For those of us who are skeptical of the inner-workings of our federal government, the case against General Michael Flynn must feel like vindication, as it appears to provide proof of some fairly overt attempts to subvert the presidency of Donald Trump.
First, Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI, even though the FBI had been forced to admit early on that they did not believe that Flynn believed that he was lying to them. Then, just weeks ago, a note handwritten by one of the interviewing agents was uncovered. The note plainly suggested that there had been a discussion about whether or not to trick Flynn into lying so that they would have the charges to hold over him.
Those damning revelations stirred action from the Department of Justice, who moved swiftly to drop the charges against General Flynn. Judge Emmet Sullivan disagreed with the decision, however, and is now holding amicus briefs in the case.
A judge participating in the amicus brief this week made an absurd claim as to why the case against Flynn must remain on the court’s docket.
In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Gleeson argued that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is presiding in the Flynn case, should be allowed to stop the Department of Justice (DOJ) from ending the prosecution.
And what was the basis for this claim?
Gleeson complained that the government’s new stance contradicted its earlier filings, and claimed: “The Government has engaged in highly irregular conduct to benefit a political ally of the President.”
In one passage, Gleeson cited the fact that Trump had tweeted repeatedly about the case as evidence of interference:
President Trump has since engaged in running public commentary about Flynn’s criminal case through the media and on Twitter. In total, he has tweeted or retweeted about Flynn at least 100 times from March 2017 to present.48 This commentary has made clear that the President has been closely following the proceedings, is personally invested in ensuring that Flynn’s prosecution ends, and has deep animosity toward those who investigated and prosecuted Flynn.
If it’s any consolation, the length of time that will be spent discussing Flynn’s case will draw ever more attention to the seedy underbelly of Washington politics, and expose the so-called Deep State many times over.
Become an insider!
Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.