PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 12, 2018, 05:57:02 PM
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the January 24 interview.
Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that January 24 questioning.
What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.
None of those congressional investigators has an answer; they're baffled by the turn of events. But they know they find the Flynn case troubling, from start to finish.
-
I suspect the charge was technical in nature. Mueller is spending a lot of money and needs to produce some kind of result. If he cannot then he will be under pressure to shut down his work.
Of coutse, isn't his entire investigation fruit of the poison tree now? Everything that came from the FISA warrant could legitimately be argued inadmissible.
-
Many years ago if someone would have tried to write a story of how a sitting president used his DoJ and FBI to spy on a presidential candidate by conspiring with his former SoS who was also running, it would have been met with disbelief.
Throw in how actors in the DoJ such as the AG and the Deputy AG, along with the FBI Director used fraudulent information to manipulate a FISA court in obtaining a warrant, and also throw in how a Deputy AG signed a letter recommending the candidate, now President fire the FBI director for incompetence, then turn around and appoint a former FBI director and best friend of the fired Director as a Special Prosecutor. Tell how that Special Prosecutor then hires a staff full of lawyers who have open disdain for the President.
What Obama, Clinton, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and Mueller, along with many others, have done makes Watergate look like a high school prank. We are witnessing a coup happening right in front of us, a coup that if it succeeds will have dramatic implications for this country to come.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/13/waitthe-fbi-agents-who-interviewed-michael-flynn-didnt-think-he-lied-n2448344
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456379/michael-flynn-guilty-plea-questions-raised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation
The judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea was Rudolph Contreras. Mysteriously, just days after taking Flynn’s plea, Judge Contreras recused himself from the case. The press has been remarkably uncurious about this development. No rationale for the recusal has been offered, no explanation for why, if Judge Contreras had some sort of conflict, the recusal came after the guilty plea, not before. We can note that Contreras is one of the eleven federal district judges assigned to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We do not know if Judge Contreras signed one or more of the FISA warrants the Justice Department sought for Trump campaign figures Carter Page and Paul Manafort (or even if signing a FISA warrant would constitute grounds for a conflict in Flynn’s case). We can note, however, that Contreras is one of just three FISA court judges who sits in the District of Columbia, where it is likely the Trump-Russia FISA warrants were sought. When Judge Contreras pulled out, Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. We now know that one of Judge Sullivan’s first actions on the case was to file an order directing Mueller to provide Flynn with any evidence in the special counsel’s possession that is favorable to Flynn, whether on the issue of guilt or of sentencing. Significantly, the order stresses that if Mueller has such evidence but believes it is not “material” and therefore that Flynn is not entitled to disclosure of it, Mueller must show the evidence to the court so that Judge Sullivan may decide whether to mandate its disclosure. Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Now, it could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides. But it is noteworthy that Flynn had already pled guilty, and in the course of doing so had agreed to Mueller’s demand that he waive “the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided” — in addition to forfeiting many other trial and appellate rights. (See plea agreement, pages 6–7.) It certainly appears that Sullivan’s order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt. Could this provide General Flynn with factual grounds of which he was previously unaware to seek to have his plea vacated? Would he have a viable legal basis to undo the plea agreement that he and his lawyer signed on November 30? We do not know at this point.
-
This entire FBI, Comey, Hilary, Uranium One, etc... charade looks exactly like the kind of bullshit arguments liberals are making against ending DACA.
It's nothing but nonsensical stupidity, dumbed down for liberals and the media, so they can all have the exact same talking points.
No democrat wants to talk about the laws being broken. All they want to discuss is how heartless it is to prosecute the democrats instead of Trump. It's bullshit squared.
-
This entire FBI, Comey, Hilary, Uranium One, etc... charade looks exactly like the kind of bullshit arguments liberals are making against ending DACA.
It's nothing but nonsensical stupidity, dumbed down for liberals and the media, so they can all have the exact same talking points.
No democrat wants to talk about the laws being broken. All they want to discuss is how heartless it is to prosecute the democrats instead of Trump. It's bullshit squared.
I'm not following. The FBI/Comey/Hillary/Uranium One/IRS, etc deal is about Democrats using government power to line their own pockets and attack their political enemies.
The liberal arguments against the presidential order to end DACA (which was resolved in the courts some time ago) was about using the president public statements, including tweets to legally "prove" that he is racist and that his motivation for ending DACA is because he hates Mexicans.
I see a slight correlation between them, but I'm not sure what you're seeing.
-
I'm not following. The FBI/Comey/Hillary/Uranium One/IRS, etc deal is about Democrats using government power to line their own pockets and attack their political enemies.
The liberal arguments against the presidential order to end DACA (which was resolved in the courts some time ago) was about using the president public statements, including tweets to legally "prove" that he is racist and that his motivation for ending DACA is because he hates Mexicans.
I see a slight correlation between them, but I'm not sure what you're seeing.
Of course not. You're trapped in your emotional attachment to whatever you are told to embrace without question.
The democrats arguing about ignoring the law and embracing an illegal EO, because they claim that Donal Trump is a racist and therefore the law is to be set aside in favor of emotional bullshit, are the same ones arguing that the laws Comey, Clinton and the rest have broken are 'incidental' to the facts that Donal Trump is a evil racist and that dishonest sentiment is 'proof' in the minds of pathetic democrats that the law is meaningless in the face of triggered snowflake, liberals..