Blog

Flynn’s exoneration, what they aren’t telling you.

First, I will clear the deck on Flynn’s confession. What the Democrats and the media are doing is racist. What we are witnessing is reverse racial bias. They keep repeating; “But, he pled guilt twice! Justice is dead and Putin has the control of our Justice Department through Trump and Barr.” I don’t recall these folks and the media outlets protesting when the Central Park Five’s confessions were overturned for the gang rape and beating of a female jogger. 

The Five suspects were black male juveniles. As it turned out, the New York City Police officers denied the youths any legal representation, and through beatings, the police coerced all of the confessions. Additionally, there was no physical evidence linking the youths to the crime. In fact, there was DNA evidence on the victim that didn’t belong to the youths. For that police misconduct, the youths won $41 million from New York City.

President Trump under Barr’s recommendations has commuted excessively long prison sentences for numerous African American citizens and he has also granted pardons as well. While the Democrats and the media outlets didn’t praise President Trump for his humanitarian acts, they didn’t condemn him either for his freeing of convicted persons. I will show, General Flynn, is an innocent man. Those people that are protesting Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn have become unwitting racist just as those that are still claiming the President is an agent of a foreign power have become unwitting pawns of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

Flynn’s confession was coerced as well. The Special Counsel Office [SCO] threaten to charge Flynn’s son. That’s blackmail! What’s interesting about this blackmail is; if Flynn’s son had committed a crime, he should have been charged and prosecuted. Comey said during his testimony that Flynn had no right to have a lawyer during his questioning by the FBI. 

It was revealed that the Covington law firm and a secret side-deal to manipulate Flynn to confess to the SCO, so Covington could avoid their liability for their FARA entanglements.

I read Sidney Powell’s latest court filing. I will show you some excerpts. Powell provides documents that do support her claims. My comments will be in bold within brackets.

What came next was more evidence of Sixth Amendment violations by Covington. On
January 29, 2018, Kelner received an email from a New York Times reporter saying that it was the reporter’s understanding that “SSA1” (the Agent who interviewed Flynn with Strzok) “was pressured by McCabe to change [his] 302.”[302 is a summary of an interview] Ex. 33. Kelner contacted Van Grack and Ahmad and had two conversations over the next two days. While Kelner questioned the SCO, he did not follow-up, much less file a motion to obtain Brady evidence. Moreover, these seem to be the questions he was supposed to have asked before Mr. Flynn signed the plea.

I draw your attention to the green underlining.

As previously discussed, there was substantial pressure on Mr. Flynn to participate in a quick proffer and reach a quick plea agreement with the government. The government leveraged the threat of charges against Mr. Flynn’s son to induce that agreement. Yet the government’s decision not to charge his son was not reduced to writing as part of the plea agreement; it was a secret,[The Supreme Court has ruled that any inducements for pleas must be reported to the presiding judge so if the defendant does testify in a future case, the jury can weigh the credibility of the testimony.]  side deal between counsel. Yet, that “understanding” was one of two necessary preconditions for Mr. Flynn to enter into the plea agreement. The government and Mr. Flynn’s prior counsel chose not to disclose that agreement to this court. By doing so, they concealed from this Court that the plea was driven by threats and promises that were foreign to the plea agreement, thus showing that the plea was not voluntary. That evidence is now in plain view, and the government’s conduct since the plea was entered on December 1, 2017, shows as much. Exs. 21,22

BVD=Brandon Van Grack. You can see that BVG is using Flynn to step toward President Trump. The SPC on day-one knew there wasn’t any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I will provide the proof at the bottom of this page.

On November 1, 2017, Robert Kelner (“Rob”), Stephen Anthony(“Steve”), and Alexandra Langton met Brandon Van Grack (“BVG”) and Zainab Ahmad (“ZA”) at the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) at 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC from approximately 1:00p.m. to 1:45p.m. This memorandum summarizes the discussion at that meeting. Information in brackets is information that I have added for context or clarification. Information separated by asterisks indicates non-verbal gestures.

BVG: We wanted to invite you here because we know if has been a couple of months since we’ve spoken. You guys have been very cooperative with us and quiet in the media and we really appreciate that.
We have a number of decisions points that we are going to have to make and we wanted to gage your interest in talking to us before we have to make those decisions. General Flynn has said on a number of things regarding having a story to tell and we’d like to explore that.
Rob: General Flynn very much wants to cooperate. We have spent a lot of time talking to him about what he knows. At the end of the day, there are a few things we don’t quite know what to make of. There are some issues not related to Russia that he has questions about. You all might have specific things you could present to himto refresh his recollection. We don’t think that there is a “smoking gun,” but we are open to making General Flynn available.
BVG: There is information that you or your client might not be aware of. From where we’re sitting, there might still be value in sitting down with your client. We have a good sense of what Flynn knows and what Flynn doesn’t know.
Rob: Refreshing recollection is key with General Flynn. He often doesn’t have a sense of what is important and tends to forget even mundane things.

BVG: We’re at a point where we can have a conversation with Flynn with prompts. I will say, the value of whatever information he has will be different now than it will be in two weeks or a month. We’re interested in talking to him even if he doesn’t think he has a smoking gun.
Steve: What sort of protections are you willing offer so his words aren’t against him?
BVG: A proffer letter.
Rob: Queen for a day?
BVG: *Nods*
Rob: We would need to discuss that. We need to get comfortable with the situation. We would feel better with something stronger than a proffer letter like statutory immunity.
Steve: I have to ask, where are you guys going with respect to charges against General Flynn?
BVG: (1) FARA (failure to register); (2) FARA false statements; and (3) false statements to government officials regarding contacts with Russian officials during the transition.
Steve: On the last point, do you mean the White House interview?
BVG: False statements at an FBI interview at the White House.
Rob: Frankly, we are surprised by that. That is not consistent with what we have learned from press reports and other sources.
Steve: Would you be willing to give us the 302?
BVG: We’re not currently in a posture where we’re providing that information. We’re certainly willing to hear what you have to say if you think that we’re wrong.
ZA: We’re not saying no; we’ll think about it. You might be entitled to it soon anyway. We feel like we know all we can know short of talking to him.We’re at a fork in the road and we want to talk to him (General Flynn) to decide how to move forward.
Rob: He would be willing to tell his story if you are, in good faith, willing to tell us that if he comes in and you think that he is being truthful, that you may not take action against him. However, it could be that the interview is just a way for the SCO to get information to help its case against General Flynn.
ZA: Look, all options are on the table . . . no pros? We are like a typical USA’s office. We want to get all the facts. It doesn’t have to be that he has a smoking gun. We haven’t thought a lot about deals. It would all depend on how the interview with Flynn goes.
Steve: I’m just imagining getting ready for trial to begin, thinking to myself, “jeez, why did I let my client do this interview?” I don’t know if it makes sense to expose ourselves with only a proffer letter in return

BVG: We feel confident that your client has value to provide. This isn’t supposed to be a “gotcha” interview. This is meant to get input from your client for our broader investigation.
Rob: I can imagine ways in which we come in. Agreeing only to a proffer could put him at risk. We don’t want our client charged or found guilty of a felony offense. We don’t think he has committed a felony offense.1 It would be helpful to get more details about where you are going.
ZA: We’ve given you the universe of charges. I don’t know if we can provide any additional assurances beyond what we’ve already mentioned. If he gives us useful information, we can talk and negotiate from there. You don’t know everything he knows.
BVG: No decisions have been made with respect to Flynn because we want to talk to him first. Turkey or FARA wouldn’t necessarily be the focus. Questions about the campaign would not be the first thing we talk about. There are things that we know that you and your client would not necessarily have focused on.
Steve: This would definitely be a leap of faith on our part.
ZA: The information is much more valuable for us than it might be in a traditional context. Nonsmoking gun information is valuable to us.
BVG: Yes, our mission here is to answer questions.
Rob: And you believe this is information that he actually has?
BVG/ZA: Yes. *Both nodding emphatically.*
Rob: We have spent a lot of time a lot of time tryingto elicit information from him. He doesn’t have the memory of a lawyer. It would be a very time-consuming process.
Steve: You said that the information would be more valuable today than it would be a month from now?
BVG: Yes.
ZA: *Nods.*
BVG: There’s one more issue I want to bring up. One of the charges we mentioned was false statements under FARA. Because Covingtonprepared the FARA registration, that would make you (Rob) a fact witness. It isn’t something we are considering.
Rob: If we were to get to that point, we would litigate it very aggressively.
ZA: We’re not saying it’snot waivable. We just want to make sure you talk it through with your client.

Rob: Well, we say what you guys did with Manafort, and we’ll definitely raise it with our client.
BVG/ZA: *Both visibly uncomfortable.*
Rob: When do you guys want to hear back from us?
BVG: By the end of the week if possible.
Rob: That’s going to be hard for a variety of reasons.
Steve: One of which is I am going to be in Oregon for another matter.
BVG: Let’s plan on talking on Tuesday morning.
Rob: Thank you for the accommodation

BULLET POINTS FROM THE DOJ’s COURT FILING TO DISMISS THE CHARGE AGAINST FLYNN.

Comey violated Flynn’s civil rights. At no time may law enforcement deny a person’s request for a lawyer. That’s why NYC had to pay $41 million to the Central Park Five.

I will point out that this was a counterintelligence investigation. Hillary Clinton was interviewed with her lawyers present and the investigation was also a counterintelligence investigation.

Your break from reading and my break from typing.

Under this video, you will see the documents that Dan refers to during his presentation.

Below is in regards to the Flynn interview. Joe Pientka took the notes while Peter Strzok asked Flynn the questions. Strzok and Page had no business rewriting Joe Pientka’s interview summary. Moreover, the rewrite occurred 24 days after the interview. That rewrite was a violation of FBI policy.

The proof I promised. Mueller knew on day-one that there was no collusion. Remember, Mueller’s start date was May 17th, 2017. 

Mueller’s perjury>https://www.dcdocumentreports.com/mueller-committed-perjury-during-his-report-hearing/

Published by Chief Editor, Sammy Campbell. Researched by Mark Pullen.