The Flynn Entrapment - WSJ
Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 7 months ago to Politics
The Flynn Entrapment
A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
Dec. 12, 2018 6:55 p.m. ET
Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s many targets, the most tragic may be former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The former three-star general pleaded guilty last year to a single count of lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Now we learn from Mr. Flynn’s court filing to the sentencing judge that senior bureau officials acted in a way to set him up for the fall.
Not a rich man after decades in uniform, Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target. Mr. Flynn’s filing doesn’t take issue with the description of his offense. But the “additional facts” the Flynn defense team flags for the court raise doubts about FBI conduct.
The Flynn filing describes government documents concerning the Jan. 24, 2017 meeting with two FBI agents when Mr. Flynn supposedly lied. It turns out the meeting was set up by then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn that day on other business—to discuss an FBI training session. By Mr. McCabe’s account, on that call he told Mr. Flynn he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with him to talk about his Russia communications.
Mr. McCabe then urged Mr. Flynn to meet without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Mr. Flynn] and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Mr. Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants,” wrote Mr. McCabe in a memo viewed by the Flynn defense team.
According to the FBI summary of the interview—known as a 302—Mr. McCabe and FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
We also know from then FBI Director James Comey that this was his idea. This is “something I probably wouldn’t have done or wouldn’t have gotten away with in a more organized administration,” Mr. Comey boasted on MSNBC this weekend. “In the George W. Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there. And I thought, it’s early enough let’s just send a couple guys over.”
If the goal was to set a legal trap, it worked. The two agents showed up at the White House within hours of Mr. McCabe’s call, and they reported in the 302 that General Flynn had been “relaxed and jocular” and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.” One of the agents was Peter Strzok, who is famous for his anti-Trump texts to his FBI paramour.
The FBI agents had seen transcripts of Mr. Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador that were “unmasked” by Obama Administration officials. The 302 says that rather than flag this and ask Mr. Flynn for an explanation, the FBI agents decided before the meeting that if “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used, . . . to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, . . . they would not confront him or talk him through it.”
Keep in mind the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russia and the Trump campaign was still secret. Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong in conversing with the Russian ambassador—it was part of his job—and he had no reason to believe he was in legal jeopardy. He initially claimed he misremembered what was discussed, which is more believable than that a highly decorated officer would lie to FBI officers he agreed to see without counsel.
Mr. Flynn’s lawyers are requesting probation and community service, though the facts suggest the judge should question the entire plea deal. Messrs. McCabe and Strzok have both been fired for misconduct, and their behavior reeks of entrapment.
If he does nothing else, President Trump has an obligation to former aides like Michael Flynn and to the public to declassify and disclose the FBI documents related to the FBI’s Russia probe.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fly....
The link is for subscribers only and I do not subscribe so YMMV.
A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
Dec. 12, 2018 6:55 p.m. ET
Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s many targets, the most tragic may be former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The former three-star general pleaded guilty last year to a single count of lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Now we learn from Mr. Flynn’s court filing to the sentencing judge that senior bureau officials acted in a way to set him up for the fall.
Not a rich man after decades in uniform, Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target. Mr. Flynn’s filing doesn’t take issue with the description of his offense. But the “additional facts” the Flynn defense team flags for the court raise doubts about FBI conduct.
The Flynn filing describes government documents concerning the Jan. 24, 2017 meeting with two FBI agents when Mr. Flynn supposedly lied. It turns out the meeting was set up by then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn that day on other business—to discuss an FBI training session. By Mr. McCabe’s account, on that call he told Mr. Flynn he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with him to talk about his Russia communications.
Mr. McCabe then urged Mr. Flynn to meet without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Mr. Flynn] and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Mr. Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants,” wrote Mr. McCabe in a memo viewed by the Flynn defense team.
According to the FBI summary of the interview—known as a 302—Mr. McCabe and FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
We also know from then FBI Director James Comey that this was his idea. This is “something I probably wouldn’t have done or wouldn’t have gotten away with in a more organized administration,” Mr. Comey boasted on MSNBC this weekend. “In the George W. Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there. And I thought, it’s early enough let’s just send a couple guys over.”
If the goal was to set a legal trap, it worked. The two agents showed up at the White House within hours of Mr. McCabe’s call, and they reported in the 302 that General Flynn had been “relaxed and jocular” and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.” One of the agents was Peter Strzok, who is famous for his anti-Trump texts to his FBI paramour.
The FBI agents had seen transcripts of Mr. Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador that were “unmasked” by Obama Administration officials. The 302 says that rather than flag this and ask Mr. Flynn for an explanation, the FBI agents decided before the meeting that if “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used, . . . to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, . . . they would not confront him or talk him through it.”
Keep in mind the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russia and the Trump campaign was still secret. Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong in conversing with the Russian ambassador—it was part of his job—and he had no reason to believe he was in legal jeopardy. He initially claimed he misremembered what was discussed, which is more believable than that a highly decorated officer would lie to FBI officers he agreed to see without counsel.
Mr. Flynn’s lawyers are requesting probation and community service, though the facts suggest the judge should question the entire plea deal. Messrs. McCabe and Strzok have both been fired for misconduct, and their behavior reeks of entrapment.
If he does nothing else, President Trump has an obligation to former aides like Michael Flynn and to the public to declassify and disclose the FBI documents related to the FBI’s Russia probe.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fly....
The link is for subscribers only and I do not subscribe so YMMV.
Regarding Sullivan, apparently he made a comment about his "traitor" and "sold your country out" remarks, saying people should not make much of it. Why did he say it then?
The whole affair is foggy. But if there is sign to go by, the Mueller team released the statement that "Flynn should not have lied to the FBI" and that he was not set up.
Maybe they should specify how are we supposed to interpret it if not a full fledged setup? For starters, the FBI routinely lies. Think of Comey, Strzok and McCabe.
Second, he was not under oath and he was lured into a "friendly" conversation. He should have known better, and that is the only "crime" he has committed. Never believe they have your best interest in mind.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington came a day after the same judge presided over a contentious sentencing hearing for former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- in which he questioned whether the ex-White House official committed “treason” and accused him of selling out the United States to foreign interests. He later delayed Flynn’s sentencing until 2019, as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judg...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real...
Excerpts:
"By
Michael Ledeen
Dec. 19, 2018 7:11 p.m. ET
The dramatic Tuesday hearing for former national security adviser Mike Flynn didn’t produce a sentence. Instead, Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Mr. Flynn a delay to reconsider his options. I was in the courtroom, and my reading of Judge Sullivan’s treatment of Mr. Flynn (with whom I co-wrote a 2016 book) was rather different from what most reporters have said and written.
Judge Sullivan repeatedly invited Mr. Flynn to reconsider his guilty plea on a charge of lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Judge Sullivan stressed that he had not presided over earlier proceedings in the case and that he was prepared to have Mr. Flynn change his plea or even ask for a dismissal of charges. At times, the judge seemed to implore Mr. Flynn to reopen the deal he made with special counsel Robert Mueller, implying that there was reason to believe his guilty plea had been wrongfully arranged.
Mr. Flynn wasn’t interested. Over and over he told Judge Sullivan that he was comfortable with his confession, did not wish to have it reconsidered, and wanted the judge to pronounce sentence. But Judge Sullivan continued unsuccessfully to invite a change in Mr. Flynn’s plea.
It was a bizarre situation. Judge Sullivan clearly did not wish to pass sentence, and he warned Mr. Flynn that the punishment could be greater than the “low end” the prosecutors and defense lawyers alike were seeking and that Mr. Flynn clearly wanted, thereby ending two years of misery."
I don't know how to interpret this. It certainly sounds different from what we read so far.
That procedure is a fact that is publicly overlooked as the media promotes Mueller as a supposed neutral investigator only concerned with the facts. That would not be true of Mueller as a prosecutor even if he were honest, yet we are expected to believe every unproved accusation and accept it in an expected unconstitutional 'impeachment report'.
In addition, here we have a case in which the judge in the Flynn case is just as biased and the defendant has been coerced into a 'confession' with no opportunity to defend himself before the kangaroo court.
The initial abuse, consisting of using the FBI as a secret police and a secret court (FISA) on behalf of a political party against its opposition, has expanded throughout the entire subsequent legal process.
No wonder so many innocent people are frightened by what we are seeing. Yet the perpetrators, like Comey and the Democrats, are smearing Trump and us as "lying" about the wonderful FBI. The demands for subservience to the demand for state-worshiping regardless of the facts is at the heart of tyrannical statism. And that is the root of what is happening.
The Snowden document dump was from inside NSA, bringing a lot of attention to that agency, but all the techniques and practices have been shared with the other agencies including FBI. One of their manipulations is to use stolen information through improper surveillance to 'build a case' by using their suspicions to construct other 'evidence', then hiding the original source so as to not have to reveal their methods in open court.
Load more comments...