Has the Deep State finally been caught in the act?
New evidence suggests that General Michael Flynn may have been “set up” by corrupt FBI agents.
The formerly undisclosed documents also suggest that these same agents threatened Flynn’s son, forcing Flynn’s legal team to make a secret deal that resulted in his “guilty” plea.
Trending: Another Wrinkled Flag on RBG’s Casket
Talk about a bombshell!
On Friday, new documents were handed over to Michael Flynn’s legal team.
While these documents have not yet been made public, they are remored to include “exculpatory evidence” not previously disclosed in the case.
Many reliable reporters and commentators including Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo have announced that they’ve heard that Flynn could “be completely exonerated this week.”
The new documents are reported to say that the prosecutor made a "secret deal" with Flynn's attorneys.
If this is true, then this is proof of the hardball political tactices that Robert Mueller and his activist Democratic prosecutors were playing.
Rather than pursuing justice under the law, it appears that politics was being played in order to damage President Trump.
Fox News has more details on the contents of these never-before-revealed documents:
New documents recently turned over to Michael Flynn's legal team have led to speculation that the former national security adviser could catch a break in his long-stalled case due to purportedly exculpatory evidence that previously had not been disclosed.
Flynn, who initially had pleaded guilty to providing false statements to investigators regarding his contact with a Russian ambassador, has pushed back against prosecutors in recent months, insisting that he is innocent. Flynn even took to Twitter for the first time in years on Friday, simply sharing a January court filing where he states he did not lie and alludes to FBI agents stating they believed him during an interview conducted when James Comey still led the bureau.
"I am innocent of this crime," Flynn said in the sworn declaration, in which he explains that pressure from the possibility that his son could face charges, as well as advice from his previous counsel, led to him pleading guilty.
Fox News' Maria Bartiromo tweeted Sunday evening that according to sources, Flynn "will be completely exonerated this week."
This follows the turning over of what Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell called "remarkable new & long withheld BRADY evidence," which refers to exculpatory material. Powell tweeted a letter from the Justice Department which said the new documents came from a review of the Flynn investigation that had been ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr.
The Federalist reported that, according to an FBI source, that material does indeed include exculpatory evidence.
Flynn's guilty plea was one of the first dominoes to fall in the former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
However, these documents appear to suggest that it was all a show to damage President Trump.
If Flynn is completely exonerated, then it will raise questions around the integrity of Mueller's investigation.
Here's what President Trump had to say about the new developments around General Flynn:
Trump Breaks Silence on Michael Flynn
Furthermore, it is being reported that the government "deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution -- knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
This is exactly what so many conservatives have feared for years.
That Democrats and the Deep State have been persecuting President Trump and those closest to him strictly for political reasons.
The National Review has an excellent breakdown on what could have been a forcible "guilty" plea:
As I’ve noted several times over the years, it has long been speculated that Flynn — though he did not believe he was guilty (and though the agents who interviewed him also did not believe he had intentionally misled them) — nevertheless pled guilty to false-statements charges because prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him. Specifically, Flynn is said to have been warned that, if he refused to plead guilty, prosecutors would charge his son with a felony for failing to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. Such a so-called FARA violation (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation, and it had dubious application to Flynn’s son (who worked for Flynn’s private-intelligence firm).
Well, Powell now contends that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors — she specifically cites Brandon Van Grack, who now runs Justice’s FARA unit — did indeed promise Flynn that they would not charge his son if Flynn pled guilty. Worse, Powell avers that the prosecutors coerced Flynn and his counsel to keep this agreement secret. That is, this was to be a side deal that would not be written into the plea agreement and therefore would be kept from the court and the public.
Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge. It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement. It would be a fraud on the court.
Of course, if a deal of the kind Powell is alleging had been disclosed, it would have illustrated the hardball that Mueller and his band of activist Democratic prosecutors were playing in an effort to nail President Trump. You’re stunned to hear it, I’m sure.
There is going to be more on this. But a few more points should be made.
First, Sidney Powell had nothing to do with negotiating Flynn’s guilty plea. To the contrary, she has been intrepid in investigating whether that plea was induced by prosecutorial misconduct. Flynn was originally represented by the very politically connected Washington firm of Covington & Burling. The firm’s performance has already raised questions: They counseled Flynn on his FARA submissions, filing the FARA documents with the DOJ on his behalf; and they also represented him in his plea negotiations with Mueller’s staff, which involved the integrity of these same FARA filings. That’s a conflict of interest, and though the DOJ maintains that Flynn waived it, there is a question about whether such a conflict is waivable. Now comes the claim about a side deal not to prosecute Flynn’s son. Let’s stress that nothing has been proved at this point. But if Covington’s lawyers colluded with government lawyers to make such a deal and conceal it from the court, that would raise very serious legal and ethical issues.
Second, the Flynn case is so patently disturbing that, weeks back, Attorney General Bill Barr assigned a very well-regarded prosecutor, St. Louis’s U.S. attorney Jeff Jensen, to review it. The new disclosures are a result of Jensen’s investigation. The Justice Department’s disclosure to Ms. Powell indicates that more revelations are forthcoming.
Third, Powell’s litigation on Flynn’s behalf has always been uphill — which is why she is to be lauded for pursuing it. The remedy for being bullied into a guilty plea is for the defendant to be permitted to withdraw his plea and fight the charges. In Flynn’s case, that has been an illusory remedy. He must fear that if he voided his agreement and withdrew his plea, prosecutors would be free to charge his son (and to add any new charges they could conjure up against Flynn himself). Confronted by this dilemma, Powell has pressed a daring strategy: try to so enrage the court about the misconduct that the judge would throw the case out rather than merely vacate the guilty plea and leave Flynn fighting the case from square one.
Assuming this is all accurate, this proves that Flynn should have never been prosecuted!
There is a difference about whether a case CAN be prosecuted and whether a case SHOULD be prosecuted!
For the Democrats, this was never about justice.
It was always about damaging President Trump, even if it meant damaging innocent lives!
Fox News' Gregg Jarrett declares that it is unquestionable that Flynn has committed no crimes.
He's even pushing for the full exoneration of Flynn and for Flynn to have the ability to sue his persecutors.
Published on Fox News:
So, how is it possible to charge someone with lying to the FBI when the only witnesses — the two agents — determined that the person they interviewed did not lie? The answer is quite simple: you cannot bring such a prosecution. Yet, Mueller did it anyway. The goal was to put pressure on Flynn to say something incriminating about Trump, even if that meant inventing a story that prosecutors wanted to hear.
There is no indication that Flynn did this. But he did plead guilty to making a false statement. Why did he cop a plea? Because Mueller crushed him financially and threatened to take legal action against the retired general’s son. It was classic intimidation by ruthless prosecutors.
Before being sentenced, Flynn changed course and hired new defense attorneys, including former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell. Armed with better counsel, Flynn has been trying to convince a federal judge to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, citing “bad faith” on the part of prosecutors.
Powell has waged an intense (and skilled) legal battle to get the government to turn over the exculpatory evidence that has long been hidden and is required under law (Brady v. Maryland) to be produced. Prosecutors and the FBI stonewalled, at one point claiming that the original witness report of Flynn’s interview (known as a FD-302) was “missing.” Right.
Fortunately, Attorney General William Barr ordered a review of the Flynn case and guess what? Exculpatory documents have suddenly and magically been found. They were never missing, just buried by the FBI in a black hole of calumny and cover-up.
The material is still under protective seal so that the public cannot yet read its contents. However, Powell has access and offered this insight in a court filing:
“This afternoon, the government produced to Mr. Flynn stunning Brady evidence that proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI. The government deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution — knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.”
The case against Flynn was originally conceived by FBI Director James Comey and Assistant Director Andrew McCabe under the phony pretense of a Logan Act violation, which had no relevance or application. Once appointed as special counsel, Mueller accepted the baton and pursued the case against Flynn with a vengeance.
It is now beyond dispute that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn committed no crimes. But, it appears that top FBI officials and prosecutors may have. Evidence was concealed and justice obstructed. This is unconscionable behavior.
The charge against Flynn should be dismissed, allowing him to seek redress in civil court. Moreover, U.S. Attorney John Durham should consider filing charges if the evidence shows that government officials breached their duty to uphold the law and abused their power to prosecute an innocent man.
We couldn't agree more!
We cannot allow this dangerous precedent of political witchhunts to stand.
If the new documents indeed prove that General Flynn is innocent and was "set up" by corrupt FBI agents, then he deserves to be exonerated and given the ability to sue his prosecutors.
Such a blatant abuse of power should never be excused!
Stay tuned as this story continues to develop.