More Insight Into The Flynn Case
Fox's Ed Henry interviewed a former US Attorney, Brett Tolman, regarding the Flynn case and the Russia Hoax in general. You can find a portion of the interview and some of Tolman's remarks here: Michael Flynn's claim against FBI is 'chilling' . What I want to do here is to point out those remarks that show the importance of predication, and how that lead to further investigation of the investigators, as well as the prosecutors:
A defense claim that FBI agents manipulated official records, leading to Michael Flynn being charged with lying to investigators, is "chilling," former Utah U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman said Saturday.
The former national security adviser's legal team filed an explosive motion Thursday, alleging that FBI agents manipulated records of Flynn’s 2017 interview.
This comes as U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends: Weekend," Tolman told host Ed Henry that what's interesting about Flynn's conviction is that the government "has to prove that it was knowingly and willfully a misrepresentation by Flynn."
"So, now what you have are allegations that may suggest this couldn't have been knowingly and it couldn't have been willfully if it was staged or if there was manipulation," Tolman said.
"How was it willful if he thinks he's having a conversation that is not an interview with a federal agency?" he asked.
Just yesterday, in The Real Key In The New Flynn Revelations , I linked four of my past discussions of these issues. The problem for the government is much worse than Tolman presents it--even though he speaks in fairly strong terms. Sidney Powell hasn't simply made "allegations". She has, in fact, presented compelling documentary evidence that investigators and prosecutors--the FBI and DoJ at their highest levels--conspired as a group to frame Flynn, an innocent man, even though they knew beforehand that he had done nothing wrong. So, not only was the interview of Flynn conducted in such a way that it was impossible for Flynn to have violated the False Statements statute (1001)--as Tolman convincingly argues--but the FBI had no grounds for investigating or even for simply interviewing Flynn in an official capacity at all . They then used the targeting of Flynn's son to coerce Flynn into a plea to a charge that they knew he was innocent of, and compounded this by altering and even fabricating the evidence. This is a conspiracy to deprive Flynn of his civil rights. It's criminal misconduct that violates more statutes than I can cite right now. And it all rests on the lack of predication.
In the past the way I've put this is to say that Setting False Statement Traps Is Not Official FBI Business. Here are those links to past posts on the subject:
Russia Hysteria, False Statements, And The Michael Flynn Affair