The Trump-Russia collusion carcass is falling apart and there are still some folks trying to keep its entrails from spilling onto the floor with duct tape. It’s an exercise in futility, desperation really. This narrative has suffered more bullet wounds than Bonnie and Clyde—and yet, the institutional Left continues to think there actually was such a plot during the 2016 election. It’s been debunked. Two investigations proved that. The core of this wild goose chase—the Trump dossier—which was compiled by an ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, and funded by the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign was exposed as a total fraud. It was a political opposition research file that was loaded with Russian misinformation but cited as credible evidence to secure spy warrants against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. The Obama Department of Justice spied on the presidential campaign of a rival party. That’s, uh, problematic. The dossier provided the basis for the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, which later became the special counsel investigation under Robert Mueller once James Comey was fired in May of 2017. Oh, and during that probe, FBI officials were trying to glean information from Trump campaign officials under false pretenses and relaying that intelligence, if any, to their supervisors. That’s spying.
Michael Flynn was coming in as Trump’s national security adviser. He spoke with the Russians as part of run-of-the-mill diplomatic calls with any incoming administration. He was doing his job, and yet the FBI top brass—Comey and Andrew McCabe—were out to get him. By this time, there was no evidence of Russian collusion. There was no evidence to warrant targeting Flynn for any federal investigation. And yet, they proceeded with this entrapment plot. Even the agents who spoke with Flynn felt like he didn’t lie. Flynn, facing financial ruin, was forced to plead guilty to “lying to the FBI” charges, which were politically motivated. Recently, new documents exposed the FBI plot against him, the prosecutorial overreach, and its malicious nature. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case, which gutted the entire case against Flynn. And yet, Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the case, is refusing to drop it. For a man who was very strict about ensuring the prosecution handed over all exculpatory evidence, it’s a rather odd turn. Second, he’s allowing amicus brief from some of the most virulent anti-Trump legal minds out there. There is no prosecutor, by the way. He resigned. No party involved in the case has opposed the motion to dismiss.
There is no case, no prosecutor, and no reason to keep Flynn locked in this legal nightmare. Sullivan is going off the reservation. Now, he’s appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, to fight the DOJ’s motion and—get this—see if they can file perjury charges against Flynn for his initial guilty plea. It’s total madness. This isn’t going to end well, and it will prolong an already embarrassing chapter with this legal fiasco. Oh, and get this, Gleeson’s former opinion appears to back up the motion to dismiss the case against Flynn. Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel cited it. In United States v. HSBC Bank USA back in 2013, then-Judge Gleeson said that the government has near-universal power to withdraw a case it has brought before the court.
Strassel added, “He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"
1) Here's an interesting ruling from one (former) Judge John Gleeson, the guy who Sullivan just appointed to oppose the motion to withdraw Flynn's case. It's from United States v. HSBC Bank USA in 2013:— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
2)"The government has near-absolute power . . . to extinguish a case that it has brought." He then goes to quote U.S. v Pimentel: "A court is generally required to grant a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion unless dismissal is 'clearly contrary to manifest public interest.'"— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
3) Gleeson, by his own standards, should have turned down this job. Better yet, he should have advised Judge Sullivan as to how inappropriate these moves are.— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 14, 2020
There was no collusion. There was no case against Flynn. He was the victim of an FBI run amok. There is no public interest in keeping this kangaroo court case going. If anything, what’s best in the interests of the American people is for Democrats and the liberal media to move on from this fake news story about Russian collusion.
There is no case. Move on, judge. Strassel added that if anything, Gleeson should have turned down the job and gave Sullivan a lecture about how he’s gone rogue with this case. The New York Sun is speculating that Sullivan wants to drag this out until after the 2020 election, bet on Biden winning, and have his DOJ withdraw the motion to dismiss.
Grab some Advil, folks. We’re about to go another seven rounds with the government.
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!