There is no recognition that anything in the prosecution may have been amiss.
I have only tangentially followed the Flynn case, but where I have it has been through right-wing-ish blogs, so at first glance it seemed bizarre not to acknowledge at least some impropriety in the prosecution. But maybe not; I guess what the left and right consider as the truth in this case are two very different stories.
Here's the gist of it:
Now, Attorney General Barr has once again assaulted the rule of law, this time in the case of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Subsequent events strongly suggest political interference in Flynn’s prosecution. Despite previously acknowledging that he “had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” President Trump has repeatedly and publicly complained that Flynn has been mistreated and subjected to a “witch hunt.” The President has also said that Flynn was “essentially exonerated” and that he was “strongly considering a [f]ull [p]ardon.” The Department has now moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn, in a filing signed by a single political appointee and no career prosecutors. The Department’s purported justification for doing so does not hold up to scrutiny, given the ample evidence that the investigation was well-founded and — more importantly — the fact that Flynn admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI in violation of longstanding federal law.Make no mistake: The Department’s action is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it.
Interestingly, all of the names of the signers are published on the same site, so you can browse through them if you care.
12 comments:
"Former" DOJ personnel sounds good.
The sheer audacity to not just downplay, but outright IGNORE the irregularities and illegalities it took for the FBI to arrange for that plea deal where Flynn "admitted under oath and in open court that he told material lies to the FBI" is unconscionable. It is like pleading the case that every prisoner put on trial in the Soviet Union was in fact guilty of attempting to overthrow the Revolution because after all, they all admitted under oath and in open court" that they had done so. Ignore the fact that they did so following torture and threats that their whole families and friends would be murdered if they did not. I'm with Tex. "Former" is the appropriate adjective for all these DOJ personnel. Hopefully none of them will ever again be put in power over another man's fate.
It was bad enough that they threatened his son if he wouldn't plead, on top of all the scummy entrapment, but when they concealed that part of the deal from the court, they crossed an even brighter line. I don't know if that's criminal, but it is clearly grounds for sanctions if not disbarment.
I'm not impressed with the judge so far, but I'm trying to reserve judgment until I see whether learning about the concealed "handshake" deal on the plea is enough to tip him over the edge and do something that goes against his politics.
Something has inflamed Sullivan for him to take such an openly contrary stance, and it's still not in sight. I've read that he bears an animus for Sidney Powell, and that there have been a few heated exchanges. He certainly seems to bear animus for Flynn, dragging some....rather odd references to treason (speculating whether Flynn is a traitor) into the conversation when it hadn't been mentioned. Odd, almost to the point of being a non-sequitor the way I read it, especially when the subject is a 3 star combat general on trial for 'lying to the FBI'. Hopefully this will come to light. I suspect that Flynn was under investigation from the time that he left the Obama administration in bad odor over the Iran deal, at least in part to develop opportunities for retribution. The Obama administration seemed to have had a real taste for that.
I'm curious what Sullivan is about, too. He's opened the floor for amicus briefs from interested individuals and community organizations (presumably to include this group of 2,000 former prosecutors). Maybe he's doing that to ensure that they don't feel that their view wasn't considered, so that when he dismisses the charges he can do so with a response that explains why he thinks it's just and proper. Or maybe he's planning to pull a fast one, and sentence even in the face of the DOJ trying to drop the charges.
Nobody knows but him, for now. We'll see.
In any case I read an interesting argument today that he committed a reversible error in accepting the original guilty plea without establishing that Flynn's alleged lies had materially affected the investigation. He said twice during the hearing that he wasn't sure exactly how the government would argue that the perjury was material, and yet accepted a guilty plea anyway. (Apparently this violates "Rule 11" of sentencing hearings, but I'm not a lawyer.) So if he sentences, presumably Flynn's very capable lawyer could appeal on those grounds; then, once the guilty plea is found to have been wrongly accepted, the lack of prosecution would void a new trial.
But really these charges should be dismissed with prejudice. It's clear that Flynn was very thoroughly investigated, found to be innocent, and the FBI intended to close its case and be done with it. The whole show of the last several years was the result of the decision to try to trap him by creating a crime rather than prosecuting an existing crime.
I believe I was just commenting about the law over on the GA jogging post...
This is what the law really is...it's who the law is.
The rest is fantasy. It's TV, Law and Order.
The DOJ is Apex Predator, that's all.
Flynn has suffered terribly. The GA father and son are going to jail.
That's the law, the real law.
The mistake was trafficking with these people ...the law..to begin with.
I'm actually law abiding, but that's right and wrong, and I respect the police. A great deal, many are friends and family.
But the truth is that Flynn escaping is an anomaly, freakish almost.
The behavior here has been going on for some time, it is in fact the standard. Flynn's escape is the anomaly, not his prosecution and ruin.
That's why 2000 sign the letter...it's probably very reflective of DOJ.
Look at who the law really is, face the facts.
Not what you want, what is the truth.
Short version.
The rule of law is now in the world we live The Rule of Lawyers.
Here they are. The Democratic Party's Apex Predators; an actual achievement.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-flynn-case-7c38a9a945b9
Suppose for a moment that they have read the law correctly, and this is a terrible breach of justice. Is there significant precedent for "alumni" (making it sound like the DOJ was an institution of higher learning, heh) doubling back on the next administration and saying, as a group, "you should not do this?" I don't recall it. People who live in a world of politics know that you don't always get what you want. The guilty sometimes get away with stuff, the innocent sometimes suffer when the new boss comes in.
Yet this group somehow feels that this pattern should not hold in this instance, because this is somehow especially egregious. That in itself is suspicious. Are they truly claiming that this is unprecedented, like no presidential pardon, no dropped prosecution, no politicised accusation of the past but some original, extreme case? It sounds very much as if that is their claim, and that is deeply troubling in itself. Had this been the usual murmurings that this is corrupt and worrisome I might have wondered if I were the one being partisan. When this extremity of accusation is made, I can feel confident that it is not I who is the extremist.
On that issue - the 2,000 foot soldiers marching to the cause - I think that answer is simple. There is a political value to forcing Trump to pardon the general. Either way the outcome, this is invested political capital for the upcoming election. If the case stays dropped and Flynn walks, they point to this effort as the noble protest to a corrupted DOJ. If Flynn is convicted then pardoned: Same answer. Trump is corrupt, we were noble.
Of course, Flynn ain't exactly a Puerto Rican terrorist bomber, either, eh?
Flynn personally is better off pardoned, since it prevents him being re-prosecuted should Joe Biden win (and former prosecutor Kamala Harris become the real President). Although I suppose they'll find another cause, or invent one, in that eventuality.
I hate how reports in the news surface, then disappear, like sightings of enemy submarines in wartime. Just the reports are enough to disrupt commerce.
In this case the report was that Flynn was "allowed" to plea to the minor crime of lying to FBI agents, while other reportedly more serious charges were dropped, in exchange for his future cooperation and testimony against higher up officials in the Republican campaign. Later, prosecutors (reportedly) griped that Flynn's testimony was useless, he had nothing to contribute that they could use to bring higher ups into court, much less win convictions.
We are left to infer the dropped, more serious, charges involve the sorts of treason that the judge is worried about. But without reporters following up, we don't know.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but Flynn's inability to testify about the crimes of his superiors leaves us to infer there may have been no such crimes. But without follow up...
When they make a movie about all this, a CGI replica of Paul Newman can portray Flynn, and a CGI Sally Field can play a composite journalist. I hope they get a better real actress to portray Sidney than some sort of CGI Wilford Brimley.
Flynn is calling in too much DS resources and fire. I wonder why. Could it be due to Flynn's access to Special Access programs that not even the President has a need to know about? If Flynn remains in the Trum admin, would Trum be allowed to know of certain things the Deep State does not want Trum to release?
The Heavens decree and mankind abides.
Post a Comment