https://unrollthread.com/t/1261447227127599106 A readable Thread by @JohnWHuber Says Flynn’s original FD-302 is so impor Undercover Huber Flynn’s original FD-302 is so important, the Special Counsel had to leak a prosecution threat against Flynn’s son just to avoid turning it over to his original lawyers Covington THREAD Wed Nov 1, 2017: Flynn’s original lawyers Covington ask for a copy of his FD-302: “We don’t think he has committed a felony offense” Fri Nov 3, 2017: Covington ask for the FD-302 AGAIN: “We don’t think there’s a FARA violation. We don’t think he made false statements” The Special Counsel refused to turn over Flynn’s original FD-302 both those times. Instead, they schedule a follow up conference call with Covington for the following week and subtly threaten Covington that they might be a fact witness against Flynn for preparing his FARA filings Flynn hasnt pled guilty to anything at this point. His lawyers are adamant he’s *innocent*. And the SCO won’t even turn over the edited FD-302, never mind the original one, for them to look at The SCO claimed they couldn’t turn over the FD-302 because it would “reveal” parts of their overall Russia interference investigation. But even the edited version of the Jan 24, 2017 interview shows Flynn wasn’t asked about Russian interference or anything remotely like Collusion And we now know that the FBI itself wanted to close its Crossfire Razor investigation of Flynn for potential links to Russian interference long before that Jan 24, 2017 interview And that investigation of Flynn should never have been opened in the first place, given its laughably weak predicate lacking any articulable factual basis for believing he could have been colluding or conspiring with Russia We also now know that the Dec 29 Flynn-Kislyak call changed nothing with regards to any Collusion. And the FBI never opened a Logan Act criminal probe (which would also have been ridiculous) And in the Mueller report, the SCO itself admits Flynn merely asked Russia not to “escalate” in response to Obama’s sanctions or only respond “reciprocally”. There’s nothing wrong with that. What should he have said, go ahead nuclear armed Russia, please escalate? So the SCO wouldn’t be “revealing” anything legitimate about its Russian interference investigation by turning over Flynn’s FD-302 - any of them, even the heavily edited versions filed weeks after the interview Of course, what turning over the 302 would have really revealed is likely a document stating that the agents didn’t believe Flynn was lying, and metadata proving that it went through weeks of editing and polishing in violation of FBI policies If even Covington (never mind @SidneyPowell1) got their hands on any version of the 302, given their adamant position that Flynn was “innocent”, Flynn almost certainly would have fought the charges vigorously And if the SCO tried to indict Flynn anyway, that would have meant discovery, pre-trial depositions etc. Given what we now know 2.5 years later, that would have blown a gaping hole in the SCO’s case So back to Fri Nov 3, 2017. The SCO has been asked for the 302, twice. White shoe Covington say their guy is “innocent” of all charges. How do the SCO change the dynamic? They leak to the press that they’re going to charge his son with a felony unless he gives in and plead guilty Sun Nov 5, 2017: “Three sources” close to the Flynn investigation leak this to NBC news: “If the elder Flynn is willing to co-operate with investigators in order to help his son, two of sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences” In case @GenFlynn didn’t get this “message”, look at the photo ABC news use to highlight the story. Flynn with his son. “Three” sources “close to the investigation” leaked this, to Collusion/Fusion GPS friendly reporters. An investigation that at the time almost nobody knew about By the time Covington follow up with the SCO after this weekend of light reading of veiled threats for the Flynn family, they’ve already agreed to bring Flynn in for a “proffer” - a prelude to pleading guilty to the false statements offense This is despite Covington circulating in internal memos at the time talking points that “We are firmly of the view that he did not commit any felony offenses. There are no circumstances under which he would plea to a felony offense” Remember: Covington - not @SidneyPowell1 - are on record here REPEATEDLY saying their guy is *innocent*. They are “firmly” of this belief. And they’ve been representing him for months. This isn’t something they dreamed up after 5 minutes talking to the General The SCO turned over zero documents to Covington that would make them change their assessment of Flynn’s innocence. In fact, had the SCO turned *anything* over, it would have strengthened the view that Flynn could mount a strong defense against any false statement charge Examples: —Comey’s testimony that both agents didn’t think Flynn lied —302 - likely says the same thing —Closing EC for “Razor”, showing the FBI wanted to close its own case —Kislyak transcript —That no Logan Act EC existed opening a new case —Strzok/Page texts showing bias Any or all of those would blow a hole in *both* mandatory elements of the 1001 false statements charge - that any lie was “knowing” and “willful” (Flynn lied, deliberately) and “material” - i.e. could influence a genuine predicated FBI investigation The only thing that changed - the only thing - is that the SCO leaked to the press that they were deadly serious about going after Flynn’s son. And after the elder Flynn had racked up millions in legal bills himself, who can blame him for wanting to avoid that for his family too? So Flynn ended up pleading guilty, and he’s been on the hook ever since And the media once again played a crucial role in making it happen. That’s why much of the media can’t cover the Flynn case properly. They were willing and eager participants in his prosecution /ENDS UPDATE. So I had a few requests for the receipts and sources backing up this thread. Included below. References to “C&B” are to Covington & Burling and “SCO” to the Special Counsel’s Office (usually Brandon Van Grack). Pls look at the linked court exhibits for full context? Wed Nov 1, 2017 (1/2) C&B: “Would you be willing to give us the [FD]302?” SCO: “We’re not currently in a posture where we’re providing that” C&B: “We don’t think [Flynn] has committed a felony offense” (the “[SCO] made a note of this point”) Rosenstein’s appointment letter for Mueller calls out a specific DOJ Special Counsel regulation in section (b)(iii): 28 CFR § 600.4. This authorizes investigation of “obstruction of justice” Wed Nov 1, 2017 (2/2) SCO: “One of the charges we mentioned was false statements under FARA. Because C&B prepared the FARA registration, that would make you (Rob[ert Kelner, C&B]) a fact witness. It isn’t something we are considering...Let’s plan on talking on Tue [Nov 7, 2017]” Calling out this specific regulation is duplicative as Rosenstein identifies *all* the applicable Special Counsel regulations in section (d). So why mention this one specifically? Fri Nov 3, 2017 (1/3) C&B: “We don't think there's a FARA violation. We don't think [Flynn] made false statements [we] feel we have strong defenses across these issues” C&B: “We had also asked about seeing the 302. You said that you would think about it” Well, we now know (but didn’t at the time the appointment letter was released), that before writing this letter Rosenstein had been told by Andy McCabe that the FBI had opened an obstruction of justice case against President Trump (around May 10-12, 2017) Fri Nov 3, 2017 (2/3) C&B: “We would like to renew that request...We have not thought of the [White House] FBI interview as being a significant point of exposure. If we are wrong about that it would be clarifying to see why you think we'e wrong. That's why the 302 is important” That the FBI had already opened an obstruction case into Trump before the Special Counsel was appointed was also later confirmed in previously sealed testimony in court from Mueller’s top lawyer Michael Dreeben Fri Nov 3, 2017 (3/3) SCO: “The answer right now is not at this time in terms of sharing the 302 because it might reveal more about our investigation & other investigative priorities” “before we leave. I would still like to set a time on Tue [Nov 7] to talk [about a proffer]” That’s why Rosenstein added that specific reference to 28 CFR § 600.4. He wanted the SCO to be on safe legal ground investigating the president for obstruction of justice from day one Flynn sworn declaration to the court: “The [SCO] created sudden and intense time-pressure on me to plead guilty. On [Sat] Nov 4, 2017, I believe, my [C&B] attorney’s told my wife and me that the [SCO] wanted to conduct a proffer session with me” And that’s why President Trump is probably not under the last redacted portion of the scope memos - he doesn’t need to be. He was already in there. /ENDS Sun Nov 5, 2017. NBC News prints leak sourced to *three sources* close to the Flynn investigation Oh and I reported this nearly a year ago and clearly forgot it Undercover Huber · May 24, 2019 Replying to @JohnWHuber Oh and if it turns out that McCabe opened that obstruction investigation on May 10 2017, then the later excuse that the FBI did it because of what Trump said to Lester Holt is a lie, because that interview wasn't until May 11. Can someone ask Mueller this if he ever testifies? Undercover Huber@JohnWHuber It's also now obvious in retrospect that Rosenstein's appointment order letter to Mueller made specific reference to regulation 20 CFR 600.4 to cover obstruction of justice since it would have been easier just to say all the regulations applied to the Special Counsel 372 11:13 AM - May 24, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 159 people are talking about this “Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, who worked closely with his father, accompanied him during the campaign and briefly worked on the presidential transition, could be indicted separately or at the same time as his father, according to three sources familiar with the investigation…” ...”If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son, two of the sources said, it could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences” To recap, as late as Fri Nov 3, 2017, Covington are adamant Flynn is innocent & will NOT plead guilty They’ve asked for the 302 TWICE & the SCO won’t turn it over Then SCO subtly threaten C&B that they’d be a “fact witness” to the FARA charges And the NBC leak drops Sun 5 Nov Flynn: “[On Sun Nov 5, 2017] I agreed to do the proffer” https://t.co/c5oPEC6Ye6 (Note: I’ve implicitly connected Flynn’s agreement to a proffer to the NBC story in this thread, it’s not presented that way in Flynn’s declaration. Read & decide for yourself if it was a key factor) Mon Nov 6, 2017 (1/2) C&B talking points for Tue Nov 7 proffer call with SCO: “We do want to reiterate that we are firmly of the view that he did not commit any felony offenses. There are no circumstances under which he would plea to a felony offense” Mon Nov 6, 2017 (2/2), C&B talking points continued: ...”Regardless, even without any commitment by the SCO regarding charging decisions, [Flynn] is prepared to be interviewed [as part of a proffer]” C&B then agreed on the Tue Nov 7 call with the SCO to bring Flynn in for a proffer session, despite repeatedly acknowledging their view he was innocent of any charges & without receiving a copy of the FD-302 of the interview or the statements from the agents on whether Flynn lied The SCO finally turned over the (heavily Strzok/Page edited) Feb 15, 2017 302 on Nov 22, 2017 to C&B, AFTER Flynn had already held *four* proffer sessions with the SCO which gave him significant legal exposure (particularly day two, where Flynn alleges C&B coached his testimony) Flynn does not appear to have even been shown the FD-302 by C&B until Nov 30, 2017, the same day he signed the plea agreement admitting guilt. Even then, before signing the plea, he asked one last time if the FBI agents who conducted his interview really thought he “lied” to them Flynn alleges he was told the FBI agents “stand by their statements”, which he took to mean they did think he lied, which is false. Neither Strzok or Pientka felt Flynn showed any indicators of lying in the interview at the time and reported as much. *Flynn then signed the plea* Flynn: “I agreed to plead guilty...because of the intense pressure from the Special Counsel’s Office, which included a threat to indict my son Michael…C&B assured me [on Nov 30, 2017], that if I accepted the plea, my son Michael would be left in peace” By the way, that statement of Flynn’s saying he only pled guilty because of threats against his son was made under penalty of perjury. Funny how the same media parroting that “he pled guilty!” and “perjury!” keep wilfully ignoring that fact. And the media that gleefully reported these leaks threatening Flynn’s family have yet to report a single word of anything in this thread, despite 99% of it being based on publicly available court documents (plus 1% is only joining the dots & speculating on Gen Flynn’s motives) ??♂️ And if mainstream media outlets do ever report any of this, I can tell you *exactly* what the talking point will be, ahead of time: “The Special Counsel turned over the FD-302 *before* Flynn signed the plea agreement & pled guilty. Nothing to see here! Conspiracy theory!” ??♂️?
only someone with no common sense would think that Trump wasn’t serious about bringing charges to Obama
The phrase “gate” describes the scandal or cover-up. Since those in question are part of the Obama Administration, and most likely with him knowing, it’s perfectly reasonable to call it “ObamaGate.” Does that mean Obama or Biden will be indicted? I doubt it, since no sitting or even retired president or Vice President has ever been indicted.
