Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

No, he didn't. Even Powell hasn't said that. Not to the court.

You don't think "duress" could be defined as threatening to prosecute your son? Losing your house for legal fees? Going broke?

Again, his own lawyers' emails indicated there was a "lawyers' agreement" with the prosecutor to leave his son alone. That was not disclosed. That is illegal not to disclose it.

[Anonymous]

Ordinarily, Fed. R. Evid. 410 restricts the use of guilty-plea statements in later proceedings. But Flynn expressly waived that protection, and federal courts have enforced those waivers if they're knowing and voluntary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn pled guilty under duress. That is evident. It has been the MO of this prosecutorial crew from the get go.

The Obama/Biden/Comey FBI had been running roughshod for far too long. They got caught.

Glad it was dismissed. He is free.

Boy, wouldn't heads explode if Trump brought him in as an advisor???

No, he didn't. Even Powell hasn't said that. Not to the court.

Powell and other champions of Flynn’s cause have long claimed he did not lie to investigators -- a claim supported by the interviewing FBI agents, who concluded that Flynn had not made intentional misstatements, just failures of recollection, which are common. Instead, they maintain that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty nearly a year later by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of hyper-aggressive prosecutors. Prosecutors did this, Powell argues, by threatening that if he refused to plead, they would prosecute his son. The son, also named Michael Flynn, worked in Gen. Flynn’s private intelligence firm, which Team Mueller was scrutinizing over its alleged failure to register with the government as a foreign agent — a dubious allegation that was rarely handled as a criminal offense before Mueller’s probe.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/495366-something-seems-rotten-in-flynns-case-and-maybe-others-too

But Flynn lied to Pence, to Priebus and Spicer, and to the FBI. So Powell has the wrong end of the stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, he didn't. Even Powell hasn't said that. Not to the court.

You don't think "duress" could be defined as threatening to prosecute your son? Losing your house for legal fees? Going broke?

Again, his own lawyers' emails indicated there was a "lawyers' agreement" with the prosecutor to leave his son alone. That was not disclosed. That is illegal not to disclose it.

If one party of the agreement says there's no agreement, there's no agreement. Everyone knows that. And the government said there was no agreement about Junior.

[Anonymous]

Now that this is over, Adam Schiff needs to come clean about the "more than circumstantial evidence" he claims to have had about collusion.

When will a good reporter ask him about it? He claimed this for 2 years. We need to hear about what he claims to have seen.

[Anonymous]

If this is the standard for prosecutors going forward, drug gangs and mobsters are going to be pleased as punch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is the standard for prosecutors going forward, drug gangs and mobsters are going to be pleased as punch.

Yeah, the DOJ and others are going to be walking this back all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is the standard for prosecutors going forward, drug gangs and mobsters are going to be pleased as punch.

Nah. They have all been set free by liberals leaders due to Covid-19. They're cool now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the standard for prosecutors going forward, drug gangs and mobsters are going to be pleased as punch.

Yeah, the DOJ and others are going to be walking this back all over the place.

What standard? If the Judge says "turn over all the exculpatory evidence", you should do it. That's not very difficult. The prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case learned that the hard way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the standard for prosecutors going forward, drug gangs and mobsters are going to be pleased as punch.

Yeah, the DOJ and others are going to be walking this back all over the place.

What standard? If the Judge says "turn over all the exculpatory evidence", you should do it. That's not very difficult. The prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case learned that the hard way.

The standard in this motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who came up with this crazy law that says you can't lie to the FBI? Wouldn't people be less likely to talk to the FBI if they could end up in the slammer for telling a fib? People lie to the police all the time and that is perfectly legal (assuming they aren't obstructing). What makes the FBI do special?

BTW, I'm not defending MAGA trash Flynn.

Are you 3?

Lying to the FBI or the police about a material issue is a crime. Sorry your parents never told you that.

No shit, Sherlock. Obviously you either have a reading comprehension issue or are clueless.

[Anonymous]

Andy McCabe nails it:

“We opened the Russia investigation to determine if the Russian government coordinated with the Trump campaign. Mr. Flynn had prominent, high level interactions with Russian officials, so we investigated whether he might be that point of coordination. We received incontrovertible evidence that Mr. Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador on more than one occasion, that he actively tried to influence the actions of Russian officials, and that those officials acceded to his requests. The FBI was obligated to interview him to better understand why he was talking to Russian officials. During the interview, he lied about the substance of his conversations with those officials. His lies added to our concerns about his relationship with the Russian government. Later, under oath in Federal Court, he twice admitted to lying to the FBI.

Today’s move by the Justice Department has nothing to do with the facts or the law — it is pure politics designed to please the president."

[Anonymous]

Is this still under consideration by Judge Sullivan or is it a done deal?

Didn't Sullivan once call Flynn a traitor and express disappointment he didn't face more charges?

Can Flynn now be charged with perjury for pleading guilty under oath?

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/mueller-indicts-the-washington-swamp

Flynn is a swamp creature.

The prominent Americans Mueller has indicted are all foreign agents. That is, they work as lobbyists or consultants for foreign governments, who paid them handsomely. This includes retired Gen. Michael Flynn, GOP operative Paul Manafort, and his consulting partner Rick Gates. None of these men were indicted or convicted for activities on the Trump campaign. The charge sheet against Manafort was generally for crimes allegedly committed in his lucrative work in the transnational, revolving-door lobbying industry centered on the federal capital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Andy McCabe nails it:

“We opened the Russia investigation to determine if the Russian government coordinated with the Trump campaign. Mr. Flynn had prominent, high level interactions with Russian officials, so we investigated whether he might be that point of coordination. We received incontrovertible evidence that Mr. Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador on more than one occasion, that he actively tried to influence the actions of Russian officials, and that those officials acceded to his requests. The FBI was obligated to interview him to better understand why he was talking to Russian officials. During the interview, he lied about the substance of his conversations with those officials. His lies added to our concerns about his relationship with the Russian government. Later, under oath in Federal Court, he twice admitted to lying to the FBI.

Today’s move by the Justice Department has nothing to do with the facts or the law — it is pure politics designed to please the president."

Says the person who lied to the IG...