Jonathan Turley: To Preserve Justice, Flynn Case Must Be Dismissed

Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional attorney.  He’s also a liberal… but an honest liberal.  That means regardless of his political leanings, adherence to the Constitution trump’s everything else.

So when evidence that Lt. General Michael Flynn had been targeted with false charges by Obama-Clinton loyalists inside the FBI became public last night, Turley felt compelled to defend the Constitution. 

Keep in mind, Turley is not particularly a fan of President Trump.

(The Hill) Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.

These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.

The evidence came in the form of a handwritten note believed to be written by Peter Strzok’s immediate supervisor, Bill Priestap, the former FBI head of counterintelligence.

“What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.

In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that “it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.” So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

Why was the decorated Lt. Gen. Flynn targeted by Obama’s intelligence community?

(PJ Media) … As the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from July 2012 until he was forced out in August 2014, he clashed mightily with the Obama administration’s policies on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, among other things…

… in November 2015 during an appearance on Fox News, Flynn called for an investigation into the ISIS intel-skewing scandal, recommending that it “start right at the top…

… Obama already despised Flynn. But his hate likely turned to fear when his former DIA decided to throw his support behind Donald J. Trump, another boat-rocker who had a real chance of winning.

The focus now shifts to special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigative team headed by Andrew Weissmann who were aware of this exculpatory evidence and still persisted in coercing Gen. Flynn into pleading guilty under threat of a long prison sentence for his son if he didn’t. 


Despite the mainstream media’s desire to downplay/ignore this exculpatory evidence, this may well be the crack that finally breaks the dam that’s been protecting the corrupt members of Obama’s intelligence community.