Quote:

---

But Mr. Van Grack told counsel he didn't have an ethical or a legal obligation to produce anything pre-plea and then post-plea he's maintained that he has no obligation to produce it because he pled guilty.

---

That is contempt of court because of Sullivan's intervening court order covering all Brady material was quite specific and provided for criminal contempt if the government didn't comply. Which they clearly did not.

I truly have no idea why Sullivan hasn't exploded all over the prosecution yet. Nor do I understand Powell's reluctance to withdraw Flynn's plea based upon prosecutorial misconduct including fraud and coercion with blatantly phony charges as leverage solely designed to compel a guilty plea.

I also don't know why Powell on Flynn's behalf hasn't sued the crap out of Covington, Burling yet. In trying to cover up their malpractice on the FARA issue, they had their client plead guilty to baseless charges that they didn't even try to investigate were even remotely based in fact.

our government is such a ****ing joke.

Quote:

---

That is contempt of court because of Sullivan's intervening court order covering all Brady material was quite specific and provided for criminal contempt if the government didn't comply. Which they clearly did not.

I truly have no idea why Sullivan hasn't exploded all over the prosecution yet. Nor do I understand Powell's reluctance to withdraw Flynn's plea based upon prosecutorial misconduct including fraud and coercion with blatantly phony charges as leverage solely designed to compel a guilty plea.

I also don't know why Powell on Flynn's behalf hasn't sued the crap out of Covington, Burling yet. In trying to cover up their malpractice on the FARA issue, they had their client plead guilty to baseless charges that they didn't even try to investigate were even remotely based in fact.

---

Might the strategy be to meticulously go through this entire process in order to make clear that they are not just flinging stuff against a wall to see what they may get to stick?

In other words to make the clear point to the judge that when they do seek to withdraw Flynn's plea due to prosecutorial misconduct that are not just desperately flailing around but have a serious case?

That, by the way, is purely wild ass, uneducated speculation on my part.

Our Government is pure politics with everyone employed just taking the course of least resistance for their own self interest. Profiles in courage is long gone !

SPF250 said:

---

Quote:

---

The government is claiming they cannot find Pientka's original 302 on Flynn.

---

Blatant. Blatant. Blatant.

---

So.....whose dog ate their homework?

Does anybody get away with this crap anymore?

aggiehawg said:

---

---

Per the last sentence concerning the statement about a memo exonerating Flynn:

https://saraacarter.com/flynn-hearing-reveals-existence-of-bombshell-doj-memo-exonerating-michael-flynn/

Quote:

---

A bombshell revelation was barely noticed at National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's hearing Tuesday, when his counsel revealed in court the existence of a Justice Department memo from Jan. 30, 2017 exonerating Flynn of any collusion with Russia. The memo, which has still not been made available to Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell, is part of a litany of Brady material she is demanding from prosecutors. The memo is currently under protective order and Powell is working with prosecutors to get it disclosed, SaraACarter.com has learned.

.....

The January, 2017 timeline of the DOJ memo is extremely significant. Former FBI Director James Comey said in previous interviews that he leaked his memos through a friend to be published in the New York Times with the hope of getting a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump for obstruction. In late August, Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his much anticipated report on Comey. It was scathing and revealed that he violated FBI policy when he leaked his memos that described his private conversations with Trump. However, the DOJ declined to prosecute Comey on Horowitz's referral.

But the existence of such a memo calls into question Comey's actions both when he met with Trump privately and when he wrote his personal memos recanting the meetings. If the Jan. 30, 2017 DOJ Flynn memo does exonerate Flynn, then it will call into question Comey's actions when he had the private meetings with Trump. Why didn't Comey reveal to Trump that DOJ found no evidence that Flynn was an 'agent of Russia' when he met Trump at the White House on Feb. 14 meeting? Why were the stories about Flynn, along with classified information regarding his phone conversations with the former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, leaked to the Washington Post in early February? Remember, the information was leaked by senior government officials, according to the author and columnist David Ignatius. Ignatius said that senior officials accused Flynn of violating the Logan Act, even worse conspiring with Russia.

Further, new information that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe advised that there was no Logan Act violation, along with the DOJ internal memo of Jan. 30 that Flynn 'was not an agent of Russia,' was enough information for Comey to advise the President that Flynn had been cleared of any wrongdoing. Instead, Comey claimed obstruction of justice by the President.

.....

If and when this memo is made public, the ongoing narrative continuing to be pushed by those former Obama officials, as well as, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who continues to push for hearings on obstruction will be squashed.

It looks like Comey, who would have been fully aware of this memo, has a lot of explaining to do.

---

You see where this could go? Comey plotting to take down Trump on obstruction of justice.

Other than the date these traitors deicded to go for it, and remove an American President, January of '17 seems to be the most important month.

At that point, there was still time to renig,, and not put their party over their country.

RiskManager93 said:

---

I'll go a step further. Is it possible that Aggiehawg actually IS Sydney Powell?

---

I'll get out on that limb and say "prolly not"...BUT, IMHO do think both should be appointed Federal Judges.

I love reading this thread ... you guys do a great job exposing and explaining what all our previous president and his appointees did .. these people were terrible

aggiehawg said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

RiskManager93 said:

---

I'll go a step further. Is it possible that Aggiehawg actually IS Sydney Powell?

---

I'll get out on that limb and say "prolly not"...BUT, IMHO do think both should be appointed Federal Judges.

---

That's nice and all but I would never get through the confirmation process. I had lots of sex and some drugs in college...after that I refuse to comment.

---

Still get my vote support! Who do I call to get that started?

ETA - and I'm sure many others herein!

Sidney confirms that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to go after Flynn Jr. -- see the above starting at 2:50.

Right near the end of the interview, Hannity asks Sidney if she has discussed all the pressure Flynn was placed under at the time he pleaded guilty with Judge Sullivan -- she responded that she was not at liberty to discuss this topic at this time -- see starting at 9:50.

Overall a good interview worth a listen -- less than 11 minutes. Hannity doesn't talk too much, & Judge Jeanine adds some relevant commentary as well.

I still don't see why the FBI, with the access to political influence and federal funding, has gone so long with using transcribed handwritten notes, often written well after the fact, as THE ONLY official and retained documentation of interviews. Everyone is well aware of the flaws of human memory and also that written language loses all the implied content of inflection, even if quotes are exact. Every other PD in the nation records most every serious witness or suspect interview.

Giulio Occhionero has been talking with this guy.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I still don't see why the FBI, with the access to political influence and federal funding, has gone so long with using transcribed handwritten notes, often written well after the fact, as THE ONLY official and retained documentation of interviews. Everyone is well aware of the flaws of human memory and also that written language loses all the implied content of inflection, even if quotes are exact. Every other PD in the nation records most every serious witness or suspect interview.

---

I think you just answered your own question. It is much harder to "nuance" a recorded interview in order to set up who they wan to set up.

I had to order a replacement remote control for our TV once and the nice lady on the other end of the phone asked for a reason for the replacement, I asked her if she ever used the "My dog ate my homework" excuse, she laughed and them I added "cause my dog ate the remote"

After glancing at his Twitter account, that 'John" dude sounds interesting. I wonder if he is authentic. Here's a recent (September 5) thread of his:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1169627869796012032.html

Do you follow him?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I still don't see why the FBI, with the access to political influence and federal funding, has gone so long with using transcribed handwritten notes, often written well after the fact, as THE ONLY official and retained documentation of interviews. Everyone is well aware of the flaws of human memory and also that written language loses all the implied content of inflection, even if quotes are exact. Every other PD in the nation records most every serious witness or suspect interview.

---

We know why....

Constructing Truth: the FBI's (non)recording policy

from 2011.

drcrinum said:

---

After glancing at his Twitter account, that 'John" dude sounds interesting. I wonder if he is authentic. Here's a recent (September 5) thread of his:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1169627869796012032.html

Do you follow him?

---

Only recently. I don't "follow" anyone. Just peruse multiple tabs/pages...

JJMt said:

---

And that's why, boys and girls, you should always voice or video record any "interview", inspection or the like by your "friends" in law enforcement.

---

And always have a lawyer present.

Secolobo said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I still don't see why the FBI, with the access to political influence and federal funding, has gone so long with using transcribed handwritten notes, often written well after the fact, as THE ONLY official and retained documentation of interviews. Everyone is well aware of the flaws of human memory and also that written language loses all the implied content of inflection, even if quotes are exact. Every other PD in the nation records most every serious witness or suspect interview.

---

We know why....

Constructing Truth: the FBI's (non)recording policy

from 2011.

---

I know this is not news to anyone on this thread, but this:

Quote:

---

Instead of electronically recording its interviews and interrogations, the FBI's policy is to rely on agents' typewritten "section 302 reports," crafted to reflect the supposed substance of the exchange. At such sessions, one agent takes notes by hand while the second agentin the traditional two-agent FBI interviewing teamconducts the interview/interrogation. Tape recordings are almost never done because such recordation is believe it or not against formal written FBI policy. Therefore, the 302 report becomes the sole arbiter of what was, and was not, said; moreover, as we will see below, any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution. Hence, a potential witness' script is written and not necessarily by the witness himself the moment he opens his mouth in the presence of an agent.

---

is outrageous.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I still don't see why the FBI, with the access to political influence and federal funding, has gone so long with using transcribed handwritten notes, often written well after the fact, as THE ONLY official and retained documentation of interviews. Everyone is well aware of the flaws of human memory and also that written language loses all the implied content of inflection, even if quotes are exact. Every other PD in the nation records most every serious witness or suspect interview.

---

We know why....

Constructing Truth: the FBI's (non)recording policy

from 2011.

---

I know this is not news to anyone on this thread, but this:

Quote:

---

Instead of electronically recording its interviews and interrogations, the FBI's policy is to rely on agents' typewritten "section 302 reports," crafted to reflect the supposed substance of the exchange. At such sessions, one agent takes notes by hand while the second agentin the traditional two-agent FBI interviewing teamconducts the interview/interrogation. Tape recordings are almost never done because such recordation is believe it or not against formal written FBI policy. Therefore, the 302 report becomes the sole arbiter of what was, and was not, said; moreover, as we will see below, any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution. Hence, a potential witness' script is written and not necessarily by the witness himself the moment he opens his mouth in the presence of an agent.

---

is outrageous.

---

So, if the FBI refuses to allow you to record the interview, plead the fifth. Any disagreement between you and the agent regarding what was said would tend to incriminate you, so you are protected by the 5th Amendment.

JJMt said:

---

Or simply refuse to talk to them if they don't let you record.

No one is required to talk to the FBI. The only place you need to plead the 5th,[] I think[/], is in court, Congress, or someplace similar where you are under subpoena or some other type of mandate requiring you to testify.

---

I've always assumed all lawyers would know when "pleading the 5th" is acceptable. You kind of surprised me there.

Wow! That's quite a list of Brady requests. There's new material in there. Mifsud attended the Moscow dinner where Flynn sat by Putin in December 2015? I'm not home now but that's powerful reading that will take time to digest.

Quote:

---

That production also shows that Mr. Flynn passed his polygraph test in 2016 and his security clearance was renewed. This was at the same time the FBI seems to have been investigating him under the pretext that he was an "agent of Russia" and/or of Turkey. Interestingly, the new production also shows that James Clapper refused to assist in the investigation for Mr. Flynn's security clearance, which Mr. Flynn received after a full investigation despite Mr. Clapper's actions.

---

He passed his polygraph and his security clearance was renewed while he was supposedly under FBI investigation? When the FBI is the agency responsible for issuing security clearances?

That's all kinds of messed up.

Powell lists 40 different material requests and 9 requests for documents that the prosecution only provided summaries.

Among those...

Quote:

---

1. A letter delivered by the British Embassy to the incoming National Security team after Donald Trump's election, and to outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice (the letter apparently disavows former British Secret Service Agent Christopher Steele, calls his credibility into question, and declares him untrustworthy).

---

Quote:

---

22. Any and all evidence that during a senior-attended FBI meeting or video conference, Andrew McCabe said "First we **** Flynn, then we **** Trump," or words to that effect.

---