Surprise, surprise, the Flynn bombshell turns out to not be as advertised. Three emails of standard interview prep and then handmade notes from an (as yet) unknown person who was apparently urging unknown others to confront Flynn with their evidence and then hand case off to DOJ.
You can see them here. scribd.com/document/45906…
I'll transcribe a bit: "I agreed yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn [redacted] if he didn't admit. I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this."
I'll transcribe a bit: "I agreed yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn [redacted] if he didn't admit. I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this."
"What's our argument? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing. I don't see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on them."
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ [and] have them decide." Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] [and] he admits it, document for DOJ, [and] let them decide how to address it."
"If we're seen as playing games, [White House] will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games."
Reads like someone who believed Flynn was guilty and wanted to confront him with unspecified evidence (almost certainly the transcripts of the Russia call).
Reads like someone who believed Flynn was guilty and wanted to confront him with unspecified evidence (almost certainly the transcripts of the Russia call).
Let's break it down. Whoever this is, apparently, agreed with a plan the day before to *not* show Flynn some redacted evidence if he didn't admit wrongdoing. 
Whoever this is has now changed his or her mind because "we regularly show subjects evidence with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing."
Then comes the either/or: in the face of the evidence, he admits the truth. Or he lies. Either way, give it to DOJ to prosecute.
Then comes the either/or: in the face of the evidence, he admits the truth. Or he lies. Either way, give it to DOJ to prosecute.
That's simply not a "perjury trap" as @ChuckRossDC has it.
Anyway, I don't think the notes even demonstrate a Brady violation because, if you've been following this, you'd know that whoever this is in the notes must have been outvoted or outranked because the agents *did not take this tactic when they interviewed Flynn.*
Eye on the ball here: during Flynn's interview with the FBI, they *didn't* confront him with the transcript of the Russia phone call or other evidence.
So whoever is recorded in these handwritten notes *didn't get his or her way.*
So whoever is recorded in these handwritten notes *didn't get his or her way.*
One thing that's pretty clear from the hand-made notes is that whoever this is had no doubt that Flynn had committed a crime.
So when Flynn's lawyer and credulous conservative journos get all breathless—"they were coming after him in a pre-determined attack!"—um, yes.
So when Flynn's lawyer and credulous conservative journos get all breathless—"they were coming after him in a pre-determined attack!"—um, yes.
They thought Flynn had committed a crime and wanted him to admit it, then they were gonna prosecute him for it.
The other alternative—that he'd deny it to the agents and then they'd simply prosecute him for the lie—is a bog-standard FBI tactic.
The other alternative—that he'd deny it to the agents and then they'd simply prosecute him for the lie—is a bog-standard FBI tactic.
That's what's so interesting about whoever these notes are recording. Whoever this is thought the agents should, right there in the interview, respond to a denial by Flynn about the Russia phone call with evidence on the spot.
For whatever reason that never happened.
For whatever reason that never happened.
