Tweet
Possible escape for Flynn
Elder Patriot – It now appears that in his haste to incriminate Donald Trump Special Counsel Robert Muller may have violatedGiglio v. United States a Supreme Court decision that held the prosecution’s failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process,requiring a new trial.
The high court has ruled this is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel.
The Blue Pill Is Doomed! This "Destroys" ED (Wives Want It!)
Med Journal
Ad by Revcontent
Find Out More >
In Flynn’s case it appears that an over aggressive member of Mueller’s team conducted his interview of General Michael Flynn under a false pretense and, in the process, laid a trap for Flynn that violated the Supreme Court ruling,
Investigative reporter Sara Carter has learned that Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe essentially laid a trap for Flynn when he lied to him about reasons for a meeting that Flynn was going to give to FBI agent Peter Strzok at the White House.
Carter’s source told her,“McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the “earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called.”
According to her source, McCabe is reported to have told Flynn “some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate.”
Flynn was caught unaware of the trap that had been laid and was well into the “interview” when he discovered he was being interrogated without having been given the opportunity to have his attorney present.
USA Today columnist and law professor Glenn Reynolds believes that this new evidence is likely to lead a judge to dismiss the charges against Flynn because Strzok would necessarily be called upon to be a witness in the case against Flynn. Reynolds theory is that Strzok’s testimony would be tainted because Flynn had been talking off the record about security measures and was not made aware by Strzok that he was the subject of a legal interrogation and that he had the right to legal representation.
The high court has ruled this is the case even if the failure to disclose was a matter of negligence and not intent. The case extended the Court’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, requiring such agreements to be disclosed to defense counsel.
The Blue Pill Is Doomed! This "Destroys" ED (Wives Want It!)
Med Journal
Ad by Revcontent
Find Out More >
In Flynn’s case it appears that an over aggressive member of Mueller’s team conducted his interview of General Michael Flynn under a false pretense and, in the process, laid a trap for Flynn that violated the Supreme Court ruling,
Investigative reporter Sara Carter has learned that Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe essentially laid a trap for Flynn when he lied to him about reasons for a meeting that Flynn was going to give to FBI agent Peter Strzok at the White House.
Carter’s source told her,“McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the “earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called.”
According to her source, McCabe is reported to have told Flynn “some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate.”
Flynn was caught unaware of the trap that had been laid and was well into the “interview” when he discovered he was being interrogated without having been given the opportunity to have his attorney present.
USA Today columnist and law professor Glenn Reynolds believes that this new evidence is likely to lead a judge to dismiss the charges against Flynn because Strzok would necessarily be called upon to be a witness in the case against Flynn. Reynolds theory is that Strzok’s testimony would be tainted because Flynn had been talking off the record about security measures and was not made aware by Strzok that he was the subject of a legal interrogation and that he had the right to legal representation.
Comment