Posted on 01/25/2018 10:17:45 AM PST by Starman417
On January 24, 2017 Michael Flynn was interviewed by the FBI. He was a victim of entrapment.
Two people familiar with the matter said Trump was unaware that Flynn had spoken with the FBI until two days after the interview took place. An attorney for Flynn did not respond to a request for comment on this story.He didn't bring a lawyer, which made the job of inducing Flynn to incriminate himself a cinch. The motivation to do so by at least one of the interviewers was more than apparent.A brief phone call from the office of Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, to a scheduler for Flynn on Jan. 24 set the interview in motion, according to people familiar with the matter. The scheduler was told the FBI wanted to speak with Flynn later that day, these people said, and the meeting was placed on Flynn’s schedule. The scheduler didn't ask the reason for the meeting, and the FBI didn't volunteer it, one person familiar with the matter said.
Later that day, two FBI agents arrived at the White House to speak with Flynn. A lawyer for the National Security Council typically would be informed of such a meeting and be present for it, one person familiar with the procedures said. But that didn't happen in this instance, and Flynn didn't include his own personal lawyer, two people said. He met with the two federal agents alone, according to these people.
"No one knew that any of this was happening," said another senior White House official who was there at the time.
"Apparently it was not clear to Flynn that this was about his personal conduct," another White House official said. "So he didn't think of bringing his own lawyer."
The interview was kept secret for two days.On December 1, 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. Flynn was charged with lying about doing something that was entirely legal.
The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation."He may have believed they were criminal"The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.
Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.
Indeed. And given the interviewer, it would shock no one to learn that the agent led Flynn believe it was criminal. The interviewer had "unfinished business" and needed to "protect the country" from Donald Trump with an "insurance policy."
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
The thing I notice is that there is zero news on the status of Flynn’s plea. The judge recused or was forced to recuse himself and the sentencing hearing canceled.
Was it ever rescheduled? With which judge? The fact that this activity has disappeared into a black hole is curious.
Must pardon Flynn
Miranda rules only apply if you’re being arrested.
Flynn was not being arrested, he was only being “interviewed.”
It seems there is no shortage of military higher ups that have proven to be dumber than the average infantrymen after a few rounds of battle.
Sad to see how many of them then are called to act as advisers and confidantes to politicos seeking their knowledge and insight.
Military people are used to dealing with evil at the end of their rifle barrel. They are not used to dealing with evil within the “team”.
It has been discussed that Flynn can withdraw his plea based on the actions of Strzok. Does anyone remember the law or case that was cited?
I would think "fruit of a poisoned tree" is a very good legal argument to get his conviction thrown out.
True, but I remember it as being something else besides the fruit of the poisonous tree. There was a lawyer who cited something about a situation where the investigator had a conflict of interest and should not have been the one to interview the suspect. That’s as best as I can recall.
Giglio vs. United States is the case widely quoted as providing Flynn with the exculpatory evidence able to exonerate him. Namely:
1. Strzok interviewed Flynn, and his testimony of Flynn’s perjury led to the grand jury to indict him.
2. Strzok was removed from the Mueller’s team for obvious conflicts, and this was not revealed to the grand jury during indictment, which deprived Flynn of due process by removing exculpatory evidence.
This probably applied to all three other clients as well. I believe the judge in charge now is biding time and waiting for several actions, as Mueller’s team may self-destruct and Mueller may just throw in the towel, file for dismissal, and call it a day. Both Gates and Manafort have a civil suit against Mueller for over-prosecution (they raided Manafort’s house regardless of the fact that he provided everything that was requested) and malfeasance.
It all hinges on this memo, but yes, it seems all four will go free if the grand jury was not notified of Strzok’s dismissal and Strzok was the one that generated the charges for indictment.
Thank you VERY much my FRiend!
In addition to this, you have prosecutors leaking to the press and using unsecure email for lord knows what reason. Mueller’s got to realize this investigation is over.
Little people like us wouldn’t understand it because we don’t have the underlying methodology. And stuff.
There is no across-the-board requirement to "Mirandize" people before questioning them or taking statements from them.
Exercizing your fifth amendment right will almost inevitably be followed by hassle from the cops. And too, keep in mind that the fifth amendment is only valid when the statement can incriminate the speaker. That was of course true in Flynn's case, his statement was about his own actions.
The inforamtion, plea agreement and afew other interesting papers are easily found online, but the docket is not. This is the case that the jugde changed midstream - an unexplained recusal.
Dirty as sin. I mean the courts are too, for their lack of transparency.
Not to say that Giglio doesn't apply. Just that it doesn't apply as against the GJ. They can charge based on a lie even, and it's up to the defendant to argue. The prosecutor has to give the defendant all that info, not the GJ.
Otherwise, great post. Thanks.
I believe in the end, President Trump will pardon Gen. Flynn. It make take months or years but in meantime, we will continue to see people beating up on a good man who served our country with honor.
Are defendants allowed an attorney in front of a GJ?
Nope. But defendants are rarely part of the parade before a GJ. The GJ is all about inculpatory evidence and exclusion of excuplatory evidence. The point of GJ is to get indictments, not exonerations. If a prosecutor wants to exonerate somebody, they just don't bring the case to a GJ. Prosecutorial discretion.
OK Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.