Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Politics

Federal Judge Orders Mueller To Turn Over Flynn Material

In a surprising move, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government’s documents and “memoranda” related to Flynn’s questioning. This follows a Flynn filing that described an effective trap set by agents who encouraged him not to bring a lawyer and left inconsistencies unaddressed in what has been described by critics as a “perjury trap.”  I have practiced in front of Judge Sullivan for years and he is a respected judge who has a keen eye for prosecutorial and investigative abuse.  That does not mean that he will find such abuse here and could ultimately make a finding that nothing improper occurred.  Yet, despite a recommendation of no jail time, Sullivan wants to review the entire record before deciding on the issue.

Sullivan’s order gives Mueller a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel’s office to produce the FBI documents.  Those include 302 field reports that have been widely discussed in the media, including one which reportedly shows then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushing Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning.  McCabe of course was later fired from the Justice Department and is viewed by critics as someone who had an anti-Trump agenda.  Many however have defended his actions and denounced efforts, including President Trump, to make him a villain without any clear evidence of political bias.  The scene however is made all the more suspicious for Trump supporters with the involvement of Peter Strzok, who was also later fired.

Some have also noted that McCabe never warned Flynn that false statements to investigators are crimes or that this was not some routine sit-down during the very busy opening days of the Administration.  The fact is however that Flynn was not in custody and thus was not guaranteed a Miranda warning.

On the other hand, the false statement that Flynn allegedly made was not reportedly viewed by the agents as an intentional lie.  His meeting with the Russians was not illegal or even unprecedented as the incoming National Security Adviser.  He did not deny the meeting but a memory of sanctions being discussed.  Robert Mueller however decided to reexamine the statement and charge it as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.  

In reality, it was doubtful that Flynn would ever get jail time for such an alleged false statement. His range as a first offender started at 0 and that is likely where it would remain even without the recommendation of Mueller.  

There is no question that this was an aggressive approach to an interview at a time when the subject was in the middle of establishing a new office for a new Administration in the midst of serious national security pressures. Moreover, Flynn “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.  They made the conscious decision that  “If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, … they would not confront him or talk him through it.”  Again they have no duty to reveal the discrepancy but it is unclear why they would adopt such a seemingly hostile or aggressive stance toward Flynn.

Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday.

239 thoughts on “Federal Judge Orders Mueller To Turn Over Flynn Material”

  1. A reminder about the Ted Stevens political targeting and corruption scandal that involved both Robert Mueller’s FBI and Judge Emmet Sullivan:

    ———————

    “Former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was, at the time, the longest-serving GOP senator who had an impeccable reputation among those who knew him. But shortly before the 2008 election he was indicted by the FBI — led at the time by Director Robert Mueller — based on falsified records and testimony from some very well rewarded “cooperating” witnesses.

    In short order, it was reported that the government had concealed exculpatory evidence from Stevens’ defense team. As such, an independent investigation was ordered by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, which discovered that the prosecution was “permeated by the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence, which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’ defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”

    A just-released report by U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, titled, “Robert Mueller: Unmasked,” recounted the injustice.”

    https://www.newstarget.com/2018-05-10-deep-state-tool-robert-mueller-has-a-long-history-of-targeting-innocent-people.html

    1. “The 500-page report by investigator Henry F. Schuelke III shook the legal community, as law professors described it as a milestone in the history of prosecutorial misconduct.

      Investigators weren’t talking Thursday. But Brendan Sullivan, who defended the senator, had plenty to say.

      “The extent of the corruption is shocking,” Sullivan says. “It’s the worst misconduct we’ve seen in a generation by prosecutors at the Department of Justice.”

      https://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148687717/report-prosecutors-hid-evidence-in-ted-stevens-case

      1. how about when Meuller paid a witness $30,000 for testimony against the Hells Angels? My what a record. And that did not work out for the government in spite of his improper methods

        https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/11/20/In-an-embarrassing-turn-of-events-for-prosecutors-trying/7578343544400/

        SAN FRANCISCO — In an embarrassing turn of events for prosecutors trying for the second time to convict Hells Angels members and associates on racketeering charges, a key prosecution witness said in court he was paid some $60,000 by federal agents as a ‘reward’ for his testimony.

        Thomas ‘Big Red’ Bryant, 37, a former member of the motorcycle club, made the assertion during his testimony in the second trial of 11 Hells Angels and associates on federal racketeering and conspiracy counts.

        U.S. District Judge William Orrick said he was ‘outraged’ and would take the matter to the Justice Department.

        During cross-examination, Bryant said federal narcotics agents characterized $30,000 in $100 bills they gave him as a ‘reward’ for his testimony against the Angels in the first nine-month trial which ended in a hung jury July 2. [REWARD IE BRIBE]
        …
        Defense attorney Richard Hodge Monday asked for a mistrial in the second trial _ which began a month ago _ arguing that ‘the government has in effect, if not in fact, bribed its own witness.’

        ‘The government’s conduct is shocking and outrageous and amounts to the purchase of testimony,’ he said.

        Orrick said he was ‘quite concerned about the highly unusual step of paying a witness $30,000’ and ordered Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller to supply details on the matter….” [YEP THATS OUR BOB MUELLER]

    2. One must wonder if they will indeed produce the unredacted original FBI documents — including 302 field reports by Strok and McCabe? Or will they mysteriously be “lost”?

        1. Read the article. It makes one wonder why it took 8 months to finalize the 302 reports? Is that how long it took for Strzok, et al, to get their “stories” straight? Flynn was interviewed by the FBI in January 2017. The 302 report is dated August 22, 2017. Huh.

      2. TBob,..
        If that’s the case, if the 302s are “lost”, then the judge will just have to take McCabe and Strzok’s word for what was in them.😊😀😂
        Apparently, the FBI still does not audio record interviews. I don’t know if a “court reporter” –type is present compiling a transcript.
        The lag in time is interesting….I thought there was a requirement to complete a 302 report on an interview shortly after the interview.

        1. Well, they didn’t say they were lost, but they just didn’t produce them today. Do I have that right? The special council’s office did not produce an original 302 today? Why not? Where are they? Destroyed? What about the other documents the judge requested? Let’s see what Judge Sullivan does about it.

          1. T Bob,…
            I didn’t hear that they missed the deadline to produce the documents.
            I think Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday….we’ll see if Judge Sullivan refers to those documents, if he has them by them.
            If the Special Counsel took the 302s in for alterations, it may be a while before Sullivan gets them.
            Given that the FBI apparently took 6-8 months to complete the 302, it probably already reads the way they want it to read.

    3. and associating with dirty FBI agents like John Connolly

      “This story begins years ago when Mueller was first an assistant U.S. attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston.

      Throughout the 1980s, Mueller wrote letters to the state’s parole and pardons board opposing clemency for four men — Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo, Joe Salvati, and Louis Greco, who were convicted for a 1965 mob-related murder.

      But it turns out they were innocent. And it turns out that Mueller knew they were innocent.

      Some rogue FBI agents, John Connolly and John Morris, both of whom were “handlers” for mob figure-turned-FBI informant Whitey Bulger, attempted to intimidate a local parole board member, Mike Albano — who later became mayor of Springfield, Mass. — into dropping his sympathy for the four men and any inkling of voting to grant them clemency.

      “They told me that if I wanted to stay in public life, I shouldn’t vote to release a guy like Limone,’’ Albano said. “They intimidated me.’’

      Both agents, of course, would have had to have been answerable to the U.S. attorney in Boston at the time, which was, as previously stated, Bob Mueller.

      There’s more. After Albano became mayor in 1995 he found that the FBI had begun investigating his administration for ‘corruption.’ After taking down several people associated with his government, he became convinced that “the FBI wasn’t interested in public integrity as much as in publicly humiliating him because he dared to defy them,” the Boston Globe’s Kevin Cullen writes.”

    4. Louis Gohmert…….LOL ……You have got to come up with someone or anybody else. What’s next? report from Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Rush? Gohmert…LOL

      1. well you can read the UPI article on how Meuller’s team bribed witness to testify against Hells angels or another one that’s not loading yet, about how he failed to supervise FBI agents conspiring with Whitey Bulger to muder people. just old stuff. Newer stuff like what i have posted before about him botching the antrax investigation or lying about WMDs in Iraq– a little more interesting perhaps

  2. The federal judge should order that Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller be sent to prison. Mike Nifong, the DA in the Duke Lacrosse hoax, went to jail for the same crime of “malicious prosecution” in a fraudulent, unethical and criminal “witch hunt.”

    All the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America must be sent to prison including:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

    1. Anonymous, it seems you post this comment on a daily basis under different names. And every day it gets lamer and lamer.

      1. that would seem to be one of george’s messages. i am sure he would claim it. people get tired of logging in all the time i suspect.

    2. poor Huma. I think she’s kind of cute. How did a nice girl get wrapped up with such a creepy husband and such an awful boss.

  3. TRUMP’S THURSDAY TWEETS:

    “I NEVER DIRECTED MICHAEL COHEN TO BREAK THE LAW”

    TRUMP IGNORES ENQUIRER’S COOPERATION WITH PROSECUTORS

    Trump’s tweets Thursday were his first public comments about Cohen since his sentencing. On Wednesday afternoon, the president ignored questions shouted by reporters about his onetime loyalist.

    “I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law,” Trump said Thursday. “He was a lawyer, and he is supposed to know the law. It is called ‘advice of counsel,’ and a lawyer has great liability if a mistake is made. That is why they get paid.”

    During an interview on Fox News on Thursday, Lanny Davis, an adviser to Cohen, said Trump’s credibility is questionable. Davis pointed to an assertion Trump made in April to reporters aboard Air Force One that he knew nothing about a $130,000 payment to Daniels to silence her about their alleged decade-old dalliance.

    The White House has since changed its story. In a television interview in May, Trump personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani said Trump had repaid Cohen for the money he gave to Daniels. The next day, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was pressed by reporters on why she had previously denied that Trump had any knowledge of the payment. Sanders said she had “given the best information I had at the time.”

    In his three tweets Thursday morning, the president made no mention of a cooperation deal announced Thursday between federal prosecutors and the National Enquirer’s parent company, in which it acknowledged paying McDougal to “suppress the woman’s story” and “prevent it from influencing the election.”

    Prosecutors announced that they would not prosecute the company, American Media Inc. (AMI), for its role in a scheme to tilt the presidential race in favor of Trump. In the agreement, AMI said it would cooperate with prosecutors and admitted it paid McDougal $150,000 before the 2016 election to silence her allegations of an affair with Trump.

    The deal signaled the unraveling of the deep relationship Trump and AMI chief executive David Pecker had forged over decades. It also made clear that Pecker, whose tabloid strongly supported Trump’s candidacy, has turned on the president.

    Edited from: “Trump Denies Directing Cohen To Break The Law To Buy Silence Of Playboy Playmate And Porn Star”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. PROFESSOR TURLEY’S COLUMN ABOVE reports that Judge Sullivan has ordered Mueller’s team to turn over transcripts regarding Michael Flynn. That story, however, is only a minor footnote in this morning’s news developments.

      The big stories this morning concern Michael Cohen’s sentencing yesterday and the cooperation American Media (The National Enquirer) is providing prosecutors. Then there is the guilty plea entered by Russian Agent Maria Butina; her deal is getting wide coverage today. Butina, as you recall, was that Russian grad student at Washington’s American University who seemed to be everywhere during the 2016 campaign befriending NRA supporters and other conservatives.

      1. can foreigners make friends and have political opinions?

        because I see mexicans and other foreigners who are here on tv all the time talking about DACA etc. and what american laws and policies should be.

        are they interfering? are they foreign agents? lets be fair and not just persecute a handful of russians. let’s call these ten million illegal immigrants from Latin America FOREIGN AGENTS too

  4. I think it’s fine for the judge to review the material but let’s be clear: Flynn knew very well that he was lying to the FBI agents. He may have lied because he just didn’t want them to know or think it was all that important or he might have lied because he was up to no good. Either way it doesn’t matter because he did, in fact, lie and he knew he was lying.

  5. Andrew Weinstein’s record and tactics have made him a controversial prosecutor.
    He was also one of the people invited to Hillary’s “victory party” on election night.
    Given the close professional relationship and friendship between Mueller and Comey, I felt that Mueller was not a good choice to become the Special Counsel.
    When Mueller stacked his team with mostly partisan Democrats, that seemed like another red flag.
    The wording of Rosenstein’s directives to Mueller amounted to permission to engage in a fishing expedition far beyond the. Russia-Trump “collusion” issue.
    I’ll try to post a link to one article about prosecutor Andrew Weinstein; there is no shortage of material critical of Weinstein’s methods.
    I don’t know if Judge Sullivan actually suspects prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case, or if there is some other motivation for his instructions to Mueller.
    Generally, it’s a good idea to monitor the performance of investigators/ prosecutors because of the power that they wield and the potential for abuse.
    Rosenstein gave Mueller and his team a great deal of latitude to investigate far-ranging areas not related to the ostensible purpose of establishing the office of Special Counsel.
    With Rosenstein no longer “overseeing” the Mueller investigation, there may be a tighter rein on the areas of investigation and the tactics used by the Special Counsel team.

    1. Tom, it seems your main thrust today is, “What About Hillary??” I just spent 2 hours covering the news. I”m not seeing any fresh stories concerning Hillary. Are you just falling back on her out of habit? Like that’s the only card to play?

      1. Peter,..
        I’ve answered that “whataboutism” dodge before, and I’m not going to waste anymore time on that.
        If you failed to understand what I’ve stated before, I’m not going to screw around and go over it again.

        1. Tom, do you really think that Peter spent 2 hours covering the news? Of course not. He spent 2 hours looking at the news never really recognizing what news really is. He is searching for news that confirms his stupidity. Hillary’s case has been reopened.

      2. It is the only card they got, and everybody is lying but Trump. As we all know, Trump tells the truth all of the time.

      3. the comment is about BIAS in the prosecutor’s corner, which is always relevant issue for criminal defense

      1. Tom, your link is from October of last year. How fresh is that in the context of breaking developments?

          1. Meuller just farted out the likes of Cohn, Flynn and others, wait till the sh*tstorm hits the Trump family.

        2. The article that I linked deals with Weissman’s history, and criticism of his tactics.
          You can easily find more recent articles of the same nature if you need a “fresh” article.
          Weissman is about 60, and has worked as a federal prosecutor for c. 25 years.
          Unless you believe that he has turned over a new leaf since Oct. 2017, the article is relevant and “fresh” enough.

  6. Turley claims: ” Again they have no duty to reveal the discrepancy but it is unclear why they would adopt such a seemingly hostile or aggressive stance toward Flynn”. Maybe because Flynn’s a crook? Flynn, despite a long military career, lied to the FBI, and they got him. This “perjury trap”, likely a Kellyanneism, is malarkey, and JT knows it, but it soothes the Faux News and Rush Limbaugh crowds, just like the manure about Strock and McCabe. Fact is, no one can “trap” you into lying. This isn’t some esoteric debate club argument or some game. The integrity of our elections at security of our government aren’t games. Flynn, Manafort and Trump are all compromised. Hostile foreign governments have the goods on them.

    Turley also tries to make the case that somehow Flynn is a victim because he wasn’t Mirandized. He wasn’t in custody. No right to a Miranda warning.

    Honestly, JT, is this all you have to do? Make up crap to try to divert attention away from the facts? Helping to distract from the real political news, which is that Pecker and the Trump organization’s finance guy are cooperating. Also, Trump’s “fixer” who said he’d “take a bullet” for Trump got sentenced to 3 years, and will lose his law license. He’s also got tapes. Years worth of them. Pecker does too, reportedly.

    1. “The fact is however is that Flynn was not in custody and thus was not guaranteed a Miranda warning”.
      This is what JT actually wrote, which “Anonymous” interprets as trying “to make the case that somehow Flynn is a victim because he wasn’t Mirandized”.
      Then “Anonymous” asks “Honestly, JT, is this all you have to do? Make up crap to divert attention away from the facts?”
      Leaving aside the irony of “Anonymous'” use of the word “honestly”, the column is about a judge’s decision and his directive to Mueller.
      If “Anonymous” feels that JT made up this story, then I’m sure that she can provide the evidence that JT is writing fiction.

      1. OK, Tom: the point was: of all the political news to report on today, why mention that Flynn did not receive a Miranda warning when he wasn’t entitled to one in the first place? THAT was the point: why bring it up at all, other than to throw red meat to the Trumpsters? I never said Turley misrepresented this, but the entire tenor of today’s piece is that Flynn somehow got screwed by falling into a “perjury trap”, implying that he is somehow a victim. He is NO victim.

        Flynn is a total crook, and it’s sad that someone who spent so many years in the service of this country lied like he did. As other writers have pointed out, Trump brings out the worst in everyone he touches.

        1. Anonymous,…
          I don’t think that JT will ever be able to satisfy everyone with his choice of topics for his column.
          I don’t know what other political news from today that he “should have covered” over this story.
          ( The quote marks are for my remark…I’m not quoting anybody).
          The issue of Sullivan’s review and directive to Mueller seems to fit in a legal blog.
          If the 302 reports are ever publically released, we might find out if in fact McCabe manipulated or pressured Flynn into not to having a lawyer present.
          Since that allegation has been made, I don’t see anything wrong with it being mentioned in today’s column.

          1. You people. You people never learn. You people never learn anything at all. You people keep going back to the same old well that ran dry the first time you went to it.

            The notion that the FBI adopted a hostile and aggressive stance toward Flynn for their initial interview with Flynn is based on the assumption that the FBI was not giving Flynn the same benefit of the doubt that they had initially given to Gen. David Petraeus. You have nothing other than your facile assumption that the FBI was hostile and aggressive toward Flynn from the start to warrant your facile assumption that the FBI was hostile and aggressive toward Flynn from the start.

            Don’t be surprised when Judge Sullivan finds out that the FBI started out handling Flynn with the same kid-glove treatment that the FBI had initially given to Petraeus.

            1. Fortunately, L4B never bases anything on assumptions.
              She deals only in cold, hard facts.😆😉😂
              The allegation that Flynn is making is that he was subjected to strong pressure to submit to an FBI interview without the benefit of legal representation.
              There are accounts of past conflicts with McCabe when Flynn was Director of the DNI in the Obama Administration.
              And that McCabe told Flynn that if he planned on bringing a lawyer to the interview, that the FBI would “go formal” on Flynn with a referral to the DOJ.
              Unlike L4B, I can’t say if those allegations are true or not.
              She can make that determination based on HER assumptions.
              Those people…those people of her coven are like the pot ( they stir) calling the kettle black.

              1. Flynn is an experienced intelligence officer. Flynn spent the entire Summer of 2016 railing against a supposedly rigged system that had supposedly let HRC get away with crime of mishandling classified information. Thus an experienced intelligence officer voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by agents of the very “rigged system” he had been railing against, and he agreed to do so without a lawyer, despite his experience as an intelligence officer, and despite his supposed knowledge of the rigging of the system. It’s so unfair. Flynn thought the FBI agents were his allies. How was an experienced intelligence officer supposed to know that the FBI agents would be hostile and aggressive agents of the rigged system that Flynn had been railing about for the entire Summer of 2016??? It’s so unfair!!!!

                  1. The only way Flynn seriously believed that the FBI agents who interviewed him would be allies is if everything Flynn said on the campaign trail about the supposedly rigged system that let HRC off the hook for the crime of mishandling classified information was pure political propaganda.

                    Conversely, if Flynn really, really, truly, truly believed every last word of the chant “Lock her up,” then Flynn had no reasonable expectation that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn would be allies.

                2. Flynn was in the military for 33 years, resigning (or forced to resign) in 2014.
                  From 2012 to 2014, he was Director of the Defense Intrelligence Agency; I don’t know how well he got to know “the system”, the culture, the methods, of other agencies during that two year stint.
                  I don’t know what Flynn is after, what his objectives are, in emphasizing his complaint against the FBI ( primarily the FBI, it seems….maybe against Mueller, too.)
                  And it appears to be a steep, uphill battle to provide sufficient evidence to back up his allegations.
                  The FBI still does not audio or video-record interviews; I thought that policy had changed, but current articles state that non-recording is still the practice.
                  Neither Flynn nor a neutral party are the ones who write up the 302s.
                  He had no lawyer present, and apparently the FBI agents were the only other people present for the interview
                  If the reports that the 302 was not filed until 6-8 months later are true, that’s another problem.

    2. JT has a way of deflecting. This time it reads like the government took advantage of poor Mr. Flynn. Poor Mr.Flynn what will he do now besides get a gig on FOX.

      1. Oh i suspect a lot of military contractors will have big deals to offer him. He’ll be ok.
        He is a fine man with a fantastic career. This smear on his is just a speck of dust.

    3. PERJURY TRAP IS A THING

      here listen to ACLU criminal defense lawyer Silverglate tell us all DONT TALK TO FBI
      let your lawyer communcate for you.
      turns out they tricked Flynn and failed to remind him of his right to counsel- very wrong!

  7. This is all well and good, but is it too little, too late? If the judge determines what we have all known all along (except, of course, those here who hate Trump with the heat of a thousand suns), how does Flynn get his life back? He’s broke, had to sell his home, caved in to the plea due to extortionist threats against his family. How does that get rectified?
    Serious question.

    2. FFS: “we” know nothing of the sort. I’ll say it again: most Americans did not vote for Trump and disapprove of what he has done. Flynn is not a victim here. He just couldn’t keep lying his way out of the trouble he caused for himself.

        1. Despite being a Faux News devotee, you do recognize that the pro-Trump manure they spew daily does not represent mainstream views, don’t you? Hannity, et al, always speak in terms of “we all know” this or that, which is just more spin. You were doing the same, implying that most people view Trump like you do, carving out a small exception for what you believe are Trump haters, all of which implies that opposition to Trump has no valid basis. That’s what’s behind all of the attacks on “the media” and accusations of bias and “fake news”, tactics Hitler deployed back in the 1930’s.

          What you, Faux News and Limbaugh see isn’t blind, irrational hatred of Trump. You’ve even created catchy little phrases like “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, implying that opposition of Trump must be a sign of mental illness, and “never Trump”, implying that no matter what wondrous achievements Trump accomplishes, he will be criticized. This all detracts from the substantive reasons people oppose Trump, which are numerous, beginning with the reason he sought the presidency in the first place: pure ego reasons, a means of feeding his malignant narcissism. How did he “win the victory”? (don’t ever forget that he lost the popular vote). Pandering to un-American sentiments like xenophobia and racism. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, there are ways to accomplish border security without spending $20B on a wall, which migrants have proven they can climb over anyway. Why won’t he listen to alternatives? Because he’s also a pathological liar and promised his base that not only would a wall get built, Mexico would pay for it, so, taking him at his word, there is no reason why should Congress appropriate money for the wall. When Schumer and Pelosi point out these things, the Faux News attack dogs pounce, but we’ve all seen the multiple times he promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, How, exactly, did he intend to force Mexico to do this? Did he ever have a plan? What was it? Or, maybe he was just lying to people who hate foreigners (xenophobes) and who believe the spin that they are all criminals, rapists and murders. Why aren’t you Trumpsters requiring him to keep his promises or at least explain the plan for forcing Mexico to pay for the wall? He’s had 2 years. Why no money for the wall? Talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome!

          Why does he continue to be the least-successful POTUS in U.S. history? He is no leader. He cannot compromise with people to achieve results because he’s never had to, and because of his malignant narcissism, he never could. He could never admit that anyone else has a valid point, much less work with others to get a job done. He’s never been accountable to a Board of Directors of a corporation. He isn’t about to start being accountable now, even for the lies he tells and the misdeeds he has done to “win” the presidency. He would literally say and do anything to get what he wants, including colluding with a hostile foreign government. These grounds for opposing Trump are based in fact.

          1. Wow, you stuffed all of the official talking points into one single post!! Do they pay you a bonus for that?

            In my next life, I want to be an NPC like Anonymous.

            1. The opening bet was Hannity, then Anonymous raised you with a Hitler and then a Limbaugh.
              The stakes may get higher during this hand; if Anonymous bets that Mein Kampf is your bible, will you call the bluff?

          2. Why do you always ask questions with embedded false premises?
            Have you kept up with your alcoholics anonymous meetings Diane?

      2. most americans didnt vote for George Washington and he did ok/
        you can drop that boring line already. many presidents have been elected on pluralities

    4. OFCOLA. Flynn landed a job as the Director of Global Strategy for Stonington Strategies (lobbying, influence pedaling firm) in July of this year. When Flynn’s lawyer found out about it, Flynn was told to wait until final sentencing before returning to his old life as a K Street Swamp Creature. As soon as final sentencing is complete, Flynn will go back, Jack, do it again. Wheels turning around and ’round.

  8. Flynn lied. Of course, he feels betrayed that the FBI agents didn’t protect him. I think Mueller did Flynn a service by charging him with lying rather than colluding/conspiring to kidnap a Turkish dissident to satisfy a foreign government.

    1. The original FBI investigators didn’t think so and I don’t think they were non-partisan. Doesn’t that provide you some reason to think differently?

      1. Allan: I know you watch Hannity, but it is simply the case that facts are not partisan.

        1. I actually do not focus on any one show or anyone network. I TIVO a whole bunch and listen to bits and pieces of many of them from different networks and different people.

          Facts are something you are unaware of. Hannity provides an opinion and uses facts to create such an opinion. He is not a newscaster but he is generally accurate with the facts. He has to be because otherwise every talk show will run a segment on his error. They don’t do that. Instead they run segments on his opinion frequently altering his words or taking them out of context. The newscasters for the MSM pretend to be newscasters but inject opinion into their news so that the facts being read cannot be trusted.

          I don’t expect you to recognize the difference. You don’t have that type of mindset where one can dispationately separate facts from opinion so you can continue with your crazy statements that have little meaning.

          1. Perhaps OT, but why is claiming that one “knows” that someone one disagrees with watches Hannity is considered the biggest insult of all time? I’ve never watched Hannity myself, but he seems like a nice enough fellow. Do the people flinging that supposed, totally unsubstantiated insult watch The View? Because those gals do not seem like nice people at all.

            1. FF Sierra,..
              -You wrote that “I’ve never watched Hannity myself”.
              It doesn’t matter….if you disagree with some of the chicken**** people who post here, you will be presumed to be under Hannity’s spell.
              If you took away phrases like “Pravda Faux News” or “Hannity tatoos”, there are a few people here who would be completely lost without those lame, stock, bull **** phrases.

              1. Mark M falsely defamed me and asserted that I “watch Hannity and bag his balls”

                i dont watch hannity but i heard him on the radio occasionally. I certainly have never met him.

              2. Excellent! I graciously commend you for the reference to one of my humble missives. Although, you misspelled the word “tattoo” and left out the nugget of gold describing where the “hannity tattoo” is usually located when adorning one of the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors or grifters on the make.

                this is to “but hannity IS TO a real journalist” tommie

        2. Always good to have advice about “facts” from a partisan hack like “Anonymous”.

        3. ah well but interpretation of facts usually is. and selection of facts to state in an indictment is definitely a lot of picking and choosing. lol

          i have never seen a bunch of Democrats so quick to believe prosecutors and deny the accused their right to a defense as the current cheerleaders of the Meuller persecution.

        4. “Facts” may not be partisan. But some people sure are. We know you are part of the loyal “Maddow” watching crowd, but have you not heard James Comey’s comments lately? Have you not looked at the history of prosecutorial misconduct by the DOJ/FBI involving both Mueller and Comey?

        5. And has the media you choose to watch/listen to not noted that nearly everyone involved in this prosecution has been fired for misconduct, lying and/or corruption? Check out the unusually large number of reassignments, retirements, firings, demotions, resignations from the FBI and DOJ of players connected to this investigation.

        6. It’s integral to the usual motley crew of academic leftists steeped in postmodernism that “facts” arise out of cultural and linguistic forms. In that way, facts are influenced by the same frames of cultural and social and linguistic reference that likewise inform politics.

          I don’t fully reject those notions arising as they do out of the work of the great Martin Heidegger.

          But you may observe now folks that the “academic left” now no longer holds a monopoly on facile interpretations of “truth.”

          I like that. But some punctillious sorts do not. Such as the writers at a failed magazine which was a constant needler of Trump the Weekly Standard, which rag is now folding up into the garbage.

          https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/media/weekly-standard-end/index.html

      2. bettykath said, “Flynn lied.”

        FUBARAllan said “The original FBI investigators didn’t think so.”

        Excerpted from last week’s HPSCI hearing:

        Mr. Gowdy. And, again — because I’m afraid I may have interrupted you, which I didn’t mean to do — your agents, it was relayed to you that your agents’ perspective on that interview with General Flynn was what? Because where I stopped you was, you said: He was lying. They knew he was lying, but he didn’t have the indicia of lying.

        Mr. Comey. Correct. All I was doing was answering your question, which I understood to be your question, about whether I had previously testified that he — the agents did not believe he was lying. I was trying to clarify. I think that reporting that you’ve seen is the product of a garble. What I recall telling the House Intelligence Committee is that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true. They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.

        Mr. Gowdy. Would that be considered Brady material and hypothetically a subsequent prosecution for false statement?

        Mr. Comey. That’s too hypothetical for me. I mean, interesting law school question: Is the absence of incriminating evidence exculpatory evidence? But I can’t answer that question.

        [end excerpt]

        The White House staff had transcripts of Flynn’s conversation with Kislak reproduced from the signal intelligence intercepts. Those transcripts were widely circulated in the White House. That’s how WaPo got ahold of the story. Then Trump fired Flynn. And Trump said he fired Flynn for lying to Vice President Pence and the FBI. Even Trey Gowdy is parsing the difference between making a false statement versus having the intent to deceive. For heaven’s sake, the man is on tape talking about sanctions with Kislyak. Flynn, that is. FUBARAllan is only one left still doubting that Flynn lied. The man, himself, Flynn, that is, pled guilty to it, and admitted in his own sentencing memo that he knew it was wrong to do it.

        Wake up, little All-In. Wake up!
        Wake up, little All-In. Wake up!

        2. “FUBARAllan said “The original FBI investigators didn’t think so.””

          Diane to prove her case uses the newest interview of Comey, a known liar. Did she get a statement from the one’s that did the interview? No. The If-Girl has problems with facts because she uses so many of her false conclusions as facts. Even here she is not providing information from a primary source rather using a secondary source from a proven liar.

          Reading Diane’s excerpt one notes Comey’s answer of the most important question. ” I had previously testified that he — the agents did not believe he was lying. I was trying to clarify. …” When asked about the legality and the law involved in the underlying issue the question and answer went like this?:

          “Mr. Gowdy. Would that be considered Brady material and hypothetically a subsequent prosecution for false statement?

          Mr. Comey. That’s too hypothetical for me. I mean, interesting law school question: Is the absence of incriminating evidence exculpatory evidence? But I can’t answer that question.”

          Diane then makes a lot of comments again that include her conclusions as fact.

          In the absence of a tape or accurate transcript we will never know exactly what happened though you will continue to make up your fictions. What we do know is that Flynn’s response to a question was already known to the investigators through taping and unmasking which based on many opinions was wrongfully performed. (maybe jail term is something to be considered for all those persons invovled). Flynn corrected the error of his statement. What he said or didn’t say to Kislyac was totally appropriate. Nothing was done to Flynn until Mueller became involved and seemed to have utilized Mafia like tactics to get a conviction of a man who served this nation generously.

          I find Diane to be terribly misleading and disingenuous. I find these actions heinous no matter what party is involved. It is personalities like Diane that make politics so disgusting.

    2. Flynn is above Meuller. Flynn is an agile operator but Meuller is on his last limping leg. Meuller should be careful.

      1. When you wish upon a star
        Makes no difference who you are
        Anything your heart desires
        Will come to you
        If your heart is in your dream
        No request is too extreme
        When you wish upon a star
        As dreamers do
        Fate is kind
        She brings to those who love
        The sweet fulfillment of
        Their secret longing
        Like a bolt out of the blue
        Suddenly, it comes to you
        When you wish upon a star
        Your dreams come true
        When a star is born
        They possess a gift or two
        One of them is this
        They have the power to make a wish come true
        When you wish upon a star
        Makes no difference who you are
        Anything your heart desires
        Will come to you,
        If your heart is in your dream
        No request is too extreme
        When you wish upon a star
        As dreamers do
        Fate is kind
        She brings to those who love
        The sweet fulfillment of
        Their secret longing
        Like a bolt out of the blue
        Suddenly, it comes to you
        When you wish upon a star
        Your dreams come true

  9. I think Mueller should have to reimburse the American people for this charade of an investigation.

  10. Seems as though our justice system has gone off the rails and replaced by spite and revenge. These officials whom trust has been given have taken that opportunity and used it to further their own agenda. Why else would Hillary Clinton be setting back like a fat cat with millions rolling into her crooked organization?

    1. You are wondering if the Justice system has gone off the rails? No, no, no. We are now being told “the system is working.” We are hearing this repeated daily from “journalists” and the Democrats. “The system is working” they say!
      “Noone is above the law!” See? Another Trump insider has been targeted and prosecuted! Success!

    2. And did you see what the newly elected NY Attorney General, Letitia James, said? She said she will be targeting Trump and anyone associated with Trump: “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,”

      Because noone is above the law? Give me a break. The Democrat motto should be: “It’s okay when we do it.”

    3. There’s a word for it. It’s called “corruption.” And the Democrats are better at getting away with it.

    4. Haha. BUT WHAT ABOUT HILLARY! Excellent.

      this is to “MORE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!” larrie

  11. So, this judge is postulating that Flynn, retired Lieutenant General, national security advisor, was coerced and/or trapped into giving up his rights. Sounds like Trump argument.

    1. You don’t know what the judge is assuming. Like the rest of the country with the exception of a very few stupid and/or Rights hating individuals with a Stalininist bent, the judge may see this as a foot or two over the edge of the slippery slope down which all due process is headed unless the people whose duty it is, step up and stop it.

      1. That the judge has the right to ask for and get all the records is a given and expresses the openness that is required. However, the investigator has the right to make sure those records remain closed to the public until the investigation is over. What happened can be ascertained after the conclusion of the affair. Since Flynn is not going to jail, his name can be cleared or amended at a later date along with all the compensatory lawsuits. There is no need for this judge to get involved at this time. Lieutenant Generals, Lawyers like Cohen, and the others are not your run of the mill targets of legal bullying.

        That Flynn may have given forth his testimony without a lawyer present and that FBI agents may have said this or that is not unlikely. However, to assume that Flynn was coerced into anything is ludicrous.

        1. “That the judge has the right to ask for and get all the records is a given and expresses the openness that is required. However, the investigator has the right to make sure those records remain closed to the public until the investigation is over. ”

          Fine points fly over the head of Issac. The investigator has no right “to make sure those records remain closed to the public until the investigation is over.” He has a right to ask superiors (that might include other members of the executive branch) and the courts to keep the records closed. Issac has a very unrefined and unknowledgeable understanding of what one’s rights are. He should take a course that explains what rights are along with basic law.

            1. “My question to you is, “is that your picture next to the definition”? [sphincter]

              No. That is you made up in your finest looking in a mirror..

    3. TRICKED is the world you were looking for.

      There is a thing here called due process here and it applies to investigations not only litigation.

  12. Thank goodness someone is starting to realize the unconstitutional and unethical behavior of the prior Administration and the Mueller cabal. The political animus of liberals is to destroy a person personally by threatening them and their family with non-crimes (ie “collusion”). Entrapment is unethical when you know there is no crime but you plan to punish them by getting them to mis-remember minute details of non-events. It has been sick what has happenned for the last 2 years. Ruining the lives of anyone, and especially a person of fantastic moral character and phenemonal commitment to our country, like Flynn, should be punished. Mueller, his mignons and those in the previous administration need to pay a price for their behavior.

    1. It didn’t start with Mueller. The People have, once again, been fooled by a partisan-driven Congress into giving the government a weapon that can be used against political enemies, but has NO BENEFIT for the rest of us. Like RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1001 is a law that begs on its knees to be abused and – oh I’m shocked! – is only used for that purpose. Flynn is just the latest in a long line of targeted citizens who are its victims. And how prosecutors love it!

  13. The FBI had signal intercepts of Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak. Why Flynn chose to lie about that when he didn’t have to lie about it is probably the thing that got Mueller’s attention. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn said that they saw no physical indication that Flynn was lying. They never said that they did not believe that Flynn was lying. Because they already knew that Flynn was lying, because they already had Flynn discussing sanctions with Kislyak on the signal intercepts. What the FBI agents did NOT know at the time was why Flynn would lie about discussing sanctions with Kislyak. And that’s the key to understanding Flynn’s predicament.

    It was not until well after Mueller was appointed special counsel and began investigating any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian election meddling that it even became possible to speculate about why Flynn lied about having discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Things change over the course of an investigation. What made no sense when the FBI first interviewed Flynn started to make more sense once Mueller and his crew started digging deeper into it. And that’s why Flynn pled guilty.

      1. Most likely Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak because Trump most likely told Flynn to do so. Most likely Flynn lied to Vice President Pence about discussing sanctions with Kislyak because Trump most likely told Flynn to do so. Most likely Flynn lied to the FBI about having discussed sanctions with Kislyak because Trump most likely told Flynn to do so. Most likely Trump fired Flynn for doing exactly what Trump most likely told Flynn to do. Most likely Flynn realized that the same man who had fired him for doing what Trump had most likely told Flynn to do was never going to pardon Flynn for having done exactly what Trump most likely told Flynn to do.

        Most Likely Trump is the responsible causal agent behind most of Flynn’s horrible, horrible suffering.

    2. the key thing to remember is, it was LAWFUL and appropriate for Flynn an incoming official to talk to Kislyak. that is dimplomacy.

      Essentially the FBI was punishing a diplomatic conversation because it was with Russia, the annointed Enemy of the MIC / Deep State.

  14. Two possibilites. This judge will throw the case out and order to Meuller to recompense Flynn for all costs and a new house. OR The President will pardon Flynn OR both.

  15. The idea was to throw the new administration off balance, even hobble it. Is the timing and purpose of Flynn’s “arrest” not being investigated? Are Mueller’s motives not being investigated? I have learned a lot from this about how our Justice Department operates.

  16. General Flynn was the first to be caught up in Mueller’s investigations. If the judge finds questionable activity, then it will taint every single thing that follows, including the conviction for Papadopoulos.
    The question of course is, what will the judge do, given that Flynn pleaded guilty?

    1. They can admonish a prosecutor. I have seen that done more than once, where the government laid a pile of bogus charges on someone and then the defendant copped a plea to one after a bunch were dismissed. It happens

      But is that enough under these circumstances?

      I see prosecutorial misconduct as well as improper investigative methods.
      The probe is now tainted beyond a doubt.

      2. Mr. Kurtz,
        -As you know, a judge can do a lot more than admonish the prosecution.
        In both trials, the prosecution’s case against the Bundys looked very strong.
        They were acquitted in the Oregon tial, and the judge dismissed the charges in the Nevada case.
        One juror gave an extended interview with the Portland Oregonian and went into detail about how the jury reached its conclusions on the charges.
        What’s interesting in the Flynn case is that a plea deal has already been negotiated, in which Flynn would likely serve no time.
        So I wonder if the objective for Flynn is to pull out of the plea deal, which seems risky, go after the FBI and/ or the Special Counsel team for misconduct, or something entirely different.

        1. Given that Flynn was dumb enough to lie about something he didn’t need to lie about, it is at least possible that Flynn might also be dumb enough to renege on a guilty plea with a prosecutor who has recommended zero jail time for Flynn. But I doubt it.

          Did you know that Flynn and his lawyer had at least four proffer meetings with Mueller before Flynn entered his plea agreement with Mueller? All told, Flynn met with the SCO nineteen times. And Mueller has delayed Flynn’s sentencing four times, already.

          They say that Flynn is eager to start his new job as Director of Global Strategy for Stonington Strategies. That’s a lobbying and influence-pedaling firm on K Street in The Great Swamp. I think Flynn will probably register as a foreign agent under FARA this time around. Or not. What do you think?

          1. The If-Girl, a nobody and one that can’t get her facts straight says: “Given that Flynn was dumb enough to lie about something he didn’t need to lie about,…” Flynn proved himself. Look at his rank and medals. Look at his history. What has Diane done? Absolutely nothing except insult men that have faithfully served America. This is the type of lunatic we have to face at the polls no matter what their ideology is.

            1. “What has Diane done? Absolutely nothing except insult men that have faithfully served America. This is the type of lunatic we have to face at the polls…”

              Take a look in the mirror, Allan. You’re talking about yourself.

              1. “Take a look in the mirror, Allan.”

                Anonymous, I give Flynn credit and respect for his service. I don’t attack great Americans to promote my ideology. I like what see in the mirror. Chances are when you look at a mirror all you see is the mirror.

            1. “…you talk big but you are a nobody.”

              Like you?

              Almost everyone who posts here is “a nobody.” And maybe everyone.

              1. I am just a humble worker, and I move among the people, as a fish does in the water.

                1. Anonymous writes: “I am just a humble worker, and I move among the people, as a fish does in the water.”

                  Directionless.

                  1. All-In, you drive-by dolt, you. There are two different commenters named Anonymous in the exchange above. The first Anonymous who told All-In to take a look in the mirror is our old friend the one and only original anonymous. The second Anonymous who claims to be at one and the same time both a humble worker and a fish is the inimitable Heart of Darkness, Mr. Kurtz.

                    Even Lt. Gen. Mickey Flynn could’ve figured that much out, All-In.

                    1. Unlike you I don’t put too much effort into determining which anonymous is which. It isn’t that important and if you have a problem with it tell the anonymous users to use only one distinct alias. “Guess who” is a new name to me and I don’t necessarily bother to check back links so you will have to live with my comments. For all I know you are one of the two anonymous’s posting above. Too bad. Get a life. One can recognize a dolt from the comments they make and your comment above fits the bill.

        2. Like you said, Bundys went to trial, exposed the government’s agent provocateurs and informants for being the real troublemakers, and the jury let them off the hook

          Flynn took a plea, but one suspects it aint over

          1. Mr. Kurtz,…
            I think one of the charges was discharging firearms in the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge area that they occupied.
            One of the Bundy brothers was on the stand, questioned by the prosecution about the shooting practice and the participants.
            They got around to who led these shooting drills…..there was a government ( probably FBI) agent among those who had infiltrated the group.
            Bundy responded ” I think that was your guy” who organized and encouraged the shooting drills.😏😄
            That particular line of questioning didn’t advance the prosecution’s case on the firearms’ charges.

  17. This is turning point and beginning of the end of abusive Muler witch hunt. Time to get the popcorn and watch as Muler house of cards comes tumbling down while Trump approval continues to climb. Judge will catch deep state dead to rights with this abuse and will hopefully purge Flynn guilty plea.

    1. Dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
      Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no
      I said, “Dreamer, you’re nothing but a dreamer”
      Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no
      I said “Far out, what a day, a year, a laugh it is”
      You know, well you know you had it comin’ to you
      Now there’s not a lot I can do
      Dreamer, you stupid little dreamer
      So now you put your head in your hands, oh no

    2. So what were you doing at 2:30 pm on September 16th? What speed were you driving? Were you actually driving? What did you say to your barber at your appointment 3 haircuts ago? DId you talk about the weather? DId you see or say hello to any people in your neighborhood? What shampoo did they use? Remember we have you on tape so if you don’t remember exactly you are at risk of losing your home, savings, and we will threaten your children and spouse. DON’T LIE. AND OF COURSE DON’T GET A LAWYER!

          1. More awesomeness. BUT WHAT ABOUT HILLARY!!

            this is to “MORE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!!” tommie

    3. It’s not don’t lie rather it is don’t talk because human responses aren’t precise enough to avoid misinterpretation and memory is likewise frequently inadequate.

      Your response indicates a naivete that should have disaapeared by the time you were permitted to drive a car.

    4. No, you say “I don’t recall” about as many ways and as many times as you can get away with. See James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, etc, for demonstrations of how it’s done.

  19. The article is confusing. The facts involved are confusing. If the government does not meet the deadline then the Judge should dismiss the case.

    1. That is rather obvious unless they use a paint roller to redact all the pages. But then they would face contempt charges. Contempt of Court is usually one to three days in jail. I wouldn’t put it past the Judge to award that as well as show his contempt for the whole Gang of twelve.

Comments are closed.