Michael Flynn lawyers
receive Peter Strzok notes
from US attorney
Washington Examiner,
by
Daniel Chaitin
&
Jerry Dunleavy
Original Article
Posted By: Ida Lou Pino,
6/23/2020 3:34:20 PM
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's legal team has received notes taken by former FBI special agent Peter Strzok. A court filing Tuesday said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen of Missouri, who was picked by Attorney General William Barr to review the government's case against Flynn, "obtained and analyzed" the document. "While the page itself is undated; we believe that the notes were taken in early January 2017, possibly between January 3 and January 5," acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin for the District of Columbia wrote to Flynn's team. "These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018; additional documents may be forthcoming."
Reply 1 - Posted by:
DVC 6/23/2020 4:23:02 PM (No. 454355)
Three years late.
It am pretty sure that it is criminal obstruction of justice to withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant, especially when it has been specifically requested by the defense attorneys.
And who will lose their law license for this? Who will go to jail? Who will be Nifonged?
13 people like this.
Barr could end this today if he would announce none of the accusations involving Flynn are a crime. Until then...why won’t DOJ prosecute the Turkish agent issue? This goes beyond the “lying” charge. Set up or not Flynn pled guilty time a crime under oath TWICE, even offered the chance by Sullivan to withdraw.
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Delilah 6/23/2020 4:28:33 PM (No. 454363)
Does the MD before Conservative stand for Mad Democrat? I didn't think they allowed conservatives to be in their party. My sister the Liberal told me so.
12 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 6/23/2020 4:33:05 PM (No. 454373)
Any time there is a thread with the name "Flynn" in it - - we can be sure that the NeverFlynn trolls will attack him.
Whenever anything is that predictable - - it's time to recall lovable Joanne Worley declaring: "It's BOOOORING!"
9 people like this.
#2, while I understand that he pled guilty, to a plea deal, but they never sentenced him, for some reason, and extended the case out which ended up un-covering exculpatory evidence. This new evidence is now proving to be significantly material. Thus, he's looking to remove his guilty plea.
And, the new evidence is exposing the previous administration of more wrong-doing.
It seems Biden's campaign is all designed to try and cover-up what's not now known, it seems.
10 people like this.
#5 - Sentencing was delayed by mutual agreement to ensure Flynn complied with the agreement to cooperate. There can be piles of "exculpatory" evidence, but the basic fact remains that DOJ STILL contends Flynn committed a crime, but that now they could not prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt with available evidence. (Read the DOJ Motion to Dismiss.) With a guilty plea there is no trial, no need to prove anything with evidence. No one has ever said Flynn was innocent or falsely accused. Not even Flynn himself. Why not?
Flynn pled guilty to the charge, twice, under oath. Flynn turned down Sullivan's offer to allow him to withdraw the plea. He also swore he did so of his own volition, not under pressure. There is a reason why "dismissal" is important in this case. It's called perjury. Sullivan never made Flynn lie under oath. So, now, when Barr/DOJ says no crime was committed...but that hasn't happened. Instead DOJ forfeits the game, walks away from its own railroad job. Seems no one wants the whole truth told about this sordid affair. No one. That ought to make people pay close attention.
The never spoken of part is the outstanding charge of Flynn acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the Turkish government. That charge was not dismissed, merely not prosecuted as part of the deal, and Sullivan is correctly asking the government why it is not proceeding on that charge. The evidence in this case is not tainted. Flynn's excuse was he simply failed to do so as an oversight, and that others get unprosecuted leniency in the form of retroactive registration. Once again, Barr/DOJ could tell Judge Sullivan there was nothing there to charge...and they don't. Why not? Some sort of liability they see?
Yes, #1, three years too late. And two sworn guilty pleas later. Judge Sullivan never forced Flynn into one. Flynn made his own pickle here, from beginning to date. Remember that "treason" remark the biased judge made? Yeah, made after Flynn reaffirmed his guilty plea in open court, after given time to reconsider with counsel, prior to sentencing. Suppose a judge told a murderer he was a heinous individual after accepting his guilty plea... Sullivan's problem is he believed everyone involved, and now he's not happy left holding a bag for the liars. No Federal judge would be. Of course, under these circumstances a reasonable, honest judge would...do what? Sweep the mess out the door?
Thank you, #3 for a clear example of the insightful and adult discussions possible in such a salon as this.
Thank you, #4. It's soooooo disappointing to see such a post from a seasoned and respected veteran around here. As PDT might say, "Sad."
0 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 6/23/2020 6:45:46 PM (No. 454520)
The argument that pleading guilty is proof, without any actual proof, of a crime is at best circular logic, and at worst, no logic at all.
The man was under extreme duress with threats to his son by criminals with badges. He was forced into a fraudulent plea deal. Is is possible to grasp that under duress like that he had no choice but to lie to the court? The guilty plea is null and void. Gone, means nothing except to the criminal coup plotters who did it, and to some folks who pose as conservatives and somehow can't see how totally corrupt the process has been top to bottom, front to back. The CRIMINALS all had badges!
10 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
John Farson 6/23/2020 8:08:30 PM (No. 454594)
#6. The word around the water cooler was that if Flynn did not plead guilty the government would go after his son and put him in jail.
Did Flynn lie about being guilty? He did twice. But he lyes to keep his son out of prison. Neither time that he plead did the prosecution tell him to forget everything. We will not go after your son and oh, by the way we had a trumped up case the whole time. Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused you and your family.
This is about a case that should never been in court. The way I look at it is the government are the crooks and every one of them who had anything to do with this Should be put in jail for the time they were putting Flynn in.
Either that or a firing squad.
9 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ida Lou Pino"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
To keep up with these fast-breaking events involving the FBI - - Fey Wray has ordered new filters on all FBI office water bottles. He will not allow himself to be shown up by Jeff Jensen!