He should have brought an entire platoon of lawyers in battle-rattle.
What was he thinking? How disorganized.
Are you ALWAYS a supercilious gasbag, semimojo? 
Posted on 12/18/2018 11:35:27 AM PST by Liberty7732
Every once in a while, you come across a set of circumstances that brings you great sadness about our country’s state of affairs. (Yes, it may be happening more frequently.) The events surrounding the prosecution of General Michael Flynn and his treatment by the FBI and Special Counselor Robert Mueller is such a situation — and the reason that Judge Emmet Sullivan has been having a difficult time with the plea and sentencing that was scheduled for today and has now been delayed.
By now, most of you are aware of the circumstances of clear entrapment behind the charges against Flynn, but they nevertheless require elucidation, because they loom large beyond Flynn’s case. First, General Michael Flynn is a 33-year veteran of the United States Army with an impeccable history of patriotic service to his country. His service specialized on counter-intelligence, and he is likely responsible for the identification, capture, and destruction of more anti-American terrorists than anyone in the history of the United States. In other words, a true hero.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Flynn assumed the office of National Security Advisor to the President Trump. Just prior to taking on that role, on Dec. 29, 2016, Flynn had contact with Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak. The details of this contact are somewhat sketchy, but suffice it to say that the contact took place.
During this time, the Obama Administration, still reeling from the Democrats’ unexpected loss to Donald Trump in the presidential elections, was bent on blaming Russian interference for the defeat of the anointed Democrat darling, Hillary Clinton. The shock associated with the defeat led to a zealous effort to identify and understand the extent and machinations of this interference and to discover whether the Trump campaign was in any way involved.
The agency tasked with the investigation of potential Russian meddling was the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed at the time by James Comey. The FBI was very interested in the specifics behind the interactions between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador because it wanted to know whether there was any evidence of promised benefits to the Russians under the new administration in exchange for Russian assistance in tilting the election in Trump’s favor. To be clear, the mere fact that the Russian Ambassador had made contact with Flynn was not illegal, or even unusual during a transition.
For the sake of our discussion, I am going to assume that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s version of the details regarding the contact between these two men is correct. I am going to grant the Mueller team’s assertion that Flynn had not forgotten about the contact he had with the Kislyak (even though both FBI agents who conducted the interview did not believe Flynn was lying.) I am going to assume, as Mueller reports, that by the time the FBI agents contacted him, Flynn was already relating a false narrative regarding his conversation with the Ambassador. I am also going to assume that, as Mueller says, Flynn was given more than ample opportunities to correct the falsehoods he delivered to the inquiring agents on Jan. 24, 2017. I am also going to acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that Flynn was not coerced into admitting that he had lied when he struck a plea deal with the FBI and that he was actually being accurate when he admitted his illegality to them.
But even if those assertions are true, Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge responsible for sentencing Flynn on Tuesday and the one who has asked to review any exculpatory evidence in the case, must still throw out the case against Flynn.
The principal question is whether the FBI induced Flynn into lying during its interview of Jan. 24, 2017. More directly, did the FBI conduct its interview in such a manner as to induce the general to lie. After reviewing the Mueller memo to the court, my conclusion is that it absolutely, positively did.
In arriving at this conclusion, I first take note that prosecutorial entrapment is clearly illegal and fatal to the prosecution of a suspect. Entrapment, the act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit, is a vile and vicious technique that if allowed to run unabated represents a fundamental threat to our liberties and to our abilities to live our lives in peace and free of government persecution.
Entrapment cannot be tolerated.
Consequently, if the FBI induced the general into committing the crime of lying to the FBI, it would nullify its prosecution of him and force the case to be dismissed.
According to the memo produced by Robert Mueller in defense of his prosecution of Flynn, Mueller admits that the FBI knew prior to its interview that Flynn had made contact with Ambassador Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, “the same day the US announced sanctions against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. ” Moreover, Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, the man who contacted Flynn about a potential meeting with FBI investigators, believed Flynn had already lied to others regarding his contacts with the ambassador and that he was already “committed to that false story.” Even so, those deceitful acts of delivering a false narrative on the part of Flynn, whether excusable or not, were not illegal. Despite this, McCabe, in coordination with James Comey, made the decision to bypass protocol in seeking the interview with Flynn in the hopes that he would repeat those lies to investigators. In other words, McCabe and Comey built a trap for Flynn.
Additionally, we know from comments made by Comey that when McCabe set up the interview with Flynn, he knowingly bypassed protocol. We also know that Flynn inquired as to whether he should have his attorney present and was dissuaded from doing so by McCabe.
More egregiously, McCabe and Comey purposely decided not to warn Flynn that it was illegal to lie to the FBI. This is an important detail because it is distinguishable from the mere omission of the information, which is how the media generally reports this fact. Instead, according to Mueller’s memo to the court, McCabe and Comey made the purposeful decision to conceal the subject’s legal peril. The reason for this purposeful omission was to fool Flynn into being “relaxed,” and because “they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the report.” The implications of this admission are fatal to Flynn’s successful prosecution since they acknowledge that if the FBI had properly performed its job, Mueller would not have committed the crime of lying to them. Once again, the FBI investigators admit to the entrapment of Flynn.
Judge Sullivan is clearly aware of all of these facts as he tries to decide how to rule on the Flynn plea and sentencing.
As the Mueller memo states, the overall effect of the FBI’s efforts was to make Flynn believe that he was dealing with allies in an investigation, not that he was the subject of one.
With these admissions, Mueller has essentially painted a picture whereby the FBI created an environment by which Flynn would be induced into committing a crime he would not otherwise have committed; the very definition of entrapment.
With this information, it is very likely that, should this have gone to trial, it would have been thrown out because of entrapment of the defendant and due to the FBI’s advice to Flynn against obtaining legal counsel. Instead, the case was pleaded out by a defendant who was on the verge of bankruptcy from the mammoth legal defense bills he had incurred and whose son was being threatened with prosecution should he not submit to the FBI’s demands.
This story reveals one of the grossest displays of reckless disregard for prosecutorial restraint and for the rights of the defendant imaginable. With any luck, Judge Sullivan will see the brazen unprofessionalism displayed by McCabe, Comey and Mueller and bring some semblance of justice to the negatively impacted life of a man who is nothing short of a great American hero.
And Flynn was fully aware that Kislyak was being tapped and probably also that his conversations would be
He just probably trusted that the US govt would not tap and unmask HIM as a potential enemy agent
When the FBI shows up and starts asking you about your actions a prudent person might conclude that he was under investigation.
Further, Miranda warnings are for people in custody, not officials sitting in the White House sitting for a voluntary interview.
The FBI's behavior was routine and the same as takes place with every law enforcement agency at every level in America.
They may have been more successful than they often are but that's due to a combination of disorganization and arrogance on the part of the Administration and Flynn, not unethical FBI behavior.
I guess you do now. It’s the “new normal”
Thanks Obama!
FYI, we have at least one fascist freeper lawyer here who believes the bikers at Waco “got what they deserved”.
Any military officer that contributes to decisions on US govt policy regarding the affairs of a US ally, a NATO ally, could be accused of being a “ foreign lobbyist” i they accept a dinner invitation or invitation to speak at a conference or contribute as a consultant
FARA was pretty lax and loose
Even real lobbyists like the Podestas did not register all of their clients until AFTER Mueller started charging people
He should have brought an entire platoon of lawyers in battle-rattle.
What was he thinking? How disorganized.
Are you ALWAYS a supercilious gasbag, semimojo?
1. The U.S. government didn't wiretap Flynn. They intercepted his communications through a wiretap on Kislyak.
2. Any legal protections Flynn had against unmasking were null and void because he was carrying on these communications from outside the U.S.
I'm almost 100% certain about #1. I may be wrong about #2 but someone posted an explanation of this from Dan Bongino's podcast last evening.
You expect it when you obeserve law enforcement at all levels in the US.
They already knew the answers to every question they asked.
I'm not a lawyer, but common sense would say that this would be nothing short of retaliation.
Would Flynn even be on the radar for the FARA violation if he had not been entrapped by the FBI? Would Flynn be on the radar if he were not illegally unmasked in the first place?
To me (and hopefully a sympathetic jury), it all is tainted fruit stemming from the Obama administration trying to punish Trump for beating Clinton. Pursuing Flynn for FARA after having his original case tossed out for entrapment would be malicious prosecution of the highest order because the probable cause is tainted by the illegal unmasking and resulting entrapment.
-PJ
Perhaps, but isn't this how prosecutors conduct business all the time -- cutting deals for lesser charges in exchange for leniency on more serious ones?
Would Flynn even be on the radar for the FARA violation if he had not been entrapped by the FBI? Would Flynn be on the radar if he were not illegally unmasked in the first place?
See Post #27. In this particular case, the terms "entrapped" and "illegally unmasked" may not actually apply.
By his own admission he was thinking that he could get away with BSing the FBI like he did Pence.
If that's the case, then it reaffirms my suspicion that Flynn is borderline retarded.
How does the National Security Advisor and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency not know that phone and text communications with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. are routinely monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies?
The judge made it pretty plan the next step is to work on a treason charge for Flynn.
Which leads to Trump.
Things are getting more and more interesting.
Chaos? what Chaos?
Let’s play the Devil’s Advocate.
If this came out that Hillary was texting a Russian lobbyist while working for Obama, what would you think?
Flynn was very stupid. You do not contact any foreign national unless it is with approved consent. You do not have a sit down with any LEO unless a lawyer representing your interests is present.
To do otherwise is to expose yourself to a knife in the back.
“here’s the dilemma in this case as I see it:
1. If Flynn were to fight this case, he would most likely win — maybe even win so big that the FBI and Mueller’s team would be cited for prosecutorial misconduct. “
There is no such thing as “most likely win” (meaning, there is no validity to the concept...IMO, of course); because if he were to win, IANAL but I seriously doubt there would be any way in hell for Flynn to seek either damages, actual or punitive, that did not involve a separate 4 year $600K court battle which Flynn cannot mount.
2. If Flynn were to fight this case, Mueller’s team would simply drop the charges for lying (since they can’t present any of the evidence of his lying — from the Kislyak wiretaps — in a court of law).
I don’t think that is true, and in prior posts, you seem to have granted validity to Flynn having lied, unless I misread them. My belief is that Flynn *CAN* and *WOULD* be convicted of lying. It may be a “minor” lie; it may be a “harmless” lie, it may be a raspberry with pecans lie, but he did tell lies.
3. Instead, Flynn would be prosecuted for the more serious Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations.
I find that sketchy, but again, any of these things is a well-into-6-figures effort, the result of which is not predictable.
Any Freepers have any insight on this? If you’re a lawyer representing a client in Flynn’s position, how would you go about dealing with this dilemma?
Like it or not, fair or not, Flynn probably has the best deal he’s going to get in hand, right now. That’s my opinion.
You don’t expect a crowd that’s the same as back-shooting Taliban Muzzies to be disguised as American fibbie agents...
—
Rule 1: The FBI is corrupt and accountable to no one.
Rule 2: Never talk to the FBI. Ever.
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.