In “Flynn’s fate (6)” I posted the Special Counsel’s reply memorandum in the matter of Michael Flynn’s sentencing. Judge Sullivan had ordered the parties to file the FBI 302 and underlying notes of the the FBI’s interview with General Flynn. The attachments to the reply memorandum include neither. Where are they?
Those documents are not included, but McCabe’s memo of his conversation scheduling the meeting with Flynn is included as Attachment A. It is a key document.
I find the reply memo to be shockingly weak. Something does not compute. As I said on Friday, anyone seriously trying to understand what happened here will be frustrated by the threadbare and circular quality of the reply memo and attached materials. Assuming the documents Judge Sullivan ordered to be produced haven’t been separately filed, I trust that Judge Sullivan will notice.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared yesterday for a segment on the FOX News Sunday Morning Futures show with Maria Bartiromo. Bartiromo’s interview with Nunes serves as a useful review and reminder of some of the anomalies and outrages (i.e, the Comey factor) here.
In the tweet below Paul Sperry highlights one of the anomalies and outrages apparent on the face of the McCabe memo, though beyond the scope of my comments on Friday.
In Mueller's latest rebuttal to Flynn's lawyers, he actually cites as supporting evidence the 1/12/17 David Ignatius story in WaPo quoting a "senior administration official" who leaked highly classified intercepts on Flynn. Is Mueller investigating THIS flagrant crime? Course not
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 16, 2018