Originally Posted by
Frank Apisa
How anyone can say that Flynn did NOT criminally lie is beyond me. HE ABSOLUTELY DID.
He told the FBI one thing...and later, under oath, said that what he told them was a lie. Now he is saying under oath that he did not lie to the FBI...which means that he lied when he said he lied under oath. Either he lied to the FBI, which is criminally lying...or he lied when he claimed under oath that he did not lie, which is criminally lying.
It is a situation of his own making.
No it isn’t lol.
Flynn was minding his own business until the FBI ‘wanted to chat’ with him. Using the laughable Logan Act as a pretext. They went against their own protocol by not alerting someone higher up in the transition team that it wasn’t a case of ‘hey, just stopping by to get to know you’ but a matter of an actual investigation.
But the real problem in the Flynn case there’s no *material evidence* that he lied to the investigators. The material evidence is the 302. The original 302 is missing, someone lost it, dog got ahold it or whatever.
And the only 302 the prosecution could produce was altered. Altered evidence is admissible in court? Who knew?
Who are the real liars here, Frank? Hard to know, huh?
It’s further compounded by the fact Flynn’s *alleged lie* wasn’t material to any investigation.
Sullivan should have thrown the case out the minute the prosecution couldn’t produce an *unaltered* piece of evidence against the defendant.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Bookmarks