Posts

The Federal Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped a Major Bombshell

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. On Tuesday, attorneys for Michael Flynn filed a sentencing memorandum and letters of support for the former Army lieutenant general in federal court. The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple 302 interview summaries of Flynn’s questioning by now-former FBI agent Peter Strzok and a second unnamed agent, reported to be FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka.

Further revelations may be forthcoming soon following an order entered late yesterday by presiding judge Emmet Sullivan, directing the special counsel’s office to file with the court any 302s or memorandum relevant to Flynn’s interview.

Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, pleaded guilty more than a year ago to making false statements to federal investigators during a January 24, 2017 interview. During that interview, Strzok and (presumably) Pientka questioned Flynn about a telephone conversation the Trump advisor had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

While Flynn’s sentencing memorandum methodically laid out the case for a low-level sentence of one-year probation, footnote 23 dropped a bomb, revealing that the agents’ 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As others have already noted, the August 22, 2017 date is a “striking detail” because that puts the 302 report “nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.” When added to facts already known, this revelation takes on a much greater significance.

First, text messages between Strzok and former FBI Attorney Lisa Page indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned the national security advisor on January 24, 2017. Specifically, on February 14, 2017, Strzok texted Page, “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page responded, “Launch on f 302.” Given Strzok’s role in the questioning Flynn, the date (three weeks from the interview), the notation “F 302,” and Page’s position as special counsel to Andrew McCabe, it seems extremely likely that these text exchanges concerned a February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview. (Read more from “The Federal Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped a Major Bombshell” HERE)
__________________________________________________

Federal Judge Wants More Information About the Shady Meeting the FBI Used to Nail General Flynn

By Townhall. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is demanding prosecutors for Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel explain a January 2017 meeting between then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and a pair of FBI agents at the White House. One of those agents was Peter Strzok, who was fired this year for serious misconduct and political bias. He was sent by disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and fired FBI Director James Comey.

More from Fox News:

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. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel’s office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.

Explaining why Flynn was not warned about the possible consequences of making false statements, one of the agents wrote in the 302 cited by Flynn’s lawyers that FBI brass had “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

So-called 302 reports are ostensibly contemporaneous accounts by agents of what is said during their interviews with witnesses and subjects, as well as other critical details like interviewees’ demeanor and descriptions of where the interview took place. They are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI typically does not audio- or video-record interviews.

(Read more from “Federal Judge Wants More Information About the Shady Meeting the FBI Used to Nail General Flynn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is a Government Misconduct Expert

/0 Comments/in , /by

Extraordinary manipulation by powerful people led to the creation of Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation and prosecution of General Michael Flynn. Notably, the recent postponement of General Flynn’s sentencing provides an opportunity for more evidence to be revealed that will provide massive ammunition for a motion to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea and dismiss the charges against him.

It was Judge Rudolph Contreras who accepted General Flynn’s guilty plea, but he suddenly was recused from the case. The likely reason is that Judge Contreras served on the special court that allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to surveil the Trump campaign based on the dubious FISA application. Judge Contreras may have approved one of those four warrants.

he judge assigned to Flynn’s case now is Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Sullivan immediately issued what is called a “Brady” order requiring Mueller to provide Flynn all information that is favorable to the defense whether with respect to guilt or punishment. Just today, Mueller’s team filed an agreed motion to provide discovery to General Flynn under a protective order so that it can be reviewed by counsel but not disclosed otherwise.

This development is huge. Prosecutors almost never provide this kind of information to a defendant before he enters a plea — much less after he has done so. This is one of myriad problems in our justice system. As Judge Jed Rakoff wrote several years ago, people who are innocent enter guilty pleas every day. They simply can no longer withstand the unimaginable stress of a criminal investigation. They and their families suffer sheer exhaustion in every form — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. Add in a little prosecutorial duress — like the threat of indicting your son — and, presto, there’s a guilty plea.

Judge Sullivan is the perfect judge to decide General Flynn’s motion. The judicial hero of my book, Emmet Sullivan held federal prosecutors in contempt for failing to disclose evidence, dismissed the corrupted prosecution of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice. (Read more from “General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is a Government Misconduct Expert” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hyped Mueller Charges Show… Gen. Flynn Acted in U.S. Interests

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Friday, former national security adviser Michael Flynn pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI about conversations he had with the former Russian ambassador to the U.S., which occurred after Donald Trump was elected president.

Prosecutors say Flynn was not forthcoming about two discussions he had with the Russian ambassador. The first involved sanctions on Russia, while the second was about an anti-Israel resolution that the Obama administration abstained from.

There’s a lot of hysteria from the left-wing legacy media figures and former Obama officials surrounding these latest charges. But, in the end, Flynn conducted himself as any incoming national security adviser would, and he acted within U.S. national interests in doing so. Here’s what the charges actually amount to …

Contacting foreign governments during the transition is not illegal or unusual

Both Flynn and the prosecution has stated that the events in question occurred in December 2016, after Donald Trump’s election and during the transition period.

It’s unclear why Flynn allegedly misled the FBI here, but it makes sense that the incoming president wanted to open up a dialogue with Russia prior to his first day in office. There is nothing criminal about this action, and in fact, it’s common precedent for an incoming administration to want to engage a great power on the issues. Flynn is reportedly going to testify that he was ordered to reached out to the Russians to see if there was the potential to partner against the ISIS terror group.

Beginning your foreign policy agenda on day one in the Oval Office is a bad idea. There’s a reason why the post-election stage is called the “lame duck” period for an outgoing president. Once elected, the incoming president drives the domestic and foreign policy agenda items that will come up during their tenure.

Flynn should be applauded for trying to save Israel from Obama and the U.N. goons

The second series of charges listed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is centered around an anti-Israel United Nations resolution that the Obama administration let pass through by abstaining from the vote. The resolution condemned Israel and declared that ancient Jewish land and other contested areas belonged to the Palestinians.

According to the charges, Flynn contacted the Russians to see if they would be willing to vote against the resolution. The New York Times reports that Team Trump got involved after the Israelis called and asked for help on the matter.

Flynn’s actions on this front are not scandalous. In fact, he should be praised for trying to save our greatest ally in the Middle East from Obama and the United Nations’ bullying. Unfortunately, the Russians ultimately decided not to vote against the resolution.

There’s still ZERO evidence of Trump-Russia collusion

As CRTV White House correspondent Jon Miller explains, the latest charges are entirely based on events that occurred during the transition period.

Hysterical screeds from prominent members of the Left continue to accuse the president of colluding with the Russian government to win the election. But now, almost one full year into the Trump presidency, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced to show that any such collusion ever occurred.

Speculation that Flynn “flipped” is mere opinion, not fact

To rationalize the fact that the charges against Gen. Flynn are very much inconsequential to what Mueller is supposed to be investigating, many on the Left have become convinced that prosecutors are on the precipice of taking down the president — because Flynn has “flipped” to Mueller’s side.

This analysis is based on blind speculation, not fact. It’s possible that, quite simply, Mueller does not have much to work with in his crusade against the administration.

In the end, the “bombshell” here is that Michael Flynn misled the FBI regarding actions he took that were not only entirely legal, but also as part of an effort to advance American interests. (For more from the author of “Hyped Mueller Charges Show… Gen. Flynn Acted in U.S. Interests” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Special Counsel Delays Grand Jury Testimony Amid Signs of Flynn Deal Talks

/0 Comments/in , /by

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team has postponed an anticipated grand jury testimony linked to his investigation into Michael Flynn amid growing indications of possible plea deal discussions.

Additional witnesses were expected to be questioned soon including a public relations consultant hired by Flynn’s lobbying firm who was given an early December date deadline to appear before the grand jury, according to a person at the company.

Ahead of the delay, the impression was that the testimony needed to happen soon, the source said . . .

The grand jury testimony was postponed, the person said, with no reason given. There could be many reasons for a delay, including scheduling issues. (Read more from “Special Counsel Delays Grand Jury Testimony Amid Signs of Flynn Deal Talks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former White House National Security Adviser Reportedly Being Investigated in Cleric Kidnap Plot

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and his son are reportedly being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller in connection with an alleged multimillion-dollar plot to nab a Muslim cleric in the United States and deliver him to Turkey.

The purported incident and the Flynns’ potential involvement being part of Mueller’s Russia collusion-meddling probe was reported first by The Wall Street Journal.

People familiar with the investigation told the newspaper that Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, and son Michael Flynn Jr. were set to get as much as $15 million to deliver cleric Fethullah Gulen to the Turkish government.

Turkey officials were apparently anxious to get the cleric after President Recap Tayyip Erdogan tried and failed to get the United States to extradite Gulen, whom Turkish officials accuse of being a terrorist. (Read more from “Former White House National Security Adviser Reportedly Being Investigated in Cleric Kidnap Plot” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal investigators have gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.

Michael T. Flynn, who was fired after just 24 days on the job, was one of the first Trump associates to come under scrutiny in the federal probe now led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Mueller is applying renewed pressure on Flynn following his indictment of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, three sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

The investigators are speaking to multiple witnesses in coming days to gain more information surrounding Flynn’s lobbying work, including whether he laundered money or lied to federal agents about his overseas contacts, according to three sources familiar with the investigation.

Mueller’s team is also examining whether Flynn attempted to orchestrate the removal of a chief rival of Turkish President Recep Erdogan from the U.S. to Turkey in exchange for millions of dollars, two officials said. (Read more from “Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Real Crime in the Michael Flynn Saga

/0 Comments/in , /by

Washington is abuzz with the saga of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation, the Russia connection, and the melodrama of who knew what, when and what they did about it.

There are, to be sure, myriad aspects of this story that will consume the media, the Hill, civil society and the like for a while.

We want to highlight one — and only one — serious aspect of this story that has been underreported: the unauthorized (and criminal) leaks of highly classified information to the media by a person or persons in the government.

We will not weigh in on the panoply of issues related but not limited to the role of the White House counsel and his discussions with then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the communications that Trump campaign operatives may have had with Russians before the election, or the proper role of Congress or the press going forward.

It goes without saying that Flynn had a duty to be honest with Vice President Mike Pence about what he discussed with the Russian ambassador, and whether the issue of U.S. sanctions against Russia was any part of those conversations.

Regardless of whether you think President Donald Trump should have asked for Flynn’s resignation, the president had the right to ask him to resign. But not telling the truth to the vice president is not a crime under these circumstances.

Flynn had a legal duty to tell the truth to FBI agents, who apparently questioned him about the calls. Failure to tell the truth to the FBI could have negative legal consequences for Flynn, depending on what he said and the exact questions asked.

With respect to the leaks, what we have so far are allegations from anonymous government sources about what was supposedly said in the conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. The transcript is not public yet, so we don’t really know the content, context or circumstances of the conversations.

Perhaps these sources who refuse to go on the record are being 100 percent accurate about what was said — but without the actual transcript, we don’t really know.

Just as we assume that foreign governments, even allies, monitor the calls of U.S. ambassadors (and other U.S. personnel) stationed overseas, ambassadors (and other embassy personnel) from other countries stationed in Washington, D.C., have good reason to believe that the U.S. monitors the communications of foreign embassies and consulates.

It is one thing to assume it is happening, but not know for sure. It is entirely another thing to illegally disclose the fact that we have been recording the calls of the Russian ambassador and other top Russian personnel.

Now they know.

Exposing US Secrets for Political Purposes

Alerting the Russians about our lawful surveillance of them — during an ongoing investigation — for the purpose of knee-capping Flynn is inexcusable. As New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning author Charlie Savage wrote in his book, Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post 9/11 Presidency, “There have always been unauthorized disclosures of information to the news media. It’s how Washington works and has always worked.”

But compared to the nine major leak cases highlighted in Savage’s book (Leibowitz, Drake, Manning, Kim, Sterling, Kiriakou, Snowden, Sachtleben and Petraeus), where none of the leakers disclosed classified information for the purpose of targeting one senior government official, these leaks were designed to do exactly that.

Savage opposes the criminalization of unauthorized disclosures because they are a “counterforce against overclassification.” But he also admits that “there can be bad leaks, the disclosure of information whose publication impose social costs that outweigh its social benefits.”

Ask yourself this: Was it better to keep the Russians guessing about what we had on them during the government’s investigation, or was it more important to let them know what we were doing, and how we were doing it, in order to embarrass Flynn?

What we can say with some confidence is that the motivations behind these leaks seem to be purely political and were specifically aimed at bringing down Flynn.

In doing so, the leakers were willing to compromise the national security of the nation by telling the media that we were successfully listening to the phone calls of the Russian ambassador to the United States, and other Russians, in connection with Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

Could Flynn Be Prosecuted?

Some have suggested Flynn may have violated the Logan Act — the 1799 act that was designed to prevent private citizens from specifically engaging in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government … in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.”

No one has ever been prosecuted under that act (18 U.S.C. §953), which has been roundly (and rightly) criticized by distinguished legal scholars from the left and the right as a content-based restriction on First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Keep in mind that this law was passed just a year after the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Sedition Act of 1798 is probably one of the worst violations of the First Amendment ever passed by Congress. The Logan Act follows pretty closely behind the Sedition Act in its basic abrogation of First Amendment rights and has never been used against the many Americans who may have technically violated it.

A 2015 Congressional Research Service report details the problems with the act, although it neglects to mention the specific intent requirement in its analysis.

Again, we don’t really know what Flynn said to the Russians as a private citizen, but whatever it was — regardless of whether one thinks it was prudent to do so or not — there is almost zero probability of a successful prosecution under the Logan Act, given its constitutional infirmities.

As Susan Hennessey and Helen Murillo detail in a blog post on lawfareblog.com, the administration has a host of criminal statutes to use against the leakers, including the Espionage Act of 1917, codified at 18 U.S. C. § 793, which prohibits the improper accessing, handling or transmitting of “information respecting the national defense” with the intent of injuring the United States or aiding a foreign nation.

Another related statute, 18 U.S.C. § 798, prohibits the disclosure of classified information, including information “concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government.”

As Hennessey and Murillo also note, government employees in sensitive posts are required to sign nondisclosure agreements, a violation of which can expose the leakers to legal action.

No doubt, there are various aspects of this saga that can and will be investigated by the media and the Congress. But the deliberate, orchestrated and criminal leaks in this case must be investigated. And the leakers must be held to account. (For more from the author of “The Real Crime in the Michael Flynn Saga” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn Resigns

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump’s embattled national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, following reports that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his contacts with Russia. His departure upends Trump’s senior team after less than one month in office.

In a resignation letter, Flynn said he held numerous calls with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the transition and gave “incomplete information” about those discussions to Vice President Mike Pence. The vice president, apparently relying on information from Flynn, initially said the national security adviser had not discussed sanctions with the Russian envoy, though Flynn later conceded the issue may have come up.

Trump named retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg as the acting national security adviser. Kellogg had previously been appointed the National Security Council chief of staff and advised Trump on national security issues during the campaign. (Read more from “National Security Advisor Michael Flynn Resigns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.