Federal Judge Orders Mueller To Turn Over Flynn Material

In a surprising move, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government’s documents and “memoranda” related to Flynn’s questioning. This follows a Flynn filing that described an effective trap set by agents who encouraged him not to bring a lawyer and left inconsistencies unaddressed in what has been described by critics as a “perjury trap.”  I have practiced in front of Judge Sullivan for years and he is a respected judge who has a keen eye for prosecutorial and investigative abuse.  That does not mean that he will find such abuse here and could ultimately make a finding that nothing improper occurred.  Yet, despite a recommendation of no jail time, Sullivan wants to review the entire record before deciding on the issue.

Sullivan’s order gives Mueller a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel’s office to produce the FBI documents.  Those include 302 field reports that have been widely discussed in the media, including one which reportedly shows then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushing Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning.  McCabe of course was later fired from the Justice Department and is viewed by critics as someone who had an anti-Trump agenda.  Many however have defended his actions and denounced efforts, including President Trump, to make him a villain without any clear evidence of political bias.  The scene however is made all the more suspicious for Trump supporters with the involvement of Peter Strzok, who was also later fired.

Some have also noted that McCabe never warned Flynn that false statements to investigators are crimes or that this was not some routine sit-down during the very busy opening days of the Administration.  The fact is however that Flynn was not in custody and thus was not guaranteed a Miranda warning.

On the other hand, the false statement that Flynn allegedly made was not reportedly viewed by the agents as an intentional lie.  His meeting with the Russians was not illegal or even unprecedented as the incoming National Security Adviser.  He did not deny the meeting but a memory of sanctions being discussed.  Robert Mueller however decided to reexamine the statement and charge it as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.  

In reality, it was doubtful that Flynn would ever get jail time for such an alleged false statement. His range as a first offender started at 0 and that is likely where it would remain even without the recommendation of Mueller.  

There is no question that this was an aggressive approach to an interview at a time when the subject was in the middle of establishing a new office for a new Administration in the midst of serious national security pressures. Moreover, Flynn “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.  They made the conscious decision that  “If Flynn still would not confirm what he said, … they would not confront him or talk him through it.”  Again they have no duty to reveal the discrepancy but it is unclear why they would adopt such a seemingly hostile or aggressive stance toward Flynn.

Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday.

239 thoughts on “Federal Judge Orders Mueller To Turn Over Flynn Material”

  1. A former FBI Supervisory Special Anget, Robyn Gritz, alleges that the decision to set the perjury trap against General Flynn was vindictive personal retaliation on the part of former FBI Director McCabe

    According to Ms Gritz, she filed an EEO complaint against McCabe alleging discrimination. Gen. Flynn, who’d had a good professional working relationship with Ms Gritz when she was active as an FBI liaison with CIA and the counter-terrorism community, was supportive of her in the resulting counter-complaint McCabe filed against Ms Gritz.

    According to Gritz’s letter to Judge Sullivan, this was when McCabe targeted Flynn for “special treatment”. Ms Gritz pleaded to Judge Sullivan that he reduce the specification against Gen. Flynn to a misdemeanor, given the very irregular circumstances of Flynn’s prosecution.

    Prof. Turley, can Judge Sullivan reduce the charge, or is Flynn doomed to be a convicted felon as a result of this case?

    1. Judge Sullivan expressed his disgust and distain for General Flynn at the Dec 18, 2018 sentencing hearing, and postponed ultimate sentencing until 2019. General Flynn affirmed he did not desire to revoke his plea, and he expressly affirmed his guilt.(at the subject sentencing hearing)
      On the FBI 302’s, before they were written the Russian AMBS(K) called Flynn in P Rico while he was on vacation, and that call was
      tracked, and recorded, and his activity with Turkey, with his biz pards had been closely tracked.
      Two of his biz pards were indicted a day before the sentencing hearing on criminal charges, linked to alleged activity regarding Turkey.
      The failure to register as a F…. agent rep is now receiving high priority by Federal prosecutors. Some how, Flynn got very cross -wise with some in the Obama ADMIN, and they must be crowing, as FLYNN was in T V TUBe MEDIA prime time CLIPS on LOCK her up.
      It is tragic, on many levels, but how many lower ranking men got the shaft for doing far less than the General.
      General Petreaues is now at the high tiers of an Hedge FUND(KRK), and a College Professor, linked to assorted
      prominent Ivy colleges. Some on blogs went far out to suggest Flynn was framed.
      How many others in the Foreign affairs field have not registered as a foreign agent, under
      U S law who have big rain -making operations? What about some big DEM rain-makers how many of those are hauling in major cash flows and have not registered as foreign agents. It is not a few, it is D C’s biggest sporting menu. What next, in 2019, that will be the main Seminar operations in D C , registering as a FOREIGN AGENT, and crossing all the T’s to rake in millions from
      foreign operations to run beltway operations, and avoid getting FLYNN-ed. This is not written from Russia, as all is tracked on
      assorted, across the world. Have any in Sally Yates big rain-making operation registered as a foreign agent in Georgia?
      Welcome to Civics 101, and the history on George Washingtons’s departing speech to America on foreign influence in America.
      See on teh history Channel.

      1. “Judge Sullivan expressed his disgust and distain for General Flynn at the Dec 18, 2018 sentencing hearing”

        Be careful. It has been reported that a retraction has been made. Judge Flynn appologized for his remarks that were made because he wrongfully thought Flynn was working for Turkey as a foreign agent at the same time he was involved in government. Sullivan did not realize that Flynn had given that job up much earlier and therefore Sullivan appologized for making remarks that weren’t justified. I am disappointed in Sullivan that he could make such a crucial mistake.

        To me it is understandable that Flynn wanted his problems to end. He didn’t register as a foreign agent which is illegal and that illegality seems to spread thoughout Washington. Even a Podesta has been involved in not registering as a foreign agent. Flynn also seems to be concerned about his son.

        Let’s not forget what Justice Ruth Ginsberg said about Section 1001 and how she forsaw traps in that act that has led to General Flynn being in his present position. “an overzealous prosecutor or investigator — aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case — will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial.”

  2. Only “the best people”:

    “How Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke came undone”


    “WASHINGTON—He came as a cowboy. On his first day at work, March 2, 2017, Interior Zinke rode a horse to the Department of Interior headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C, arriving like a conquering king, accompanied by a U.S. Park Police escort, also on horseback. The native Montanian, a former congressman from that state, Zinke attired in cowboy hat and jeans, a rodeo windbreaker instead of a Brooks Brothers suit. At Interior’s headquarters awaited a legion uniformed staff, who received their new boss to the sounds of an honor song beaten out on a drum by an Office of Indian Affairs employee who also happened to be a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe.

    “His departure is unlikely to be so lavish. On Saturday morning, President Trump announced that Zinke will be leaving the Department of Interior by the end of the month. Much like Scott Pruitt, who was forced out of the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, Zinke was undone by hubris, which gave rise to more than a dozen investigations into his behavior in office. And like Pruitt, he leaves behind a department whose upper ranks are stocked with savvier operators who will continue to undo regulations without incurring nearly as much negative attention.

    “Chris Saeger, a conservationist with the Western Values Project, a watchdog group, called Zinke’s tenure a “disaster for public lands of historic proportions.” Other activists offered similar assessments while wondering what comes next.”

    1. What a guy:


      “He commanded that every time he entered Interior’s headquarters in Washington, a special “secretarial flag” be raised above the building, then lowered again when he left. Sally Jewell, who’d headed the department during the Obama administration, expressed the amused astonishment of many: “I had no idea there was a secretarial flag. And if I had known there was a flag the last thing I would have done was to ever fly it.” The Washington Post report that broke the story of his flag fixation noted that Zinke had also commissioned “challenge coins,” commemorative medallions customarily given by members of the military to visiting dignitaries.

      “In the cafeteria, the former Navy SEAL installed the arcade game Big Buck Hunter, a gesture meant to “highlight #sportsmen contributions 2 conservation,” as he explained in a tweet.

      “Zinke had promised not to sell off public lands, a vow that earned him praise from Donald Trump, Jr., and led to his eventual nomination from the president. But even though his rhetoric championed the ordinary American, and the unspoiled American landscape, his actions consistently favored corporate concerns.

      “The Roosevelt comparison quickly proved discordant. Zinke proposed raising fees to enter 17 of the nation’s most popular national parks. The new cost of entry for a car during peak months would be more than doubled to $70, and Zinke justified it by explaining, “When you give discounted or free passes to elderly, fourth graders, veterans, disabled and you do it by the carload, there’s not a whole lot of people who actually pay at our front door.” After an outcry, fees increased by only $5.”

      Only “the best.”


        funny how Democrats are in favor of certain things only when it’s their version of the same idea



    For months, President Trump has claimed that U.S. Steel has announced plans to build more than six new plants. Throughout the midterm election, he repeatedly said that Democrats had signed onto an “open borders” bill. And he has long charged that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the 2016 election.

    None of these claims is true. What’s more, most Americans don’t believe them, according to a new Washington Post Fact Checker poll.

    Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans — including fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans — believe these or several other prominent claims by the president, according to the poll.

    The poll sought to determine what Americans believe — the truth or the president. The Post has never conducted this type of poll before and it serves as the most comprehensive examination of whether Trump’s false and misleading claims have taken root among the broader American public.

    The Post poll also suggests Republicans have grown less concerned about presidents being honest than they were a decade ago. In 2007, an Associated Press-Yahoo poll found 71 percent of Republicans saying it is “extremely important” for presidential candidates to be honest, similar to 70 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents. The new Post poll shows identical shares of Democrats and independents prioritizing honesty in presidential candidates, but the share of Republicans who say honesty is extremely important has fallen to 49 percent, 22 points lower than in the AP-Yahoo poll.

    A separate question in the Post poll finds that clear majorities across party lines say it is never acceptable for political leaders to make false statements. But 41 percent of Republicans say false claims are sometimes acceptable “in order to do what’s right for the country,” while 25 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents say the same.

    Edited from: “Trump Routinely Says Things That Aren’t True. Few Americans Believe Him, According To A New Poll”



      It appears that most Republicans know Trump utters falsehoods on a routine basis. But strangely they’re okay with it; an extraordinary revelation though now completely surprising. Though it illustrates that Trump has had a devastating effect on presidential standards.

      1. falsehoods on a routine basis. But strangely they’re okay with it

        Because Trump’s doing approximately what he said he’d do, because a lot of the ‘falsehoods’ are nothing of the kind, and because they figure, Glenn Kessler is neither willing nor able to comb through the public remarks of Barack Obama &c. and give them the Glenn Kessler treatment.

        It would be sweet if our public life were free of certain sorts of artifice. You’re here acting as a press agent for the Democratic Party, whose office-holders include the likes of the people who tried to vend Christine Blasey. Nothing Trump’s done in the last 4 years tops that. You first, jack-wagon.

        1. You’re allowed your own opinion—no matter how disconnected from reality it is, but you are not allowed your own facts. A lie, is, was, and always shall be a lie. Merely because you think it’s okay for the day glo bozo to utter such untrue nonsense in no way colors over the fact that the buffoon lies repeatedly and pathologically. Pro tip: you dwindling few 38% ers composed of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make are neglecting that most salient of questions: “what is that ticking sound?”

          This is to “ya, the imbecile promised he’d lock up little kids, so I’m cool” rounder


    Yesterday, Russian ‘exchange student’ Maria Butina, 30, pled guilty to being an unregistered foreign agent. Her decision to enter that plea was one of this week’s biggest news stories. The case suggests that Russian infiltration of the 2016 election was operating on different tracks. Butina not only made contact with the Trump campaign, but more importantly she targeted the NRA, a major ally of American conservatives. Yet to my knowledge, Professor Turely has never mentioned Butina in any columns on this blog.

    Instead the professor wrote about this ruling in the Flynn case which barely cracked the news this week. One suspects the above column was intended as a bone for Trump supporters to chew on. It certainly had that effect. Our resident Trump supporters gleefully responded to said column with paranoid ‘deep state’ analogies. And of course we saw the mildewy, “What about Hillary?” comments. Absurdly those questions have become a desperate chant of sorts. One can picture torch-bearing fanatics shrieking, “What about Hilary” to the beat of primitive drums.


      A ‘crime’ that has hardly ever been prosecuted in the 80 years since that statute went on the books. Why didn’t she get the Podesta discount?

    2. Peter Shill has told us that ” Butina not only made contact with the Trump campaign, but more importantly she targeted the NRA, a major ally of American conservatives.” He didn’t say what transpired or what illegal acts were performed. He didn’t even tell us if she was there to disrupt the Republicans of dirty them, nor did he say that Democrats weren’t involved. I’m interested in what she did and for whom, but Peter doesn’t tell us because Peter’s knowledge is limited to making the unsubstantiated claims of a two year old.

      I bumped into Trumps CEO along with his family at a restaurant where people were seated at larger tables. Wow. I must be a Russian agent according to Peter. We even said a few words involving politics. That does it for Peter for even if I had been sat at an adjacent table or in the same room or building or on the same street Peter will have his same linkage to his dumb conspiracy theories.

      We all know the Russians have attempted to interfere with our well-being for longer than anyone on this blog has been alive. What we do not know in most cases and Peter certainly doesn’t know are all the specifics. We have a good idea of who over the years have conspired with the Russians but Peter doesn’t want to know that because for the most part those that conspired were leftists..

      1. Allan, if you bothered to read about Maria Butina, she was well-connected with top deputies to Putin. That’s very strange for a young woman who was supposedly an ‘exchange student’. And it was stranger yet that Butina had a habit of showing up at conservative events like NRA rallies and the National Prayer Breakfast. What’s more, Butina even organized an NRA junket to Russia. That’s all far beyond the scope of a so-called ‘exchange student’.

          1. The NRA spent a record amount of money on Trump in 2016; three times what it spent on Romney 4 years earlier.

            This raises questions of ‘why’ Russians were courting the NRA; a group now linked almost exclusively to Republicans. And, ‘Did Russia funnel money to Trump through the NRA?’

            It also shows that Russia’s interference in the 2016 was running on multiple tracks. The interference wasn’t just limited to Wikileaks or direct overtures to Trump’s campaign.

            1. “The NRA spent a record amount of money on Trump in 2016″

              Peter, I see the horse sh!t clearing off the wall but it still remains firmly affixed to your being. We are waiting for what transpired and what illegalities were committed by Americans with regard to Butina. You have no answers so you will continue throwing the sh!t against the wall.

              ” ‘Did Russia funnel money to Trump through the NRA?’ ”

              One can easily ask a similar question. Did Democrats engage Butina to create the appearance of a crime? I don’t think either interpretation is correct. What we do know is the Russians wanted to cause problems in the US elections and they succeeded beyond their expectations with Democratic help. Their activities and the activities of the Democrats (some that are illegal) have hamstrung a President.


              I don’t believe the NRA makes contributions to candidate funds. That aside, your complaint is still irrelevant. (And, while we’re at it, if a political action committees contributions increase pari passu with the personal income of the society at large, every year is going to be a ‘record year’).

          2. And several different state bar associations have recently organized junkets to Cuba.
            Maybe the state bar staff are Cuba-comm symps and must register under FARA too?

            Cold War 2.0: less necessary and a lot less fun

        1. “Allan, if you bothered to read about Maria Butina”

          Peter, you are the one making empty accusations. You need to provide sustance and meaning. You don’t because that involves intellect.

          ” she was well-connected with top deputies to Putin. That’s very strange ”

          So? Let me explain the jeopardy our nation is under from the Chinese. Our best science institutions are loaded with students from mainland China. They learn things we should not wish the Chinese to have access to but when they return to live in China with their families the Chinese government makes sure they get as much of this information as possible. That is as close to espionage one can get even if it is unintentioned by the students. China is a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn’t need anything to place a Chinese citizen in jail.

          ” Butina even organized an NRA junket to Russia.”

          So? Do you think Americans don’t travel to Russia. We hope our leaders have enough sense to keep secrets, but we have already seen how the left acts and how the news media is in bed with the left so I don’t hold any or most politicians in high regard. I travelled in Russia (along with ohter countries that have governments hostile to the US). I even had a long conversation with a Russian deeply involved in their government! Maybe my travel agent should be arrested.

          I agree we should be tougher on Foreigners that abuse our nation and throw them out when they violate our laws or our security. Yes, Butina was wrong and I don’t care if she went to jail, but your claim is more than that. You are blaming a specific party yet you cannot specify what anyone did that was wrong. As usual you are throwing horse sh!t against the wall hoping it will stick while the only mess remains on your own body.

          1. in 13/14 PRC Chinese engineers at GE and Chinese academics at NYU were both accused of stealing IP secrets about MRI and shipping those back to China. Google it if you want an example.

            Chicom industrial espionage has long been known. There has been sporadic prosecution here and there but nobody has addressed the issue with the force and vigor and leadership as our great POTUS Donald J. Trump.

            1. Kurtz, you are absolutely right. I know some engineers in very sensitive positions and they think that we are crazy in the way we handle our secrets. Then again, why does anyone think the Clintons were paid such large speaker fees.

  5. Why lie about something lawful? For the sport of it? Lying about lawful acts raises suspicion. The FBI starts scratching its collective head trying to figure out why an experienced intelligence officer would lie about a lawful act. They turn over rocks to see what’s underneath. The dig deeper until they find something that explains why an experienced intelligence officer would lie about a lawful act. If he doesn’t already know, then Judge Sullivan will soon find out why Flynn lied about a “lawful act.”

    In the meantime, its important for all Trump cultists to avoid imagining that Flynn was a Deep-State operative planted in the Trump campaign as a mole and an agent provocateur. Because, if you did, it would make all of your blather about poor, poor Mickey Flynn done been railroaded by Deep State sound even more ludicrous than it already does. Ha-Ha! Ho-Ho! Hee-Hee! Ha-Ha!

      1. Excerpted from the video clip linked above:

        Mr. Gowdy. Who is Christopher Steele? Well, before I go to that, let me ask you this.

        At any — who interviewed General Flynn, which FBI agents?

        Mr. Comey. My recollection is two agents, one of whom was Pete Strzok and the other of whom is a career line agent, not a supervisor.

        Mr. Gowdy. Did either of those agents, or both, ever tell you that they did not adduce an intent to deceive from their interview with General Flynn?

        Mr. Comey. No.

        Mr. Gowdy. Have you ever testified differently?

        Mr. Comey. No.

        Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall being asked that question in a HPSCI hearing?

        Mr. Comey. No. I recall — I don’t remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.

        Mr. Gowdy. Who would you have gotten that from if you were not present for the interview?

        Mr. Comey. From someone at the FBI, who either spoke to — I don’t think I spoke to the interviewing agents but got the report from the interviewing agents.

        Mr. Gowdy. All right. So you would have, what, read the 302 or had a conversation with someone who read the 302?

        Mr. Comey. I don’t remember for sure. I think I may have done both, that is, read the 302 and then spoke to people who had spoken to the investigators themselves. It’s possible I spoke to the investigators directly. I just don’t remember that.

        Mr. Gowdy. And, again, what was communicated on the issue of an intent to deceive? What’s your recollection on what those agents relayed back?

        Mr. Comey. My recollection was he was — the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is, hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being — they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there.

        Mr. Gowdy. When you say “lying,” I generally think of an intent to deceive as opposed to someone just uttering a false statement.

        Mr. Comey. Sure.

        Mr. Gowdy. Is it possible to utter a false statement without it being lying?

        Mr. Comey. I can’t answer — that’s a philosophical question I can’t answer.

        Mr. Gowdy. No, I mean, if I said, “Hey, look, I hope you had a great day yesterday on Tuesday,” that’s demonstrably false.

        Mr. Comey. That’s an expression of opinion.

        Mr. Gowdy. No, it’s a fact that yesterday was —

        Mr. Comey. You hope I have a great day —

        Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, yesterday was not Tuesday

          1. The Chicago Tribune article that I linked casts a different light on what was said by Comey, and others, at different times.
            I pointed out some of the problems that can surface when there is no audio/ video recording of an interview with a suspect.
            Whether the FBI officially label Flynn as a “suspect” is immaterial; the FBI regarded Flynn as such in Jan. 2017.
            The long delay in completing and submitting the 302 Form might reflect some uncertainty on the part of the FBI investigators.

            1. The long delay in writing the 302 on Flynn’s initial interview most likely reflects the desire of the FBI agents to treat Flynn with kid gloves the same way they initially treated Gen, David Petraeus with kid gloves. Or it could reflect the need to uncover more information that might explain why Flynn would tell a completely unnecessary lie about a perfectly lawful act. Lying about a lawful act raises just as much suspicion as lying about an unlawful act raises. At the time of Flynn’s initial interview, the FBI had no clear idea why Flynn told the lie Flynn told. It was thoroughly inexplicable and, therefore, highly suspicious.

              P. S. I have not forgotten that your hermano and kemosabe, Paul C. Schulte, used to claim that the FBI “altered” the 302 supposedly at the behest of Mean Mister Mueller. Now you’re claiming that the FBI “delayed” the write-up on the 302. Tomorrow or the next day you will all be claiming that Flynn was an Obama holdover deep state spy/mole/agent provocateur planted in the Trump campaign for the purpose of . . . Ten Rapt Men.

              1. L4D,
                Of course, no law enforcement agency would ever testify inaccurately, or write up an inaccurate report bolster their case or cover their asses.
                There is evidently no recording of the FBI-Flynn interview.
                Flynn did not have a lawyer present; perhaps he felt that he didn’t need one.
                There did not appear to be an neutral parties that witnessed the interview.
                Then there is the curious delay in writing up the 302, which is supposed to be a contemporaneous account of the interview.
                If you are ever arrested ( or the next time you’re arrested), don’t worry if they don’t record your interrogation.
                Don’t have a lawyer present, and don”t worry if the police account differs from what actually happened in the interview.
                Nothing could possibly go wrong in that scenario, and it can all be explained away by concluding that they’re treating you with kid gloves.

                1. So Flynn pled guilty to making true statements? Because Mueller had no incriminating evidence against Flynn on any other potential charges besides making true statements? Flynn and his lawyer held five proffer sessions with Mueller before Flynn pled guilty to making true statements? Because Mueller wasn’t trading up for a bigger fish than Flynn? And that’s why Mueller is recommending zero jail time for the biggest fish in Mueller’s bucket thus far? Am I expected seriously to entertain the prospective truth of any of the foregoing suppositions?

                2. According to several sources, Gen. Flynn was assured by the FBI that he didn’t need a lawyer, and it was an informal inquiry.

                  When I was a police officer, there was this thing called a “Miranda warning” we had to read to anyone we suspected of having broken the law. If we didn’t read them this warning and there was no other corroboration of the offense, nothing the suspect said could be used in evidence (except in certain circumstances).

                  1. Does Officer Friendly imagine that a Miranda warning to Flynn after the fact of Flynn’s lying to Vice-President Pence and other senior members of the Trump transition team would have prevented Flynn from lying to Vice-President Pence and other senior members of the Trump transition team before Flynn lied to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian Ambassador to the United States about the election-meddling sanctions that the sitting President had imposed upon Russia just the day before Flynn held those discussions with Kislyak?

                    Maybe when the Russians tried to blackmail Flynn for lying to Vice-President Pence and other, Flynn’s lawyers could file a sentencing memo with Putin complaining most indignantly that Kislyak had not properly Mirandized Flynn before Flynn lied to Vice-President Pence

      2. Also excerpted from the video clip linked above:

        Mr. Gowdy. And, again — because I’m afraid I may have interrupted you, which I didn’t mean to do — your agents, it was relayed to you that your agents’ perspective on that interview with General Flynn was what? Because where I stopped you was, you said: He was lying. They knew he was lying, but he didn’t have the indicia of lying.

        Mr. Comey. Correct. All I was doing was answering your question, which I understood to be your question, about whether I had previously testified that he — the agents did not believe he was lying. I was trying to clarify. I think that reporting that you’ve seen is the product of a garble. What I recall telling the House Intelligence Committee is that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true. They didn’t see that here. It was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying.

        Mr. Gowdy. Would that be considered Brady material and hypothetically a subsequent prosecution for false statement?

        Mr. Comey. That’s too hypothetical for me. I mean, interesting law school question: Is the absence of incriminating evidence exculpatory evidence? But I can’t answer that question.

        1. DUH ! Comey what a jerk.

          1. Repeated for emphasis:



            [end excerpt]

            Since Judge Sullivan got the Brady material on Flynn long before Gowdy posed the question above to Comey, it’s probable that Gowdy is asking Comey for exculpatory evidence [Brady material] for a “hypothetically subsequent prosecution of [Comey] for a false statement based upon the following previous exchange between Gowdy and Comey also reapeated for emphasis:


            Mr. Comey. No.

            Mr. Gowdy. Have you ever testified differently?

            Mr. Comey. No.



            [end excerpt]

            Thusly did Matlock’s formula “absence of incriminating evidence + presumption of innocence = zero” applies to the probability of Comey being prosecuted for making a false statement to HPSCI. BTW, Gowdy is officially doubting that Flynn had any intent to deceive. That is, Gowdy doubts the mens rea for a successful prosecution of Flynn for the false statements to which Flynn pled guilty. IOW, Gowdy is literally conducting a moot court cross examination of Comey.

    1. You might want to rethink posting the he-he ha-ha ho-ho in your comments; it’s just a matter of time before They’re Coming to Take You Away if you continue.
      If they’ve already taken you away for that, or for other reasons, posts like that will delay your release.

        1. Did you know that Jared Kushner replaced Michael Cohen as Trump’s connection to the National Enquirer? Did you know that the publisher, David Pecker, told The Daily Beast that Kushner would talk on the phone with Pecker about “stories” that Kushner wanted the National Enquirer to publish? Did you know that one of the stories that Pecker published bore the headline “Trump Catches Russia’s Spy in the White House”? Did you know that the Russian spy at issue in that story was held to have been Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Did you know that that Flynn’s-a-Russian-spy story was published shortly before Flynn entered into his plea agreement with Mueller? Did you know that David Pecker is now a cooperating witness for the SDNY and the SCO?

            1. So the 302 that Judge Sullivan ordered the SCO to submit was NOT the 302 for Flynn’s initial interview on January 24th, 2017. The 302 that Judge Sullivan ordered the SCO to submit was for an Inspector General’s interview of Strzok on July 19th, 2017, that was drafted on July 20th, 2017, and finalized on August 22nf, 2017.

              Pay attention: NOT an FBI interview of Flynn; an IG interview of Strzok.

              Are you following that, you Bournemouth Garblers, you??? When are you people going to stop garbling everything??? Never??? Pshaw!!!

              1. Important correction: From the SCO filing in response to Judge Sullivan’s order to submit the Strzok interview 302 of Aug. 22nd, 2017:

                Strzok was interviewed on July 19, 2017, in relation to other matters, not as part of the investigation of the defendant or any investigation of Strzok’s conduct.

                [end excerpt]

                So the interview of Strzok was not related to the Inspector General’s investigation. Since Mueller was not informed of the emails between Strzok and Lisa Page until July 27th, 2017, leading to Strzok being removed from the SCO investigation the very next day, therefore, the interview with Strzok on July 19th, 2017, was presumably conducted by the SCO for some reason other than investigating Strzok’s conduct or the investigation of Flynn, for that matter. Nevertheless, the 302 at issue does refer to the initial interview of Flynn as well as two other investigations with which Strzok was involved. Curious.

            2. This necessarily means that there was no long delay writing up the 302 for Flynn’s initial interview. That necessarily means that Flynn’s lawyers were given the 302 for Flynn’s initial interview way back when Judge Sullivan ordered the Brady review. And that necessarily means that Flynn’s lawyers do NOT want the 302 for Flynn’s initial interview “unsealed” any more than the SCO wants that 302 unsealed. And that means that the 302 for Flynn’s initial interview does not make Flynn look good nor is there anything exculpatory for Flynn in that 302.

              You people! You people!!! YOU PEOPLE!!! Heads as thick and dense and hard as hockey pucks are . . . Puck-Kophs!!!

              1. It means that Judge Sullivan wants the SCO to deliver to HIM ( Judge Sullivan, not Flynn or Flynn’s lawyers) all material related to Flynn’s questioning, including the 302s.
                There are published reports that the 302 for the Jan. 2017 interrogation of Flynn was not done until August 2017.
                L4B’s nearby columns state that said delay did not exist, if I am interpreting her Dianese correctly.
                And I always believe what Diane writes in her columns 😉😏😄over any media account.
                This is a rewrite of a previous comment that I wrote, but it would not post.

                1. The Bournemouth Garbler said, “There are published reports [based on garbles from HPSCI] that the 302 for the Jan. 2017 interrogation of Flynn was not done until August 2017 [based on garbles from Flynn’s lawyers requesting the 302 on the interrogation of Strzok].

                  Bullwinkle is a . . . Not Flynn’s “sealed” 302; Strzok’s “unsealed” 302–the only 302 that makes Flynn look a tiny little bit better than Flynn actually is.

                  The “sealed” 302 was given to Sullivan and Flynn’s lawyers in keeping with Sullivan’s Brady review order long ago. The fact that that 302 is still sealed means that that 302 is not exculpatory for Flynn. The fact that that non-exculpatory 302 is still sealed DOES NOT mean that Flynn’s Jan. 2017 interview 302 was not written up until August of 2017 when the other 302 on the IG interview of Strzok was finalized.

      1. Excerpted from an article at the Lawfare blog the link to which refuses to post hear at Res Ipsa Loquitur:

        If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.

        It reflects something else too: that Flynn is prepared to give Mueller substantial assistance in his investigation and that Mueller wants the assistance Flynn can provide. We are not going to speculate about what that assistance might be. But prosecutors do not give generous deals in major public integrity cases to big-fish defendants without good reason—and in normal circumstances, the national security adviser to the president is a very big fish for a prosecutor. The good reason in this case necessarily involves the testimony Flynn has proffered to the special counsel’s staff. The information in that proffer is not in any of the documents released Friday, and it may not even be related to the information in those documents. Prosecutors tend to trade up. That is, for Mueller to give Flynn a deal of this sort, the prosecutor must believe he is building a case against a bigger fish still.

      2. A reminder of the timeline also excerpted from the Lawfare blog article that won’t link here:

        Flynn was sworn in as national security adviser on Jan. 22, 2017, and the FBI interviewed him about his exchanges with Kislyak only two days later, on Jan. 24. It was in that interview that he denied the conversations in December. Later that week, on Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Yates, reportedly warned the White House counsel that Flynn had lied about his contact with Kislyak. On Jan. 27, Yates and McGahn had another meeting, after which (according to then-press secretary Sean Spicer) McGahn determined that Flynn had not broken any laws. The same day, Trump reportedly sat down for dinner with then-FBI Director Comey and asked for a pledge of loyalty.

      3. One last excerpt from the Lawfare article of December 1st, 2017, entitled “The Flynn Plea: A Quick And Dirty Analysis”:

        At the time, the big question was whether Putin was “smart” to not retaliate because he somehow knew the sanctions wouldn’t remain in place. We now know the reality: Flynn had given the Russian government reason to believe that. The only reasonable way to describe that conduct, both now and at the time, is that Flynn—apparently at the direction of more senior Trump officials—was working in conjunction with the government of Russia against American interests as defined by the U.S. president (and supported by congressional Republicans and Democrats) at the time.

        [end excerpt]

        The article at issue was published the same day that the Flynn Plea Agreement was announced–December 1st, 2017–roughly ten months after the initial FBI interview with Flynn on January 24th, 2017. If it is, as so many of you insist, perfectly lawful for the transition team of the President-Elect who has not yet taken the oath of office and whose principle officers have not yet been nominated, let alone confirmed by The Senate, to work in conjunction with the government of Russia against American interests as defined by the U.S. President and supported by Congressional Republicans and Democrats, then why has Trump asserted executive privilege over the decisions he and his transition team made before Trump was sworn in and before any of his principle officers had been confirmed by The Senate?

        1. I think that last sentence of L4B’s comment fell short of 100 words, but I’m still waiting for the Cliff Notes and the English translation rather than trying to plow through all of the verbiage stacked up here.

          1. President-Elect + Transition does not = Executive privilege, but does = cover up of probably crimes committed during the transition.

  6. Donald Trump is modern day Al Capone/Boogeyman in eyes of Deep State/Political Elites/Left Media and they have collectively rationalized that they are morally duty-bound to get him by any means.

    1. RATHER it is a well known and much despised FBI trap that can be used on regular people as well as high profile figures such as Flynn. So I would say to be a little more precise, that he was a Deep State target, ensnared with a quotidian FBI trick.



    One of Maria Butina’s main targets was the NRA — a group she identified in a 2015 memo as an organization that “had influence over” the Republican Party, according to court filings. Her relationships with the group, she wrote, could be used as the groundwork for an unofficial channel of communication to the next presidential administration.


    Butina and Alexander Torshin, a former Russian government official who helped direct her activities, then used their NRA connections to get access to GOP presidential candidates, according to court filings.

    The NRA’s interactions with Butina and Torshin came as the group embarked on an unprecedented spending spree to help elect Donald Trump president.


    Two years later, the group’s standing appears to have shifted amid robust challenges from student activists, lawmakers and, most recently, an anti-gun-violence campaign led by medical professionals.

    The group’s spending on federal races in 2018 plummeted to roughly $9 million. In a rare move, some Republican candidates running in competitive, suburban House districts returned or did not deposit donations from the NRA.

    Election-related spending reflects just one aspect of the NRA’s political influence, and the group remains an active lobbying and grass-roots force.

    1. THE ABOVE ARTICLE was edited from: “Russian Agent’s Guilty Plea Intensifies Spotlight On Relationship With NRA”

      This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    2. I used to be in the NRA years ago and I like Simonov & Kalash rifles. And I have a few Russian friends. Must i register for FARA now too? Spasiba tovarisch! 76239

  8. Professor Turley – your post mentions a Miranda warning.

    In the corporate context, someone in Flynn’s position is customarily given an Upjohn warning.

    Is there something similar in the government context? A quick Google search turns up something called a Garrity warning. Would this apply to Flynn? Something similar?

    Anyone else on the thread have experience in the government investigation context who could weigh in?

  9. Just curious, Billy Bulger( Whitey’s brother) was the senate president in Massachusetts for many years. He was an extremely powerful man in Massachusetts. One state trooper had a disagreement with him and he was moved from Boston to the western end of the state. He was a man who also seek revenge if you crossed him. You did not want to cross Billy Bulger.

  10. Off Topic

    Are Tiger Woods’ and all other NDA’s criminal acts as is claimed regarding President Trump’s NDA’s?

    If President Trump’s NDA’s are illegal, aren’t all other NDA’s illegal?

    Was it a criminal act for candidate Trump to get a haircut to make himself look better during a campaign?

  11. Okay. We’re just raising questions here. If you believe Mueller and Comey are such integrity-filled straight-arrows, then what are your thoughts about the Scooter Libby case? Verify the facts yourself.

    Here’s an excerpt from Gohmert’s report linked in the article:

    “The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called apolitical, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything. Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver.

    Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-ComeySpecial Counsel distinctive modus-operandi.

    Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice,perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report in 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading:”


            1. http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/24/a_lingering_question_for_the_fbis_director/?page=1

              A lingering question for the FBI’s director
              By Kevin Cullen
              Globe Columnist July 24, 2011
              Back in 1976, as we were celebrating the 200th birthday of this republic, Congress passed a law limiting the
              tenure of the FBI director to 10 years.
              This was done because, after the scandalous findings of the Church Commission, Congress realized that
              letting J. Edgar Hoover serve as director of the bureau from its founding in 1935 until his death in 1972 had
              only confirmed Lord Acton’s maxim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
              Hoover was a power unto himself, and the FBI that was created very much in his image sometimes acted
              more like the secret police of the totalitarian regimes Hoover regularly denounced: running rogue wiretaps,
              harassing political dissidents, using illegal means to collect evidence. Hoover’s FBI wasn’t accountable; it
              was untouchable.
              So now, just weeks after the FBI’s worst nightmare, a gangster and FBI informant by the name of Whitey
              Bulger came strolling back into town, Congress is about to ignore its own wisdom and let Bob Mueller, the
              FBI director and former US Attorney in Boston, stay on an extra two years.
              President Obama says he needs Mueller to stay because there’s been so much turnover in the national
              security teams at the CIA and Pentagon, and that’s all well and good.
              Mueller has wide, bipartisan support in Congress. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Bob Mueller and
              he’s no J. Edgar Hoover, though the folks at the ACLU might take exception to that.
              The recent FBI targeting of antiwar and labor activists in the Midwest has a disturbing echo of the days
              when the bureau considered Martin Luther King Jr. a sinister threat to national security.
              But Mueller’s a Marine veteran and tough enough to take a question or two before Congress gives the
              president what he wants, and Mike Albano is just the guy to ask it: What did you know about Whitey
              Bulger, and when did you know it?
              Back in the 1980s, when he was serving on the Massachusetts parole board, Albano expressed some
              sympathy for a group of men who had always maintained they had been framed for the 1965 gangland
              murder of a hoodlum named Teddy Deegan in Chelsea. The FBI had been instrumental in seeing that the
              men – Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo, Joe Salvati, and Louis Greco – were convicted. The FBI contended
              that Tameleo was the consigliere of the Mafia in Boston, and that Limone was a Mafia leader. There is no
              question that both men were bad actors, and Mafia players, but the evidence showed that neither had
              anything to do Deegan’s murder.
              So in 1983, after Albano indicated he might vote to release Limone, he got a visit from a pair of FBI agents
              named John Connolly and John Morris. They told Albano that the men convicted of Deegan’s murder were
              bad guys, made guys.
              “They told me that if I wanted to stay in public life, I shouldn’t vote to release a guy like Limone,’’ Albano
              said. “They intimidated me.’’
              Turns out that Connolly was Whitey Bulger’s corrupt handler and Morris was Connolly’s corrupt
              supervisor. When they weren’t pocketing bribes from Bulger, they were helping him murder potential
              witnesses who were poised to expose the FBI’s sordid, Faustian deal with the rat named Whitey Bulger.
              Albano was messing with the FBI’s national policy of going after the Mafia and the Mafia alone. That was
              the justification the FBI gave for making deals with devils like Whitey Bulger and his partner in crime,
              Stevie Flemmi. They were supposedly giving up their pals in the Mafia. The problem with the FBI’s national
              policy is that it didn’t take into account that the most vicious, murderous gangsters in Boston were Whitey
              Bulger and Stevie Flemmi.
              After Albano was elected mayor of Springfield in 1995, he soon found the FBI hot on his tail, investigating
              his administration for corruption. The FBI took down several people in his administration, and Albano is
              convinced that the FBI wasn’t interested in public integrity as much as in publicly humiliating him because
              he dared to defy them.
              In 2001, the four men convicted of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated. Turned out the FBI let them
              take the rap to protect one of their informants, a killer named Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, who just
              happened to be the brother of their other rat, Stevie Flemmi. Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got
              stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died
              in prison.
              first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole
              “Before he gets that extension,’’ Mike Albano said, “somebody in the Senate or House needs to ask him why
              the US Attorney’s office he led let the FBI protect Whitey Bulger.’’
              I called FBI headquarters in Washington and tried to do just that. The nice lady who answered suggested I
              talk to one of the FBI’s “public affairs specialists.’’ But my call was not returned.
              Four years ago, when questioned about the FBI’s corruption in Boston, Mueller told the Globe, “I think the
              public should recognize that what happened, happened years ago.’’
              That’s true. And we still don’t know what really happened.

                1. Bulger was a long time player we hear, it has me wondering how many video recordings Bulger left as a gift to Mulear & his buddies?

                  1. If I was Whitey bulger’s lawyer or family I would not play any games with Meuller and the Deep State. It’s not worth winding up dead. And yet they have now filed a lawsuit I read. Crazy. Let it go!




    Butina openly advocated Russia-friendly policies and closer connections between her homeland and the United States in speeches and during her time at American University in Washington, where she earned a master’s degree. Her cellphone case featured a picture of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia riding a horse shirtless. She frequented Russia House, an upscale Washington bar where Russian hockey stars like Alexander Ovechkin of the Washington Capitals enjoy vodka and caviar.

    Ms. Butina similarly made little effort to hide her knack for getting close to powerful older men. She posed for pictures with prominent Republicans, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other former presidential candidates. She even managed to get a photo with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, whom she met at a 2016 dinner hosted by the N.R.A. in Louisville, Ky.

    She also made no secret of her desire to help broker a secret meeting with Donald J. Trump, then a candidate, and Mr. Putin during the 2016 election.

    Ms. Butina’s arrest in July stemmed from what officials described as a broader counterintelligence investigation by the Justice Department and the F.B.I. that predated the 2016 election and is separate from the work being done by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

    The investigation has focused on Aleksandr P. Torshin, a Russian government official who worked closely with Ms. Butina for years. Mr. Torshin is close to Christian conservatives in Russia and has been attending N.R.A. conventions in the United States since 2011.

    Beginning in 2015, prosecutors said in the plea deal, Ms. Butina “agreed and conspired” with Mr. Torshin and Mr. Erickson — identified in court papers as the “Russian Official” and “U.S. Person 1” — to infiltrate the Republican Party and the N.R.A. and to promote Russia-friendly policies on behalf of the Kremlin. Mr. Torshin directed Ms. Butina’s work, they said, and Mr. Erickson helped her with what she called her “Diplomacy Project.”

    They helped her organize trips to Moscow for prominent N.R.A. members, and helped her set up meetings for a Russian delegation to the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017.

    Edited from: “Maria Butina Pleads Guilty To Role In Russian Efforts To Influence Conservatives”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. basically the FBI is punishing a Russian for coming here and talking to Americans about politics. Last time I checked foreigners are allowed to come here and talk about politics. They do it all the time. the universities are filled with foreigners talking their heads off about politics. this is another phony persecution.

    1. that’s called diplomacy. and it’s appropriate for high level officials.

      Ever heard of Erik Prince? He’s still in the business. Still out there even after the US used and abused him. Oh, wait, Meuller’s supposedly persecuting him for talking to Russians too. Well. Flynn note to self: “Academi” hiring?

      Hey Fish head: I know a few Russians. We have even talked about politics! Maybe I am a foreign agent too!?

      …..this episode of ETHNIC HATE AGAINST RUSSIANS is the most telling hypocrisy i have seen from Democrats any time within recent memory. Despicable!

      1. Here in America we have exactly one President at a time–not two at a time. The President-Elect cannot conduct the foreign policy of the United States until he or she has sworn The Oath of Office for The President of the United States that was literally written into The Constitution of the United States for the express purpose of making The Chief Executive Officer subordinate to The Constitution of the United States of America.

        The President-Elect’s presumptive nominee for National Security Adviser is not yet a principle officer of the Executive branch because that office requires confirmation by The United States Senate in keeping with the advise and consent clause of The U. S. Constitution. Senate confirmation for the actual President’s actual nominee for NSA requires a hearing in which The Senate advises both the actual nominee for NSA and the actual President who nominated that nominee after that President had sworn The Oath of Office for The POTUS and before The Senate grants its consent in the act of confirming the President’s appointment to that post.

        Flynn had just such a hearing before Flynn was confirmed. Did Flynn tell The U. S. Senate that Flynn had discussed the election-meddling sanctions against Russia with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, the day after those election meddling sanctions were imposed by executive order of the actual Chief Executive Officer of the United States? Did The U. S. Senate advise Flynn and Trump that discussing the election-meddling sanctions with the Russian Ambassador before having taken The Oath of Office and before having been confirmed by The Senate was a perfectly lawful act of diplomacy? Well . . . Did they, Punk???

        1. From Wikipedia for the overly eager persnickety sticklers:

          The National Security Advisor is appointed by the President and does not require confirmation by the Senate, but an appointment of a three or four-star general to the role requires Senate reconfirmation of military rank.

          [end excerpt]

          So how many stars does a Lieutenant General such as Michael T. Flynn have? If it is less than three stars, then Flynn did not require Senate reconfirmation of his military rank to be appointed National Security Advisor.

          1. According to the Department of Defense a Lieutenant General in the U. S. Army wears three stars for rank insignia. Therefore Flynn required Senate reconfirmation of his military rank in order to be appointed as Trump’s National Security Advisor. So what did Flynn tell the Senate? And what did Flynn withhold from the Senate?

      2. I ask because Sergei Kislyak sure as hell knew that Flynn had discussed the election-meddling sanctions with Sergei Kislyak before Trump had taken The Oath of Office and before Flynn had been confirmed by The Senate as Trump’s NSA. And that necessarily means that until Trump fired Flynn we the people of The United States had a National Security Adviser who was vulnerable to blackmail at the hands of The Russian Federation. And that’s only one of the many reasons that it is vital to the national security of the United States to have one, and only one, POTUS at a time, who has been duly sworn-in as POTUS, before that POTUS dispatches the unregistered agent of a foreign government to conduct the foreign policy of the United States with yet another foreign power exactly contrary to the Chief Executive decision of the one and only sitting President who had made that decision with the advise and the consent and the support of The Senate.

        Go back to Rome, Lucius Sergius Catilina.

          1. There can be a numerous causes for the type of failure mentioned that is mentioned in the brief video clip.
            In these threads, those reasons include the Dianese language and the futility of trying to respond to the filibusters written in that language.

            1. A failure to communicate is an extremely weasel-like euphemism for deliberately concealing from The United States Senate the fact that an unconfirmed nominee and unregistered agent of a foreign power worked to undermine the foreign policy of The United States of America during discussions with The Ambassador of yet another foreign power, the latter of which had just so happened to have interfered in the very election that would make it possible in the first place for that unregistered agent of a foreign power to be nominated and confirmed to the post of National Security Adviser for the Trump administration once Trump had taken The Oath of Office, but not before that inaugural event; which is, of course, exactly when Flynn held discussions with Kislyak about the election-meddling sanctions against Russia–before Trump had taken The Oath of Office for POTUS and while Obama was still the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who had imposed the election-meddling sanctions on Russia that Flynn was undermining.

              Maybe Flynn failed to communicate to Obama that Trump fully intended to undo the election-meddling sanctions that Obama imposed upon Russia the day before Flynn started undermining those election-meddling sanctions during his discussions with Kislyak. Maybe Trump told Flynn not to ask for permission from the Chief Executive Officer of the United States to undermine the election-meddling sanctions that that President had imposed upon Russia just the day before.

              1. The first sentence in the above post appears to contain 170 words depending upon the effects of irregular astigmatism upon the enumeration.

Comments are closed.