Leftists try to convince the judge to deny the DOJ's Flynn dismissal motion

A motion for summary judgment is a common pre-trial motion.  Using documents and witness statements, the moving party has to convince the judge that the material facts are undisputed, requiring a ruling in the moving party's favor.  The best way to win such a motion is to rely on the opposing party's evidence because the opposing party can't dispute it.

With that in mind, Attorney General Barr's Department of Justice wisely used the FBI's materials when it moved to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.  Nevertheless, hysterical leftists are disputing it and trying to get Judge Sullivan to deny the motion to dismiss.

Here, briefly, are the undisputed material facts in the case the FBI and DOJ made against General Flynn:

Hillary's campaign paid a law firm for opposition research on Trump.  The law firm hired Fusion GPS to handle the job.  Fusion GPS's founder, Glenn Simpson, happened to have written an article in 2007 about wealthy Russians using D.C. lobbyists such as Paul Manafort.

In 2016, Manafort's joining the Trump campaign gave Fusion GPS a reason to hire Christopher Steele, a Trump-hater, to look to Russia for dirt on Trump.  Steele churned out documents that led to a full-bore investigation into whether Trump and his campaign conspired with Putin to throw the U.S. election.  Beginning in mid-2017, special prosecutor Robert Mueller opened a brutal, two-year-long, $35-million investigation that found no proof of wrongdoing.

In 2016, while Obama's FBI was still investigating alleged Russia collusion, the FBI set its sights on Flynn.  Flynn had worked as Obama's director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  They parted ways in 2014.  Obama disliked Flynn enough to tell Trump not to hire him.  Trump still hired Flynn to be his national security adviser.  Shortly after that, the FBI began to investigate Flynn.

On December 29, 2016, Flynn had a telephone call with then–Russian ambassador Kislyak.  The FBI recorded the call — and Flynn knew the call was recorded.  In the call, Flynn asked Kislyak to keep Russia from escalating things after Obama had imposed sanctions.

Newly released documents show that on January 4, 2017, FBI agents investigating Flynn concluded that there was no "derogatory" evidence about him.  Comey and McCabe (as well as Obama) wanted to keep Flynn in play, so they claimed that the Kislyak call required investigation.  This was a ploy because they already knew that Flynn's call was unremarkable.  The best that the FBI could come up with was that Flynn had violated the Logan Act, a 1799 dead-letter law.

Failing that, the FBI hoped to get Flynn on the process crime of lying to the FBI about the phone call.  To that end, as Comey boasted, two days after Trump entered the White House, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed Flynn about the call.  Flynn had no preparation and no counsel and got no warning about the penalty for lying.  His recollections varied somewhat from the call, which may explain why Mike Pence, when questioned, said Flynn had told him something different about the call from what the transcript revealed.

Both Strzok and Pientka agreed that Flynn was not lying.  Nevertheless, months later, Mueller charged Flynn with lying to the FBI.

After Flynn was almost bankrupted, the FBI and DOJ threatened to drag Flynn's son into the case.  His counsel persuaded him to enter into a plea bargain, without telling Flynn that the FBI was threatening counsel, too, making Flynn's attorneys his enemies, not his fiduciaries.  The DOJ did not inform the court about its threats, although it was required to do so.  The DOJ also failed to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by law and then lied about that, too.  Techno Fog details the DOJ's many lies.

Those are undisputed facts, and they boil down to this: the FBI and DOJ conspired to convict a man they knew was innocent of any underlying wrongdoing.  It's that simple.  You wouldn't think that, though, from the left's frenzied response.  This video sets the tone:

The New York Times published "The Appalling Damage of Dropping the Michael Flynn Case."  This rant ignores the evidence showing FBI and DOJ wrongdoing.  Instead, it protests that the Trump administration is training people to distrust American law enforcement.  The primary basis for this argument is that Flynn twice pleaded guilty.  This ignores that the FBI and Mueller concluded that Flynn (and Trump) had done nothing wrong and that Flynn had pleaded guilty solely because his compromised attorneys told him to do so to protect his son from the FBI.

At Lawfare, a hard-left legal site, the authors argue that Flynn is guilty because he entered a guilty plea.  It's as if the attorneys, all lawyers, have never heard of prosecutors piling so many charges against a person that the safer path is to make a false guilty plea to avoid an even more unjust wrongful conviction.

Additionally, the Lawfare writers proceed as if Flynn had committed an underlying crime, making anything he said "material."  This argument fails because we know from the FBI's documents that it had already cleared Flynn of wrongdoing.  The best that the FBI could do was to use the Kislyak call to create a crime out of the dead letter of the Logan Act.  In the end, Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to a mere process crime despite the absence of underlying wrongdoing.

Leftists do not believe in the rule of law.  They believe in the rule of leftism: if you're with them, you're innocent (lucky Joe Biden); if you're against them, the Gulag is too good for you.

A motion for summary judgment is a common pre-trial motion.  Using documents and witness statements, the moving party has to convince the judge that the material facts are undisputed, requiring a ruling in the moving party's favor.  The best way to win such a motion is to rely on the opposing party's evidence because the opposing party can't dispute it.

With that in mind, Attorney General Barr's Department of Justice wisely used the FBI's materials when it moved to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.  Nevertheless, hysterical leftists are disputing it and trying to get Judge Sullivan to deny the motion to dismiss.

Here, briefly, are the undisputed material facts in the case the FBI and DOJ made against General Flynn:

Hillary's campaign paid a law firm for opposition research on Trump.  The law firm hired Fusion GPS to handle the job.  Fusion GPS's founder, Glenn Simpson, happened to have written an article in 2007 about wealthy Russians using D.C. lobbyists such as Paul Manafort.

In 2016, Manafort's joining the Trump campaign gave Fusion GPS a reason to hire Christopher Steele, a Trump-hater, to look to Russia for dirt on Trump.  Steele churned out documents that led to a full-bore investigation into whether Trump and his campaign conspired with Putin to throw the U.S. election.  Beginning in mid-2017, special prosecutor Robert Mueller opened a brutal, two-year-long, $35-million investigation that found no proof of wrongdoing.

In 2016, while Obama's FBI was still investigating alleged Russia collusion, the FBI set its sights on Flynn.  Flynn had worked as Obama's director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  They parted ways in 2014.  Obama disliked Flynn enough to tell Trump not to hire him.  Trump still hired Flynn to be his national security adviser.  Shortly after that, the FBI began to investigate Flynn.

On December 29, 2016, Flynn had a telephone call with then–Russian ambassador Kislyak.  The FBI recorded the call — and Flynn knew the call was recorded.  In the call, Flynn asked Kislyak to keep Russia from escalating things after Obama had imposed sanctions.

Newly released documents show that on January 4, 2017, FBI agents investigating Flynn concluded that there was no "derogatory" evidence about him.  Comey and McCabe (as well as Obama) wanted to keep Flynn in play, so they claimed that the Kislyak call required investigation.  This was a ploy because they already knew that Flynn's call was unremarkable.  The best that the FBI could come up with was that Flynn had violated the Logan Act, a 1799 dead-letter law.

Failing that, the FBI hoped to get Flynn on the process crime of lying to the FBI about the phone call.  To that end, as Comey boasted, two days after Trump entered the White House, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed Flynn about the call.  Flynn had no preparation and no counsel and got no warning about the penalty for lying.  His recollections varied somewhat from the call, which may explain why Mike Pence, when questioned, said Flynn had told him something different about the call from what the transcript revealed.

Both Strzok and Pientka agreed that Flynn was not lying.  Nevertheless, months later, Mueller charged Flynn with lying to the FBI.

After Flynn was almost bankrupted, the FBI and DOJ threatened to drag Flynn's son into the case.  His counsel persuaded him to enter into a plea bargain, without telling Flynn that the FBI was threatening counsel, too, making Flynn's attorneys his enemies, not his fiduciaries.  The DOJ did not inform the court about its threats, although it was required to do so.  The DOJ also failed to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by law and then lied about that, too.  Techno Fog details the DOJ's many lies.

Those are undisputed facts, and they boil down to this: the FBI and DOJ conspired to convict a man they knew was innocent of any underlying wrongdoing.  It's that simple.  You wouldn't think that, though, from the left's frenzied response.  This video sets the tone:

The New York Times published "The Appalling Damage of Dropping the Michael Flynn Case."  This rant ignores the evidence showing FBI and DOJ wrongdoing.  Instead, it protests that the Trump administration is training people to distrust American law enforcement.  The primary basis for this argument is that Flynn twice pleaded guilty.  This ignores that the FBI and Mueller concluded that Flynn (and Trump) had done nothing wrong and that Flynn had pleaded guilty solely because his compromised attorneys told him to do so to protect his son from the FBI.

At Lawfare, a hard-left legal site, the authors argue that Flynn is guilty because he entered a guilty plea.  It's as if the attorneys, all lawyers, have never heard of prosecutors piling so many charges against a person that the safer path is to make a false guilty plea to avoid an even more unjust wrongful conviction.

Additionally, the Lawfare writers proceed as if Flynn had committed an underlying crime, making anything he said "material."  This argument fails because we know from the FBI's documents that it had already cleared Flynn of wrongdoing.  The best that the FBI could do was to use the Kislyak call to create a crime out of the dead letter of the Logan Act.  In the end, Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to a mere process crime despite the absence of underlying wrongdoing.

Leftists do not believe in the rule of law.  They believe in the rule of leftism: if you're with them, you're innocent (lucky Joe Biden); if you're against them, the Gulag is too good for you.