Liberal Reporter Notes Something Critical in Ex-Obama DOJ Official’s Op-Ed About Why Flynn’s Prosecution Was ‘Legitimate’

|
|
Posted: May 13, 2020 2:06 PM
Liberal Reporter Notes Something Critical in Ex-Obama DOJ Official’s Op-Ed About Why Flynn’s Prosecution Was ‘Legitimate’

Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

The Michael Flynn case is over. Yes, the judge overseeing the case is trying to keep this kangaroo court going by inviting the most rabid lefties into the court to file friendly briefings, but this case is done. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Flynn, who plead guilty to politically motivated “lying to the FBI” charges, once it was revealed he was the victim of an FBI entrapment plot. It goes all the way up to the top. James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the two disgraced top brass figures at the DOJ, were out to get Flynn no matter what. There was no basis for investigating Flynn for any federal investigation. The evidence of Russian collusion was not there. The reasoning for his interview: he spoke with the Russian ambassador…which is part of his job. There was no reason to go after Flynn. The Logan Act angle was total garbage. It’s a circus act, a heinous one, and once again exposed the lengths to which the anti-Trump deep state will go to get scalps and damage this administration from governing. And it’s no shock that the former Obama DOJ officials who were in on this scheme are defending it as legitimate and legal. Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Mary McCord alleges that Barr just “twisted” their words (via NYT) [emphasis mine]:

…the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

[…]

Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

[…]

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

Oh, Mary. You’re an Obamaite; no one believes you. Well, except the other traitors at the DOJ who have since left. James Comey admitted to being part of the Flynn perjury entrapment plot. I mean, it’s clear as day. Even liberal lawyers say there could be grounds for Flynn to file a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the FBI. You’re just wrong. Period. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist broke down the key dates that led to this Russian collusion delusion engulfing the nation that began with a key January 5, 2017 meeting where Obama reportedly handed out his marching orders regarding how to protect the FBI counterintelligence probe and possibly keep the incoming Trump administration from finding out about it. Coordinated media leaks were key in fanning the flames of this hoax:

Comey later admitted he broke every protocol to send agents to interview Flynn and try to catch him in a lie. FBI officials strategized how to keep Flynn from knowing he was a target of the investigation or asking for an attorney to represent him in the interview. The January 23 Washington Post article, which falsely stated that Flynn was not an FBI target, was key to that strategy. Though the interviewing agents said they could detect no “tells” indicating he lied, and he carefully phrased everything in the interview, he later was induced to plead guilty to lying in this interview. Ostensibly because White House officials downplayed the Kislyak phone calls, presumably in light of what Flynn had told them about the calls, Yates would go to the White House the next day and insinuate Flynn should probably be fired.

And what about the 302 report? It took three weeks to file, where it should have been completed in five days, according to department policy. It was altered and edited by people who weren’t even at the interview, another issue. 

Finally, where did McCord say there was direct evidence of collusion or anything that would warrant the FBI/DOJ going after Flynn? It pretty much says I don’t agree with Barr and this is what I think happened, so that must be the case. What she doesn’t include is the mountain of evidence that Russian collusion was a nothing burger, they had nothing on Flynn, and she admits that. Even liberal reporter Michael Tracey, who has been skeptical of the Russian collusion narrative, noted that by highlighting her own words: “the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn.” Yeah, that means there was never evidence, which is what the DOJ motion to dismiss notes. Also, Adam Schiff was exposed as peddling Russian collusion hysteria, even as his investigation found no solid evidence to support his mythical tale of Kremlin interference. Sorry, liberals. We won and you lost…again. You’re just upset that your dirty operations are being exposed, operations that were supposed to be buried under the paperwork of a Clinton presidency. Well, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. 

Later suckers. 

Editor's Note: Want to support Townhall so we can keep telling the truth about the Obama Admin's FISA abuses and egregious setup of General Flynn? Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FISA to get 25% off VIP membership!