Justice Department dropping the case against Michael Flynn.

Good!!! It's about time.

 

He's maintained all along that he wasn't sure if sanctions were discussed. The notes from the interviewing agent confirm the ambiguity of his answer, but after multiple drafts, editing and consultation, between Page (who wasn't there) and Stzrok who wasn't the note taker, they produced a long overdue 302 with a clear negative statement as "Flynn's? answer. And actually, this 302 wasn't even the 302 that should have been provided from the interview, rather it was the 302 from Stzrok's exit interview after he had been removed for bias. We still don't have the 302 or the original drafts, which is unheard of, as the 302 is the basis of the False Statements Plea.

The Prosecution has a DUTY to fully inform Flynn of ALL Exculpatory information. They met NONE of that duty. They never provided the original 302 or any of the multiple drafts. The never provided the phone call or the transcript. They never disclosed that Page was improperly involved in the editing of the 302, that the 302 was never produced under proper guidelines or time frame. They never informed Flynn that both Flynn and Stzrok were removed from the case for extreme bias. They never informed Flynn that they had no valid reason to interview him. They never informed Flynn, that even stipulating that he made a false statement that it didn't obstruct a properly predicated criminal investigation, and core element that has to be met in order for a penal violation to occur.

They didn't disclose to the Court that they threatened his attorneys with prosecution, because they advised Flynn on whether or not, he or his son were required to register under FARA. This was highly unethical, because it compromised Flynn's counsel, giving them a person interest in appeasing the prosecutors by getting Flynn to agree to their demand that he plea. They should have announced their conflict and recused so that Flynn could be represented by unencumbered counsel.

Flynn's counsel colluded with the prosecutors to conceal that they obtained Flynn's plea by threatening to charge Flynn's son with a felony, failing to register with FARA. This was fraud on the Court that they were also under obligation to disclose.

Of course the DOJ is refusing to prosecute, this case is a malicious prosecution from one end to the other, and from multiple avenues. It's a travesty that must not ever be allowed to happen again.

Flynn had been bled of $5,000,000 in legal defense, he had put his home up for sale, the corrupt prosecutors were threatening his son, they had demonstrated that they were both corrupt and unstoppable, so Flynn tapped out. He lasted longer than I would have.

Michael Flynn, the accused, who is presumed innocent and entitled to the full array of rights assured by the Constitution, federal procedural rules, and due-process jurisprudence. All. Of. It.

 

Yes. It's horrible, and Flynn was the Director of National Intelligence, under Obama, and the National Security Adviser for Trump. If they can do this to him, they can take out anyone. This has to stop.

The criminal-justice system’s principal task is to provide due process to the accused. It is human nature that judges and prosecutors often come to believe that the accused is guilty, is a rogue, is gaming the system, and so on. Yet this does not change the judge’s or the prosecutor’s duty to ensure that a defendant is afforded every protection to which the system entitles him.

Regardless of how you feel about Flynn, think about what happened here — and what you’d say about it if politics were not inflaming the public debate. The FBI serially flouted its own procedures in investigating Flynn — the lack of a basis for the investigation, the perjury trap interview, the willful decision not to advise him of all his rights or of the nature of the interview. The original prosecutors then squeezed Flynn into a guilty plea on a charge they knew was flawed, withheld exculpatory evidence that would have made the flaws obvious, and concealed from the court the full details of the plea agreement.

Meanwhile, Flynn’s original lawyers were permitted by the court and the prosecutors to represent him despite a blatant conflict of interest. That is, having counseled Flynn on submissions under FARA (the Foreign Agent Registration Act), as a result of which he was suspected of making false representations, the lawyers were actors in the facts under investigation. In ethical terms, this gave the lawyers a motive to curry favor with the prosecutors, to be less than zealous in Flynn’s defense in order to conceal their own possible negligence. The point of legal ethics is to protect the public integrity of the proceedings by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. When lawyers are involved in the facts under investigation, the conflict this creates is a show stopper. The lawyers proceeded to counsel Flynn to plead guilty to a false-statements charge under circumstances where it is now obvious that their review of the FBI’s interview report — the heart of the case against Flynn — was less than vigorous; and where they did not examine the classified Flynn–Kislyak recordings that were the purported justification for Flynn’s FBI interview (and for the prosecutors’ claim that Flynn lied). Beyond that, the lawyers joined the prosecutors in failing to inform the court of the prosecutors’ commitment not to prosecute Flynn’s son (i.e., the threat that was used to pressure Flynn to plead guilty). The recently disclosed paper trail suggests that, in this knowing omission, Flynn’s lawyers were aware that the prosecutors planned to skirt their discovery obligations if they called Flynn to testify in future cases.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/michael-flynn-case-judge-luttig-respectful-dissent/

 

We join him. Flynn should have been able to review them, with a clear explanation of what the "false statement" was, years ago. Grassley has been demanding a transcript of the call, a copy of 302 and the remaining agent before him for questioning, for years. Things that are routinely disclosed in a by the book prosecution.

This is a dirty dirty case, and the DOJ has no means to ethically prosecute it, which means you don't prosecute it, you withdraw it!

 

Then what happened?

 

People around the world have just seen in the US what they typically see in third world nations. A confessed criminal has had his charges dropped because he is a friend of the President.

Everything opponents of Trumpery predicted would happen has occurred.........and worse.

We used to be a beacon to the world for democracy and justice. That's over now.

 

Just about everything about that case was done dishonestly. From telling Flynn that he did not need a lawyer to coercing him into a confession. There should be some FBI agents in jail plus a few others.

 

That's hilarious!

Wasn't bankrupting him, for associating with Trump, enough?

 

More examples of how our Justice Department needs to be renamed to the Corruption Department.

 

He's a Clinton appointee, so that was to be expected.

 

actually they saw a fair justice system...one where the prosecution....ie the Mueller team, can't hide Brady evidence....they must turn it over....and in this case after years, and lies from the Mueller team, it was turned over....and when it came to light the DOJ released there was no case....and justice was brought to light.

 

Of the three appeals court judges, Rao is a Trump appointee, Henderson was appointed by HW.

Let's not let the legal opinion of whether Sullivan had the right to review the facts of the case obscure the extra-legal reason Trump told Barr to drop the charges in the first place. Essentially, as a backdoor way of subverting Mueller's findings of a non-criminal conspiracy to defraud the voters in the 2016 election and of obstruction of his investigation.

 

What does Mueller have to do with it. He didn't write the report. He was only vaguely aware of what was in it.

 

New strozk notes discovered show Obama and Biden were directly tied to this illegal prosecution of Flynn. This is going to get interesting.

 

Thank you for keeping me up to date on the nonsense the fever swamp is spewing.

Please explain what makes you believe Flynn's prosecution was illegal. This is going to get interesting.

 

Already explained ad nauseum and validated by the courts.

 

I hope they paid him well.

 

Do you have evidence that Trump "ordered" Barr to do this?

 

geez man....why don't you at least read the opinions from the Govt and the Court

Govt https://thehill.com/regulation/496649-read-doj-motion-to-dismiss-flynn-case

Court: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6956058-Flynn-Dismissal-Opinion-Appeals-Court.html

It was illegal to hide and not disclose the Brady material clearing him, and it was illegal to pursue the case when they knew they lacked PC To purse it

 

It's the era of Republican law and odor because it stinks.

 

The appeals court did not rule Flynn's prosecution was illegal. It said it is not within the judge’s power to prolong a prosecution or examine the government’s motives in the case.
There is good reason the appeals court didn't want to allow an examination the government’s motives. Cuz they are fundamentally corrupt.

 

I am sure it does....do leftist that love corruption

 

The Govt stated their motives...after the Brady evidence was finally released that the Mueller team was hiding, it was obvious there was no PC to pursue the case. It was "illegal" - by violating the ethical rules for the Mueller team to continue the prosecution when they had the evidence showing that....and they had that evidence in Nov of 2016

 

What's your complaint?

Wasn't bankrupting him, for associating with Trump, enough for you?

We're only in the beginning stage of becoming a totalitarian state. It will only take one Democrat President and we'll have political prisoners, too. Then, we'll be on our way to becoming a bananna republic.

 

Haaahahahahaaa!