Visiting Column #43 -- Where Goes the Judge?

Yes, this is about Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and I sure as heck don't like having to write it and to be hearing about the case.

But this is also about gestalt, which is the German word for "looking at the whole freaking thing", which is what we need to do in the Flynn case.

So let's quickly review.  After Donald Trump was elected in November of 2016, and after he had started to create his Cabinet and senior staff, but before Barack Obama left office and still had power, there was a phone call.  Lt. Gen. Flynn had been named the incoming National Security Advisor, and was speaking to the Russian ambassador to the USA.

Obama had just imposed some mild sanctions against the Russians for their attempt to meddle in the 2016 elections, and Flynn was saying to the ambassador not to retaliate; that the new Trump Administration was going to look at the sanctions first to see if they were warranted.

Now, Obama hated Flynn.  He hated that Flynn wouldn't go along with Obama's public assertions that Al Qaeda was essentially done for, which he needed the general to support, so he could pose the "I stopped Al Qaeda" narrative for his, you know, legacy.  Flynn would have none of that.

The intelligence community leadership (the political appointees, not the agents) hated Flynn as well, because he planned to do some reorganization of national intelligence, and that would expose some of their leadership's missteps.  So a lot of people did not want Flynn to have a role in the new administration, and those people generally didn't have ethics.

The intelligence folks had been recording all the conversations the ambassador had with Americans, and that included the one with Flynn.  So James Comey, part of that cabal, sent FBI agents to meet with Flynn and entrap him -- one actually made a note in the meeting to that effect, which was not made known to Flynn or his legal team.  Never mind that they came back from the meeting noting that he had been truthful; no matter that he had not been told he was being investigated.

It's not legal to expose the name of an American citizen, in this case Flynn, on an intelligence-wiretapped phone call -- unless a request to "unmask" the American is filed.  Gee whiz, all of a sudden everyone in the Obama administration from Joe Biden down to the janitor filed an unmasking request, and one of them (or more) leaked the contents of the call to the Washington Post.

Flynn was then charged with lying to the FBI, and then threatened that if he didn't plead guilty, they'd go after his son.  As one of the Obamist cabal said, "If the FBI wants to get you, they can."  So Flynn pleaded guilty, lost his job, and incurred $6 million in legal fees, losing his house in the process.

Of course it ultimately came out that the FBI withheld evidence that would have cleared Flynn, and his new lawyers and the Justice Department, both realizing that the plea was inappropriate, went back before the judge, Emmet Sullivan, where the United States of America withdrew the charges.  Simple as that.

Not so fast.  Judge Sullivan huffed and puffed and decided that he would allow amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, from parties with no connection to the case, as to why Flynn's withdrawing of his plea should constitute perjury (!).  He then appointed another former judge, John Gleeson, to -- get this -- challenge the Justice Department's withdrawal of its charges!

That's where the "gestalt" thing comes in.  Look at the whole thing, and ask why Sullivan isn't.

An incoming government official is framed in a perjury trap for talking to the Russian ambassador, which he is completely permitted to do as, you know, part of his job.  He is threatened by the FBI, which is trying to "get" him, with going after his son, so he pleads guilty and loses his job, still not having committed a crime.  We find evidence that the FBI phonied up their actions, so the DoJ pulled its charges three years later, which should never have been filed in the first place.

That is the whole picture.  That is "gestalt."

But the judge is not happy about that.  He's unhappy that the DoJ admitted it framed Flynn, I guess.  And so he appoints someone who, by the way, has already written anti-Flynn newspaper commentary, to try to fight the actions of DoJ in withdrawing charges it should never have filed.  All the while, Flynn is paying lawyers a boatload of money to defend himself against corruptly-filed charges.

Why is the judge not dismissing the charges, tossing them out of court, and demanding the testimony of the actual guilty parties, the Obama officials and FBI administrators who started this whole mess?  Why is he not looking at Flynn as the aggrieved party as opposed to the victim of a government-wide plot to ruin him?

Good questions all.  But the mainstream media are not asking them.

Maybe they can't spell "gestalt."

Copyright 2020 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around.  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton