The Unprecedented Shift in Flynn Case: DOJ Dropping Charges Raised Ethical Questions

In a surprising move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is moving to drop

charges against Michael Flynn, a move that has left many questions in the air. Flynn admitted to the offenses in open court but the case

is now being dismissed due to several violations of his constitutional rights. This raises serious ethical and legal issues, as

the case was based on alleged false testimony, the tampering of evidence, and the withholding of exculpatory information.

Background of the Case

Michael Flynn, a former national security advisor, pled guilty twice to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and obstruction of

proceedings. Despite the guilty pleas, former President Donald Trump (referred to as "45") wanted him out of jail and did not provide

any evidence to the prosecutors. This has led to an unprecedented situation, with many questioning the corruption at the highest

levels of government.

Reasons for the Case Dismissal

The dismissal of the charges is based on several reasons. Firstly, the investigation and trial violated Lieutenant General Flynn’s

constitutional rights. Secondly, it has been admitted that the evidence was tampered with, and false information was given to the

jail. Furthermore, exculpatory evidence, required by the Brady Doctrine, was withheld. These violations are significant and

sufficient to dismiss the charges even if Flynn had been sentenced and was serving time.

The Fabrication of Charges

The case against Flynn was based on a false claim that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. This claim has been proven to be

false, as Flynn discussed the expulsion of 35 Russians with him, not sanctions. This raises the question of why this case was even

constructed in the first place. The very fact that such a case was created is considered a threat to the rule of law.

Retraction of Guilty Plea

An important detail that was left out in previous accounts is that Flynn retracted his guilty plea after the new evidence was

de-classified. The FBI originally claimed Flynn lied, which led to the plea. However, Strozik, the agent who interviewed Flynn,

stated that Flynn did not lie. This information was withheld from Flynn as well as the court and the judge. New lawyers and new

information led Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea.

Evidence Tampering and Giglio Deal

Furthermore, the FBI threatened to send Flynn’s son to jail, a move that was both unethical and illegal. The FBI had tampered with

the evidence and could easily convict a ham sandwich with the tactics used. The FBI also engaged in a Giglio deal, where they

withheld crucial information. A Giglio deal involves ensuring that judges, juries, and the public are informed of any

transactions or agreements with witnesses. In Flynn’s case, the deal was made with Flynn to avoid prosecution of his son. This

information was crucial but was withheld from the courts, leading Flynn to be coerced into a guilty plea.

Conclusion

The dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn raises significant ethical and legal concerns. The case was based on false

testimony and tampered evidence, and the FBI failed to disclose crucial information. The FBI’s actions in threatening Flynn’s son,

engaging in a Giglio deal, and tampering with evidence are concerning and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Key Points to Remember

DOJ is moving to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Violations of constitutional rights and tampering of evidence led to the dismissal. False charge of discussing sanctions with Kislyak is unfounded. Retraction of guilty plea and new evidence led to the case being dismissed. Ethical concerns arise from the FBI’s actions.

Keywords

Michael Flynn, DOJ, Guilty Plea, Evidence Tampering, Giglio Deal