MUELLER MADNESS: Special Counsel Hands Over All ‘EVIDENCE’ On Mike Flynn

What's next for the embattled former national security advisor?


  • Rumor and speculation as to why District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from Flynn case
  • An option being discussed by attorneys, pundits and supporters is that Flynn withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing

The Office of Special Counsel complied with a federal judge’s order and as a result turned over all evidence related to former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case, according to two sources who spoke to this reporter.

In December, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Special Counsel Robert Mueller to provide Flynn’s attorneys with any and all information that may have been withheld from the case. Sullivan took over as the presiding judge after District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from the case on Dec. 7. There was no explanation as to why Contreras, who presided over Flynn’s guilty plea on Dec. 3, was recused from the case. Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, despite testimony provided to Congress by former FBI Director James Comey, where he stated that the agents did not believe Flynn had lied about his conversation with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

Sullivan ordered the government to produce any evidence in its possession that is “favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”

“The government is further directed to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form,” the order stated. “For example, the government must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them clearly.”

The implications that possible exculpatory evidence was withheld by Mueller’s office would be a significant development for Flynn

In a column appearing in National Review, former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy speculated that the judge may have been concerned that favorable evidence was withheld in the case.

Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner declined to comment on the developments.

Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr also declined to comment.

Contreras’ recusal raised suspicion among lawmakers that have been investigating the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation for the past year. Last week, however, Congressional investigators with the House Oversight Committee discovered a series of text messages between embattled FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour FBI attorney Lisa Page revealing that Contreras and Strzok were close friends, as previously reported. Strzok was also one of two FBI agents who had originally interviewed Flynn.

“It wasn’t a definitive answer but certainly raises significant questions,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) of the House Oversight Committee, told this reporter last week.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio

The text message chain uncovered by investigators is telling. In one particular chain of messages sent on July 25, 2016, Page tells Strzok, “Rudy is on the FISC! Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago.”

At that point, the pair continues to discuss other issues but comes back to Contreras.  “I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.” Later, Strzok appears to return to his discussion about Contreras, as reported last week.

Lawmakers cautioned that while the text messages show Contreras and Strzok were friends, there is still no definitive answer on why the judge was recused from the case.

Strzok, who was at the center of the investigation alleging Trump colluded with Russia, was removed from the Special Counsel and demoted in the FBI after tens of thousands of text messages revealed he was vehemently biased against Trump.

READ: Explosive New Report Exposes Strzok and Page Texts

Sullivan’s request for Mueller to turn over all evidence came after the plea, and the judge noted that even if Mueller believed the information was not “material” to the case, it would be up to Sullivan to decide whether or not to disclose the information to Flynn’s attorney.

The implications that possible exculpatory evidence was withheld by Mueller’s office would be a significant development for Flynn.

In January, Mueller and Flynn’s lawyers filed a joint status report with the court stating that they were not ready to move forward with a sentencing hearing. The court filing stated that “due to the status of the Special Counsel’s investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time.”

It’s not certain what Flynn’s next steps will be but one option being discussed by attorneys, pundits and supporters is that he withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing.

Show More

Related Articles

Notable Replies

  1. Thanks Sara, let me start by saying how much I look forward to your reporting. As far as this article and Mueller is concerned. I’m 56, so I’ve seen a lot of politics over the years. I’ve watched our country slowly turn from a country that believes in hard work, accountability, being responsible for your own actions and trying hard everyday to achieve whatever you want to achieve, to a borderline entitlement State. The Mueller Investigation is illegal, period. It is the most unbelievable and unforgivable act our government has committed that I can remember. There is no Federal, State or Local LAW that allows an investigation to be started where there has been NO evidence of a crime being committed. The CITIZENS of this country are witnessing a Coup. There is no other word for what Mueller and others are attempting to do. This one Act and it’s outcome will determine if YOU, Myself and any other American will continue to live in a Free country or not.

  2. This is another of your usual posts full of lots of “if this is true …, this may …, this could …, if horses could fly, …” etc., in other words, just deflection and conspiracy thinking.

    But while you’re on the Russian investigation, how about a post on Alex van Der Zwann, who, just like Flynn, pled guilty to lying to the FBI to cover for the Russian collusion and is about to be sentenced for his lying about “FAKE NEWS?”
    Or something on this latest gem:
    March 28, 2018
    Graham Lanktree
    Posted with permission from Newsweek
    In a court filing Tuesday night special counsel Robert Mueller alleges Rick Gates, a close associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, knew the two were working with a former Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 election.

    It’s starting to look like Mueller and his team know more than Nunes’ leaky staffers, doesn’t it?

  3. moe says:

    Non Compos Mentis! (I believe I have improved the conversation. Thank you Sara!)

  4. We do not need McCarthy advising us that the judge may think exculpatory evidence was not provided. McCarthy portrays a conservative on TV. McCarthy never helps the public understand things and always avoids the heart of the matters. He is months behind events. It should not have taken 3 months to hand over the evidence. Why was the evidence not already available? Isn’t that part of discovery? Why would attorneys that withheld evidence still be allowed on the case?

  5. Sorry, but everyone, even the trolls on here, knows that there will be no Clinton indictments.
    Once again, there will be no Clinton indictments.
    But this is fact:
    “In court papers filed late Tuesday, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office argued that a judge shouldn’t rule out jail time for Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer who pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and the FBI in the Russia investigation.
    Van der Zwaan’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 3. He is set to become the first person sentenced in the special counsel investigation. Four other people have publicly pleaded guilty so far to charges brought by Mueller’s office — including former Trump campaign deputy chair Rick Gates, Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos — but their sentencings are on hold as they cooperate with prosecutors.”
    So maybe one of the Russian trolls can explain why so many people connected to the Trump campaign have pled guilty for dealings with Russians?
    Or why anyone associated with the Trump campaign had any dealings with Russians?

Continue the discussion on the Sara Carter Forums

4 more replies replies