Category: Notorious Cases

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has set the Michael Flynn case for oral argument Friday, June 12.

Continue reading . . .

One of the reasons I was slow to come around to Gen. Flynn’s side was my view that he could have avoided all his troubles on his own by being thoroughly, indeed enthusiastically, honest with the agent who interviewed him.  The agent asked him if he had had prior conversations with the Russian ambassador about American sanctions and the possible Russian response.  According to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the indictment, Flynn answered, inter alia, “Not really.  I don’t remember.  It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything.'”  Flynn also stated that although it was possible, he did not recall any conversation in which the ambassador stated that Russian would moderate its response due to Mr. Flynn’s request.

At best, these were not straightforward and forthcoming answers.  There is no realistic possibility that Flynn didn’t remember that one of his main tasks for the prior six weeks or so was to see if Russia would moderate its response, and that he had talked to the ambassador about just that.

Gen. Flynn had a much better answer right in front of his face. Continue reading . . .

In my last post, I discussed five arguments I often see made in behalf of Gen. Flynn that don’t hold water, either because they are contrary to established law or because they take a skewed or insufficiently documented view of the facts of his case.  I now want to outline the one argument that should, and will, win the case for him, and upon which the Justice Department’s motion for dismissal should be granted. Continue reading . . .

In what is now old news, the Justice Department has moved to dismiss the prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn  —  even though Flynn pleaded guilty months ago  —  because the Department has concluded that the prosecutors’ and the FBI’s behavior leading up to the decision to charge him were tainted with improper political motives, and were in their own right often underhanded if not outright dishonest.

In my view, the Department’s argument is well-founded.  Its motion should and will be granted, although when and by whom is not clear.  In a later post, I will set out the case for granting it.  Still, there have been a number of erroneous arguments made for Flynn, and I think they need to be called out: Continue reading . . .

Tomorrow, the Federalist Society will host a public teleforum on the Flynn case, with Bill Otis, John Yoo, and John Malcolm. The time is 3:30 pm EDT / 12:30 PDT. Continue reading . . .