It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces a Friday afternoon deadline to turn over documents related to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s first interview with federal prosecutors, marking the latest twist in his turbulent prosecution dating back to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House.
Flynn’s legal team earlier this week made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to that interview. His attorneys further claim Flynn was not advised that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, as he was questioned about communications with the Russian ambassador.
Now, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is tasked with overseeing Flynn’s criminal case, is demanding details from Mueller and seeking 302s—or FBI documents memorializing interviews with witnesses. 302s are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI does not have recordings. Sullivan is weighing Flynn's sentencing, following recommendations from Mueller’s office of little to no prison time for the former Army lieutenant general.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline
It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline
It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.
Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence,.
Mueller will not turn over the documents and the judge will do nothing about it. We have already seen how this kind of thing plays out. Somebody comes up with evidence that the "resistance" has buried exculpatory evidence, it makes a blip on some right wing news blog, a judge or a senator or a congressman makes a demand with a time limit, the time limit is ignored, the evidence never materializes and everyone moves on to the next "LOOK WHAT TRUMP DID!" event.
They need this Judge. I believe he's the sentencing Judge.
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left."Enron did nothing wrong" is a new hot take from right wingers.
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left.
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left.
I'm sure the judge is straight up. I'm sure he's a good guy. I'm equally sure that he'll have no power whatsoever to enforce the demand he made.
Judge needs to send Mueller a note that says US Marshals will be sent in to clean out his office, if he doesn't comply.
He does have the power to refuse to accept the prosecutors' sentencing recommendations and to dismiss the charges instead.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline
It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?
"F*$K Justice" is the new battlecry of the American left.
He also has the power to impose sentencing greater than what was recommended. Which was 0 to 6 months. So given the charges he was facing why you want to mess with that recommendation? This is one one those be careful what you ask for scenarios because the materials requested will likely expose the weakness of this claim because up to now the DOJ has never had the opportunity to write it's own explanation for what happened with Flynn's interview and now Sullivan is giving them the opportunity to do just that. And Flynn, unlike Papadopoulos, being a man with the kind of stellar background and experience that would clearly suggest that he more than most anyone else ought to have known better may induce the judge to impose jail time even if government wasn't seeking it. This could backfire spectacularly for Flynn.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/case-michael-flynn-timeline
It's high time Mueller gets investigated, and while they're at it, get the 302s from Hillary's interviews. I'm sure they exist, right?
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-charged-special-counsel-russia-investigation-728304According to the charge announced Friday and a court filing dated November 30, Flynn made false statements to FBI agents on January 24. During that meeting, he lied about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 22, 2016. He told the agents that he “did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution,” and that the ambassador didn’t tell Flynn about Russia’s response to the request. The Washington Post reported in February that Flynn denied discussing sanctions against Russia with the ambassador.
The federal prosecutors also said that Flynn lied about a second conversation with the ambassador, which took place on December 29, 2016. He told the agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.” He also told them he did not recall the ambassador’s then agreeing “to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”
A general ... the National Security Advisor ... needed to be told it was a crime to lie to the FBI.
Well, I'm sure he'll get his transcripts, but what a shabby excuse for lying to the FBI. "I didn't know it was against the law to lie to the FBI, so I lied to them. Because ... duh ... I was a member of Trump's administration. You thought I would tell the truth without being threatened with jail time?"
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Just like it has been interesting to see how all the rest of the legal troubles of Trump's criminal associates have played out. Mueller may have made some mistakes along the way, but I'm sure he'll be able to show he and his team took a whole lot more care to do their jobs right than Trump and his administration have taken in their jobs.
This particular Judge as I understand doesn't roll that way. He has a history of smashing prosecutors who play fast and loose. I hope performs as he has previously. I also understand he had a run in previously with one of Mueller's attorneys.
There are plenty of ways to try and keep that confidential and to not answer, etc., but lying to investigators is not one of them. ALso, investigators are obligated to keep such thigns confidential.I have mentioned before how I believe it is more likely than not Flynn considered this was confidential information at that time and did not want this conversation "leaked" and used against the President to disrupt relations with Russia. (Which IMO is exactly what many people were trying to do at that time.) So he lied about a discussion of something that was not a crime, and yet was charged for lying to investigators which is the ONLY crime they could come up with.
You're required to be honest to certain members of government at all times "under oath" is irrelevant. You can be silent, you can get your attorney, you can refuse, you can do all sorts of things other than answer their questions.This is my problem with "lying to investigators" statutes; that a person can be convicted of not being honest while not under oath requiring one to be honest.
Journalists already broke the news that Flynn lied, and he still lied. That's on him.As also stated elsewhere, what you say in any conversation can already be used against you in a court of law by any witness directly involved in the conversation, to impugn your honesty. So why do we need criminal charges for lying to investigators if there is no seminal crime being lied about?
18 USC 953Well, this is a report in Newsweek from 12/01/17 indicating what Flynn lied about:
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-charged-special-counsel-russia-investigation-728304
Now none of what he discussed was in and of itself illegal, i.e. Flynn was doing his job at the time when discussing this stuff with Kislyak.
Why do you think he lied if he, as you claim, did nothing illegal in his conversation? And it wasn’t just to FBI, it was to Pence and many others.However, when questioned by FBI agents who had a transcript of the conversation thanks to secret monitoring, he denied that he said these things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?