Things Might Be Changing in the Michael Flynn “Lying” Case


There is a possibility that a new judge in the Michael Flynn lying case will throw out the plea deal. Flynn copped to the plea in exchange for cooperation in the crazy nondescript Mueller probe.

The problem with the case is that Agent Stzrok, certainly not an unbiased agent, believed Flynn was NOT lying. He described him as not able to remember and confused. That all changed, however, when along came the Mueller witch hunters. Suddenly, Flynn was a liar because Mueller’s hunters said so.

The “lie” is Flynn’s denial of having communicated with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in December 2016

The administration and others have observed that there is nothing inappropriate or even unusual about an incoming national security adviser talking to the representatives from foreign governments.

Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions but there was no “collusion” [which isn’t even illegal].

The Washington Examiner‘s Byron York pointed out an unusual sequence of events in Flynn’s case following his guilty plea last month that has not received widespread media coverage.

Days after the pleas were accepted, the judge in the case recused himself.

The court assigned Judge Emmet Sullivan to the case and he is one who follows the Constitution, making him an outlier these days.

Judge Recused Himself In Lying Case

It is also interesting to note that the judge who recused himself, Judge Contreras is a FISA court judge.

Contreras sits on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) and has done so since 2016. It is the same court that approved the investigation and unmasking of Trump campaign staff.

That could be the conflict of interest.

Every judge on the FISA court was appointed during Obama’s presidency. Seven of the judges will go into 2020 and the rest go to 2021.

Contreras possibly has ties to the case through FISA.

At least he recused himself. More than we can say for all the other corrupt people in the FBI and DoJ.

Any rulings Contreras made in Flynn’s case should be thrown out if there is a conflict with the FISA rulings in the case. Speculation isn’t productive, but one has to wonder why, if there is a conflict of interest, would he wait for about a week to recuse?

New Judge Is Familiar With Obama Admin Corruption

Judge Sullivan was involved in other cases involving Obama administration corruption, including the IRS-Lois Lerner debacle. He also presided over the corruption case of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The conviction cost Stevens the 2008 election and, as it turned out, the Justice Department had withheld exculpatory evidence. His conviction was set aside in 2009.

At the time, Sullivan said, “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”

The judge “was furious that the federal government had repeatedly withheld evidence from the Stevens defense and has been known ever since as a judge who is a stickler for making sure defendants are allowed access to all the evidence they are entitled to,” Byron York wrote.

Since Judge Sullivan took over the Flynn case last December, he ordered Mueller’s witch hunters to produce all discoverable evidence.

A drawback in Flynn’s case is that his carefully-drawn plea agreement deprives him of the right to “further discovery or disclosures” from the witch hunters. Nevertheless, it might be possible to overturn the agreement.

“It certainly appears that Sullivan’s order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt,” wrote National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, reported.

If so, Flynn could have this agreement overturned.

McCarthy wonders if Flynn’s team knew that Srzok thought he was telling the truth. He also noted the possible conflict in the bogus FISA warrant case. Perhaps he is one of the judges who signed off on one of the four FISA warrants [based on a fake dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Wasserman-Schultz DNC].

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments