Connect with us

Courts

Is Gen. Michael Flynn’s Conviction About to be Thrown Out?

Big things may be on the verge of happening with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and it just might put the biggest black eye yet for Obama’s entire corrupt FBI.

Published

on

Big things may be on the verge of happening with the conviction of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and it just might put the biggest black eye yet for Robert Mueller, James Comey, and Obama’s entire corrupt FBI.

A week ago, Gen. Flynn’s gangbusters new attorney Sidney Powell filed a shocking motion that asserted that fired FBI operative Lisa Page altered the general’s interview records so the Bureau could use the falsified records to destroy him.

Powell’s filing is based off information discovered about the explosive revelations laying out what Page allegedly did and the illegal actions taken by the FBI.

The filing, US v Flynn; DE 129-2 was posted by Techno Fog on Scribd.

Trending: China Now Says Virulent Coronavirus Started Earlier, Hit Two Areas at Once

Flynn’s legal team argues that the FBI hit Flynn with an “ambush-interview” in the White House. The interview was not intended to discover any evidence of criminal activity, but to fool Flynn into making false statements that the FBI could then use to destroy him and force him to do their bidding to destroy others in Trump’s orbit.

This was on top of evidence that the FBI also hid evidence and even destroyed evidence that would be exculpatory for Flynn that could have been used in the trial that resulted in his guilty plea.

The evidence that the government criminally altered records is contained in messages written by Page and other FBI agents.

“Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302,” Powell wrote. “Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘Flynn stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote.”

As Powell points out, the original notes of the agents who interviewed Flynn showed, “Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue.” But it looks like additional information was added to the official interview records that does not appear in the agent notes.

The evidence seems to show that Flynn pleaded guilty to statements that he didn’t even make because he was shown records months later that did not reflect what he actually said.

After Powell filed her motion, Judge Emmet Sullivan abruptly cancelled his next hearing — a sure sign that he found the filing alarming.

Some court-watchers have become convinced that the judge is considering ruling that the whole case is suspect.

For her part, Powell said she is at least expecting a postponement of the sentencing phase.

“I’m expecting Judge Sullivan to issue an order than at a minimum postpones any sentencing or cancels any sentencing and orders the government to produce additional information, and might even hold the prosecutors in contempt of court because they certainly are,” Powell said on Friday.

“I attached a number of exhibits including a comparison of the 302, the FBI interview form between February 10 and February 11 that shows dramatic changes, the long notes of the FBI agents… to show that there were things that were wrong in the notes. We also identified a small group in the upper echelon of the FBI, approximately ten people, met the day before Mr. Flynn’s interview to scheme and plan how to keep him unguarded and unaware of the true purpose of the interview,” Powell added.

Indeed, Judge Sullivan took the forceful step of informing the FBI and government prosecutors that they have three days to respond to Powell’s motion.

The question is, what exactly is Judge Sullivan thinking? Is he getting frustrated with Powell? Or, as some suspect, is he having the wool pulled from his eyes about the criminal actions committed by Obama’s FBI.

In any case, the countdown clock is ticking away.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on 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

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Mexican Family’s Claim Over Cross-Border Shooting

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a case for damages brought by a Mexican family whose son was shot by Border Patrol.

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a case for damages brought by a Mexican family whose son was shot by Border Patrol.

In a 5-4 ruling, the nation’s highest court ruled that Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca, 15, lacked any constitutional protection against use of excessive force by a police officer because he was standing on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot in a confrontation with Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, USA Today reported.

The incident occurred in 2010 when Guereca and others were on the Mexican side of the river separating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, when the agent fired two warning shots across the border. One of those shots struck the teen, killing him.

The officer maintained that he was responding to a call of Mexican nationals throwing rocks across the border at American citizens.

The Mexican family sued based on a 1971 case where the court said that an American’s rights were violated when federal agents forced their way into his home without a warrant. Courts have used that precedent to prevent federal authorities from violating people’s rights.

However, in this case, the court ruled that the Mexican’s had no rights under the Constitution because they were not in the U.S. during the incident.

“A cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion. “In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad.”

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed saying that the court should not be moving into legislative territory, and the 1971 precedent itself should be overturned.

“Federal courts lack the authority to engage in the distinctly legislative task of creating causes of action for damages to enforce federal positive law,” Thomas said. “We are exercising legislative power vested in Congress.”

Alito is correct that this case could open a Pandora’s box of trouble for federal agents who deal with foreign citizens. If this were to pass the court’s muster and allow the Mexicans to sue the federal government, nothing would stop the whole world from assuming they are covered under the U.S. Constitution.

Our national law can ONLY apply to official U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

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

Continue Reading

Courts

HOPELESS BIAS: Chief Juror in Roger Stone Trial Revealed as Democrat Politician

The media has completely ignored the fact that one of the jurors in Roger’s Stone’s trial is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress.

Published

on

The media has completely ignored the fact that one of the jurors in Trump associate Roger’s Stone’s trial is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress and therefore hopelessly biased against Stone.

Recently for instance, CNN reported on the jurors but did not bother to note that one of them is clearly biased against the Trump administration and probably should not have been allowed in the jury pool.

Roger Stone, a political gadfly and a longtime GOP operative who has operated in and around the Trump inner circle, was convicted in November on charges of obstruction, witness tampering, and five counts of making false statements to Congress. Federal prosecutors recommended nine years in prison for Stone, 67, causing outrage– especially from the president.

But, while reporting on the trial, CNN ignored the pertinent facts about juror Tomeka Hart.

It has been recently learned that Hart is a failed Democrat candidate for Congress. Not only that, but she has been found to have posted numerous anti-Trump posts on social media.

CNN refused to report any of this.

Per Daily Caller:

Hart wrote in the Facebook post. “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”

“As foreperson, I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts.”

Hart’s social media accounts dictate a woman who closely watched the special counsel’s investigation. The juror also had numerous negative references to Trump on her Twitter, even calling him a “#KlanPresident” in one post. She also retweeted CNN analyst Bakari Sellers’ attack on Stone defenders after he was arrested in January of 2019.

Again, none of this was included in CNN’s reports.

Check out some of this stuff:

And check this out:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Gen. Michael Flynn Withdraws Guilty Plea After Prosecutors Grossly Breach Plea Agreement

Former Trump national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is filing to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller case.

Published

on

Former Trump national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is filing to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller case.

Flynn officially moved to withdraw his guilty plea on Tuesday evening, two years after he agreed with prosecutors that he lied to federal agents about his contacts with a Russian diplomat before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, CNBC reported.

Flynn’s move comes only a week after federal prosecutors asked federal Judge Emmet Sullivan to hand Flynn only a six-month jail sentence because of the “serious nature of” of the “offense,” and “his apparent failure to accept responsibility” for his violations.

“Michael T. Flynn is innocent,” his attorney, Sidney Powell, wrote in her Tuesday filing.

Powell went on to slam the government:

Powell wrote that Flynn is withdrawing his plea “because of the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.” She also asked Judge Emmet Sullivan for a 30-day delay of Flynn’s sentencing date, which is currently scheduled for Jan. 28.

Sullivan has yet to sign off on Flynn’s plea withdrawal. The judge could possibly reject Flynn’s motion, letting the guilty plea stand.

Powell posted her 22-page filing on Twitter for all to see.

Government prosecutors have slammed Flynn for his shift toward withdrawing his guilty plea.

CNBC added:

Flynn was charged as part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference during the 2016 presidential election. He had nearly been sentenced in December 2018, but opted to postpone that proceeding after Sullivan harshly urged him to first complete his cooperation with Mueller’s probe.

But Flynn’s attorney has hammered the government for its criminal actions against the general.

Flynn realized he was badly served by his former legal counsel and fired them. His new lawyer, D.C. power lawyer Sidney Powell, uncovered a ton of malfeasance by the FBI and federal prosecutors and filed a flurry of motions to try and force the judge to see the facts before his very face.

In August, Powell filed a motion asking the court to hold prosecutors in contempt for withholding evidence, and also alleged a long list of improprieties.

As the Daily Caller noted:

Flynn’s legal team has accused federal prosecutors of “egregious government misconduct” in the case and has sought evidence regarding internal FBI discussions about the decision to interview the retired lieutenant general about the Russian ambassador. Among the documents sought were text messages involving Peter Strzok, the disgraced former FBI counterintelligence official who took part in the Flynn interview.

“Strzok was fired from the FBI on Aug. 10, 2018 over anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page,” the site added.

Infuriatingly, the judge has now simply ignored the proof of misconduct by federal prosecutors.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

CNN Settles $275 Million Lawsuit for Defaming Covington Catholic Teenager Nick Sandman

CNN has settled in the $275 million defamation lawsuit brought against it by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandman.

Published

on

Left-wing cable “news” outlet, CNN, has admitted to a settlement in the $275 million defamation lawsuit brought against it by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandman.

On Tuesday afternoon, a CNN spokesman confirmed to the Cincinnati Enquirer that the settlement had been reached.

The network did not reveal the dollar amount of the settlement and Mr. Sandman’s representatives have also not made any statements on the topic.

Sandman’s legal team is still pursuing similar lawsuits against the Washington Post, and NBC Universal for their fake news coverage of the incident that shot the teenager into TVs and newspapers all across the country last year.

Sandman and his highs school classmates were widely accused of “mocking” Native American activist Nathan Phillips while wearing a red Donald Trump “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) baseball hats during the March for Life event last January in Washington D.C.

The media nearly universally accused the teenagers led by young Mr. Sandman of taunting the Native American activists. But the teens were also accused of menacingly blocking the Native Americans and not letting them leave the area as the teens threatened them with violence.

The media portrayed Phillips and his radical left-wing activists of being threatened, intimidated and attacked by the teens. But in the days after the incident was first reported, more complete video of the incident came to light proving that the teens were simply minding their own business when Phillips and his crew went out of their way to confront the teens. Not only that, but the teens obviously did not block Phillips from coming or going as he pleased.

Furthermore, the whole incident was kicked off when a group of radical black leftists began verbally assaulting the teens in vulgar terms, and with a loud clamor that caught the attention of Phillips and his extremists.

In the end, it became clear that it was the teens who were the victims of harassment and intimidation, not the teens that perpetrated the same.

The media got the story 100 percent backwards, and in the process smeared the teenagers as hateful, white supremacists.

Sandman’s legal team noted that they are looking to sue Gannett news agency, as well.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Armed Bank Robber Commits Fourth Robbery After Being Released Due to New York Bail Reform

A man who police say has now committed four armed bank robberies was released without bail due to New York’s lenient new bail reform rules.

Published

on

A man who police say has now committed four armed bank robberies was released without bail due to New York’s lenient new bail reform rules.

Police in New York reported that bank robber Christopher Seamans was arrested on Tuesday for robbing yet another bank but was then released without bail due to the reform laws.

The police say that the 41-year-old suspect robbed the Pioneer Bank in Albany on Friday and got away with an undisclosed amount of cash, the Times Union reported.

Video of the crime shows Seamans demanding cash at a teller’s window. He did not show a weapon, but kept his hand menacingly inside his jacket during the robbery.

No one was hurt during the robbery, but Seamans reportedly threatened harm.

Seamans has been accused of three previous bank robberies.

He was sentenced in 2005 to four years in prison for crimes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was also sentenced to more than four years for robbing a New York bank in 2010.

Seamans was released from federal prison Dec. 17, 2017.

But despite being arrested for a fourth bank robbery, Seamans was immediately released due to the state’s new liberal bail reform law.

Seamans was released on his own recognizance after going before a judge on Friday.

So, now New York is releasing armed bank robbers due to this “reform” law.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Judge orders Alex Jones to Pay $100,000 in Sandy Hook Defamation Case

A Texas judge has ordered Internet bomb thrower Alex Jones to pay $100,000 claiming that the 2012 Sandy Hook school attack was a hoax.

Published

on

A Texas judge has ordered Internet bomb thrower Alex Jones to pay $100,000 for using his Internet platform to claim that the 2012 Sandy Hook school attack was a hoax.

Jone was sued in an Austin, Texas, court for defamation by the parents of a 6-year-old child who was among the 26 people killed in December of 2012 by a gunman who entered the school in Newtown, Connecticut.

For for several years after the attack, Jones called the shooting a “false flag” and insisted that it was a staged hoax.

According to the Associated Press:

State District Judge Scott Jenkins ruled on Dec. 20 that Jones and his defense team “intentionally disregarded” an earlier order to provide witnesses to attorneys representing a Sandy Hook father who brought the lawsuit, Neil Heslin. Jenkins also denied Jones’ request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Jones runs his Infowars empire out of a Texas studio and has had great influence on the Internet on sites such as Youtube.

He is often accused of pushing extreme right-wing conspiracy theories.

Still, he eventually reversed his position that the shooting at Sandy Hook is a hoax and formally apologized for his years of comments about the incident.

He claimed that he succumbed to a “psychosis” which made him think the shooting was staged.

“And I, myself, have almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’ve now learned a lot of times things aren’t staged,” he said in April. “So I think as a pundit, someone giving an opinion, that, you know, my opinions have been wrong, but they were never wrong consciously to hurt people.”

Some of the family members of the victims have reported receiving harassment and even death threats by people who believed Jones’ claims that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

Jones still faces lawsuits from several others, as well.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Courts

Trump’s New Judges Shows He’s Broken the Liberal’s Lock on the Federal Bench

MSN News had a startling headline, Sunday, that blared “1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee.” This is an astonishing achievement.

Published

on

MSN News had a startling headline, Sunday, that blared “1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee.” This is an astonishing achievement made even more amazing by the relative youthful ages of Trump’s nominees, meaning they will be influencing our jurisprudence for many, many decades to come.

And Trump isn’t even done, yet!

Folks, this incredible success on the federal bench is THE main reason we need to vote for President Donald Trump again in 2020. His revamping of the federal judiciary is extremely important and a huge mark in our favor.

After only three years in office, Trump’s strides in remaking the federal judiciary in a more conservative direction really is staggering.

Last week, the U.S. Senate confirmed Trump’s 187th judge to the bench.

So far, Trump has sat this many judges:

-135 District Court judges
-50 Circuit Court judges
-2 Supreme Court justices

It has been a good year for judicial confirmations. 20% of the District judges are now Trump nominees and over 20% of the Circuit judges. The 2nd, 3rd and 11th Circuits have flipped to Republican-appointed majorities for the first time in living memory. And the once extremely left-wing 9th Circuit Court in California now has a 16-13 Democrat majority instead of the 23-6 Democrat majority when Trump took office.

Trump’s had 50 Circuit judges confirmed in less than THREE years. By comparison Obama only had 55 in EIGHT years.

Both W. Bush and Obama had 325 Federal judges confirmed in eight years. Trump has over half that number in less than three years.

And if we send Donald Trump to office for a second term, this will only continue. The revamping of the courts will cast the far left into the wilderness for many decades to come if it is allowed to continue for a second Trump term. This is extremely important to hold off the tide of the destructive, anti-American leftism that has gotten a stranglehold on both popular culture and the Democrat Party.

This is not all due to Trump, granted. A lot of the thanks for this monumental task goes to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who has made confirming judges one of his highest priorities in this presidency.

McConnell did this by limiting debate on judicial nominees to only 30 hours and by putting an end to the “blue slip” procedure that essentially allowed U.S. Senators to pick their own appointees for the districts in their state instead of allowing the president to do it.

Trump still has a long way to go to totally eliminate the left’s lock on our federal courts, but he has made more significant headway than any Republican president in history.

This is why we need him elected to a second term. This single thing is more important than any other thing Trump could do in office.

Finally, THIS thing is exactly why never Trumpers are traitors to the U.S.A. By working to destroy Trump they are making sure the judiciary remains captive to the far, far, un-American, dangerous left-wing.

If you know someone who claims to be a conservative, but who is working to destroy Trump, you can know for a fact that they are not a conservative at all. Because in this day and age, returning sanity to the federal bench is above all things the most important thing we can do right now. And no other Republican president will do it.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on 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