Share This Article with a Friend!


Bombshell: Gen. Mike Flynn Exonerated DOJ Drops Case

Justice Dropping Flynn Case
The United States Department of Justice on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, LTG Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for the president and his supporters in attacking the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. See motion to dismiss through this link.

The Associated Press called the move “a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.” It comes even though prosecutors for the past three years have maintained that Flynn lied to the FBI in a January 2017 interview about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reports the Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The U.S. Attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended dropping the case to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

But most importantly from the perspective of conservative advocates for the rule of law and for the restoration of General Flynn’s reputation, the government’s motion to dismiss admits a litany of wrongdoing by the FBI, beginning with "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. Moreover, we do not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt."

Among points the filing confirms is that disgraced former FBI Director James Comey was the one who authorized FBI agents, including the despicable Peter Strzok to set-up General Flynn and that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the one who convinced Gen. Flynn not to have the White House Counsel or anyone else from the White house present at the fateful interview in which he was accused of lying to the FBI.

The motion also states that “After the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn had lied. FBI agents reported to their leadership that Mr. Flynn exhibited a ‘very sure demeanor’ and ‘did not give any indicators of deception.’ Both of the agents ‘had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying’.”

The government’s motion also states that “In the case of Mr. Flynn, the evidence shows his statements were not “material” to any viable counterintelligence investigation—or any investigation for that matter—initiated by the FBI. Indeed, the FBI itself had recognized that it lacked sufficient basis to sustain its initial counterintelligence investigation by seeking to close that very investigation without even an interview of Mr. Flynn. Having repeatedly found “no derogatory information” on Mr. Flynn, the FBI’s draft “Closing Communication” made clear that the FBI had found no basis to “predicate further investigative efforts” into whether Mr. Flynn was being directed and controlled by a foreign power (Russia) in a manner that threatened U.S. national security or violated FARA or its related statutes.”

The motion also points out the FBI’s conduct was unwarranted, saying: “With its counterintelligence investigation no longer justifiably predicated, the communications between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak—the FBI’s sole basis for resurrecting the investigation on January 4, 2017—did not warrant either continuing that existing counterintelligence investigation or opening a new criminal investigation. The calls were entirely appropriate on their face.”

And further:

“Whatever gaps in his memory Mr. Flynn might or might not reveal upon an interview regurgitating the content of those calls would not have implicated legitimate counterintelligence interests or somehow exposed Mr. Flynn as beholden to Russia. Notably, at this time FBI did not open a criminal investigation based on Mr. Flynn’s calls with Mr. Kislyak predicated on the Logan Act. The FBI never attempted to open a new investigation of Mr. Flynn on these grounds. Mr. Flynn’s communications with the Russian ambassador implicated no crime. This is apparent from the FBI’s rush to revive its old investigation rather than open and justify a new one, as well as its ongoing inability to espouse a consistent justification for its probe in conversations with DOJ leadership, In fact, Deputy Attorney General Yates thought that the FBI leadership “morphed” between describing the investigation into Mr. Flynn as a “counterintelligence” or a “criminal” investigation.

In short, the motion stated, “Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador—the only new information to arise since the FBI’s decision to close out his investigation—did not constitute an articulable factual basis to open any counterintelligence investigation or criminal investigation. Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page apparently celebrated the “serendipitous” and “amazing” fact of the FBI’s delay in formally closing out the original counterintelligence investigation. Having the ability to bootstrap the calls with Mr. Kislyak onto the existing authorization obviated the need for the “7th Floor” of the FBI to predicate further investigative efforts. In doing so, the FBI sidestepped a modest but critical protection that constrains the investigative reach of law enforcement: the predication threshold for investigating American citizens.”

In view of the government’s bombshell decision to dismiss the case against General Flynn we reiterate the question that headlined our May 1, 2020 column: When And How Will Gen. Mike Flynn Be Made Whole?

General Flynn and his family have been left devastated by this ordeal and the financial and reputational ruin visited upon General Flynn is especially grievous when one considers that vile people like Christine Blasey Ford and Stormy Daniels raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for their “legal defense” but a good man like General Flynn has been destroyed, not for lying to the FBI, but for telling the truth about the failures of Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have no idea what it will take to make General Flynn whole financially, but I have contributed to the Michael T. Flynn Legal Defense Fund, I hope you will too.

Share this