Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his dealings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. He did it because Robert Mueller’s team threatened to destroy his reputation, bankrupt him, and destroy his son. He pled out to stop the bleeding and save his son.
Department officials, including Attorney General William Barr, concluded in light of recently disclosed evidence that the FBI’s questioning of him just four days after Trump’s inauguration lacked a proper investigative basis.
The FBI had to get him out of the way for their coup of the President of the United States. Whether that can be proven in a court of law, we can’t say, but it is obvious.
THE PROSECUTOR IS RUNNING FOR THE HILLS
The abrupt move by the DOJ came moments after the top prosecutor in the case against Flynn withdrew abruptly and without explanation. Brandon Van Grack, who served as one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top lawyers and remained on the Flynn case even after Mueller’s office closed down, signaled his exit from the case. He issued a terse, one-sentence filing with U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan Thursday afternoon. He probably feels persecuted.
Van Grack is running for the hills.
THERE IS NO CASE
DOJ said in a court filing Thursday that it no longer believed it could make a case against the former three-star Army general.
“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 department said in its motion. “Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.”
At the time, former FBI director James Comey laughed about taking advantage of the administration’s inexperience to set up Michael Flynn. They needed to get him out of the way.
Rod Rosenstein’s FBI first investigated Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Michael Flynn and then told Mueller to go after them. There was no Russia collusion case — ever.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S VIEW
Trump might rehire him.
“I think he’s a fine man. I think it’s terrible what [the FBI] did to him,” Trump said on April 30, adding that he would “certainly consider” bringing the former general back into his administration.
President Trump responded Thursday to the news.
“He was an innocent man,” Mr. Trump said. “Now in my book, he’s an even greater warrior.”
Mr. Trump criticized the Obama administration, saying, “They’re human scum. It’s treason.”
Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis, was tasked by Attorney General William P. Barr with reviewing the government’s case against Flynn. He said ending the case was the right call.
“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Mr. Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani immediately praised the Justice Department’s action.
“Finally justice has been done in the case of Gen. Flynn,” he wrote on Twitter.
The move comes shortly after Brandon Van Grack, a former member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, on Thursday withdrew from the case, issuing a terse, one-line statement.
Mr. Van Grack did not provide a reason for his withdrawal, according to a one-sentence filing with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Flynn supporters and allies of President Trump last week questioned whether Mr. Van Grack complied with a court order to produce evidence that could vindicate the former national security adviser.
Bombshell evidence released last week by the Justice Department — including an FBI document revealing the government had not uncovered any wrongdoing by Flynn.
THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
In February 2018, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to turn over all evidence in its possession “that is favorable to the defendant and material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.”
Mr. Van Grack had maintained in court filings that the government had fulfilled its obligation to give Flynn’s legal team exculpatory evidence.
Van Grack denied the allegations in an October 2019 filing saying the government met its so-called “Brady” obligations to turn over information favorable to the defense.
Well, that wasn’t true, it seems.
A handwritten note surfaced suggesting that the FBI’s goal in interviewing Flynn was to get him to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired.
The notes also suggested that the FBI wanted Flynn to admit breaking the Logan Act for “the crime” of speaking to a Russian ambassador.
It looks like there is more to come. Van Grack is a possible target.