Pages

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

UPDATED: Breaking: Michael Flynn Moves To Withdraw Guilty Plea

It seemed inevitable. Techno Fog has the details. Sidney Powell appears undeterred by Judge Sullivan's most recent childishness and pitches government misconduct very strong. If for no other reason than to prepare for an appeal:









UPDATE: There's a nearly 6 minute interview of Devin Nunes with Laura Ingraham available. The entire interview is quite interesting. However, for our purposes, matters of the greatest interest start at about the 2:50 mark, when Nunes says: "We learn new things all the time!"

The first new thing Nunes mentions is the role of former DOJ NSD (National Security Division) head Mary McCord, who was front and center in the pursuit and framing of Michael Flynn. Lately we've learned--and Nunes says that he too has learned this only recently--that along with IC IG Atkinson, a former colleague at DoJ, McCord has been working for Adam Schiff in framing the entire "whistleblower" Impeachment Theater narrative.

Sundance sees Ingraham as hurrying Nunes past the McCord story:

Do Laura Ingraham and Mary McCord have a history together in/around Washington DC schools, law firms, clerks, social circles etc?
Because obviously Ingraham doesn’t want Devin Nunes to discuss the revelations about former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord now working with Adam Schiff on the impeachment agenda.  WATCH [@02:50]
Then again, it could be her typical Hannitus Interruptus style of self-important talking that destroys the opportunity for decent information. :::Sigh:::

You be the judge. There's no doubt that I, for one, would have preferred that Ingraham not interrupt and change topics at that point. We understand that she wants to get into the Lev Parnas story, but in the big scheme McCord is undoubtedly more important than Parnas. Parnas is a puppet, but McCord is a puppeteer throughout the whole story of the "Resistance."

Nevertheless, keep listening, because as Nunes and Ingraham move on to the Michael Flynn case Nunes flatly states, several times in varying but consistent ways: "The FBI briefed us that Flynn didn't lie." He also states the obvious: that fact makes Nunes and the others who constitute "us" witnesses on behalf of Flynn. Because Nunes certainly has specific names in mind behind "The FBI". "The FBI" doesn't speak--only specific officials of the FBI can do that, and both Nunes "The FBI" (in the sense of specific individuals) can be brought before the Flynn court. But you do have to ask, Why hasn't "The FBI" done something to clear Flynn already? "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity"? I mean, huh?

Listen to the whole thing--it's all interesting, as Nunes continues to speak more openly than in the past--Devin Nunes: We Were Told in Early 2017 by Highest Levels of DOJ that Flynn Didn't Lie to the FBI:





36 comments:

  1. Unrelated to this entry, I read a fascinating piece at American Thinker by Deborah Franklin regarding Q.

    Here is the link

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/an_introduction_to_q.html

    I have definitely heard of Q and read very little of him (or they). But she makes a strong case that knows what he is talking about. I'm not saying it's definitive. But it is persuasive.

    In case you are interested in this and wish to discuss or even create a piece yourself. I am interested in your opinion as well as any other commenters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that earlier. I don't follow Q but my wife asked the other day what the "Q" stuff was all about, so I sent her the article.

      Delete
    2. Believers in Q can and do make very strong cases for Q. However, the honest ones have to admit that there is a lot of hokum in Q’s prognostications, so they have to sift the wheat from the chaff. And then wait to see if it really works out as predicted. I don’t believe Q (whoever he/she/they might be) has any more information than some of us have, nor keener reasoning powers. No crystal ball. No more “powers” than those of us who keep ourselves informed via solid sites like this one and have reasonably acute minds.. I seem to recall seeing an article on Q and its genesis, and it was not impressive...

      Delete
    3. Hokum? Ya mean, like, bullshit?

      Delete
    4. Oh no, not the Qdiots. Bebe is exactly right.

      Delete
    5. Throughout the centuries, human beings have always wanted to see into the future. I believe Q is just another “device” like the crystal ball, tea leaves, ouija boards, fortune tellers, seers and on and on… Some human; some inanimate. One man’s hokum is another’s… :-)

      Delete
    6. Found it:

      In November 2017, a small-time YouTube video creator and two moderators of the 4chan website, one of the most extreme message boards on the internet, banded together and plucked out of obscurity an anonymous and cryptic post from the many conspiracy theories that populated the website's message board.

      Over the next several months, they would create videos, a Reddit community, a business and an entire mythology based off the 4chan posts of “Q,” the pseudonym of a person claiming to be a high-ranking military officer. The theory they espoused would become Qanon, and it would eventually make its way from those message boards to national media stories and the rallies of President Donald Trump.

      Now, the people behind that effort are at the center of a fractious debate among conspiracy enthusiasts, some of whom believe the three people who first popularized the Qanon theory are promoting it in order to make a living. Others suggest that these original followers actually wrote Q’s mysterious posts.

      While the identity of the original author or authors behind “Q” is still unknown, the history of the conspiracy theory’s spread is well-documented — through YouTube videos, social media posts, Reddit archives, and public records reviewed by NBC News.

      NBC News has found that the theory can be traced back to three people who sparked some of the first conversation about Qanon and, in doing so, attracted followers who they then asked to help fund Qanon “research.”


      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531

      Did I hear someone say “conspiracy theorists”?

      Delete
    7. LOL! Five paragraphs of nothing about a conspiracy theory. But a conspiracy about what? A theory about a conspiracy of three unknown persons?

      Don't answer that. This is Alice in Wonderland territory.

      As I keep banging on about: media is entertainment, not news.

      Delete
    8. I appreciate all the comments. I guess what really grabbed my attention was the building that looked like a temple and had all the patterns on it.

      Whatever the truth about Epstein and his House of Horrors, I hope that it will all come out some day.

      Delete
  2. Plea withdrawal must've been the most anticipated move in these proceedings, i.e. what might be called the worst kept secret.

    Doesn't the prosecution have to agree to this to be accepted by the court, or can the judge rule yea or nay on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My belief is that the judge has to rule on this. IOW, it can be rejected. That's why I referred to appeal.

      Delete
  3. What I find interesting is what appears to be missing (AFAIK): that the plea deal was the result of bad legal advice from Flynn's previous legal counsel, who created an unwaivable conflict of interest for themselves prior to convincing Flynn to take a plea deal for a crime he did not, in fact, commit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I thought that was a strong argument.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps that's Powell's "Plan C" -- the current play ("Plan B") is to blame it all on the prosecutors and see if the judge buys it; if not, then she tries a new motion based on the "ineffective counsel" argument.

      "Plan A" -- now abandoned -- was to flood the judge with a motion requesting for all manner of exculpatory evidence, hoping he would get so fed up with prosecutors' failure to provide the material that's he'd throw the case out of court.

      My guess is she's trying to avoid a motion that amounts to admitting that Flynn lied to the court when he plead guilty to a crime he did NOT commit. Hence, it will be the last motion she tries, if this one fails to get the plea withdrawn.

      Delete
  4. Finally. Sometimes it takes a strong woman to shame a man into fighting like a man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. sure seems like a long time to wait before withdrawing your plea. Now it will be another 6 months before his trial begins. Followed by sentencing that takes place 4 months after that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Margot Cleveland has another excellent article on Flynn today. The headlines:

    New Evidence In Michael Flynn Case Shows Government Prosecutors Pushed Him To Lie
    While this evidence provides his attorney a solid argument that the prosecution sought to push Michael Flynn to lie, that might not be enough to carry the day with Judge Sullivan.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/15/new-evidence-in-michael-flynn-case-shows-government-prosecutors-pushed-him-to-lie/

    ReplyDelete
  7. An absolutely innocent man, who is a decorated retired general, is entrapped by state investigators and prosecutors and spends millions of dollars and years of his remaining life attempting to defend himself from charges of a crime he didn't commit brought by corrupt prosecutors trying to use him to topple a duly-elected president.

    Franz Kafka might have written the story of this absurd nightmare. Except it is fact and not fiction and it is happening in the 21st century United States of America and not the early 20th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can anyone doubt that, but for the corruption and collusion of the MSM with this perversion of justice, Flynn would long ago have been exonerated and his bureaucratic persecutors held to account?

      Delete
    2. MW wrote:

      "Can anyone doubt that, but for the corruption and collusion of the MSM with this perversion of justice, Flynn would long ago have been exonerated and his bureaucratic persecutors held to account?"

      Exonerated? He'd have never even been interviewed but for the corruption and political motivations behind the entire farce.

      Recall the nominal purpose of the FBI interviewing him was to obtain his recollection of the Kislyak phone calls, wrt some lame garbage about a Logan Act violation, which was preposterous pretext from the start. More to the point: the FBI had access to the transcripts of Kislyak's calls; ergo, there was nothing that Flynn could have told them even in principle that was material to understanding what was said between them.

      IOW, there was no real predication for the FBI to interview Flynn AT ALL about the Kislyak phone calls. They already had the transcripts, and they knew everything that was said to each other.

      The interview was a scam from the start. Mueller subsequently used it to go after Flynn and squeezed him by threatening his son on a non-existent FARA-filing conspiracy, until Gen. Flynn agreed to plead to 1001 charge and cooperate with prosecutors, despite the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn concluding that there was no intentional false statement.

      Delete
    3. The whole thing was a revenge play, first by FBI because Flynn helped defend a woman who was victimized by McCabe (IIRC), secondly by Obama admin because Flynn was so critical of Obama's policies re ISIS and Middle East, and thirdly by Deep State, because Flynn spoke of doing audits of the intel budgets.

      He really made some powerful enemies.

      Delete
  8. I don’t have high hopes for Judge Sullivan.

    Any idea what the judicial calendar would be with Flynn’s change in his plea?

    Is this something that should be resolved in day’s, weeks, or months?

    I guess Judge Sullivan needs to decide rather to accept the change. My guess within a week or two. And if he accepts it, then a jury trial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be surprised at any time frame less than about a month.

      Delete
    2. A month would be quick. I am sure that the judge would give the prosecutors time to file a written response, and then Flynn would get to file a reply brief. And then there would probably be an oral argument after that.

      Delete
    3. Me think that Judge Sullivan will ask to be removed from the case.

      Rob S

      Delete
    4. I thought I saw a rumble to that effect yesterday. We'll see.

      Delete
  9. Flynn should have done this last Summer when Powell first took him on as a client. Now, given past actions of the judge, I expect Sullivan to deny the motion. I do think Powell will eventually win on appeal, but this just drags out for another two years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However, we can't be entirely sure where Flynn is coming from. Also, Powell may have believed getting the judge to take unilateral action might be easier than allowing the plea to be withdrawn at this extremely late date. She had no control over that, of course. Flynn's biggest mistake was in his original choice of lawyers.

      Delete
  10. Laura's show is limited so it moves fast. She talking very fast to fit everything into the schedule. Nunes is a slow talking dairyman, she was trying to hurry him along.

    Rob S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was pretty much my take.

      Delete
    2. All these shows are heavily scripted (outlined) in advance by the producers/production team. If a guest introduces something unanticipated, new, or previously unknown, it's likely the host will be forced to breeze past the item. Someone, a producer or director, will be squawking in their earpiece to move along to cover the topics/questions previously outlined so as to stay within the program time schedule/time budget, i.e. to stay on track.

      These shows may look very free-form, but they are highly produced in order to keep the audience entertained--not to break new stories.

      Delete
    3. I suspect the really good host/interviewers do have the ability to go with the flow a bit more.

      Delete
  11. Nunes is not a sound bite guy. Has nothing to do with his being a “dairyman”. He is a careful speaker whom I’ve never seen land on the wrong foot. Some stories are difficult to condense without altering or losing their meaning.

    Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday show is the best venue for anyone with a story to tell, at length and uninterrupted. She is a gem.

    ReplyDelete