Judge-Appointed Council In Gen. Flynn Case Doubles Down On Partisan Stupidity

Written by Wes Walker on September 12, 2020

Is this judge corrupt? Is he rope-a-doping this to push back the resolution AFTER the Election, so that Flynn can’t speak publicly? Or is this judge simply pompous and settling petty scores?

We’re not really seeing any other possibilities beyond these.

An Obama-appointed judge (since the media plays this same game when the appointments are made by Trump) is making life hard for General Flynn.

As a quick recap, an internal investigation by the DOJ has discovered that the DOJ failed to provide exculpatory evidence in favor of Flynn. There is also evidence that he was wrongfully prosecuted from the get-go — including evidence that came forward about his name being cleared one day before that now-infamous Oval Office meeting with Obama and Biden present, and Strzok frantically calling the agents NOT to close the investigation against Flynn.

Trending: Why Did The New York Times Bury THIS Detail In Their ‘Trump Taxes’ Hit Piece?

The DOJ pulled the charges, and that should have been that.

Instead, the Judge is hellbent on taking Flynn’s scalp, and had effectively taken up the role of prosecution, and appointed an independent counsel to do that job.

Remember, it is a court’s job to be the decider between competing wills. It is NEVER the court’s job to get into the fray and pulling the result to one side or the other, but here we are.

Here’s what we already knew…

“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,” the Justice Department said in its May motion to dismiss. “Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Flynn, a target of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI investigators about his December 2016 conversations with a Russian envoy. But after changing legal teams, Flynn claimed he was innocent and had been set up by the FBI. After Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to review the Flynn case, a host of new documents deemed exculpatory by Flynn’s lawyers were discovered. Jensen “concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case” and recommended this to Barr.

Former FBI Director James Comey admitted last year he took advantage of the chaos in the early days of President Trump’s administration, when he sent now-fired FBI special agent Strzok and another FBI agent believed to be Joseph Pientka to talk to Flynn.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed a three-judge appeals court panel decision in late August and denied Flynn’s effort to have the case against him swiftly dropped. The 8-2 decision, a significant blow to Trump’s first national security adviser, threw the case back to Sullivan, who refused to allow the Justice Department to dismiss it quickly. The politically charged legal fight now threatens to extend up to and past the Nov. 3 presidential election.

…Notes from Bill Priestap, the FBI’s former head of counterintelligence, show him asking, “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

With what we’re learning about Mueller’s team conveniently wiping their phones, we might argue that the entire investigation was hopeless corrupted and should be thrown out even if it had airtight evidence, which it assuredly did not.

So what is the latest development?

The court-appointed outside counsel in the case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn urged the presiding judge to reject the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case following the unearthing of information related to the former national security adviser’s legal fight.

The Justice Department told the district court in May that “continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice” as it sought to drop its case against Flynn after new records were made public. Instead, District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who has handled the Flynn case since December 2017, appointed retired New York Judge John Gleeson to serve as an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department’s motion and to explore whether Flynn should be charged with perjury or contempt.

About his line of attack:

The court-appointed outside counsel in the case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn urged the presiding judge to reject the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case following the unearthing of information related to the former national security adviser’s legal fight.

The Justice Department told the district court in May that “continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice” as it sought to drop its case against Flynn after new records were made public. Instead, District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who has handled the Flynn case since December 2017, appointed retired New York Judge John Gleeson to serve as an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department’s motion and to explore whether Flynn should be charged with perjury or contempt.

You can click on Roscoe B Davis’ Twitter for a more detailed analysis of how bad this court-appointed shmuck really is… Here are a couple of key takeaways from the many he provided. Click the datestamp to follow the link.