The DOJ moves to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn


By Robert Willmann

In a 20-page document filed today in the criminal case against Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.), the U.S. Department of Justice asked that the charging document against him, the "information", be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be re-filed in the future.

Filed before the motion to dismiss was a notice by the Robert Mueller group lawyer Brandon Van Grack that he is withdrawing as an attorney for the government in the case.  He is still employed at the DOJ as chief of the Foreign Agents Registration Act section.

Thirteen exhibits were attached to the government's motion.  Here is the request, without the exhibits–

I may have to get on the road, but I hope to provide more information soon.


This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Intelligence, Justice, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The DOJ moves to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn

  1. Deap says:

    Of course they dropped it. Things were getting too close to Obama if they continued. From the 7th floor to The One’s own jug ears.

  2. Barbara Ann says:

    Finally, nice to see the DOJ dispensing some actual justice. If this starts to becomes a habit a whole lot of powerful people are gonna be shakin’ in their boots. Go get ’em Mr President, make those three syllable campaign slogans a reality. It’s the greatest service you can do your country.

  3. Jim says:

    Then FBI Dir. Comey and then-acting AG Sally Yates were on the phone prior to Stzrok and another agent [Pientka?] interviewing Lt. Gen. Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017, documents filed today in court show.
    Yates did nothing to stop this from happening.
    Yates was upset because she wanted to get Flynn — and the FBI had not told her the interviewing would be going down later that day, court documents filed today by DOJ show.
    She had wanted the effort to get Flynn to be better coordinated, between DOJ and FBI, they show.
    DOJ folks and Yates thought Gen. Flynn was lying. As did Ex-FBI Dep. Director McCabe; those who interviewed Flynn that day reached no such conclusion.
    An interview transcript of an interview of Yates shows she was going to tell the White House, via WH counsel about the FBI interview; but not about their ongoing investigation of Flynn, when she went to WH on Jan. 26. 2017.
    She told WH Counsel FBI had interviewed Flynn.
    When WHC asked her “if the FBI’s investigation was criminal”–“Yates declined to answer.”
    This, about Yates, is from an FBI document, of Sept. 7, 2017, by FBI agents assigned to Special Prosecutor Office Robert Mueller’s “team.”
    This does not say who the agents interviewing Yates are. It says she was accompanied by “her personal counsel, David O’Neil” and that “Special Counsel’s Office attorneys Andrew Goldstein and Elizabeth Prelogar” participated “in the interview with FBI Special Agents.”
    In this SCO interview [filed with the court today]: “Yates stated it is a violation of the Logan Act for someone not a member of the administration to advocate a position contrary to the current administration position.”
    While at the White House on Jan. 26, 2017, according to her SCO interview, “Yates told [WHC Don] McGahn the reason they were telling him about the calls was that the underlying conduct itself was problematic, plus Flynn lied to Vice President Pence, and the Chief of Staff, causing those people in turn to lie to the American People. The fact that the Russians were aware of the lie created a compromise situation for Flynn.”
    In the Special Council Office interview, germane to her conversation with WHC, Yates “described McGahn and his associate’s reaction as ‘reeling.’ She cannot recall if they asked her what they could do, but she did not offer a recommendation. She did personally think privately that Flynn would be fired. . . Yates and [then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary] McCord remarked to one another that the meeting ‘went better than they thought it would.'”
    McCord attend this meeting with Yates, with the WHC at the White House it appears.
    Yates and WHC met the next day, Jan. 27, 2017.
    The FBI agents’ SCO document of her Sept. 2017 interview states: “McGahn said to her at one point something along the lines of ‘Oh, come on, what are the chances DOJ will prosecute the Logan Act?'”
    “Yates told McGahn that putting aside whether or not anyone had been successfully prosecuted for a Logan Act violation, they were missing the point that they had a potential compromise (sic) situation with their National Security Advisor,” she told the SCO.
    Today, the DOJ moved to dismiss case precisely because no crime had been committed, thus there was zero “materiality” — aka, no rational reason, no legal reason, to charge him with anything, and thus, to have even attempted to interview him, — for the purpose of charging him with lying to FBI.
    [[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 not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.]]

  4. walrus says:

    Can Flynn be awarded compensation and costs?

  5. Jim says:

    In the SCO interview of Yates in September 2017, she claims she first learned of the Gen. Flynn/Russian Ambassador telephone call of late December 2016 directly from Barry.
    Yates says this occurred in the Oval Office on Jan. 5, 2017, the day after Stzrok et. als., pushed to keep “Operation Razor” against Flynn open.
    According to the Yates SCO interview [Sept. 2017}, many head hunters were in the OO, but: “Obama dismissed the group but asked Yates and Comey to stay behind. Obama started by saying he had ‘learned of the information about Flynn’ and his conversation with Kislyak. . .”
    Yates claims this was first she’d heard about that phone call.
    At this OO meeting: “Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act”
    “Yates did not recall Comey’s response to the President’s question about how to treat Flynn.”
    This interview also characterizes her as follows:
    “Yates had the impression the FBI was more eager to pursue prosecution initially.”

  6. Jack says:

    I’m happy for Flynn and his family. What a travesty! Hounded for 3 years and bankrupted. I hope the perpetrators are prosecuted not just a slap on the wrist.

  7. TV says:

    That would be chump change.
    The REAL money is suing Covington and Burling – for masquerading as lawyers with credentials in place of brains.
    Actually, you’re just suing their insurance company.

  8. Fred says:

    He needs discovery from Covington and Burling in addition to a monetary award and disbarment of all lawyers involved. Then he can sue the corrupt cast of characters, starting with David Ignatius.

  9. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    The insurers might balk at paying a settlement if there was substantial malfeasance at the root.
    Recently, C&V were forced to reveal hundreds of pages of – suoposedly,regrettably misplaced, purely through an OT error we were given to understand – attorneys’ notes through Ms Powell’s work toward full discovery. It emerged that communications with the prosecutors were never disclosed to their client. Uh oh. The suspicion is that the attorneys were, in fact, working to throw their client to the wolves, no doubt in return for “future comsiderations” that are so valuable in the wired up DC in which they swim.
    In that eventuality, the insurer would be no more likely to pay than if they were asked to pay out on a life insurance policy if there was strong suspicion that the beneficiary had murdered the policy holder.
    A stern chase into the eye of a gale, me bucko.
    Now that would be entertainment.

  10. Fred says:

    On a slightly off topic note the ODNI has released the mostly unredacted transcripts
    “House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), reviewed 53 transcripts for classification. The IC made appropriate redactions, lowering the classification level of all 53 transcripts to UNCLASSIFIED”
    I started with Evelyn Farkas. I wonder what she thinks of Clinton going to Moscow to give a speach for $$$$$$$, especially if that is how they corrupt people. Page 49. I wonder if anybody ever thought the same about China……Lots of Fun, fun, fun. I can’t wait to read the rest of what Schiff didn’t trust his fellow Americans to know.

  11. blue peacock says:

    There are some who believe that Barr moved to withdraw the Flynn case to prevent widespread discovery in a trial. In a way taking the loss on Flynn but sweeping under the rug the wider case of Spygate.
    Then there are others who believe that Barr is serious and Durham will indict the key conspirators.
    The open question is will Barr’s DOJ release all the documents that Flynn’s attorney Ms. Powell has fought so hard to get disclosed? Will the public get to see the documentary evidence of the coup plot? Will the coupsters get indicted? Only time will tell.
    In retrospect, the firing of Flynn by Trump & Pence was a spineless decision.
    Let’s also not forget that Roger Stone was prosecuted for lying to Congress. There’s video evidence that both McCabe and Comey lied to Congress. So did Clapper and I believe Brennan too. There are no SWAT teams arresting them!
    Then there’s Mr. Recusal tweeting:

    GOOD WORK, AG BARR! It has become clear that James Comey (who President Trump fired on my recommendation) was masterminding a perjury trap for General Flynn before I was AG, despite NO valid predicate for targeting him.

  12. TonyL says:

    The DOJ can file to dismiss, but the final decision still remains with Judge Emmet Sullivan. Michael Flynn’s plea of guilty under oath was accepted multiple times.

  13. Yeah, Right says:

    Well, the NY Times is certainly squealing like a stick-piggie.
    As far as I can make out their argument is that it is unprecedented – unprecedented! – that the DoJ has dropped criminal cases against someone who has already pleaded guilty.
    Hmmm. OK. Unprecedented, apparently.
    But if it has been established that the guilty pleas were extracted under threats of financial ruin then…. how is justice served by continuing to press thpse charges?
    It seems that the NT Times is arguing that once the law enforcement agency has managed to stitch someone up then the prosecutors have no other option but to put their heads down and press on Come What May.
    Doesn’t sound right to me.

  14. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Naturally and inevitably, those on the left are furiously denouncing this filing as a “politization of justice”.
    AG Barr gives a lengthy response to such accusations in a lengthy interview transribed here:
    Transcript also available here:

  15. Jack says:

    Blue peacock,
    Check this tweet by Mike Cernovich:

    Trump can immediately order the FISA warrants declassified. He has immense presidential power that he won’t use. He’s too afraid to. Spare me the tough guy b.s.
    What the FBI did, as crooked and immoral as it was, took balls.
    Does anyone “MAGA” have stones like those guys?

  16. Fred says:

    ” In retrospect” had he not fired Flynn he would have been unable to get any of his legislative agenda passed. Never Trumper Paul Ryan as Speaker prevented quite a bit of it from getting to the floor of the House. “Russia Collusion” and the two year media barrage allowed Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker as the left took control of the House based mainly on that issue. McConnell would not be Senate Majority Leader right now and all those judges would not have been confirmed if Trump had followed our retrospective advice.
    “Michael Flynn’s plea of guilty under oath was accepted….”
    There is many a black man “mass incarcerated” who pledge guilty too, with a similar rationale and perhaps even prosecutorial misconduct driving the original charges. Like with Joe Biden, that’s different, because…

  17. TV says:

    Anyone realize that this is May – 6 months to the election?
    If Barr/Durham don’t speed it up and Trump loses, the traitors will have won.
    FBI Director Peter Strzok, AG Jim Comey.

  18. blue peacock says:

    Let’s agree to disagree.
    As you note…”Russia Collusion” and the two year media barrage allowed Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker..
    You’re making my point. Trump could have very easily cut Russia Collusion at the pass by exposing Spygate. He had all authority to declassify without any Congressional authorization. He didn’t. He still hasn’t. He just “cries on twitter”. At the end of the day it is his appointee Rod Rosenstein that launched Mueller. It is his appointee Chris Wray that has buried under classification all the malfeasance at the FBI. It is his DOJ that prosecuted Flynn and Roger Stone and has so far given the coupsters a pass. None of this would have been necessary if Trump had the guts to use his presidential authority on classification. He wimped out instead. Just like he did with firing Flynn. Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador was legitimate. Trump could easily have had his back. He’s shown that he is weak through this whole sorry episode. But.. he’s quick to tweet Drain the Swamp, again today! All hat and no cattle.

  19. Fred says:

    “He had all authority to declassify without any Congressional authorization.”
    I agree, he does have that authority. That would have resulted in how many arrests and how much clearance of the lefts obstructionists in government?

  20. turcopolier says:

    Fred and Blue
    It was always both true and obvious tht the president can classify and declassify t will as well as grant information clearances and cancel them as well. The system exists by EO, not law.

  21. blue peacock says:

    Assume there were no arrests. That would be no different than what we have so far. Declassification however would have brought many benefits.
    The American people would have seen the evidence on the deceit and attempted coup by the highest echelons in law enforcement and intelligence. Rosenstein would never have been able to create a special counsel to investigate the Russia Collusion straw man. Chris Wray couldn’t hide all the malfeasance under classification. The entire media apparatus would have been exposed as co-conspirators. Flynn wouldn’t have been bankrupted.
    There is virtue in transparency even if the perpetrators get away without even a slap on the wrist. There is tremendous information value in that. The public could see with no ambiguity the two-tier justice system we actually have and how the media manufacture hysteria on false pretenses. Plausible deniability in Spygate would have been shattered. The links among top officials in a previous administration, the media and foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in a presidential election to undermine an opposition presidential candidate would have been exposed.
    IMO, Trump showed great weakness when his presidency was under direct attack by top echelons in both the Obama and his own administration.

  22. Deap says:

    blue peacock, Trump is like an ice berg. You are distracted by the shiny stuff on the top. Others are happy with the 3/4 going on below the surface – like over 150 judicial appointments to just name one.
    He has proven himself to be no light weight and he knows how to sense the temperature of the room. Far from being rash and impulsive, the guy is a class act chess master. Sorry it is not in your agenda to appreciate this. As a dedicated early no-Trumper myself, I am quite pleased no one listened to me in 2016.
    With Trump you need to go long and deep, and give him four more years. America will be great again. The job is unique and daunting at first. No one has prior experience to enter this office. Trump is proving himself to be a very good and even quick learner.

  23. Peter Williams says:

    It is interesting that this happened just prior to VE Day and День Победы. Let everyone hope that this a a portend of the future!

  24. Keith Harbaugh says:

    This is a really outstanding analysis,
    setting up an analogous situation where the FBI’s target was a black teen,
    and asking how would Obama (and the media) have reacted in those circumstances:
    National Review: Don’t Shrug at Obama’s Michael Flynn Scandal.

Comments are closed.