Connect with us

Courts

FBI Is Still Stonewalling On Key Documents in Michael Flynn Persecution

The FBI is still stonewalling the release of key documents in the Michael Flynn case that are routinely released in such cases.

Published

on

The FBI and federal prosecutors are still stonewalling the release of key documents in the Michael Flynn case that are routinely released in such cases.

Byron York recently noted that the feds are still withholding the most important document that they have been using to persecute Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and it is a document that they usually give right up to their victims without any real qualms.

If you’ll recall, Flynn has been convicted of “lying to the FBI.” The only reason we think Flynn lied to the FBI is that the FBI agents who illicitly interviewed him said he lied.

However, there are no voice recordings, or videos of this “lying” to prove that Flynn lied. Why? Because the FBI never records these interviews and only makes written reports (called a 302) of the interview. Courts routinely accept these written notes made by the agents as evidence.

Trending: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Sent Armed Police To Shut Down Black Baptist Church

Now, these notes are routinely handed over to the accused if requested.

And guess which document the FBI still refuses to hand over?

Yep, the 302, the one that supposedly “proves” that Flynn “lied” to the FBI.

York explains what we do know of the 302 and it ain’t pretty:

[FBI Agent Joe] Pientka’s partner in the interview, Peter Strzok — remembered as the agent dismissed from the Mueller team for his anti-Trump texts with extramarital lover (and senior FBI official) Lisa Page — took the lead. On February 10 — after the FBI’s five working days limit — Strzok did what was apparently a major editing job on it, and he also incorporated edits suggested by Page, who had not been present at the interview. In a text message, Strzok said, “I was trying not to completely re-write the thing so as to save [REDACTED] voice.” It’s thought that the redacted name was Pientka’s. The finished document was dated February 14, 2017, which just happened to be the day after Flynn was fired by the White House.

But wait! There’s more! At the time all this was happening, top FBI officials did not think Flynn would be charged. Then-director James Comey told Congress exactly that in March 2017. The Flynn case, apparently, was put on the shelf. But then, in May, Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed. The Flynn file came down off the shelf as Mueller’s team looked for a way to exert pressure on Flynn to spill whatever he knew about President Trump, especially if it fit some prosecutors’ preferred theories of collusion.

Other documents insist that agents didn’t think Flynn was being deceptive during the interview. So, why has the FBI and federal prosecutors refused to reveal this 302?

Is it because the real document destroys their own case against the general? If the 302 supports the FBI’s case, why are they still keeping it secret?

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Courts

Who Are the Three Judges Set to Decide Slap Down of Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan?

So, just who are the D.C. Circuit Court judges who last week delivered the unusual order to force Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain himself.

Published

on

So, just who are the D.C. Circuit Court judges who last week delivered the unusual order to force Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain himself over his continued attack on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn?

Last week we reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave Clinton-appointed judge Emmet Sullivan ten days to reply to a demand that he explain why he has kept the case against Flynn open and invited amicus briefs instead of dropping it like he should have when the Department of Justice dropped the case against the general.

The D.C. Circuit Court ordered Sullivan to respond to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn’s legal team. In doing so, the court also cited United States v. Fokker Services B.V., which is a 2016 case where the court slapped down a judge who refused to end a case after prosecutors dropped the case.

Clearly the D.C. Circuit was warning Sullivan that he is in the wrong and he better get back in line.

So, just who is on the three-judge panel that delivered this order to Sullivan?

The panel includes Judge Karen L. Henderson (a G.H.W. Bush appointee), Judge Robert L. Wilkins (an Obama appointee), and Judge Naomi Rao (a Trump appointee).

Judge Karen L. Henderson

Henderson assumed her seat on the bench in 1990 when she was appointed by George H.W. Bush. But she was a Reagan appointee before that when she was appointed to the U.S. District Court for South Carolina.

Her decisions and opinions show that she is a strong voice for individual freedom.

Some of her past opinions include a 2008 case where she ruled that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have no right to sue the United States government, and in February she joined the majority opinion to deny the Democrat’s effort to force former White House Council Don McGhan to testify before a House Democrat kangaroo committee hearing. Also, in a 2014 case, the judge stood up for a small game company that found its postage rates come in far higher than Netflix mailings for comparable sized items and said that her ruling was meant to level the playing field for smaller businesses. In 2007, Henderson also penned an opinion that was seen as friendly to the Second Amendment. Finally, in 2018, Henderson quickly dismissed a large number of the fake ethics complaints that Democrats flooded the courts with to try and get Brett Kavanaugh eliminated as a Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Henderson graduated from Duke University with her B.A. in 1966, and later earned her J.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1969

Judge Robert L. Wilkins

Wilkins does not have a lot of very consequential decisions under his belt yet on the D.C. Circuit, having only sat on the court for just over five years. But he does have a history as a liberal activist.

Wilkins earned his B.S. in 1986 from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his J.D. in 1989 from Harvard Law School. He later worked for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia from 1990 to 2002.

Just after completing law school, Wilkins filed a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police for violating his rights with a purportedly illegal search during a traffic stop. His case popularized the phrase “driving while black.”

As far as his work on the D.C. Circuit, he did opine in favor of slapping down an action by the Trump administration after the Federal Trade Commission reversed an Obama rule in 2018. In 2014, Wilkins ruled that a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Postal Service against athlete Lance Armstrong could continue after Armstrong asked for the case to be dropped.

Judge Naomi Rao

Rao has the shortest tenure on the court having only taken her seat last year after being appointed by Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in March of 2019.

Rao took her seat on the court against all odds as she is a conservative-minded judge that the Democrats worked hard to torpedo.

Rao earned a B.A. from Yale University in 1995 and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1999. But she had an excellent opportunity to learn at the side of a master when she clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from 2001 to 2002. After that, she was a special assistant and associate counsel to former President George W. Bush (R) from March 2005 to July 2006.

Rao is a strong advocate for the legislature to maintain its prerogatives and not to keep handing over its powers to the executive. She maintains that it is the duty of Congress to write and maintain laws, not the duty of a president to keep creating defacto law with a constant stream of regulations.

She is also a proponent of allowing the president to remove independent agency heads any time he wants for cause.

Finally, last year Rao wrote a minority opinion that said Congress had no right to subpoena President Trump’s records from accounting firm Mazars USA LLP. In her opinion she wrote that, “allegations of illegal conduct against the president cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”

These are the judges who will decide if Judge Emmet Sullivan did the right thing in his actions against Michael Flynn.

But it must also be noted that it appears that these three judges agreed that Sullivan must explain himself in his continued attack on Michael Flynn and it appears they think his actions are wrong.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Is the Jig Up? D.C. Circuit Orders Judge Sullivan to Explain His Actions Against Michael Flynn

The judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case may about to be called on the carpet after the D.C. Circuit Court ordered him to explain his actions against Flynn.

Published

on

The judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case may about to be called on the carpet after the D.C. Circuit Court ordered him to explain his justification to keep the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn alive despite that the Department of Justice has dropped the case.

The D.C. Circuit has given Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan ten days to respond to the Flynn legal team’s writ of mandamus.

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that writ, asking the appellate court to force Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

Andrew C. McCarthy added:

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

Sullivan’s actions have been both outrageous and illicit. As McCarthy has noted, Sullivan’s solicitation of amicus beliefs are not allowed in criminal cases, and he really has no power to continue cases that have been dropped.

Indeed, Sullivan’s appointment of John Gleeson is an amazing case of bias. After all, Gleeson is a virulent anti-Trumper and a Biden fundraiser. And he has also written an op-ed attacking the DOJ for dropping the case against Flynn.

How could anyone imagine that Sullivan could trust Gleeson to be unbiased?

The Circuit judges even cited a case where the judge was slapped down for refusing to drop a case when the DOJ asked for that action.

McCarthy explains:

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

The Circuit judges are essentially telling Sullivan that he is in the wrong and he better change course.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

15 Attorneys General Unite to File Brief in Support of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

A group of 15 state attorneys general have signed onto a letter supporting the Department of Justice dropping its case against Michael Flynn.

Published

on

A group of 15 state attorneys general have signed onto a letter Monday supporting the decision by the Department of Justice to drop its case against Lt. Gen Michael Flynn.

The Amicus Brief filed to Judge Emmet Sullivan’s court is supportive of the DOJ’s move and insists that Flynn should be immediately released from under the cloud of doubt about his innocence.

The letter says that court must dismiss the case against Flynn “because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality.” The brief also said the court created unlawful problems by “inserting itself into the Justice Department’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

Per Fox News:

On the recommendation of U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, who served as an FBI agent for more than a decade, the Justice Department earlier this month moved to drop its case against Flynn. The stunning development came after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI as his legal fees mounted.

One of the documents — apparently concealed for more than two years in defiance of a court order — was a top official’s handwritten memo debating whether the FBI’s “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” Other materials showed efforts by anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok to pursue Flynn on increasingly flimsy legal grounds.

But after the DOJ announced it was dropping its case, the Clinton-appointed judge in Flynn’s case outrageously invited leftists to submit briefs he could use to justify his continued and illicit attack on Flynn.

“There was no reason to issue these orders because this Court has no say in the federal government’s decision not to prosecute,” the state attorneys general argued in their brief. “Simply put, the decision not to pursue a criminal conviction is vested in the executive branch alone — and neither the legislature nor the judiciary has any role in the executive’s making of that decision.”

The letter was signed by Ohio AG Dave Yost, as well as the AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

President Trump also slammed Judge Sullivan’s obscene, nakedly political move.

“It is a disgrace what’s happened,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo. “This is the greatest political scam, hoax in the history of our country.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

The Facts of FBI’s Corruption in Flynn Case in One Important Twitter Thread

We have learned much about how corrupt the FBI’s care against Michal Flynn was, but one Twitter user put it all down step-by-step.

Published

on

We have learned much about how corrupt the FBI’s care against Michal Flynn was, but one Twitter user did an expert job laying it all out step-by-step.

If you are still confused — or if you just want the whole timeline — on the FBI’s corruption with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, you can do no better than the Twitter thread penned by John W. Huber.

This is an important Twitter thread:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Cleveland: Constitution Requires Judge Sullivan’s Lawless Order Against Micheal Flynn be Overturned

Margot Cleveland points out that the lawless orders coming from Judge Emmet Sullivan against Michael Flynn are entirely unconstitutional.

Published

on

Margot Cleveland of The Federalist points out that the lawless orders coming from Judge Emmet Sullivan against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn are entirely unconstitutional.

This week, Sullivan, the Clinton-appointed judge hearing the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in the case that was dropped this week by the Department of Justice, inexplicably called for Amicus Briefs to flood his court in the case.

With the prosecutors dropping the case, Sullivan should have dismissed the case against the general. But instead of doing that, Sullivan shockingly opened the case for Amicus Brief to be filed. An Amicus Brief — or the so-called “friend of the court” brief — is a filing that allows outside groups to file recommendations of complaints to a court on a case they actually have no part in.

The only reason Sullivan would have done this is to get some outside activist to write up a reason that Sullivan can use as cover to bury Flynn even with the case against him being dropped. Sullivan is fishing not for a legal outcome, but for a political attack on Flynn.

But as Margot Cleveland noted, this whole thing is unconstitutional.

This order was jaw-dropping for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that the judiciary has no business second-guessing prosecutorial decisions. In fact, the very case Judge Sullivan cited for the proposition that he had the inherent authority to appoint an amicus curiae—United States v. Fokker—made clear Sullivan’s order was lawless.

In that case, the government had criminally charged Fokker Services with violations of export control laws. The government and defendant entered a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the government would dismiss the charges in exchange for Fokker Services agreeing to several compliance provisions. But when the parties went before a federal district court judge to formalize the arrangement and a waiver of the Speedy Trial Act, the presiding judge refused to accept the waiver—which in essence doomed the agreement—because he believed the agreement was too lenient on the business owners.

The government filed a “writ of mandamus” with the D.C. Circuit Court. A writ of mandamus is a procedural machination that allows a party to seek to force a lower court to act as required by law. The Fokker court explained that while mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, it is appropriate where the petitioner: (i) has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; (ii) “show[s] that his right to the writ is ‘clear and indisputable’”; and then “(iii) the court ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’”

In analyzing the propriety of the district court’s refusal to approve the agreement, the appellate court summarized controlling principles of constitutional law: “The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of ‘take Care’ duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, ‘lie[] at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’”

Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.’”

Sullivan goes into much greater detail, but the upshot is that Sullivan’s order to invite Amicus Briefs is simply illegal and cases like it have already been ruled unconstitutional.

Sullivan is a political actor, NOT a judge. And what he is doing is illegal.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Clinton-Appointed Judge Turns Flynn Sentencing Into Political Circus, Invites Outsiders to File Briefs

The Clinton-appointed judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sentencing has just turned the case into a political Circus.

Published

on

The Clinton-appointed judge in Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sentencing has just turned the case into a political Circus by suddenly inviting outsiders to file statements to the court.

Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was ensconced on the D.C. District Court by Bill Clinton in 1994, has suddenly opened up the case to accept Amicus Briefs, the so-called “friend of the court” statements that can be submitted by anyone whether they are actually connected to the case or not.

This means Sullivan is looking for cover the destroy Flynn despite the mountain of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct staring him square in the face.

What Sullivan wants is some left-wing advocacy group to craft an argument to destroy Flynn that he can use to cover his tracks.

Coming out of the blue like this means that Judge Sullivan is purposefully turning this case into a left-wing political cause. He is doing this on purpose to excuse his desire to destroy Flynn regardless of the facts.

Any logical judge would be preparing to wrap the case up and throw it out of court because the Department of Justice decided to drop its case.

In the end, this means that Sullivan is continuing the case even though there isn’t any case!

This is outrageous, inexcusable behavior.

But oh, so typical of the deep state.

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, blasted the biased judge’s move saying the “amicus brief has no place in this Court.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules to Prevent Activist Groups from Encouraging Illegals to Stay

In a shocking unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against activists for illegal aliens.

Published

on

In a shocking unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against activists for illegal aliens who wanted legal cover to tell illegals that they should stay in the U.S.A.

Last Thursday, all nine justices — yes even the liberal ones — ruled against the activists who wanted to be able to openly advocate for for illegals to stay in the U.S. despite our immigration laws.

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment.

The SCOTUS slapped the 9th Circuit for “drastically” veering from judicial norms.

The ruling was headed by the left’s favorite justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, adding “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

The SCOTUS ruling ends a case that had been bounding around the courts for ten years.

It all started in 2010 when illegal alien activist Evelyn Sineneng-Smith was indicted for violations of the anti-harboring law which makes it a felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

Sineneng-Smith had been indicted for helping illegals file for applications to remain in the country even though they did not actually qualify for the status.

She didn’t just help them. She charged them and made $3.3 million with her crooked business. But her lawyers insisted that she was indulging her free speech right to speak out against U.S. immigration laws.

The liberal 9th Circuit — often called the 9th Circus for how absurdly left-wing its decisions usually are — ruled in favor of of the illegal activist. Worse, the 9th Circuit ruled that the whole law was invalid.

To show just how biased the 9th Circus is, they didn’t even rule on arguments that Sineneng-Smith’s lawyers made. They picked up the arguments of other activists and based their ruling on something that didn’t even get said in their court rooms!

This is essentially what sent the SCOTUS against the 9th Circus. The SCOTUS pointed out that the legal arguments in cases is what is supposed to drive outcomes, NOT the political position of members of the court.

This is an amazing breach of the usual left-wing bent of the liberal members of the high court. They usually rule just like the 9th Circus, on their political positions instead of what they actually heard in court or what the Constitution actually says!

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend