DOJ drops all charges against Michael Flynn!

[JimL]

Right, she didn't answer, from which nothing can be inferred.

She'd only be revealing that there was classified information to the affirmative if the answer was yes. If the answer was no, then there wouldn't be any classified information to protect. In other words, she could have said no, if the answer was no.

[JimL]

It's not a question of what he did but why he did it. At the time of his "confession", the FBI had presented him with falsified evidence "proving" that he had lied. Even if he could perfectly remember what he had said during the original ambush interview, it was his word against the FBI's official record, meaning he was pretty much screwed at that point. But then the FBI tightened the screws a little more by threatening to prosecute his son for something unrelated.

So, yes, he confessed, but it was coerced.

MM, please stop mouthing Breitbart news. There is no evidence that the FBI falsified evidence. And as has already been pointed out to you, Flynns lawyers already tried that one in court and Judge Sullivan has already rejected it. Nor did they threaten to prosecute his son. Of course like the father, the son was involved in the corrupt dealings of the father, so they didn't have to threaten Gen. Flynn, he already knew that if he didn't coorporate and tell the truth then he, ie General Flynn himself would be putting his son in jeopardy.

[Mountain Man]

There is no evidence that the FBI falsified evidence.

Yes, there is. This is not speculation or guesswork. We know it happened.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...-case-n2568102

Nor did they threaten to prosecute his son.

Yes, they did. Again, this is not speculation or guesswork. We know it happened.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...he-flynn-case/

[NorrinRadd]

So you don't know what "the winners write history" means?

Edit: Removed quote I thought came from Leonardo Da Vinci but actually came from "The Da Vinci Code" :).

I do. I'm saying he is smiling because he understands that even if the bad guys -- like you -- win, and the history they write paints him negatively, he's fine with it because he knows he's doing the right thing.

[DivineOb]

Yes, there is. This is not speculation or guesswork. We know it happened.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...-case-n2568102

Show me the money! Point me exactly to the edits which occurred.

Yes, they did. Again, this is not speculation or guesswork. We know it happened.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...he-flynn-case/

Now comes the claim about a side deal not to prosecute Flynn’s son. Let’s stress that nothing has been proved at this point. But if Covington’s lawyers colluded with government lawyers to make such a deal and conceal it from the court, that would raise very serious legal and ethical issues.

Great detective work, Lou.

[firstfloor]

Full discussion here:

http://lawfare.libsyn.com/dropping-the-flynn-case

On Friday, Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare's Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey, as well as with Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. Attorney and senior FBI official who has held a number of other significant positions in the Justice Department. They talked about the Justice Department's move and the rationale for it that is spelled out in a brief to the court. What will happen now as Judge Sullivan considers the motion to dismiss? Can it be justified? And how unusual was it?

[Mountain Man]

Show me the money! Point me exactly to the edits which occurred.

Why do you continue to ask questions that you know I have already answered? It's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘Flynn stated he did not’ — in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote [on sanctions],” [attorney Sidney] Powell wrote. “This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

Powell also alleged that agents added: “or if Kislyak described any Russian response to a request by Flynn.”

“That question and answer does not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense,” Powell wrote. “The draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...t-court-filing

Now comes the claim about a side deal not to prosecute Flynn’s son. Let’s stress that nothing has been proved at this point. But if Covington’s lawyers colluded with government lawyers to make such a deal and conceal it from the court, that would raise very serious legal and ethical issues.

Great detective work, Lou.

It hasn't been proved only in the sense that a court hasn't ruled on it, but the evidence presented by Sydney Powell is definitive and damning.

After DOJ’s revelations last Friday, Powell filed a submission with the court, asserting that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting his son; they also secretly assured Flynn’s former counsel, the well-connected Washington firm of Covington & Burling (C&B), that Flynn’s son would not be prosecuted if Flynn pleaded guilty. This “side deal” (a) was not explicitly memorialized in the formal plea agreement, (b) was not otherwise disclosed to the court as federal law requires, and (c) was designed to enable prosecutors to evade their due process obligations in future cases.

To back up her claims, Powell’s submission included exhibits. They are still under court-ordered restrictions and thus heavily redacted. But the glimpses we get are intriguing. Exhibit 1 includes an unredacted snippet of an email between two of Flynn’s C&B lawyers; in it, Robert Kelner states to Stephen Anthony: “We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that they [i.e., the prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior [Flynn’s son] in light of the Cooperation Agreement” — Flynn’s commitment to provide information and testimony in other prosecutions.

Exhibit 2 is an email from Anthony to Kelner, among others, stating: “The only exception is the reference to Michael Jr. The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Gen. Flynn] regarding Michael Jr., so as to limit how much of a ‘benefit’ it would have to disclose as part of its Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify.”

“Giglio” refers to the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Giglio v. United States, which requires the government to disclose to the defense any promises made or benefits given in exchange for the testimony of a witness called by the prosecution.

These passages cited in Powell’s exhibits tend to corroborate the claim of an agreement not to prosecute Flynn’s son. It is fair, then, to infer that the threat of such a prosecution was indeed used to pressure him. The exhibits also strongly suggest that the prosecutors did not want an explicit acknowledgement of such a commitment — which would make sense only if they planned not to disclose the commitment in future cases in which they anticipated calling Flynn as a cooperating witness.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ybe-others-too

Here's a "deep dive" analysis if you want the full picture:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...k-guilty-plea/

flynn-motive-1-plea-pressure-v2.jpg

That the FBI was targeting Flynn's son is not in doubt. That they suddenly dropped the case against Flynn's son after Flynn agreed to be railroaded into a false confession is not in doubt. As I said, none of this is speculation or guesswork. We know it happened!

[Mountain Man]

Full discussion here:

http://lawfare.libsyn.com/dropping-the-flynn-case

Is this an unbiased analysis? Or is it the usual liberal hysterics trying to salvage this "unfortunate" turn of events because Flynn being exonerated puts the pin in the last balloon holding up the "collusion delusion" narrative?

[firstfloor]

Is this an unbiased analysis? Or is it the usual liberal hysterics trying to salvage this "unfortunate" turn of events because Flynn being exonerated puts the pin in the last balloon holding up the "collusion delusion" narrative?

How can Flynn be exonerated after he has admitted his crimes? These are expert opinions. Definitely worth a listen.

[DivineOb]

Why do you continue to ask questions that you know I have already been answered? It's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

“Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘Flynn stated he did not’ — in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote [on sanctions],” [attorney Sidney] Powell wrote. “This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...t-court-filing

That's Flynn's lawyers allegation. We need to see the underlying documents. This is not proof!

It hasn't been proved only in the sense that a court hasn't ruled on it, but the evidence presented by Sydney Powell is definitive and damning.

After DOJ’s revelations last Friday, Powell filed a submission with the court, asserting that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting his son; they also secretly assured Flynn’s former counsel, the well-connected Washington firm of Covington & Burling (C&B), that Flynn’s son would not be prosecuted if Flynn pleaded guilty. This “side deal” (a) was not explicitly memorialized in the formal plea agreement, (b) was not otherwise disclosed to the court as federal law requires, and (c) was designed to enable prosecutors to evade their due process obligations in future cases.

To back up her claims, Powell’s submission included exhibits. They are still under court-ordered restrictions and thus heavily redacted. But the glimpses we get are intriguing. Exhibit 1 includes an unredacted snippet of an email between two of Flynn’s C&B lawyers; in it, Robert Kelner states to Stephen Anthony: “We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that they [i.e., the prosecutors] are unlikely to charge Junior [Flynn’s son] in light of the Cooperation Agreement” — Flynn’s commitment to provide information and testimony in other prosecutions.

Exhibit 2 is an email from Anthony to Kelner, among others, stating: “The only exception is the reference to Michael Jr. The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Gen. Flynn] regarding Michael Jr., so as to limit how much of a ‘benefit’ it would have to disclose as part of its Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify.”

“Giglio” refers to the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Giglio v. United States, which requires the government to disclose to the defense any promises made or benefits given in exchange for the testimony of a witness called by the prosecution.

These passages cited in Powell’s exhibits tend to corroborate the claim of an agreement not to prosecute Flynn’s son. It is fair, then, to infer that the threat of such a prosecution was indeed used to pressure him. The exhibits also strongly suggest that the prosecutors did not want an explicit acknowledgement of such a commitment — which would make sense only if they planned not to disclose the commitment in future cases in which they anticipated calling Flynn as a cooperating witness.

It's clear that the article doesn't mean what you say it means. If they meant that it was proven by the evidence they wouldn't immediately jump into inference.

But if Covington’s lawyers colluded with government lawyers to make such a deal and conceal it from the court, that would raise very serious legal and ethical issues.

Additionally, one would assume that Flynn's new lawyers would ask for sanctions against Flynn's old lawyers for such an enormous ethical breach. Has she asked for this?

We're back to arguing over the word 'threat' again. Why don't you provide the definition you're using and we can figure out whether we're talking past each other.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ybe-others-too[/box]
Here's a "deep dive" analysis if you want the full picture:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...k-guilty-plea/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44547[/ATTACH]

That the FBI was targeting Flynn's son is not in doubt. That they suddenly dropped the case against Flynn's son after Flynn agreed to be railroaded into a false confession is not in doubt. As I said, none of this is speculation or guesswork. We know it happened!

When I use the word "know" I mean "it is likely enough that we don't need to investigate alternative explanations." Is that what you mean when you use that word?

The pasted image from you is the *claim*. Where is the proof! But first, let's establish whether we mean the same thing when we use the word "threaten." I take it to have a very loose definition so I don't necessarily disagree that they "threatened" to target his son. It sounds like you have a more strict definition which would make any such threat "over the line" wrt Flynn's prosecution.

[Mountain Man]

Obama sounds pretty rattled by the latest revelations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...o-protect-him/

[Cow Poke]

Obama sounds pretty rattled by the latest revelations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...o-protect-him/

Interesting.

[firstfloor]

Obama sounds pretty rattled by the latest revelations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...o-protect-him/

The Devil himself has his arms around you.

[seanD]

The Devil himself has his arms around you.

You're a hoot, man.

[Mountain Man]

The Devil himself has his arms around you.

Impossible. I've never even met Hillary Clinton.