- Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:00 am
#100236
And then we raised the question, was Flynn’s lawyer told? In other words, the FBI agent who happened to be Peter Strzok did the interview, thought there was no lying on the part of the Flynn, that’s exculpatory evidence, if you will, or exculpatory conclusion. Did they share that with Flynn’s lawyer? Obviously not. Because if they had shared with Flynn’s lawyer that the FBI didn’t think Flynn lied, then why would Flynn cop a plea to lying?
Well, there has been a major development. The judge in the case who accepted the original plea was removed. And that’s the correct — well, let me backtrack. The judge left the case two days after Flynn entered the guilty plea. And there has been speculation that the judge was removed because it has been learned that Flynn was not told that nobody thought he lied. So Mueller may have gotten a guilty plea out of Flynn when Flynn didn’t lie to anybody in their opinion.
Well, here’s the update, and it’s from the Federalist. It’s written by Margot Cleveland: “How A Michael Flynn Plea Reversal Could Uncover Federal Corruption — On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works. Just a week ago, and thus before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys ‘any exculpatory evidence –‘”
