Seth Abramson @SethAbramson Lawyer. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: tinyurl.com/y484j4ku. Analyses @BBC. Views mine. Jul. 09, 2019 1 min read

WHAT? Why doesn't this end Flynn's cooperation deal with the feds and allow them to prosecute him on all charges he could possibly have faced—which include many that were never brought against him? Why is Barr maintaining the deal with Flynn when Flynn isn't testifying as agreed?

What kind of asinine euphemism is "relationship has soured" for a witness in a sweetheart cooperation deal taking actions that render him unavailable to testify as a witness as he'd previously agreed? This ISN'T how prosecutors think or talk—either Flynn broke his deal or didn't.

The following major breaking news is a DIRECT result of Trump's witness tampering (both direct and indirect): "Prosecutors say that Flynn is now backing away from some of the statements he made to Mueller’s team and in court during his guilty plea in December 2017." (in POLITICO)

"It’s unclear whether prosecutors consider their current disagreement with Flynn so significant that they will accuse him of breaching his plea agreement. That could expose him to new charges."

WHY WOULDN'T IT BE?


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.