An Interesting New Wrinkle In The Flynn Case

Over at Instapundit:

Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.

This stinks on dry ice.

I were Flynn’s lawyer, I’d petition the court to withdraw the plea on the grounds it was made on false information (that Mueller had a credible witness to Flynn’s lying). And I’d request that it be done with prejudice, and that prosecution be sanctioned. And if that’s successful, it would be grounds for demands from Republicans for Mueller’s replacement, and perhaps an end to the probe entirely, since it continued to be a dry hole.

4 thoughts on “An Interesting New Wrinkle In The Flynn Case”

  1. Given that the whole investigation appears to be founded on a document now known to be false, and no credible evidence has been found to support the original allegation in any way, the whole continuation of the investigation stinks.

    1. And instigated by Comey, who should have been held in contempt of Congress when he refused to provide the government document he leaked to a friend to leak to the media. It was a document written on a government laptop, about a meeting between two government officials, while travelling in a government vehicle on government time; yet Comey tried to claim it was a personal and private document. You try to get away with that in a court of law.

Leave a Reply to Orville Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *