

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The American people are watching this department squander their tax dollars, handing over giant sums to the president’s friends for claims that multiple federal judges have rejected as having no legal merit."
Rep. Jamie Raskin is demanding answers in the US Department of Justice's decision to fork over more than $1 million to Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's disgraced former national security adviser.
As CNN reported last month, the DOJ agreed to pay Flynn $1.25 million to settle a malicious prosecution lawsuit related to his 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A DOJ spokesperson told CNN that the Flynn settlement was "an important step in redressing that historic injustice," which began when Trump-appointed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller, a longtime Republican who was chosen as FBI director by former President George W. Bush, to serve as special counsel in the Russia probe.
In a letter sent to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Monday, Raskin (D-Md.) demanded documents and information related to the DOJ's decision to give Flynn a payout.
"The American people are watching this department squander their tax dollars, handing over giant sums to the president's friends for claims that multiple federal judges have rejected as having no legal merit," Raskin wrote. "The American people deserve a full accounting of why our tax dollars are being used that way."
Raskin noted that Flynn had affirmed his guilty plea multiple times under oath, and that Flynn's effort to sue the DOJ for $50 million was shot down by a federal judge, who dismissed the case completely. The judge found Flynn had "completely failed to establish the elements of such a claim and stopp[ed] just short of sanctioning him for bringing frivolous arguments before the court."
Raskin said that Flynn rushed to refile his complaint against the DOJ after Trump's victory in the 2024 election, at which point the DOJ "entirely reversed its position" by agreeing to pay the former national security adviser $1.25 million in a case that had already been dismissed.
The Maryland Democrat then warned that Flynn's case could be just the first in a long number of efforts by Trump allies to bilk US taxpayers.
"The Flynn settlement is an ominous test case," he wrote, "as the president and his political allies are all lining up for their free-government-money payouts. The president himself has demanded $230 million from this department... and has sued the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a staggering $10 billion—a figure around two-thirds the size of the IRS’s total annual budget."
Raskin also pointed to lawsuits filed by multiple Trump supporters who violently stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, including five leaders of the Proud Boys who were convicted on seditious conspiracy charges and are now demanding $100 million.
"The Flynn settlement," Raskin contended, "offers a road map for this epically corrupt President to keep paying out his political underlings and private militiamen with taxpayer money."
Time flies whether one is having fun or not: it's now almost a year since insurrectionists worked to nullify your vote in a violent storming of the Capitol. Investigations of the attempted overthrow of the government thus far have proceeded with all the urgency of an interagency review of the price structure of cafeterias in federal facilities.
Michael Flynn's brother, involved as he was in the decision to delay mobilizing the National Guard, shortly thereafter received a promotion to head U.S. Army Pacific: a prestigious field command.
Politico now reports that a former District of Columbia National Guard officer, Colonel Earl Matthews, has written a 36-page memo blasting the Pentagon inspector general's review of the Army's response to the January 6th insurrection. Colonel Matthews also suggests that congressional oversight of the incident has been stymied by senior Army officials lying in their testimony.
As for the inspector general's survey of the Capitol riot, the Matthews memo concludes that the survey's deflecting of blame from the Army was "worthy of the best Stalinist or North Korea propagandist." This is not implausible, given the history of inspectors general finding few problems in the agencies they oversee.
The memo's biggest tell is that it brands as "absolute and unmitigated liars" among the Army's congressional witnesses one General Charles Flynn, who at the time of the incident was the service's deputy chief of staff for operations. On January 6, he was stationed at the Pentagon, a couple of miles from the Capitol.
Does that name strike a chord? He is the brother of the ever-charming Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, fired and then sentenced for lying to the FBI about unofficial communications with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential transition. He was subsequently pardoned by Trump. Here is Mike in happier days among his congenial Russian hosts.
Flynn's subsequent career has been varied. Throughout the Trump presidency and beyond, he has acted as a tireless spokesman for Trump's interests, publicly advocating martial law to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He has also sworn an oath to QAnon, the bizarre conspiracy cult that has created a whole new form of contagious mass mental illness.
To be sure, Colonel Matthews's memo does not mention Michael Flynn, directly or indirectly. For a military observer like Matthews, who almost certainly had no personal knowledge of the relationship between the two brothers, it would have been improper for him to speculate.
But he has already denounced General Charles Flynn for lying to Congress. If that charge can be substantiated by evidence, one would likely conclude he was covering up an inappropriate response by the Army to the riot. What other rocks might be turned over?
It certainly bears investigation. After all, CNN host Chris Cuomo's assistance of his brother, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, to manage media fallout over accusations that the latter engaged in sexual harassment, was covered up for months. The recent revelation of their collusion was a media sensation.
While that story certainly had legitimate news value, why, for eleven months, has the Flynn fraternal connection virtually lain fallow? Charles Flynn was a key figure in the delay of the response to an attempted overthrow of the United States Government; his brother Michael a beneficiary of Trump's pardon who might have "owed" the president. And Trump, of course, was the one who most of all would derive advantage from a successful coup.
Clearing up this question is not only crucial to a proper investigation of the Capitol riot. Michael Flynn's brother, involved as he was in the decision to delay mobilizing the National Guard, shortly thereafter received a promotion to head U.S. Army Pacific: a prestigious field command. The posting indicates, among other things, the Army's evaluation of his performance in situations where sound judgment is critical.
It also comes at a time when military veterans--and also serving military personnel--are being recruited by extremist groups, Both categories were disproportionately represented in the mob that attacked the Capitol. It is imperative that military and civilian leadership understand the domestic extremist threat and take action against it.
America's two-decade "forever war" in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a U.S. military force enduring multiple tour of duty. It has unquestionably left at least some of the force, officers and enlisted alike, cynical and ripe for politicization.
History, of course never repeats itself exactly, but eerie parallels exist. There were masses of German soldiers who returned from World War I embittered and estranged by their pointless sacrifice, and inclined to blame the politicians for losing the war. They were readily recruited into the Freikorps militias, theoretically ad hoc formations to defend Germany's fluid border with a newly-created Polish state.
But they became increasingly involved in attacking the left political opposition in Germany's streets, developing a profound hatred of the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic. Their activity helped pave the way for the Third Reich.
A correspondent of mine, a Vietnam combat veteran and former Marine, wrote this about the potential recruitment of extremists from the military: "... We have lost the ideal of what we wanted in a military reflecting our society, our right-wing society has captured the military... If you walk the Pentagon halls there will be not ONE TV tuned to anything else but FOX."
If that description even approaches reality, it clearly explains the military's wretchedly miserable intelligence about the war in Afghanistan. It does not require inordinate cynicism, however, to suppose the officer corps knows all about the War on Christmas.
To be certain, there were many people in the military and civilian chain of command on January 6th, and a coincidence of family ties is not proof. But it and everything else connected with the event bear close investigation, both in view of an insider's accusations of perjury, and the knack of inspectors general for minimizing or whitewashing government dysfunction.
I am struck by how few people in our civilian government seem to be aware that it was sheer luck that an overthrow of the government miscarried, and that the danger has not gone away. On the contrary: unaddressed, the peril will only increase. Like the politicians of Weimar, they behave like rabbits mesmerized by a cobra.
Flynn's latest egregious comments, suggesting the need for an American coup d'etat not unlike that which recently occurred in Myanmar, set a new low.
During a meeting at the White House on Friday, President Donald Trump reportedly asked his advisers about retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's recent suggestion that the administration impose martial law and use the military to conduct a "rerun" of the November presidential election.
According to the New York Times, which first reported the discussion Saturday, Trump's advisers pushed back against Flynn's proposal and other ideas the president floated during the meeting, including his suggestion that notorious right-wing attorney Sidney Powell be named special counsel for an investigation into baseless allegations of widespread "voter fraud." Flynn, who Trump pardoned last month, was reportedly present at the White House meeting.
In a tweet early Sunday morning, Trump--who is set to leave office in a month--denied that he raised Flynn's call for martial law, dismissing the Times story as "fake news" and "knowingly bad reporting."
The Associated Press reported that during the Friday meeting, the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani "pushed Trump to seize voting machines in his hunt for evidence of fraud."
While Trump is unlikely to do anything resembling what Flynn and Giuliani suggested, observers warned that the lame-duck president's willingness to entertain such proposals highlights the threat he still poses to democracy on his way out the door.
"A week ago 126 of my Republican colleagues violated the Constitution by supporting Trump's attempt to steal the election," tweeted Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.), referring to GOP support for a Texas-led lawsuit that the Supreme Court rejected earlier this month. "How many support Trump's discussion of military dictatorship?"
Axios reported Saturday that senior Trump administration officials, whom the outlet did not name, are growing "increasingly alarmed that President Trump might unleash--and abuse--the power of government in an effort to overturn the clear result of the election."
"Their fears include Trump's interest in former national security adviser Michael Flynn's wild talk of martial law; an idea floated of an executive order to commandeer voting machines; and the specter of Sidney Powell, the conspiracy-spewing election lawyer, obtaining governmental power and a top-level security clearance," according to Axios.
In response to the Axios story, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) dismissed the Trump advisers' supposed alarm as "all for show," given that they've repeatedly enabled the president's past abuses.
"They have empowered him as he destroys democratic institutions and embarrasses the U.S. globally," Omar tweeted. "They are shameless."
A week after Michael Flynn secured a full pardon from President Donald Trump, the ex-national security adviser is under fire for sharing a call for his former boss to "immediately declare a limited form of martial law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote."
Trump, who continues to baselessly claim that his loss to President-elect Joe Biden was the result of a "rigged election" and file lawsuits challenging the results, pardoned Flynn last week--even though Flynn, who was a senior adviser to Trump's first presidential campaign before briefly joining his administration, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
Flynn took to Twitter late Tuesday to share a press release from the Ohio nonprofit We The People Convention (WTPC), which bought a full-page ad in the Washington Times urging Trump to invoke martial law to hold a new election "when the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment" of the Constitution, which details the procedure for electing the president and vice president.
The retired lieutenant general tweeted a link to WTPC's press release, which includes the full text of the ad, along with #WeThePeople, various accounts of Trump allies and attorneys, and the message: "Freedom never kneels except for God."
"In the months following the start of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln struggled to preserve the Union. Many objected to Lincoln's extraordinary use of presidential authority, in particular his suspension of the right of 'Habeas Corpus,'" the WTPC ad says in part.
The ad claims that "today, the current threat to our United States by the international and domestic socialist/communist left is much more serious than anything Lincoln or our nation has faced in its history--including the civil war."
In addition to fearmongering about supposed "well-funded, armed, and trained marxists" in ANTIFA and the Black Lives Matter movement, the ad says:
[T]here are admitted Democrat/Socialist federal officials plotting to finish gutting theU.S. Constitution after 100 years of trying. They promise to take away critical individual rights like free speech, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment; destroy states rights by eliminating the Electoral College and more; pack the Supreme Court with activist anti-constitutionalist judges who will make law from the bench; give the right to vote to tens of millions of non-Americans; and open our borders to more illegals which will reduce wages...
You must also act, like Lincoln did, to silence the destructive media's one-sided propaganda designed and proven to influence the election outcome, and end the unlawful censorship of Big Tech, to restore the confidence of the American People in our electoral process or we cannot continue as a nation. Failure to do so could result in massive violence and destruction on a level not seen since the Civil War. Limited martial law is clearly a better option than civil war!
"Many will object to these actions, as they did in Lincoln's day, but we assure you that We the People understand that no less action will suffice to prevent the loss of our constitutional right to vote and preserve our republic," the ad continues with its directive to Trump. "It is time for you to boldly act to save our nation as Lincoln did."
The ad ran as even Trump-enabler and appointee U.S. Attorney General William Barr admitted that, despite claims from the president and his supporters, there is no evidence of voter fraud that would alter the outcome of the election. As Newsweek noted Wednesday while reporting on Flynn's apparent endorsement of WTPC's ad:
Trump plus some of his allies and supporters have spread the conspiracy theory regardless.
QAnon followers, online extremists, and fringe groups like WTPC have proved fertile ground for the baseless claims of electoral fraud, helping create an alternative narrative in conservative media and on social media that experts have warned could encourage real-life violence.
Talk of martial law, armed resistance to stop the supposed anti-Trump "coup," and calls for a second Civil War are common on platforms including Facebook, Twitter, and Parler.
Esquire politics editor Jack Holmes responded to Flynn calling for martial law by arguing that the move undermines suggestions from political commentators that "although Donald Trump's brazen and pathetic post-election behavior is corrosive to democracy, it does not technically count as a coup attempt."
After picking out lines from the ad, Holmes concluded: "Wow! Sounds a bit like a coup."
"Meanwhile, those preaching calm over the last few weeks have not merely ignored the guiding principles of the Trump era: never assume there is a bottom to the shameless depravity, and never bet against that shamelessness being rewarded," he continued. "The increasingly deranged conspiracies propping up Trump's tantrum have had the desired effect: millions of the Republican rank-and-file do not believe Biden's (fairly decisive) win was legitimate."
"If members of the armed forces do not take things into their own hands, which they almost certainly will not, we can only hope no one else will attempt to do so," Holmes added. "Because, again: millions of people believe this stuff. The vast, vast majority--almost every single person--would never turn to violence in response. But it only takes one."
With the exception of his insane Twitter account, President Donald Trump has been AWOL since losing his re-election bid to former Vice President Joe Biden.
Like Punxsutawney Phil, the shy varmint who predicts the length of winter, Mr. Trump emerges from the den of superspreader inactivity that is the West Wing only when there is a ceremonial gesture he enjoys enough to risk accidentally seeing the shadow of electoral loss and ridicule again.
The annual pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey at the White House -- a ritual pantomiming of justice and mercy presidents engage in to show their folksy connection to the American people -- is one of those ceremonial gestures Mr. Trump enjoys.
This year, the ritual has additional political significance as speculation heats up about which of his convicted associates would receive pardons for federal crimes committed on Mr. Trump's behalf before Mr. Biden's Justice Department can be sworn in.
The day before Thanksgiving, Mr. Trump pardoned Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser. Paul Manafort, the former chair of the president's election team, is likely to be a recipient of a pardon, too. Like Mr. Flynn and political consultant Roger Stone, whose sentence he commuted earlier this year, he never "rolled over" on the boss. Other politically connected white-collar criminals who exhibited loyalty to Mr. Trump over the Constitution will be rewarded as he heads out the door.
This is all a precursor to what is expected to be the most outrageous and brazen presidential pardon in American history -- Mr. Trump's pardoning of himself of all federal crimes.
More sophisticated observers than myself say this is an unlikely scenario, though they don't rule out the possibility of Mr. Trump resigning and leaving it to Vice President Mike Pence as the newly installed 46th POTUS to pardon him and his crime syndicate family ahead of Mr. Biden's inauguration.
While it is a certainty that Mr. Trump is already scheming creative ways to escape as many appearances before the bar of justice as possible after he's finally ejected from the White House, he is still the de facto "boss of bosses" of the Justice Department nominally administered by the servile Bill Barr.
Mr. Trump will use his pardon powers in the most capricious, corrupt and self-dealing ways imaginable. What he won't do is pursue any strategy that resembles a prudent and thoughtful use of such vast discretionary powers. It's easier for a vain and ridiculous man shrouded in electoral defeat to pardon turkeys without any hint of irony than wrestle with weightier questions of justice and mercy.
Right now, the Justice Department is on a killing spree made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority.
Earlier this year, the divided court lifted an informal moratorium against federal executions that has been in place since 2003. The Trump administration's DOJ has now overseen more federal executions in one year than the previous 56 years combined.
The Trump DOJ plans to execute three more federal death row inmates before the inauguration just to show who's the real boss of life and death around here, especially since President-elect Biden has promised to work with Congress to pass legislation eliminating the federal government's complicity in the murder of its own citizens while encouraging state legislatures to follow suit.
Because of the systemic racial and class bias in criminal justice, an increasing number of Americans question the fairness and efficacy of the death penalty. It's also a big economic drain on the criminal justice system.
No one is claiming that the two men and one woman scheduled for death-by-injection before Jan. 20 are innocent. The crimes for which they've been convicted are beyond heinous, though the degree of personal culpability due to mitigating factors like psychosis in one case and simply being a part of a crew that committed a ghastly crime in another can be endlessly debated.
Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on the federal death row docket, has gotten most of the attention. If her death sentence isn't commuted to life without parole by Mr. Trump, she'll be the first woman executed by the federal government in seven decades.
Regardless of her mental state at the time, Montgomery murdered a pregnant woman and stole her unborn child. That's a crime that warrants at least a few decades removed from society.
But it seems hypocritical for an administration that has separated parents and children, including infants from mothers at our southern border without any legal or bureaucratic guarantee that they'll ever be reunited, would reserve for itself the right to execute someone for separating a mother from a child despite the lethality of the crime.
The rush to kill Montgomery is unseemly and a prime example of the administration's selective morality when it comes to mothers and children.
"These federal executions are not about justice nor about the victims' families. This is a political show of force by an administration that is a habitual offender when it comes to the abuse of power," Sister Helen Prejean, one of the nation's most prominent death penalty opponents tweeted back in August.
But Mr. Trump is not going to be deterred from extracting as much blood and death during this holiday season as he can. One would think that the nearly 260,000 Americans who have died from COVID-19 under his watch would be enough death by negligence to throw his karmic cycle out of whack for eternity, but a fragile ego always requires more bloody tribute -- not less.
Presiding maskless over the ceremonial pardoning of the turkey, Mr. Trump went through the motions knowing that his actions rarely connect with broader questions of justice. His pardons and acts of clemency are just more examples of self-dealing and the pursuit of self-interest. He has no coherent theory of criminal justice except doing whatever it takes to prevent him from ever having to put on an orange jumpsuit that will match his complexion perfectly.
Even as he pardoned the turkey, Mr. Trump knew that his Thanksgiving Festival of Death would proceed in its usual mob boss-like way at the White House. There would be the ceremonial passing of the casserole of cruelty at the dinner table and the tossing of the gnawed drumsticks to assorted lackeys and stooges. It would be followed by the carving of the just-pardoned bird along with the ritual scooping of stuffing mixed with the tears of the perpetually outraged. Mr. Trump's last Thanksgiving subsidized by the American taxpayer he holds in such obvious contempt was likely a mirthless affair knowing that justice of the decidedly unbloody kind is just around the corner.
Progressive critics and Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage Wednesday as President Donald Trump announced a pardon of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn--who despite pleading guilty twice to lying to the FBI about his conversations in 2016 with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, will now face no consequences for his actions.
"It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon," Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Wednesday afternoon.
The pardon was announced six months after Attorney General William Barr moved to drop the Department of Justice's case against Flynn, an action which led to calls for Barr's impeachment by public advocacy groups including Common Cause. Flynn's sentencing for his guilty pleas has also been delayed twice.
Barr's attempt to drop the case has been held up by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was urged to scrutinize the legitimacy of the move. Trump issued the pardon after Flynn unsuccessfully requested that an appeals court block Sullivan's review of Barr's decision.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) noted that Trump's pardon of Flynn fit a pattern that was established when the president commuted the 40-month sentence of his longtime associate Roger Stone, who was convicted of seven felony counts, including lying to Congress under oath, withholding documents pertaining to the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's alleged communications with Russia, and threatening another witness if he cooperated with the probe.
"It is important to talk about why the President pardoned Flynn," said Nadler. "President Trump dangled this pardon to encourage Flynn to backtrack on his pledge to cooperate with federal investigators--cooperation that might have exposed the President's own wrongdoing. And it worked. Flynn broke his deal, recanted his plea, received the backing of the Attorney General over the objections of career prosecutors, and now has secured a pardon from the President of the United States."
"This pardon is part of a pattern," Nadler continued. "We saw it before, in the Roger Stone case--where President Trump granted clemency to protect an individual who might have implicated the President in criminal misconduct. We may see it again before President Trump finally leaves office. These actions are an abuse of power and fundamentally undermine the rule of law."
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was among the groups which condemned Trump for using his pardoning power selectively in favor of his own friends and associates--not to restore justice to the wrongly convicted.
"President Trump is on pace to have one of the lowest rates of pardons and commutations of any president in recent time," said Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee. "While he has pardoned convicted felons, including a sheriff notorious for terrorizing immigrant communities, a war criminal, and two men whose release was sought by violent white extremists, he has failed to use his power to grant clemency to those who remain incarcerated for low-level, non-violent offenses. The pardon of Michael Flynn, just like the Justice Department's abrupt decision to abandon his prosecution, is another gross abuse of executive power."
Trump has pardoned only 38 people since taking office in 2017, while President Barack Obama issued more than 1,900 pardons.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich denounced the pardon, which he said offered a stark illustration of the unequal system of criminal justice in the United States.
"This pardon is undeserved, unprincipled, and one more stain on President Trump's rapidly diminishing legacy," said Nadler.
"There is no such thing as justice--in or out of court."
--Clarence Darrow, 1936 Interview
A number of readers have asked me to explain the different ways the Trump justice system impacts those who have been convicted of criminal activity. It is the mark of a truly just justice system that not every criminal is treated the same since it suggests that there is a concern for the individual and not a mindless imposition of punishment on those convicted of criminal activity notwithstanding their other virtues. And so it was that within a very short time we saw how a Trumpian justice system furthers the cause of justice.
Of the recent examples the most notable is, of course, the commutation of the four year, four month sentence of Roger Stone. Stone is a man who has, until recently, avoided the consequences that flow from lack of integrity, as brilliantly described in the Netflix drama about Stone's career. Of course, lack of integrity can sometimes has adverse consequences, as Stone learned when he was convicted of seven felony counts, including witness tampering and lying to investigators. And further adverse consequences can flow from such convictions, as Stone learned when the judge in his trial imposed a sentence of 40 months in federal prison. Here is something else Stone learned. He learned that properly placed friends can be more important than avoiding the consequences of criminal conviction for unlawful activities. And no friend can be more properly placed than the man permitted by the people to live in the White House.
The Trump has long been a friend and colleague of Stone. In an apt demonstration of how justice works in the Trump world, the Trump commuted Stone's sentence, meaning Stone would not have to serve any time in prison. Explaining the reason for the commutation, Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump mouthpiece, explained away Stone's witness tampering and lying, saying: "Roger Stone is a victim of the Russia hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump presidency." In other words he was convicted of seven felonies because of the investigation of corrupt activities involving the 2016 election. She concluded her remarks saying: "Roger Stone is a free man!"
A second example of justice in the Trump era is provided by William Barr. Barr is the attorney general of the United States and a sycophant of the Trump. In furtherance of his sycophancy, nothing pleases him more than doing things that please the Trump. The conviction of Michael Flynn afforded Barr the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his eagerness to please the Trump.
Flynn's career as a Trump crony began on November 18, 2016 when he was named the Trump's national security adviser. During December 2016 he discussed with the Russian ambassador U.S. sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration. In describing those conversations to Mike Pence he misled Pence as to the nature of the conversations. When that was disclosed, the Trump dismissed Flynn, explaining that he did so because Flynn "had lied to the vice president and the FBI."
On December 1, 2017, Flynn pled guilty to lying to FBI investigators about his communications with the Russian ambassador. While Flynn awaited sentencing, the Trump concluded that Flynn had been improperly charged. When the Trump came to that conclusion Flynn had already twice pled guilty. In response to the Trump's concern, Barr took the unusual step of asking the judge in the case where Flynn was awaiting sentencing to dismiss the charges, thus bringing an end to the prosecution of Flynn. The judge refused to dismiss the case and Barr then appealed to the next higher court to compel the dismissal. As this is written it is not known whether the case against Flynn will be dismissed or whether Flynn will be sentenced by the trial court.
Justice is, of course, not always deflected in the Trump world. Daniel Lewis Lee and Wesley Purkey could attest to that were they still with us. The United States has not made use of the death penalty since 2003. The executions of Lee and Purkey on July 14 and 16 respectively ended that hiatus. Daniel Lewis Lee was executed on July 14, 2020 over the objections of the family of his victims, who sought a life in prison sentence for him instead of imposition of the death penalty. Wesley Purkey, whose execution had been put on hold by a federal judge to determine his mental competency, was executed on July 16 after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay.
The reawakening of the death penalty as a tool to be used to punish certain convicted criminals was explained by the Trump sycophant in response to one of Lee's lawyers who said, after Lee's execution, that it was "shameful that the government, in the end, carried out this execution in haste." Not wanting to permit that appeal to decency to go unanswered, Barr responded: "We owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system."
As we now know, nothing is owed to a country whose national security adviser admits to lying under oath to investigators, nor is anything owed to the country when a sometime close friend of the Trump is sentenced to prison following his conviction on seven felony counts. That is how justice in the Trump-Barr justice system works.
Amid growing public calls by outside watchdogs and other lawmakers for the resignation or possible impeachment of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, members of the House Judiciary Committee late Friday afternoon called on Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to open an official probe into the politicization of the DOJ under Barr's leadership.
In a letter (pdf) sent to Horowitz just a day after it was announced that federal charges would be dropped against President Donald Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn, committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said it was imperative for a full investigation to the behavior behind that decision and other troubling developments at DOJ.
"Like many Americans, we are deeply concerned by the Department's decision to move to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn, who briefly served as President Trump's National Security Advisor," the letter stated. "Under a generous plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Mr. Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to a single charge of making false statements to federal investigators and avoid prosecution for other serious alleged crimes."
The letter notes that the circumstances around the Flynn decision raise significant red flags and questions that must be addressed:
In measuring the impact of the decision to dismiss these charges, it is important to observe the divide between Attorney General William Barr and the career staff at the Department of Justice. Hours before the government moved to dismiss the case, Brandon Van Grack--an experienced prosecutor who had worked the Flynn case from its inception--abruptly withdrew from the matter. On the merits, the government's argument for dismissing the case appears to be inaccurate, politically biased, and inconsistent with the Department's own guidelines. The government's brief is signed only by Timothy Shea--the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, promoted from the Attorney General's personal staff to his current post earlier this year--and not by a single career prosecutor.
The letter also states that while the Flynn case all by itself "would smack of corruption and unacceptable political influence in an ongoing criminal matter," it is "hardly the first time that Attorney General Barr has appeared to reach into an ongoing criminal case to do the [Trump's] political bidding." The lawmakers, in their letter, then list a series of episodes of seeming impropriety by Barr, including:
In their request to Inspector General Horowitz, Nadler and his colleagues call on him to explore--among other possible issues--"a pattern of conduct that includes improper political interference, ignoring standards for recusal, and abrogating Attorney General guidelines."
"The American people deserve to know the full extent of the politicization of the Department of Justice," the letter concluded. "They deserve a Department that is guided by the facts and the law, and not by the President's political interests."
Fresh demands for the resignation or impeachment of U.S. Attorney General William Barr have started stacking up since the Department of Justice on Thursday dropped its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, which critics have condemned as a decision designed to politically benefit President Donald Trump.
"We are a nation of laws yet William Barr, the nation's top law enforcement official, has routinely abused the powers of his office to undermine the rule of law for political advantage of the president who appointed him."
-- Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause
In a statement Friday, Karen Hobert Flynn, president of the national advocacy group Common Cause, called Barr "a cancer on justice in this nation" and accused him of turning the DOJ "into a political tool of a corrupt presidency."
"Americans expect and deserve an Attorney General who enforces the law impartially," she said, "not one who abuses his office to accommodate the whims of a president who believes he has unlimited power."
The DOJ's decision to drop charges against Flynn, which U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea detailed in a filing Thursday, came after Barr in February installed an outside prosecutor to review the department's case against the former Trump adviser.
In December 2017, Flynn had struck a deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, agreeing to plead guilty to lying to the FBI and cooperate with Mueller's Russia investigation. However, Flynn filed a motion to withdraw his plea in January.
Since Barr replaced Jeff Sessions as Trump's attorney general in February 2019, various actions he has taken have prompted government watchdogs groups to call for his removal from office. Hobert Flynn acknowledged that history Friday.
"The unprecedented decision to drop the prosecution of Michael Flynn, despite his guilty plea, is yet another blatant abuse of the powers of his office to cover up the misdeeds and crimes of the Trump administration," she said. "Barr's attempt at a Soviet-style whitewash of the Mueller report and other abuses of his office led Common Cause in December to call on Congress to impeach Attorney General Barr."
"We renew our call to Congress to impeach William Barr before he does irreparable damage to the system of justice in our nation," she added. "We are a nation of laws yet William Barr, the nation's top law enforcement official, has routinely abused the powers of his office to undermine the rule of law for political advantage of the president who appointed him. Congress cannot allow these abuses to stand."
Common Cause was not alone in calling for Barr's ouster over the past day:
Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday denounced the DOJ's decision to drop the case against Flynn "to continue to cover up for the president" and declared that "Attorney General Barr's politicization of justice knows no bounds," she did not incidate whether Democratic leaders in Congress plan to take any action.