Thread by @LynwoodTalks

'It’s simply impossible to understand how an American can be held criminally liable for making a “false statement” when the account of his “lie” was manipulated and doctored without his participation.'

Adam Mill
amgreatness.com/2019/10/31/som…

Here's the full text:

"Is the Flynn case hurtling to a final reckoning?

On October 24, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, filed a bombshell brief in which she accused the prosecution, led by Robert Mueller alumnus Brandon Van Grack, ...

... of spearheading a politically motivated prosecution characterized by shocking (alleged) misconduct on the part of the investigators and the prosecution team.

Amid the allegations of hiding evidence, even destroying evidence, came a new accusation that cast doubt on the viability of the prosecution itself.

Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements to the FBI.

But we now learn that Flynn’s attorney has produced evidence that Flynn’s statement was actually edited and doctored by a group of FBI officials who were not present during the interview.

These include the infamous Lisa Page (implicated in the Office of Inspector General report of political corruption in the investigations of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) and Andrew McCabe (former deputy director of the FBI, fired for lying about leaking).

Powell wrote, “Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302. 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.”

But, the original notes of the interviewing agents showed, “Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue.”

She points out that additional material was added to the account of Flynn’s statement that did not appear in the notes of the interviewing agents.

It’s simply impossible to understand how an American can be held criminally liable for making a “false statement” when the account of his “lie” was manipulated and doctored without his participation.

In response to the Powell brief, the court dramatically cancelled the planned hearing writing, “In view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning [109] Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, ...

... the Court cancels the motion hearing previously scheduled for November 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/28/2019.”

The government responded with a short rebuff arguing that Flynn made these arguments at the wrong time and in the wrong form.

It did not attempt to rebut the specific allegations or evidence and instead insisted that it should have the opportunity to address these charges in additional briefing.

In a shocking retort, the judge then fired back at the government with this order:

The gist of this order is that the government has less than three days to respond to Powell’s bombshells.

It’s not enough time for a considered response which is an indication that the judge is frustrated and wants to move this case along.

Along to what?

Is he frustrated with Flynn’s attorney for raising new complicating arguments?

.

Or is he about to lower the boom on the government for failing to be transparent to the court and Flynn?

Stay tuned.'

~ End ~

By Adam Mill @theamgreatness

amgreatness.com/author/adam-mi…

@theamgreatness And now here's the follow-up article on the same topic.

Keep reading for the full text.

By Adam Mill @theamgreatness
amgreatness.com/2019/11/01/gov…

@theamgreatness As promised:

"The federal government’s response Friday to Michael Flynn and his attorney’s bombshell claims of prosecutorial misconduct raises three concerns.

First, that the “false statement” Flynn is accused of making was revised and edited since his interview with the FBI.

Second, that Flynn never received a copy of the transcript of the conversations he supposedly lied about.

And third, that Flynn’s purported “lies” are, in some cases, disputes over the accuracy of vague characterizations about his calls with the Russian ambassador.

As I recently reported, the case has reached a dramatic crossroads as Flynn’s new attorney, @SidneyPowell1, has forced the prosecution team, led by Brandon Van Grack, to respond to allegations of government misconduct.

𝐀 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

To review:

On Nov. 30, 2017, the government indicted Flynn, alleging the former Trump campaign figure and National Security Advisor lied to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The conversations took place after the 2016 election and were not part of any alleged “collusion.”

The incoming president asked Flynn to reach out to as many as 20 countries to begin the process of transitioning foreign policy.

The FBI obtained surveillance recordings of Flynn’s call with Kislyak.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a longtime Flynn enemy, then sent FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka to interview Flynn.

Subsequently, the two agents produced records of the interview using the FBI form 302.

Immediately after Flynn pleaded guilty, the story broke that Strzok exchanged politically charged text messages with his lover Lisa Page (who happened to be McCabe’s legal advisor within the Bureau).

A few days after that, the judge who accepted Flynn’s plea was mysteriously recused from the case.

It turned out, the reassigned judge actually socialized with Strzok and Page.

The new judge, however, was none other than Emmet Sullivan, the same judge who handled a case in which the Justice Department successfully swung a U.S. Senate election by framing Senator Ted Stevens with bribery.

Sullivan ordered Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack to come clean and produce all evidence relevant to Flynn’s guilt or innocence.

After nearly a year of mysterious delays to the process, Flynn fired his old attorney and hired Powell to represent him.

Since then, Powell has peppered the prosecution with several complaints about how the case had been conducted.

𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬

Friday’s 17-page response did not deny that the account of Flynn’s “false statement” was edited by other FBI officials not present for the interview.

The government contends the “final interview report and every draft of that report document those same false statements, in a clear and consistent manner.”

The government further argues “there were no material changes” after the initial draft reports.

But many of the false statements attributed to Flynn require subjective judgments about whether vaguely worded denials were really intentional false statements.

For example, one of Flynn’s statements charged as materially false was his denial that he called Kislyak to “get a sense of where countries stood on the vote” because he responded to a question with, “Not really. I don’t remember.”

The government gave a particularly curious response to the allegation that it suppressed an early draft of Flynn’s statement to the FBI: ...

... “Even if an earlier draft of the interview report once existed, there is no reason to believe it would materially differ from the interviewing agents’ handwritten notes or the other drafts.”

𝐔𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

All of this raises the question of why the FBI would not make an audio recording of Flynn’s interview to avoid the need for drafting and editing his statement after-the-fact.

Powell made this point in her motion.

“This is one of the many reasons no one should be prosecuted for [making a false statement] unless the statement has been recorded,” she argued.

“Every law enforcement officer has that ability on his phone.”

What’s more, it doesn’t appear that the government furnished—at least not publicly—the original recorded conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador.

Nor does the government’s response appear to address Powell’s complaint that, “the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense.”

Nevertheless, the prosecution insists it “complied with Brady, and this Court’s Standing Order,” to produce all evidence of Flynn’s guilt or innocence.

Flynn’s attorney has until noon on November 4 to file a response to Friday’s filing from the prosecution.

Although Powell has asked Sullivan to dismiss the case, it is more likely that the judge would agree to let Flynn withdraw his original guilty plea and go to trial."

~ End ~

Once again, article is by Adam Mill

Read more from him here:
amgreatness.com/author/adam-mi…