Originally Posted by
TheLiquidGuy
This case is truly confusing.
Having loosely followed the flynn case, I have gotten the feeling that Flynn may have been mistreated. He has made certain claims in line with what you say, such as he didn't know he was formally being interviewed, and that he didn't know it was against the law to lie to the FBI. In a vacuum those statements seem silly. But I don't think the FBI denied that they let him think it was informal. They wanted him to remain unguarded. Still, the judge reviewed the interview and rejected there was anything improper.
Another thing I dont get is why does that judge seem to have it in for Flynn. I remember when he he was originally supposed to get sentenced the prosecutors were praising Flynn up and down. They were saying no jail time was appropriate. Then the judge comes in and starts asking them if they think a case could be made for treason. WTF? Out of nowhere. I am not sure if it is the same judge that said there was nothing wrong with the FBI interview.
Both sides are acting weird and very unstable. The prosecutors were initially very willing to recommend no jail time. Either Flynn was enormously cooperative as they claimed, or maybe they felt he didn't really deserve it in the first place and the charges were trumped up to use as leverage for answers. I actually don't mind that someone review this whole thing. But I definitely don't think Barr should be the one to say who does. It should be given to the FBI IG. Barr has lost credibility a few times over. He needs to step away.
BTW, I think saying that it is "apparent" there was misconduct is unfair and unfounded. Nothing here is clear.