“Have a great life General Flynn!”
President Trump pardoned General Flynn on the eve of Thanksgiving.
“It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon. Congratulations to @GenFlynn and his wonderful family, I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving!”
The President followed up with “Have a great life General Flynn!”
After four years as a political prisoner General Flynn gets his life back.
But the search for truth and justice is far from over, for General Flynn is a victim of the Russia Collusion Hoax, as I show in my book SPYGATE EXPOSED.
The mainstream media and left-leaning politicians still misrepresent what happened in the case of General Flynn. An example is this Associated Press article entitled: “Trump pardons Flynn despite guilty plea in Russia probe.” The journalist claims that “the pardon, in the waning weeks of Trump’s single term, is part of a broader effort by Trump to undo the results of a Russia investigation that shadowed his administration.”
Democratic Rep, Adam Schiff “slammed ‘crooked’ Trump over Michael Flynn pardon and says president is acting like ‘organized crime figure’. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: President Trump’s pardoning of Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his dealings with a foreign adversary, is an act of grave corruption and a brazen abuse of power.
So let’s correct the false narrative.
General Flynn did not need the pardon as the Department of Justice DROPPED the case and charges against him on May 7, 2020 because it is in the interests of justice. The career prosecutors decided they simply cannot win the case in front of a jury.
The Department of Justice had very good reasons to believe so.
These are the reasons:
They could not prove that Gen. Flynn lied to the FBI in January 2017. His “interview” (interrogation) was not recorded. The witnesses were unreliable. Career prosecutor Principal AUSA Kohl stated: “all of our evidence, all of our witnesses in this case as to what Mr. Flynn did or didn't do have been -- have had specific findings by the Office of Inspector General. Lying under oath, misleading the Court, acting with political motivation.“Never in my career, Your Honor, have I had a case with witnesses, all of whom have had specific credibility findings and then been pressed to go forward with the prosecution. We're never expected to do so”. In any event, DOJ says, what General Flynn said or didn’t say was not material to the investigation.
The FBI had no business to interrogate General Flynn in the first place. They did so as part of the Russia Collusion investigation. But as the DoJ stated General Flynn was not a person of interest by November 2016.
My book SPYGATE EXPOSED, availabe at Spygate-Exposed.com shows how General Flynn was framed as part of the plot to frame Donald Trump.
Here are some extracts from the DoJ's 20 page reasoning to withdraw all charges:
“a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn's statements were never “material" to any FBI investigation. And even if they could be material, the Government does not believe it could prove that Mr. Flynn knowingly and wilfully made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the facts of this case, the Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof. The FBI agents “had the impression that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Ex. 13 at 4. And the statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview. Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal (“I don't know”) or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question. See United States v. Ring, 81 I F. Supp. 2d 359, 384 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding that “faulty memory" is not enough to establish “wilful" lie absent proof the defendant indeed remembered the matter.
The statements by Mr. Flynn also were not material to the umbrella investigation of Crossfire Hurricane, which focused on the Trump campaign and its possible coordination with Russian officials to interfere with the 2016 presidential election back prior to November 2016. Mr. Flynn had never been identified by that investigation and had been deemed “no longer" a viable candidate for it. Most importantly, his interview had nothing to do with this subject matter and nothing in FBI materials suggest any relationship between the interview and the umbrella investigation. Rather, throughout the period before the interview, the FBI consistently justified the interview of Flynn based on its no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation of him alone.
The Government appreciates that the Court previously deemed Mr. Flynn’s statements sufficiently “material" to the investigation. United States v. Flynn, 411 F. Supp. 3d 15, 41-42 (D.D.C. 2019). It did so, however, based on the Government's prior understanding of the nature of the investigation, before new disclosures crystallised the lack of a legitimate investigative basis for the interview of Mr. Flynn, and in the context of a decision on multiple defence Brady motions independent of the Government’s assessment of its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Notes that had been discovered over at DOJ and among the Special Counsel file showed that the Special Counsel prosecutors themselves met with DOJ officials [...] and they observed that Flynn had a bad memory. That's consistent with his claims of innocence in this case”.
Principal Assistant US Attorney Kohl, the senior-most career lawyer in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, stated to court: “we have newly discovered the HPSCI transcript that had been classified and that we didn't have access to by the U.S. House of Representatives of James Comey's testimony. Comey was asked directly do you think Flynn lied, he said I don't know, I think there’s an argument he lied, it's a close oneWhen most authoritative voice of FBI, the director is saying he doesn't know, he thinks there is an argument he lied, that's a problem for the government. We don't prosecute people -- we don't just throw the evidence on the wall to see what sticks. We prosecute people when we are certain they committed a crime. As Your Honor knows, the agents left the interview of Mr. Flynn and they said...... they could not tell from his demeanor whether he actually knew he was lying and they had doubts as to whether he did lie.”Principal USA Kohl: “We ultimately had to prove this case with witnesses. There is no recording of what Mr. Flynn said. It's going to be the testimony of the case agents who were there. Most of the agents who were there have since this case was charged [had credibility findings]..."no audio recording [of the] January 24, 2017 interview of Mr. Flynn. That's the basis of this charge. There's no audio recording of exactly what he said or didn't say during that interview. It’s just the FBI's recollection based on their notes and their 302”Principal Assistant US Attorney Kohl: “There were two agents that were present. Who are we going to call as witnesses in this case? Are we going to call Pete Strzok, the lead agent that had drove this investigation who the Inspector General had said that...Strozk’s texts “implied a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral process”He felt work he was doing would be an insurance policy to blunt Trump if he's elected. The very next day after he sent that message he opened this investigation...Do we call the second interview in April? A whole separate Office of Inspector General report that found that he mislead the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about material facts concerning another Trump advisor, Carter Page. Or do we call the deputy director who ordered the [Flynn] interview, Andy McCabe, who was fired by DOJ after they determined he lied under oath including to FBI agents? If we move forward in this case, we would be put in a position of presenting the testimony of Andy McCabe, a person who our office charged and did not prosecute for the same offense that we would be proceeding to trial against with respect to Mr. Flynn. So all of our evidence, all of our witnesses in this case as to what Mr. Flynn did or didn't do have been -- have had specific findings by the Office of Inspector General. Lying under oath, misleading the Court, acting with political motivation.
Never in my career, Your Honor, have I had a case with witnesses, all of whom have had specific credibility findings and then been pressed to go forward with the prosecution. We're never expected to do so”.