Why Dems are using 'inane reasoning' on maintaining case against Michael Flynn

/
16
Gregg Jarrett Fox and Friends

[otw_shortcode_dropcap label=”G” font=”Ultra” background_color_class=”otw-no-background” size=”large” border_color_class=”otw-no-border-color”][/otw_shortcode_dropcap]regg Jarrett joined “Fox & Friends” this morning to discuss the newest filing by Democrats of the House Judiciary Committee in the Michael Flynn case. An amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) was filed by Democrats earlier this week arguing the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn should not be signed off by Judge Emmet Sullivan.

Jarrett calls the filing a “hyperpartisan document composed of wild accusations.” The Democrats brief claimed the Department of Justice’s decision had signs of “corruption” and was influenced by President Trump. Additionally, the Democrats argued the demand to drop Flynn’s case is “the latest in a series of decisions that ‘represent a systemic breakdown of impartial justice.”
The document is “feeble on the law [and] anemic on the facts” said Jarrett. “The inane reasoning here by the Democrats is that, ‘Gosh, the president tweeted about the Flynn case and therefore, the decision by the DOJ to dismiss the charges must be corrupt” Jarrett added.
In the brief, Democrats cite the case against former Trump associate Roger Stone and the Mueller report as evidence that further examination is necessary. Jarrett said it’s problematic that the Democrats “offer not a scintilla of evidence, no proof whatsoever” and “they completely gloss over the real reasons the Department of Justice upon a review of the Flynn case decided to move to dismiss.”
Primarily, “exculpatory evidence of Flynn’s innocence was concealed from the court [and] concealed from the defendant.” In addition, “the FBI, [former FBI director] James Comey, [former acting FBI Director] Andrew McCabe [and former FBI agent] Peter Strzok had no legal or legitimate reason to even interview Flynn, which means that anything said was not material and that’s an essential element of a false statement case” said Jarrett.