On Friday, former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI, causing outrage among many who believe he’s the victim of horrible double standards, but as it turns out those charges may be dropped altogether.
We previously reported that the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn, Peter Strzok, was fired from Robert Mueller’s special counsel after Mueller learned of vicious anti-Trump texts he sent to his anti-Trump mistress working on the same team. Strzok’s termination occurred last August, but we’re only just now learning about it because Mueller and his team failed to disclose the incident to Congress and the public.
Apparently, this poses a serious problem for prosecutors hoping to punish Flynn for incorrectly remembering the events that took place during the transition.
Law professor and USA Today columnist Glenn Reynolds runs the political blog Instapundit, and in a piece published on Tuesday, he outlined the case why a judge is likely going to be forced to drop the charges against Flynn. Reynolds believes the case brought against President Trump’s former staffer were flawed because Flynn wasn’t ever informed of the bias from Strzok – a clear Giglio violation.
Did the prosecution tell Flynn’s lawyer that their main witness against him was removed for bias? Since Strzok led the interview and his testimony would be needed to establish untruthfulness, he is a critical witness not just a prosecutor. If not disclosed, would this not be a Giglio violation? This is the kind of misconduct that can get a case dismissed and a lawyer disbarred. It is a Constitutional violation. This has bothered me since I heard about it.
For those unaware, the Gateway Pundit has more on what constitutes a Giglio violation:
The Giglio versus United States case: is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial.
We now know that Strzok’s interview with Flynn was conducted under false pretenses, with Flynn believing Strzok was meeting with him over security training for the transition. As a result, Flynn didn’t have his attorney present, and ended up making false or misleading statements that led to his being charged.
Meanwhile, we’ve also learned that Strzok appears to be more of a political operative than an objective investigator, as he’s been at the center of literally every controversial criminal case since the start of the last presidential election, the most important of which was the exoneration of Hillary Clinton over her illicit email server.
Strzok was also implicated for using the so-called “Russian dossier” as the basis for his investigation into President Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russians, which further erodes whatever credibility he may have has since the dossier was nothing more than unverified political opposition research.
So while the left is ecstatic to claim the scalp of someone so close to the President, it appears as if they’re going to end up being disappointed, as no reasonable judge would allow such a political lynching to occur in their courtroom.