© UnknownKosher Kollusion
Now Nick James, an attorney writing in the Daily Caller, brings up an interesting legal implication of Strzok's bias.
He writes:
Under federal law, a prosecutor is required "to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information to criminal defendants and to seek a just result in every case." Specifically, pursuant to Giglio v. United States, prosecutors are obligated to provide defendants with impeachment evidence, which includes, according to the DOJ's guidelines, evidence of a witness's biases, "[a]nimosity toward defendant," or "[a]nimosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated."
As a result, in any prosecution brought by Mueller against a Republican target, defense counsel would be entitled under the Constitution to all evidence in the government's possession relevant to exploring the apparent biases of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his animosity toward Trump and the Republican Party. This, in and of itself, could be a case-killer because it is very unlikely that Mueller or the DOJ would want defense counsel poring through all the records and documents, emails, and texts in the DOJ's and Strzok's possession revealing the agent's biases since this could fatally undermine any other cases or investigations the agent has worked on-such as the FBI's decision to recommend charging General Flynn with lying to federal agents even though Hillary Clinton's besties, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, were given a free pass despite apparently doing the same thing.
Peter Strzok
Furthermore, if the defense starts poking around, they might come across interesting details about the bias of other investigators on the case, mentioned above. The final implication may be that federal agents have been colluding with one political party against another. That doesn't sound very democratic.
Most of the lamestream media is so invested in its wishful thinking that the Mueller investigation is actually going somewhere that they're getting caught up in their own fabrications. It's now plain to see that the Flynn-Russia issue is yet another nothing-burger, but that doesn't mean no evidence of collusion with foreign entities was found.
Justin Raimondo writes:
During the transition - after Trump's election but before he took office - Flynn was talking to the Russians about two subjects: the possible blowback from the Obama administration's decision to impose more sanctions and close the Russian compound in Maryland, and the Russian position on the controversial UN resolution condemning Israel for building yet more "settlements" on Palestinian land. [...]In other words, it was Flynn trying to manipulate the Russians, not the other way around - and on behalf of Israeli interests.
Flynn was instructed by none other than Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, to approach "every member of the Security Council" to block the resolution condemning the seizure of Palestinian property. The Russians were directly contacted by Flynn, who asked them to veto the resolution in the Security Council.
Flynn's unsuccessful efforts on behalf of the Israelis were the fruit of an Israeli appeal to the incoming Trump administration. The day after Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador on this subject an anonymous Israeli official told CNN "that Israel - and reportedly the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, himself - had contacted Trump to seek his assistance in killing the resolution."
Funny how everyone was quick to spread the news that Flynn was talking to the Russians, but no one really cared as to what they were talking about.
Forget #Russiagate. What is long overdue in US politics is #Israelgate.
Birds of a feather as it's out with the OWO, in with the NWO.