Related reading: The Politicized Order Inviting Amicus Briefs against the Flynn Case’s Dismissal by Andrew C. McCarthy (May 13, 2020). Excerpt:
...There is no complex legal issue to be resolved. DOJ’s dismissal motion may be politically controversial, but legally it is pro forma. The only branch of government constitutionally authorized to proceed with a criminal prosecution is the executive. The Justice Department has declined to prosecute. There is nothing for the judge to do besides the ministerial task of ending the case on the court’s records.Read the entire essay HERE.
Lest we forget, the primary function of the federal judiciary is to protect the accused from overbearing government action, not to agitate for the prosecution of Americans. Even if he’s convinced Flynn is as guilty as the day is long, one might expect Judge Sullivan to be disturbed by the FBI’s perjury trap....
FYI: Eric Holder rejoined Covington & Burling, General Flynn's first attorneys, as partner, after he left the office of United States Attorney General in 2015.
And then there's this: Flynn’s original FD-302 is so important, the Special Counsel had to leak a prosecution threat against Flynn’s son just to avoid turning it over to his original lawyers Covington.
Read more about an FD-302 HERE. Amazing, really and disturbing.
There is so much to this travesty of justice inflicted upon General Flynn! Commenters, please feel free to add additional important information in the comments thread.
But wait! There's more!
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote about yesterday where first Dan Bongino and now Andy McCarthy point out, there was no unmasking of Flynn.
He was never masked in the first place!
The transcript was gained illegally.
Perhaps through a foreign intelligence agency.
Ed,
DeleteLinks? I'd love to see that information.
Read my last two blog posts. :)
DeleteThe Flynn case is a travesty to justice, of that there is no doubt. Apparently, however, despite his age and experience, Flynn was naïve to even agree to interview with the FBI. In fact, I don’t understand why any person who stands accused of a crime would agree to answer questions by law enforcement. Whether guilty of a crime or not, the entire purpose of the law enforcement apparatus is to get a conviction. Knowing that the policeman (for the most part) is not your friend, why would any mature person, especially one who is isn’t guilty of anything, agree to a police interview? My conclusion is that in many respects, General Flynn dug his own hole. The lesson going forward should be obvious. There is no justice in our justice system.
ReplyDelete"I don’t understand why any person who stands accused of a crime would agree to answer questions by law enforcement."
DeleteFlynn was not accused of any crime when he was interrogated by the Federal Bureau of Ineptitude. In fact, they has specifically told him he was not even suspected of any crime, and had not given him his Miranda rights.
@ Jayhawk ...
DeleteFlynn was not accused of any crime when he was interrogated by the Federal Bureau of Ineptitude.
The word "interrogated" would seem reveal the FBI's true intent no matter what they told Flynn.
Article I found over at Ed's site:
ReplyDeleteUnmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place by Andrew C. McCarthy (May 16, 2020).
Interesting analogy:
ReplyDeletePicture a racist white FBI agent who hates a black student and became enraged when that teen publicly insulted one of the agent’s close friends. Say the FBI sends two guys over to the teen’s house, claiming it suspects him of being involved in drug trafficking, and starts asking the kid questions in hopes that the kid will lie.
Suppose the FBI does not read the kid his rights before questioning him. Suppose the FBI discourages the kid from hiring a lawyer and tells the kid its investigation is friendly, not an effort to incriminate him. Suppose further that the FBI, after grilling the kid, still doesn’t think he lied (but merely that he forgot details of things he’d been asked about). Suppose the FBI then dragged out the case so long that the kid rang up $5 million in legal bills, then threatened to arrest the kid’s mother. Suppose the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from the kid’s lawyers and agreed to leave the kid’s mother alone if he pleaded guilty — but didn’t tell the judge about this side deal.
If the teen finally pleaded guilty to a single count of making false statements, would Obama then say, “Aha! Justice is served! The kid admits being guilty!”? If the prosecutors, years later, finally dropped the case against the kid, would Obama say, “You begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk” because he thought the kid deserved everything that had happened to him?
All of the above is pretty much exactly what happened to Michael Flynn. Except the team that went after Michael Flynn didn’t hate him because of racial difference; they hated him because of political difference....
Read the rest HERE.
Conservatives, indeed people of all stripes, have always maintained that if you are not guilty, just tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteGen Flynn lied to the FBI. Period. And he admitted it. Twice. In Court. Vice President Mike Pence and President Trump also both said he lied to them as well, and as such, deserved to be fired.
If he had told the truth when questioned by the FBI, he'd probably still be the DNS.
Can anyone tell me why Gen Flynn, who knew it was wrong when he decided to do so, chose to lie to the FBI, the VP and the Pres?
That's not exactly what a "plea bargain" is. You "admit" to a lesser charge, whether you did it or not, in order to avoid a drawn out process and the risk of being found guilty of a greater charge, which you may or may not have committed. In some cases, as with Flynn, you "admit" to a lesser charge to avoid having a family member charged with a crime they did not commit.
DeleteYes, the judge then gets you to acknowledge guilt on the charge, but that is a formality. The fact that he admitted to it in court as part of a plea bargain is not factual proof that he did it.
Which is not to say he didn't do it. I don't know whether or not he did. My point is that his statement in court cannot be accepted (outside of court) as reasonable, factual proof that he did it.
DeleteJayhawk,
DeleteExactly! A guilty plea in a plea bargain doesn't mean that the party pleading guilty is guilty at all.
Dave,
DeleteConservatives, indeed people of all stripes, have always maintained that if you are not guilty, just tell the truth.
If only that were true! It is not -- in legal proceedings. See Jayhawk's spot-on comments.
If I understand Jayhawk correctly, then I have to disagree. Whenever a defendant pleads guilty, whether as part of the preliminary proceeding or as a condition of a pre-trial agreement, he or she removes from the government its burden of proof. The only time I recall someone pleading guilty to a lesser charge was based on clear and convincing evidence that he or she did the crime; the plea deal was to reduce the sentence. I would never urge anyone to plead guilty for something they didn't do. Lawyers are mostly worthless until you need one, and when you need one, get the best. Flynn should never have agreed to an FBI interview without a lawyer present.
DeleteIt's not even a possibility that he lied to the FBI!
DeleteThe agents admitted as much.
Dave, I don't want to go ad hominem, but how could you not see that he had a gun to his head? Or the head of his son?
One takes the plea more often because of financial reasons. Yes one can place one's liberty in the hands of a public defender. Unless one has a spicy case you will probably get a lawyer just out of law school..
DeleteI ended up capitulating not for a criminal matter but a civil case against the government. Had I had the money and could get passed years of litigation... which is the solitary intention of the system... run the case into years which keeps the lawyers in business I have no doubt I would have been successful.
Yes, Bunkerville, financial reasons can indeed be the reason that someone pleads guilty. There is also the carrot of reduced sentence -- sometimes drastically reduced sentence.
DeleteMustang,
DeleteMy woman, wise woman that she was, told me: "Never go to court without an attorney. Not even traffic court." I wonder what experience taught her that.
I would also say, "Never let a police officer question you without an attorney present."
I used the magic word "Lawyer!" once when I was stopped for no reason by a hotdog rookie cop back in 1968. He wanted to search the vehicle. Amazing how he backed off when I said that magic word.
It is something like 95 to 97 percent of the federal and state cases are plead out. To me this isn't justice. Of course the system would break down completely if true justice was carried out. Right you are about the carrot. And the government has the stick in spades.
DeleteLook guys, as a bleeding heart liberal, I've argued a million times that innocent people are sometimes railroaded by the system, making all the arguments you've made here regarding Flynn. But, and don't take this too personally, I'm used to seeing conservatives, typical law and order folks, arguing against my side of the coin.
DeleteYou're all twisting yourselves into pretzels on this. Isn't this situational?
AOW... what does "unintentionally misled" mean? How does someone not know they are lying about their own actions? I hated that kind of garbage explanation when the Clintons used it, as did everyone on this thread, and I hate it now.
Dave,
DeleteAOW... what does "unintentionally misled" mean? How does someone not know they are lying about their own actions?
Q: Did you, on the named date, replied "no" in an email?
A: I did not do that.
That kind of "lie" can well be unintentional on more than one level.
Okay, that's a quick example and not specific to the Flynn case.
Gotta run. Time to get on Zoom and teach classes. But perhaps you get my point.
Question for you: What specific lie did General Flynn tell to the FBI or to Vice President Pence?
Dave,
DeleteCan you point out where any of us cheered on the railroading or vindictive prosecution of someone?
Silver... i think it's a generally held belief among conservatives that cops don't usually arrest innocent people, that innocent people have no reason to lie and that people who do lie, like for instance Hillary Clinton, do so to avoid, cover up or mask guilt. If your "us" regards people who comment here, perhaps you should take a cruise on the Mother Ship.
DeleteClinton is a great example. She lies, or at least shades the truth to her advantage. She's never been found to have broken a law, even when investigated by GOP committees over and over.
Now that does not mean she is innocent at all.
But many in the GOP, and bloggers here, frequently use her as the poster child of one, a politician who lies and two, as a result of that, must be guilty. And they cheered ppl on regularly with their chants of "Lock her up."
AOW... as I understand it, Flynn was asked if he met with, or communicated with one or more Russian diplomats. And he did not reveal that.
DeleteAs for Zoom... in this time of necessary Zoom calls, classes, webinars, etc, I see its utility. But after a few of those a day, I'm worn out. I imagine you, as a teacher are too.
Hang in there.
Silver... a further example might be Obamagate... Hugh Hewitt says there is no crime. AG Barr said he won't investigate, because he knows there's nothing there.
DeleteYet conservatives are foaming at the mouth for prosecutions of Obama and Biden on this count.
Dave,
DeleteIt's important that the content of the original 302's be revealed. But as I understand it, they are not available. Lost? Destroyed? In any case, they were rewritten more than once -- according to the texts of Strock (sp?) and Paige.
As for Zoom, yes, those sessions tire me more than teaching in person. On the other hand, I don't have to get fully dressed and drive to the library, where I usually do my tutoring.
Dave,
DeleteAG Barr said he won't investigate, because he knows there's nothing there.
That is a misrepresentation. See Barr's full statement.
Above, Dave Miller typed in:
ReplyDeleteVice President Mike Pence and President Trump also both said he lied to them as well, and as such, deserved to be fired.
The VP and the POTUS may well have been deceived about the "level" of General Flynn's "lie."
From this source, dated April 30, 2020:
Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House.
Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
“I think Gen. Michael Flynn is a patriotic American who served with great distinction in the armed forces,” Pence told reporters. “I’m deeply troubled by the revelations of what appears to have been investigative abuse by officials in the Justice Department and we are going to continue to look into that very carefully.”
Asked if Flynn was appropriately fired, Pence didn’t answer directly but said: “I know what Gen. Flynn told me and I’m more inclined to believe it was unintentional than ever before.”
Good man Pence.
DeleteAbove, Sam Huntington typed in the following:
ReplyDeleteApparently, however, despite his age and experience, Flynn was naïve to even agree to interview with the FBI. In fact, I don’t understand why any person who stands accused of a crime would agree to answer questions by law enforcement.
I've thought a lot as to why General Flynn wasn't more suspicious, and I think that I now know why....He was "an insider" and couldn't imagine that his fellow insiders would take him down.
Why did they so much want to take him down? Andrew C. McCarthy has addressed that issue in his essay "The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe":
Michael Flynn was not the objective. He was the obstacle.
[...]
But why did they do it? That has been the baffling question. Oh, there have been plenty of indications that the Obama administration could not abide Flynn. The White House and the intelligence agencies had their reasons, mostly vindictive. But while that may explain their gleefulness over his fall from grace, it has never been a satisfying explanation for the extraordinary measures the FBI took to orchestrate that fall.
[...]
The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.
The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.
That is why Flynn had to go.
President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance....
A must read in its entirety -- HERE.
Comment at the above link:
DeleteHere is the thing that should not get lost in all the word salads tossed back and forth. A Democrat administration used the pretext of a counter-intelligence inquiry to open a criminal investigation of the opposition candidate in a presidential election. That investigation was continued in secret by the Justice Department even after the candidate became President.
Eggs ackly.
DeleteYesterday, the headlines screamed Barr says he doesn’t envision investigations of Biden, Obama, but there is more to it:
ReplyDeleteBarr repeated his belief that “what happened to the president” as a result of the FBI’s investigation into whether his 2016 campaign conspired with Russia was “abhorrent” and a “grave injustice.”
General Flynn's name was not mentioned.
What happened shouldn't be a Right or Left issue.
ReplyDeleteHugh Hewitt:
Al Sharpton asked me this on his Saturday cable news show: “What is ‘Obamagate?’ ”
“The intentional interference with the peaceful transition of power,” I responded.
I explained that the American tradition of peaceful transition of power is the “glory of the Republic.” The central charge of the many for which “Obamagate” is shorthand: Senior members of the administration of President Barack Obama made efforts to cripple President Trump’s ability to govern via unconstitutional methods throughout the transition and even into the first three years of his term....
More at the above link -- and worth reading if you can get past the subscription wall.
The video version.
Delete