by Montgomery Blair Sibley, blogging at Amo Probos, ©2020
In United States Of America v. Michael T. Flynn, the U.S. Government filed a twenty (20) page Motion To Dismiss the Criminal Information against Michael T. Flynn. That motion detailed: (i) the factual predicate for such a motion and (ii) the legal status of the government and court in addressing that motion. While the entire Motion deserves reading by any fair-minded Citizen before they form any opinion regarding that Motion, the sum and substance was that:
“[T]he 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.” . . 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.
That Motion now pends before the Honorable Judge Sullivan. Stop eating before continuing reading:
Lost to the memory of most, Elizabeth Anna Duke was indicted on May 11, 1988, along with six other individuals, for acts of violence against the United States, including the bombing of the United States Capitol on November 7, 1983. After her arrest in 1985, Elizabeth Duke was released on $300,000 bail over the strenuous objections of the United States Attorney. She subsequently failed to re-appear as ordered and a fugitive bench warrant was issued for her arrest. To date, Elizabeth Duke has not been captured pursuant to that warrant of arrest and she is still listed on the F.B.I. ‘s Most Wanted list.
Fast forward twenty-five years to June 17, 2009. Shortly after Mr. Obama was sworn in as President, a putative Assistant United States Attorney made an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment and quash the arrest warrant for the fugitive, domestic terrorist, United-States-Capitol-bombing Elizabeth Anna Duke which was granted by Magistrate-Judge Deborah A. Robinson.
Neither the Oral Motion nor the Order dismissing the Indictment gave any reason for this extraordinary action of dismissing an indictment against a dangerous felony fugitive. When I finally forced Magistrate-Judge Robinson to release the transcript, I discovered that neither the law nor the facts granted to Magistrate-Judge Robinson the authority to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Anna Duke. The tale from that point forward gets very sordid and calls into question Mr. Obama’s involvement with the radical Weather Underground movement of the 70s and 80s. A full recitation of my investigations and the appalling indictment of Mr. Obama’s abuse of the legal system can be found at my web-page on Elizabeth Anna Duke.
So Mr. Obama, No: a legally-justified (if not compelled) Motion to Dismiss in the Flynn case is not as you claim “the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic ‒ not just institutional norms ‒ but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.” Simply stated, the record in the Flynn case is available for all to see and judge. That is what the rule of law requires: transparency of government action.
Rather, when you send an attorney who appears not to be a DOJ employee to dismiss an indictment against a fugitive without explanation before an Article I magistrate-judge who: (i) does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an indictment, (ii) misrepresented herself on the dismissal order as an Article III judge, (iii) patently lies on her dismissal order and (iv) coincidentally sees her son get preferential federal treatment for his felony arrest for drugs and weapon charges, then, Mr. Obama, I have a real concern that on your watch the “rule of law [was] at risk.” Serious risk.
Care to respond?