Judge Sullivan, who is assigned to General Flynn’s case is demanding to see the FBI summary 302 report about the ambush Flynn interview according to a new court filing.
Counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok showed up to the White House on January 24th, 2017 along with Special Agent Joe Pientka to interview General Flynn; the meeting was arranged by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Flynn was told not have his lawyer with him and soon after the FBI agents began to question him he realized he was being ambushed over his phone calls to Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
The FBI agents who ambushed General Flynn on January 24th, 2017 didn’t write their 302 reports on their interview until 7 months later on August 22nd — this is also AFTER Rosenstein wrote his August 2nd memo expanding Mueller’s scope.
In a recent item for The Federalist, David Harsanyi considered the M16 rifle one of the five most innovative firearms in American firearm development history. Yet something equally significant can be said about the semi-automatic AR-15 derived from the M16. Second to the muskets used in our revolutionary and civil wars, the AR-15 may be the most important firearm in American political history.
All told, more Americans have fired more rounds from more AR-15s for personal defense, defensive firearm training, marksmanship competitions, individual practice, and hunting than from any other rifle. For that reason, the AR-15 is the primary firearm upon which Americans would rely if they had to fight for freedom today.
Here are 10 reasons to own at least one AR-15 and to become skilled in its use.
(Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced that President Tom Fitton will provide testimony on December 13 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Government Operations during a hearing titled “Oversight of Nonprofit Organizations: A Case Study on the Clinton Foundation.” The committee is chaired by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2018
Time: 2:00 p.m. ET
Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC, 20515
In August 2016, a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit broke open the Clinton Foundation pay to play and has since uncovered many other instances of seeming pay-to-play and favoritism for the Clinton Foundation at the Clinton State Department. Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play politics that involves multiple FOIA lawsuits seeking government documents from Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system, as well as records related to the intersection of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
Judicial Watch recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications involving any investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) into the Clinton Foundation.
Judicial Watch FOIA litigation also uncovered a massive conflict of interest issue in Bill Clinton’s speeches and business concerns during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure on Secretary of State.
On December 6 a federal judge opened further discovery in the Judicial Watch lawsuit that led to the first public disclosure of the Clinton email scandal.
A suspect in a 1987 bombing that wounded six American soldiers in Honduras is leading a group of migrants demanding entry into the United States.
Alfonso Guerrero Ulloa organized a march of approximately 100 migrants to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, on Tuesday, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Ulloa delivered a letter to the consulate on behalf of the migrants, asking for either entry into the U.S. or a payment of $50,000 per person.
“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the Union-Tribune. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”
Ulloa has lived in Mexico since 1987 after fleeing Honduras in the wake of a bombing that wounded six soldiers. Ulloa was suspected of planting a bomb in a Chinese restaurant, but received asylum from Mexico, whose government described the suspected terrorist as a “freedom fighter.”
An appropriations bill passed by Congress in December 1987 included Congress’s findings that “the bomb was directed at American soldiers and did in fact wound American soldiers and an American contractor.” The report noted that Ulloa was a suspect in the bombing.
Ulloa has posted on Facebook about his role in organizing the migrants in Mexico, which he is open about, and the accusations against him from 1987, which he denies.
In the movies sequels are usually worse than the original. Since Washington has often been referred to as “Hollywood for ugly people,” it is perhaps appropriate to consider another sequel in the making, not in film but in politics. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House and soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives, once again was the subject of a video posted on December 7, 2018 by Fox News, in which she rejected the notion of constructing a wall along the highly porous U.S./Mexican border to prevent the entry of illegal aliens, narcotics and other contraband.
Her outrageous statements and positions on immigration law enforcement and border security seemed to strike a new low during her first stint as Speaker. She has yet to resume that position and is already providing a disturbing peek into what America and Americans are in for with her in the position that provides her with a “leadership” role in the Congress and puts her in the chain of succession to the U.S. Presidency.
As my dad used to say, “Nothing is so good it could not be better or be so bad it could not get worse.” As hard as it might be to imagine, bad as Pelosi was the last time she held the position of Speaker, she may actually prove my dad was right.
It is unfathomable how Pelosi could declare that protecting the United States from threats posed by international terrorists, transnational gangs and the flow of narcotics into the United States is “immoral.”
It is similarly impossible to understand how Pelosi could determine that it is immoral to prevent the illegal entry of foreign workers who all too frequently displace American and lawful immigrant workers and drive down wages and working conditions of American and lawful immigrant workers who are similarly employed.
A wall would not prevent the lawfulentry of a single person into the United States. The wall would not block America’s ports of entry but would funnel all traffic destined to the United States through ports of entry where they are subject to inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors and where a record of their entry into the United States is created. These issues have significant national security implications.
This is comparable to the way that guests who visit us are expected to knock on our front doors to ask permission to enter our homes. It would certainly be unacceptable for a stranger to enter our homes by climbing through a back window. Similarly an effective border wall would prevent aliens entering the United States surreptitiously.
In a very real sense, entering without inspection is, at a minimum, comparable to trespassing and, as I noted in my recent article, “Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters,” Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical and contradictory position on trespassing on critical infrastructure and national landmarks versus aliens who trespass on America is astonishing.
Here is the relevant excerpt from my commentary:
Aliens who evade the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States. This is a violation of law and poses a threat to national security and public safety.
On October 13, 2014 Schumer posted a press release on his official website which announced that because of dangers created by trespassers, particularly in this era of terrorism, that he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.
However, Schumer, who actually cited the antics of a 16-year-old boy in his press release, had declared that anyone who trespasses, including “adrenaline junkies,” should face a five-year prison sentence.
However, when aliens trespass on the United States, even where violence is concerned, Schumer and his Democratic colleagues are determined to provide those illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship!
The open-borders immigration anarchists refer to aliens who run our borders as being “undocumented immigrants.” In point of fact, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of enter the United States without inspection.
Such an entry is in violation of U.S. Code § 1325, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The FBI eavesdropped on telephone calls between President Donald Trump’s national security adviser and the Russian ambassador but found nothing improper, a U.S. intelligence official said.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said late Monday that there was never a formal “investigation” of the calls in December between retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington.
According to the source, who was confirming a Washington Post report earlier Monday, intelligence officials merely listened in as part of routine eavesdropping on Kislyak.
Yesterday we learned something critical- proof that Michael Flynn was set up by the FBI to take a fall. Many have wondered why Flynn would talk to the FBI without a lawayer present. It turns out that the FBI told Flynn NOT to include a lawyer.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.
The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.
Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.
Who led this charade? None other than Andrew McCabe:
McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”
Worst of all?
“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
They screwed him royally. This is atrocious. This is how the Comey/McCabe cabal ran the FBI. The country is once again reminded of the two tiered justice system established by James Comey; one for the democrats, and another for everyone else.
hillary and her aides were allowed to dictate the terms of the investigation and interviews.
Cheryl Mills was allowed to sit in on hillary’s FBI interview. Andy McCarthy:
Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department.
Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.
When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.
Michael Flynn was a three star general with 33 years of service, five of them in combat. He deserves better.
Want more proof that this is pure politics? The leak of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation is an egregious felony but Mueller has zero interest in it. As the Russian collusion fantasy falls apart completely democrats are turning to Trump’s personal finances.
It’s not about justice. It’s all politics and it needs to end. Mueller has created crimes that did not exist prior to his investigation.
In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 — nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.
Clearly, it went down that way so someone could rewrite it to incriminate Flynn.