 12, 2017 was an earlier rendition of the judge’s standing order. The current version was docketed on February 16, 2018. Nothing in the order should be read as suggesting that Flynn wants to retract his deal with the government or that the government withheld any exculpatory from the defense.

    1. Vince, is Sullivan the judge presiding over Flynn’s sentencing? Turley seems to think that either Sullivan’s order could effect Flynn’s sentencing or otherwise encourage Trump to pardon Flynn. Unless I read that first part wrong. Which I might have.

      1. And here’s another curiosity, Vince:

        Turley said, “It now appears that . . .federal investigators had concluded that Flynn was not knowingly lying to them about his meeting in late December 2016 with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a meeting where sanctions were discussed.”

        This could go to the question of whether or not Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI before Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go. Or, to be more precise, whether Trump might have been told that Flynn had not “knowingly lied” to the FBI. That, in turn, could change the circumstances for a prospective charge of obstruction of justice against Trump.

      2. Judge Contreras was the judge who was assigned to Flynn’s case. It was randomly reassigned to Judge Sullivan on December 7, 2017. Judge Sullivan issued his standing order on December 12. The case will remain with J. Sullivan for all future proceedings, including Flynn’s sentencing. J. Sullivan’s standing order will not affect Flynn’s sentencing and it should not give the President a reason to pardon Flynn. It is a standing order, meaning that the judge issues it in every case. There is nothing special about the order as it relates to Flynn’s case.

    2. Flynn won’t suffer any more than he already has. As a General rule, only those outside of the tent are required to suffer harsh punishment for not being able to enrich themselves within The system. Hence HRC & Co. will remain untouched and revered … by large segments of the uninformed population.

  9. Off topic. CNN has thtree nitwits on the air talking about the Florida shooter. They say that all which could have been done was to search his house and perhaps find some crime to charge him with. No mention, they have no notion, of a mental health civil commitment to a mental facility.

  10. From the LogicallyFallacious.com entry on Special Pleading:

    Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

    1. From thefreedictionary.com entry for “Grasping at straws:”

      1) To make a desperate attempt to salvage a bad situation.
      2) To depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something.
      grasp at straws
      3) Make a desperate attempt at saving oneself.

      For example, He had lost the argument, but he kept grasping at straws, naming numerous previous cases that had little to do with this one . This metaphoric expression alludes to a drowning person trying to save himself by grabbing at flimsy reeds. First recorded in 1534, the term was used figuratively by the late 1600s.

      1. From Dante’s Divine Comedy:

        Through me you pass into the city of woe:
        Through me you pass into eternal pain:
        Through me among the people lost for aye.

        Justice the founder of my fabric mov’d:
        To rear me was the task of power divine,
        Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.

        Before me things create were none, save things
        Eternal, and eternal I endure.
        All hope abandon ye who enter here.

        Such characters in colour dim I mark’d
        Over a portal’s lofty arch inscrib’d:
        Whereat I thus: Master, these words import.

  11. Like Manafort just found out. There is a wide array of charges that could have been originally thrown at Flynn (and his son) and the minor charges he pled guilty to was rightfully considered a sweetheart deal at the time. Everyone that keeps thinking this or anything else is a nothingburger is getting their information from tarnished sources.

    Is there anyone out there that believes Trump’s finances could stand up to the same scrutiny as Manafort’s and that it isn’t already undergoing that kind of review?

  12. Flynn didn’t plead guilty because he was guilty. He plead guilty because Mueller and Co. put the SQUEEZE on him, threatening his family members. Flynn wanted to protect his family from the anti-American filthy, lying, sleazebag Mueller, who has unlimited resources and the ethics of a slimeball.

    Judge Emmet Sullivan is a courageous judge who simply demanded that Mueller follow the law for a change, since Mueller thinks he and his evil band of skumbag lawyers are above the law and don’t have to turn over exculpatory evidence.

    1. Well said, mr Adamo. And as much as I like professor turley’s writings, I am so done with ALL pundits these days. Too many years of explanations, not enough action. The wheels of justice regarding Clinton, obama, all of their minions, had better start turning faster. About half of America is done reading And listening. For God’s sake, the democrats have never yet even acknowledged Clinton’s theft of the DNC and the primary. That why I left, never to return. Something must be done. To start with, mueller campaign needs to end. Get Andrew Weismann out of peoples lives. Are we in a banana republic? I think maybe we are now.

        1. Not sure…probly some of both…but his techniques and methods are mobbish. …May general Flynn be exonerated , all charges cleared. And the harassment of Manafort continues. If it turns out to be misplaced, he should sue big t8me.

          1. There is no need for Weissman to lie when the truth is sufficient. Your desire to see Flynn exonerated and Manafort let up on appears to have nothing to do with their actual guilt. We will see how this plays out.

      1. Interesting fantasy; I commend you. However, here in the real world, foaming-at-the-mouth ejaculations by Pravda Faux News are not considered facts, but merely wished-upon-wanabees. Further your “about half” assertion about “America” is laughably lacking in factual support and further exemplifies the utter weakness of your ridiculous post.

        this is to “in the sticks we don’t care about punctuation” cyndi

    2. Ralph Adamo said, “Judge Emmet Sullivan is a courageous judge who simply demanded that Mueller follow the law for a change, since Mueller thinks he and his evil band of skumbag lawyers are above the law and don’t have to turn over exculpatory evidence.”

      Turley said, “Moreover, in his plea, Flynn agreed to ‘forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.'”

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        For Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who is President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, pushing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton is a family affair: Both he and his son, Michael G. Flynn, have used social media to spread fake news stories linking Mrs. Clinton to underage sex rings and other serious crimes, backed by no evidence.

        The Twitter habits of both men are attracting renewed attention after a man fired a rifle on Sunday inside Comet Ping Pong, a Washington pizza restaurant that was the subject of false stories during the campaign tying it and the Clinton campaign to a child sex trafficking ring.

        1. Ralph Adamo said, “Flynn wanted to protect his family from the anti-American filthy, lying, sleazebag Mueller, who has unlimited resources and the ethics of a slimeball.”

          Gee willikers Ralph, has Mueller accused Flynn of running a child sex trafficking ring?

    3. Parallel Construction.

      This is the use of the unlimited NSA database to target a suspect/political adversary.

      Briefly, all the three letter agencies and police and federal prosecutors have access to NSA files on one and all. While this material cannot be used in court, it can point to information that the prosecution could obtain in no other way. So, if one knows what one is looking for, some legitimate means can be found to bring this information to the court.

      While I certainly don’t have inside information on the truth of this assertion, I refer you to Bill Binney. If you don’t know who he is, well, you should.

      Binney discusses palallel construction from about the 15 minute mark on.

      I Dore puts you off, please do a search on parallel construction Bill Binney.

      If you are interested in the constitution this information is a must.

  13. Remember that coffee commercial: The best thing about waking up in the morning? Yes the best thing about waking up in the morning is that American hatin B*tch Lost & Trump Won! LOL

    As to Flynn I believe this vid below is a large part of Trumps blueprint to take out these American hatin Commie/Nazis trash that has infected this country for decades. I think it just one of a few warnings but it’ll start happening very fast as it rolls out.

    I heard it & I’m backing off of AG Sessions azz for a while. We’ll

    I thought it became very interesting at about 1:52/3


    1. In actuality, all you have to remember are the new indictments issued by the federal grand jury.

      this is to coffee klatch oky 1

  14. Flynn still has a substantial pension coming in. They would have to figure out a way to strip him of that. Something hinky went on with the Flynn 302s, first, he didn’t lie, then he did lie. The fly in the ointment is Andrew McCabe.

    1. Remember that book that came out months ago?

      How to kill time in the bathroom by agent Peter Stroke. BF of Lisa Page that Hated Trump/ Flynn.

      Who interviewed Flynn , take a guess.

      1. Oky1 – he is the one who thought Flynn did not lie, which surprised the hell out of me. 😉

        1. Me too, his emails tell a different story as to how he felt.

          What a Phin soap opry & still, years later us old locker room boyz have yet been seen the evidence of two good looking Ruskie Hooker in those Jumbo Ruskie military hats!!! LOL

  15. I heard Lawyers are some of the lowest of the low life forms, I guess Mueller and other lawyers are living up to that expectation !

    1. this is to “I’ve always hated people smarter than me, I just can’t help it” observing

      1. Marky Mark Mark – I can just imagine the number of people you hate. You are on the bottom of the pile.

Comments are closed.