Does it bother you that FBI investigator, McCabe told Flynn he didn't need a lawyer, didn't tell him it was an interview for a criminal investigation?
Now that's just plain funny. I don't care who you are.
A National Security Advisor, when told by the FBI director that the FBI has questions about Flynn's repeated denials of meetings with Russians during the campaign, needs to be advised to have a lawyer present and needs to be advised that he shouldn't lie?
That's just funny right there, and someone else finds it to be amusing as well:
----------------
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628464-Govt-reply-to-Flynn.html
The defendant chose to make false statements about his communications with the
Russian ambassador weeks before the FBI interview, when he lied about that topic to the media,
the incoming Vice President, and other members of the Presidential Transition Team. When
faced with the FBIโs questions on January 24, during an interview that was voluntary and
cordial, the defendant repeated the same false statements.
...
The defendant made his decision to lie about his communications with the Russian
ambassador two weeks before his interview with the FBI.
On January 12, 2017, The Washington Post published a story asserting that the defendant had spoken with the Russian ambassador on December 29, 2016, the day the United States announced sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to that governmentโs actions intended to interfere with the 2016 election (collectively, โsanctionsโ).
...
The defendant asked a subordinate member of the Presidential Transition Team to contact the Post on the morning of January 13 and convey false information about the defendantโs communications with the Russian
ambassador. The โUPDATEโ included at the end of the Post story later reported that two members of the Presidential Transition Team stated that the defendant โdidnโt coverโ sanctions in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. Id.
Over the next two weeks, the defendant repeated the same false statements to multiple
members of the Presidential Transition Team, including Vice President-Elect Michael Pence,
incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and incoming White House Press
Secretary Sean Spicer. Those officials then repeated the defendantโs false statements on national
television.
...
The circumstances of the defendantโs interview also show that his decision to make false
statements was voluntary and intentional. The FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, informed
the defendant about the topic of the interview. See Memorandum of Andrew McCabe dated
January 24, 2017 (โMcCabe Memoโ) (Attachment A) (McCabe called defendant to arrange the
interview and explained that the FBI needed to talk to him in light of the โmedia coverage and
public discussion about his recent contacts with Russian representatives.โ).
When the defendant
asked McCabe if the questions would concern โhis contact with the Russian Ambassador to the
United States,โ McCabe confirmed they would. Id. During the interview, the FBI agents gave
the defendant multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions.
...
A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired
Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal
agents. He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the
importance of telling them the truth. The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his
โmany yearsโ working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences. See Def.
Sent Mem. at 8. He, unlike Van der Zwaan and Papadapoulous, was a senior national security
official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency, had
worked with the FBI, and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision
making in areas of national security.
The defendant agreed to meet with the FBI agents, without counsel, and answer their
questions. His obligation to provide truthful information came with that agreement; it did not
turn on the presence of counsel. Moreover, as the defendant has admitted, weeks after the
January 24 interview, he made materially false statements in filings he provided to another
branch of the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (โFARAโ).
See Statement of Offense at ยถ 5, United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017)
(Doc. 4). The defendant made those false statements while represented by counsel and after
receiving an explicit warning that providing false information was a federal offense.
--------------
You are seriously going to sit there and pretend that (a) a sitting National Security Advisor needs to get the opinion of his lawyer before agreeing to a voluntary discussion with the FBI on a known topic, and (b) he would have no idea that he should tell the truth otherwise, and (c) that if he had his lawyer there he magically WOULDN'T repeat the same lie he'd been telling everyone for WEEKS?
That's just some funny shit right there.
I advise legal clients all god-damned day, and if there is anyone who thinks any voluntary conversation with any law enforcement officer is not subject to having your own statements in that context be used for any purpose, then you have just not been paying attention.
He was a g-damned National Security Advisor who had been working for the FBI for decades. The notion that they were coming to ask them about his statements about Russian contacts because it was just an excuse to come over and say "hello" is just absurd.
