The highlights:
* Powell states that she has "a witness" to the original 302 of Flynn. That witness says that the original 302 states that Flynn told the truth to the FBI agents.
* Powell explains what I've stated numerous times, that the Flynn case has been supervised by Jesse Liu, USA for the District of Columbia. However ...
* While Powell states that she thinks the world of AG Bill Barr, she wishes he would do what she says he CAN do--which is to file a statement with the court stating that DoJ has no objection to Flynn withdrawing his guilty plea.
* The Flynn Case is intertwined with the Russia Hoax investigations and Impeachment Theater. All these are driven by the Lawfare mob that has adopted what I have described as an "ends justifies the means" legal philosophy in order to take out political enemies. Powell uses exactly those words.
But there's more, and it's all packed into just 15 minutes.
Expect Van Grack to submit a motion for gag-order in 3-2-1 .....
ReplyDeleteFunny how that inconvenient 302 was conveniently "lost". Funny how the "Error" Express always goes only one way. Funny how the absence of accountability and impartial enforcement of law in and around the National Capital Region has gone on for so long that the denizens of that self-adulating, self-enriching cesspool appear to believe they can do whatever they want without consequence.
ReplyDeleteAnd they think the election of Trump over their anointed grifter demonstrates the "stupidity" of the smelly, unwashed peasants.
To my way of thinking, if an original can be shown to exist which is not available, then no other version of the 302 should be admissible. That just makes sense.
DeleteHow can any court accept copies of evidence?
DeleteWhy show chains of custody, if the original is not required?
Would a copy of Oswald's rifle been OK, in his trial for popping JFK?
302s based on an interview aren't actual evidence. I misspoke--sorry for that. A 302 of that sort is simply the agent's recollection, and is provided to the defense to show what the agent's testimony will be. But in this case the original would be evidence--evidence that the agent changed his story.
DeleteJust as a very distant observer of this case and how it ties to the Russia collusion conspiracy, I can't help but wonder if the situation with Flynn has been allowed to develop along this path in order to ensure the hook is set on the fish Durham/Barr are reeling in. I have a sneaking suspicion that Powell has had this witness for some time and is only tipping her hand at this late date. Powell seems to be a rather Trumpy lady in her own right. What if there is cooperation between Flynn and his legal team with high levels of the DOJ above those prosecuting this case? pure speculation, I know, but she is either that good, or there is more to this than we know (or maybe some of both).
ReplyDeleteJoe diGenova said something very similar to that recently--that they're being given enough rope to hang themselves.
DeletePowell is playing a game closer to Bridge than Poker, where it is much more important how you finesse each trick by the card you play, than is the absolute strength of your hand.
DeleteGenerally speaking, among similarly capable players, success at Poker is dependent upon the cards dealt. Success at Bridge is dependent upon the skill of the play.
Powell, playing Bridge, plays one trick at a time. The gov't, playing Poker, keeps bluffing the strength of the cards they hold. They're not playing he same game.
I like that metaphor.
DeleteI'm really curious about who stepped forward as a witness.
ReplyDeleteIf it was a member of the "corrupt group", to use Sundance's trademarked phrase, my money is on Pientka.
If it's someone outside of the FBI/DOJ, I think the safest bet is Nunes, given his recent comments on Laura Ingraham's show where he claimed "Well, we knew from early on in 2017 that Michael Flynn did not lie to the FBI. We actually put that in our reports."
That interview transcript is here: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/rep-devin-nunes-says-democrats-have-been-hell-bent-to-impeach-for-three-years
Right. I heard him say that. Very interesting. Hopefully we'll be finding out pretty soon.
DeleteI wonder about Judge Sullivan. Unless he's a recluse and never reads the paper, surely he knows all these facts, and knows that half the country is watching.
ReplyDeleteHe must be under some considerable pressure, in order to be able to ignore these facts for so long.
Powell is sounding rather confident.
DeleteI should hope that, if Sullivan refuses to grant the plea's withdrawal, Sidney should expect to win her appeal in the Supremes.
DeleteHow long might it take, for this case to get to that level?
Impossible to predict, but it would have to go through the DC Court of Appeals first. That's why I'd very much like to see Sullivan allow the plea to be withdrawn, so we could see something like a resolution before the election.
DeleteMy understanding is the original 302s of Flynn's interview exist -- they have to, in that the computer system that generates them retains all prior versions.
ReplyDeleteThe trick is that the prosecutors claim *they* don't have it, and -- "Catch-22" -- Flynn isn't entitled to it because he pleaded guilty!
True--you're right about that. But the the prosecutor is supposed to be provided all 302s by the FBI. He can demand it. And there's no doubt that, but for the guilty plea, Flynn would be entitled to it.
DeleteaNanyMouse's comment leads to an excellent point re 302s. I misspoke re "admissibility." A 302 of an interview is simply a supposedly contemporaneous recollection of the interview. The real point is that everyone knows agents are required to create 302s. That's what gives them there supposed reliability. But that also means that if the defense asks for a 302 of an interview that's supposed to have taken place (Brady material), the prosecutor can't say, Oh, sorry, the agent didn't write one. The assumption is that something fishy is going on because the agent didn't follow mandated procedures. So if the prosecutor gives the defense a 302 that was written a month later, instead of 5 days, there's a problem.
ReplyDeleteThis is why, IMO, Team Mueller needed to get a guilty plea out of Flynn--so they would be able to say they didn't need to turn over Brady material. If Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, the prosecutors have a major problem because then they'll have to turn over the Brady material.
MW wrote:
ReplyDeleteIf Flynn is allowed to withdraw his plea, the prosecutors have a major problem because then they'll have to turn over the Brady material.
DING! DING! DING!
I'll predict right now that IF the judge allows the plea to be withdrawn, prosecutors will drop the case like a hot potato, rather than turn over the original 302 that will PROVE the later versions of the 302 were "creatively revised" to claim Flynn lied to the FBI, while -- as the witness claims -- the original 302 states the EXACT OPPOSITE.
That's what I would expect. The "original" 302 could, IMO, be used to impeach the agents. Not to mention that there credibility is shot at this point anyway.
DeleteMr. Wauck,
ReplyDeleteIn most cases when I comment here, I can't make statements where I claim expertise. But this is a rare case, while I'm not an expert, I do have some working knowledge.
And this area is records management and federal law. As you probably know given that you are a retired federal agent, when a permanent record is created, it cannot be destroyed. I'd make an educated guess that a 302 is a permanent record. Ergo, if it were "missing", it would've either have been deliberately or accidentally destroyed. Either is a federal crime.
Now it appears that the original 302 has been located. I doubt that it was ever missing. It was just claimed to be missing. Not being an FBI agent, I'd gather that once a 302 is created it is a record. I can't speak to whether a 302 can be altered, but I would think that if they are alterable, each copy is a record.
I have to take mandatory training every year; 14 in all. One of them is federal records training. That's how important this topic is.
I can only conclude that the FBI is/was hiding something that they don't want exposed to the public.
You're 100% correct. But you knew that already. :-)
DeleteFBI is hiding a lot of things they don't want the public to know, most often legitimately. Of course, as you probably know, the issue is whether something is being rightly and lawfully protected from public disclosure — i.e. legitimately classified for valid national security reasons, LES, FOUO, privacy laws, etc. — or without legal justification and solely to conceal misconduct or prevent embarrassment.
Delete