Posted on 01/25/2018 10:17:45 AM PST by Starman417
On January 24, 2017 Michael Flynn was interviewed by the FBI. He was a victim of entrapment.
Two people familiar with the matter said Trump was unaware that Flynn had spoken with the FBI until two days after the interview took place. An attorney for Flynn did not respond to a request for comment on this story.He didn't bring a lawyer, which made the job of inducing Flynn to incriminate himself a cinch. The motivation to do so by at least one of the interviewers was more than apparent.A brief phone call from the office of Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, to a scheduler for Flynn on Jan. 24 set the interview in motion, according to people familiar with the matter. The scheduler was told the FBI wanted to speak with Flynn later that day, these people said, and the meeting was placed on Flynn’s schedule. The scheduler didn't ask the reason for the meeting, and the FBI didn't volunteer it, one person familiar with the matter said.
Later that day, two FBI agents arrived at the White House to speak with Flynn. A lawyer for the National Security Council typically would be informed of such a meeting and be present for it, one person familiar with the procedures said. But that didn't happen in this instance, and Flynn didn't include his own personal lawyer, two people said. He met with the two federal agents alone, according to these people.
"No one knew that any of this was happening," said another senior White House official who was there at the time.
"Apparently it was not clear to Flynn that this was about his personal conduct," another White House official said. "So he didn't think of bringing his own lawyer."
The interview was kept secret for two days.On December 1, 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. Flynn was charged with lying about doing something that was entirely legal.
The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation."He may have believed they were criminal"The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.
Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.
Indeed. And given the interviewer, it would shock no one to learn that the agent led Flynn believe it was criminal. The interviewer had "unfinished business" and needed to "protect the country" from Donald Trump with an "insurance policy."
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Flynn’s a spook. He lied purposefully about a non-crime because he needed to out Strzok. Strzok was the keystone that will cause the whole arc of this upper echelon of the FBI to some crashing down.
DJT must pardon when Strzk is indicted
yes
If Flynn is a suspect and is being questioned by law enforcement, don't they have an obligation to apprise him of his rights before questioning him? Wouldn't that have alerted him to get his lawyers first?
-PJ
There is ample opportunity, however, for the investigators to generate perjury or obstruction of justice charges based on their prejudices regarding the responses, not the law.
The whole program worked on Nixon. It involves to things:
An incredibly hostile media constantly drumming the criminality and the mental and moral fitness of the president and
A prosecutor who has no assigned limits, no ethics and a team of accomplices hostile to the intended target.
The intent of the whole program is to wear the public down to the point where they just want the issue to go away usually to the detriment of the targeted individual.
Elaborate please
Trump is smart. Adm Rogers is smart. I imagine that they may have actually sat down and said to one another:
"Strzok is the keystone, but how do we get him? Hey, listen, if we can maneuver him into a conversation with Flynn, then Flynn could lie about a non-crime. That might be enough to get wheels turning that could really put everything in motion. If we can do that, we would really be in a great position. The only question is, Would Flynn be willing to play along? This might be pretty tough on him. But, you know, he's a spook and a patriot. He knows how this stuff goes sometimes. I'll ask him and I think he'll say yes. Then, all we need is to get Strzok to swing by and ask Flynn a few questions. The FBI will fall right into that trap."
Not sure that’s actually “entrapment” however.....
Who knew that the Obama Justice Department would still be running things a year after the election?
The amazing this is that all this info, if true, will not only vindicate Manafort and Gates, but probably get all their legal fees paid and then some as they have a civil suit pending against Mueller.
>How could an “interview” of this kind even happen without Flynn being Mirandized?
Miranda law only applies to those place under arrest. An FBI interview is different.
>If Flynn is a suspect and is being questioned by law enforcement, don’t they have an obligation to apprise him of his rights before questioning him? Wouldn’t that have alerted him to get his lawyers first?
No, and frankly FBI don’t like lawyers to be present and forbid recording. They generate a 302, which is the agent’s impression of what was said during the exchange, and is perjury fuel. Flynn clearly knew all this and Strzok took it too far.
The way you phrased that makes it sound as if you want Strozk pardoned.
I think you have got the cart before the horse. The "establishment" (wealthy power brokers from New York/Washington DC) runs things. Obama was their stupid little puppet that would enact their agenda, and they are still running the Justice Department because they have always been running the Justice Department.
Well, at least since 1861.
That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. It’s preposterous for someone to plead guilty to a crime related to an FBI interview where the subject of the interview was never read his Miranda rights. It would be such an open-and-shut case to be laughed out of court.
Good points, and that is exactly what happened to Nixon and what they aim to do with Trump. Trump is his own enemy here. He cannot keep quiet. His mouth will write some check in that “interview” that his ass will not be able to cover. The recent bit about trying to get the CIA to intercede with the FBI is exactly one of the points in the Nixon matter.
If I were advising him, I would look over the supposed list of areas and at the outset of the interview say these are the items you have listed to which I will respond: There was no collusion. Collusion by itself is not a crime. Therefore, the inquiry is a sham. As far as obstruction goes, it is my constitution duty, just like with pardons, to remove an executive branch person for any reason. So, two fold, the inquiry has no basis in law to begin with and second, I did my constitutional duty. Have a good day and GFY. Any subpeona you may provide for testimony will be contested by my attorney so I am not appearing before the SC feels it is lawful. If I do appear, since it is a criminal GJ, I will envoke my 5th amendment privilege and GFY yourself again. Have a good day, nice meeting you. I have a nation to run. Oh, inasmuch as I believe this whole sham is a interfering with the effective operation of government you will be arrested as soon as we leave this room and be charged with a conspiracy to defeat the lawful operation of government.
According to Wikipedia:
The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda warnings, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Suspects in "custody" who are about to be interrogated must be properly advised of their Miranda rights...
Clearly from the benefit of hindsight, the interview was an interrogation. The question is whether the "meeting" was the equivalent of "deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest."
Flynn was not "taken downtown," to use TV vernacular, but the FBI showed up at his office, ostensibly with the intent to not leave without having conducted the interrogation. If Flynn did not have the opportunity to avoid the interview, wasn't he essentially deprived of freedom to avoid the FBI?
I know we're not talking about beat cops picking up an unsuspecting "perp" off the streets, but that doesn't mean that Flynn has no rights at all.
-PJ
I guess it’s out there and I missed it, but just how long have these bozos...McCabe, Strzok, Rosenstein, worked in the FBI.
God knows how much more damage they may have caused. What about past cases of injustice, unless they were hired in 2009 when everything became an injustice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.