FBI official on Mueller team: Flynn prosecution had ‘get Trump’ attitude, says collusion probe was ‘not there’


WASHINGTON, DC – For years, liberal actors and some Republicans have worked hard to attack President Donald Trump since he announced he was running for President the first time.

Millions of dollars and several investigations later, an FBI agent now claims that no one was really concerned with the truth, but just wanted to bring the President down.

Recently, on September 24th, the Department of Justice released information pertaining to the interview with Special Agent William Barnett in terms of their request to drop all charges against Michael Flynn. 

Flynn, who was charged, and plead guilty to lying to federal authorities in relation to the failed Russia interference with the election investigation.

The Department of Justice had requested that all federal charges be dropped against Flynn.  They stated that they believe that the investigation was doomed from the beginning, and as such, there should be no federal prosecution. 

A move which has been under much scrutiny, including by federal Judge Emmet Sullivan.

US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen, who was diligently working the case, allegedly uncovered exculpatory evidence which would lead to exonerating Flynn.  However, when that evidence was presented to Barnett, he was not impressed and refused to allow the case to be dropped.

The Department of Justice has continued to argue for the charges against Flynn to be dropped.  Including text message which showed that investigating federal authorities were uncomfortable with criminal charges being pressed against Flynn at the beginning. 

They were so uncomfortable with the legality of criminal charging Flynn that they reportedly purchased liability insurance should they be sued later.

Barnett allegedly told federal investigators that he did not believe there was strong evidence against Flynn that he or anyone from the President’s team had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.  Barnett called the case “supposition on supposition” and felt the criminal case was disorganized.

Peter Strzok, the disgraced former FBI agent, allegedly asked Barnett to review the facts of the case and try to determine if Flynn had illegally tried to act diplomatically prior to being sworn into office as the National Security Advisor. 

If he had, it could have been viewed as a violation of the Logan Act, something of which has never been prosecuted.

It was later learned that current Democratic Presidential Candidate, then Vice President, Joe Biden, had brought this charge up as a possibility.  A claim that Biden repeatedly denied.

After Barnett had been denied opportunities to interview Flynn, he was allegedly shocked to learn that other agents were allowed to do so, under the authority of then FBI Director James Comey. 

Barnett felt that he had been removed from the investigation because he was beginning to question if there was truly a violation of federal law or not.

After the interview with Flynn, Barnett allegedly felt that the investigation was handled from Comey down.  Barnett believed that the investigation was being headed by former disgraced Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and he requested to be removed from the case.

Barnett alleged that he was then recruited to join the Special Counsel’s investigation and was briefed by Jeanne Rhee, a lawyer who had represented the Clinton Investigation.  Barnett claims that Rhee was resistant when he spoke to her regarding the possibility that Flynn had not committed a crime.

Barnett later claimed that the Mueller probe was nothing more than a catch President Trump investigation and had a strong bias against the President.  Barnett alleged that the entire inquiry was led by prosecutors and not investigators. 

Barnett claimed that these prosecutors held the belief that they would be able to find evidence of a crime having occurred and would not take into account any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the contrary.  According to Breitbart News:

“In one instance, he said, they interpreted a public statement by Trump about the need to “get to the bottom” of the matter as being an effort to “cover it up.”

Justice Department files request to drop criminal case against Michael Flynn

May, 2020 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s a sudden end to a long legal battle.

On Thursday, the Justice Department revealed it’s dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

CNN described Flynn as the man “whose lies about his contacts with Russia prompted Trump to fire him three years ago and special counsel Robert Mueller to flip him to cooperate in the Russia investigation”.

The request to drop the case was filed with a federal judge in DC District Court on Thursday.

President Trump has recently stepped up the game in using the legal battle to attack the early Russia investigation and former FBI leadership.

Technically speaking, the court must still formally approve the request.

A review of the filing shows that the department attacked the FBI’s work when it interviewed Flynn in the West Wing in the first weeks of the Trump presidency.

The filing also shows that the Justice Department called the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Flynn for his contacts with Russia “a no longer justifiably predicated investigation”.

“After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn — a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an ‘absence of any derogatory information.'”

Now only that, but the Justice Department also says it can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn lied.  It went on to say that even if they could, the lies weren’t substantial.

“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.

Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt,” the filing states.

Brandon Van Grack was the lead Mueller prosecutor who cut the deal with Flynn.  Moments before the announcement, he withdrew from it… giving no detail on the reason for his exit, writing only to the court to “please notice the withdrawal.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy calls Michael Flynn setup “bigger than Watergate”

By Pat Droney, Staff Writer for LET – May 1, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C.- For people who grew up or lived in the 1970’s, the term “Watergate” should be pretty familiar.

As a matter of fact, nearly every political scandal (and even football) has had “gate” added to the end of it in homage to the “mother” of all political scandals—Koreagate, travelgate, spygate, deflategate (shameless Patriots plug there)—you get the picture.

What we now have is a scandal that may…just may…replace Watergate as THE scandal which all other scandals get compared to. That is the hatchet, bag job on former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Watergate, for those of you too young to remember, was when operatives working for the Republican National Committee committed a burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. in June, 1972.

The whole sordid mess, which involved wiretaps, stealing documents, etc. wasn’t the main issue…what brought then-President Nixon and his administration down was the cover-up that reached up into the highest levels of government. 

That brings us to the case of Michael Flynn. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy believes that the revelations brought up concerning Flynn’s case are “bigger than Watergate and we need to make sure people are held accountable.”

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, McCarthy said that the American people “need a Congress that will work with them and work with this president.

Because what you have talked about with Flynn and with the president is bigger than Watergate and we need to make sure people are held accountable.”

Of course, the difference we have between this case and Watergate is we now seemingly have a media that isn’t so much interested in the truth as it is in pushing a political agenda.

With the Watergate case, you had an investigation conducted by two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who clearly had ambition and worked relentlessly to get to the truth of what President Nixon and members of his administration had done.

In the current case, you have a media complex that some say hates President Trump and would never go out of its way to show that the Trump administration had been screwed over by another federal agency, in this case the leadership and a couple of rogue investigators with the FBI.

The fact that some of the veins of this particular case go beyond the FBI and up through the Department of Justice and possibly to the White House under Obama makes it even less likely that aside from organizations such as Fox News, Breitbart and select others, nobody will even report on this, or, if they do, it will be spun faster than a spin cycle in a washing machine.

This past week, four pages of documents were provided to Flynn’s defense attorneys, and on Wednesday they were unsealed by a federal judge.

The documents show that in January of 2017, just as Trump was starting his administration, FBI investigators were discussing how to deal with the investigation into Flynn’s alleged contacts with the Russian ambassador just weeks before, during the transition from Obama to Trump.

According to Flynn’s lawyers, the notes and emails that were unsealed indicate a so-called “smoking gun” that shows that Flynn was in fact railroaded by FBI investigators who wanted to take him out.

Flynn, who had an extensive background in intelligence, was likely seen as a roadblock to FBI and other investigators who were trying to get something with which to take out President Trump.

The handwritten notes that were released, dated Jan. 24, 2017 sow an internal debate about whether or not they (investigators) should be forthcoming with Flynn or others at the White House about the nature of the FBI investigation.

“If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious,” the notes say. “Protect our institution by not playing games.”

There was also some discussion in the notes about whether or not trying to trap Flynn with a lie in real time might assist in the investigation.

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

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Related Posts