#122 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
1. The FBI had no predicate to even investigate Flynn. They were using the Steele Dossier as their predicate and we now know (Thank you, Horowitz) they knew it was pure garbage. His testimony was immaterial to their investigation, thus any misinformation (lies, in FBI speak) didn't matter."
Wrong. Because Flynn voluntarily interviewed with the FBI, the part about Predicate makes no difference. I won't waste time explaining why you are wrong about their justification for interviewing him.
His testimony is also not immaterial. Section 1001 criminalizes "knowingly and willfully ... mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to federal investigators, where "material" means "predictably capable of affecting ... [an] official decision." He lied literally about a core element of the investigation: a possible deal between Trump and the Russians over sanctions. You can't get more material.
2. The agents working the investigation were about to close the case until Strzok threw a Hail Mary to keep it open. Also, after the interview the agents concluded that Flynn wasn't lying - he got some details wrong but it wasn't deliberate. That was the conclusion at the time. however, after the fact Strzok edited over a peiod of weeks Priestrap's 302."
This is a lie. The Agents never concluded Flynn was being inaccurate. Flynn lied about conversations regarding the sanctions. He never corrected his lie. He pled guilty to lying and admitted he lied.
3. Standard protocols were deliberately violated with how the interrogation of Flynn was conducted. They didn't inform him he was under investigation. They deliberately deceived him as to why they were talking to him. They had the fricking transcript of the calls with the Russian ambassador in their possession when they interviewed him. Their pretense was a Logan act violation, which is pure bull. They weren't trying to better understand the conversations Flynn had with the ambassador, they were trying to get him to slip up so they could either get him fired or prosecuted (we only VERY recently learned this as Jensen got additional documents introduced into the case)."
This is also a lie. News broke that Flynn was under investigation on January 22, 2017 by the New York Times. Flynn interviewed with the FBI on January 24, 2017.
Why he was interviewed makes no difference to him lying. Having the transcripts makes no difference.
Flynn did not correct his statements after the interview.
4. His original counsel, Covington, in advising him to plead guilty, likely had a conflict of interest.
This would actually make no difference. Unless Flynn proved the potential conflict of interest caused ineffective assistance of counsel. That would not be possible here and the Court already ruled on it.
Even if it were possible, it would only effect whether his plea could be withdrawn, not whether he is guilty of lying to the FBI.
5. They leveraged Flynn's son against him. By itself, this isn't illegal or unethical, but the prosecution deliberately hid this from the judge, which is a violation of law.
In a word: No. It would not effect the plea.
6. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, also a violation of law. Even with Powell being a bulldog it wasn't until Jensen stepped in that Preistrap's written notes - "get Flynn to lie so we can get him fired or prosecuted?" was introduced.
This is also wrong. Because the only charge was Lying to the FBI, there is no evidence that is Exculpatory. This has already been ruled on actually.
Literally everything you said is not the law or would not allow Flynn to withdraw his plea. Most of it has already been denied by a Judge in fact.