Liberty Exposé: Deciphering The Michael Flynn Saga

Michael Flynn - Mario Tama/Getty Images

If you search "Michael Flynn" on YouTube, you will discover a mix of news outlets simultaneously decrying and celebrating the recent dismissal of the case against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor. It is proof that in matters of law and justice — now all things are political. The Flynn saga has gone on for years, with many pieces of information flying under the public's radar. Until recently, he was generally regarded by the public as a guilty man, but new discoveries in the case made by the attorneys of the defendant have revealed disturbing revelations about what goes on in the upper echelons of the FBI and judicial system — and what can happen when they set their sights on someone they decide to prosecute. With confusion abounding, I reached out to non-partisan YouTube lawyer David Freiheit, who is known for his fun and friendly "vlawgs." 

In these popular segments, he breaks down current legal cases on his popular virtual channel Viva Frei. Freiheit generously took time out of his busy schedule to discuss the latest details regarding the case. 

“The Flynn story goes back years, and I remember people always saying how they thought Flynn got treated unfairly. At the time, I didn’t know any of the details. All I knew was that Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was fired by Trump, disgraced, etc. Based on that information—and not even knowing exactly what he lied about—it just seemed like a case of someone getting what they deserved. It was with the FBI revelations that I really began appreciating how badly Flynn got shafted. The FBI notes disclosed that the ultimate purpose of their last meeting with Flynn was solely to get him to lie, so they could prosecute him or get him fired.”

“As more news came out, it became clear that the FBI scheduled this final meeting after they had already determined Flynn had not committed any wrong in the first place. They were able to schedule the meeting because they had failed to close [the previous Russia] investigation into Flynn, they were therefore able to schedule one last meeting. The recently disclosed internal notes reveal that their intention was to effectively entrap or trick Flynn so they could then prosecute him." 

“They lured him into the meeting—bypassing protocol and White House Council—and never advised him that he was being formally investigated. He regarded the FBI as allies. They had the transcript of the phone conversation about which they were asking him, which in itself contained nothing incriminating (and if the transcript revealed anything incriminating, they would not have needed to meet with Flynn in any event.) Nor did they ever press charges for anything related to the actual call itself. Flynn provided equivocal answers to certain questions that he did not recall. The FBI basically fabricated a false statement so they could prosecute and get him fired. All for a man who had an untarnished 3+ decade career of public service." 

Could you break down some of the more interesting aspects involved in the case? 

“The most interesting thing: Flynn got new counsel because it became apparent that his first counsel had a conflict of interest. He was facing accusations for illegal or improper FARA filings [a law only used for 6 criminal prosecution in American History.] The attorneys representing him against the charges were the same attorneys who prepared his FARA filings—a clear conflict of interest —where they would have every incentive to blame Flynn for the work they did.”

So, Flynn gets new counsel, and it becomes clear that the FBI had threatened investigations into Flynn’s son unless he were to plead guilty. They promised only one charge with no jail time for the guilty plea, and after years of being prosecuted, with the financial burden of litigation forcing him to have to sell his house—Flynn pled guilty. Flynn’s son had nothing to do with anything, it was just a pressure tactic. The guilty plea was effectively extorted out of him through threats to his family. 

It also cast serious doubt on how the court can compel Flynn under oath to confirm that he is freely entering his guilty plea, without mentioning this information which was only disclosed once Flynn got new counsel—the same counsel that obtained all of the FBI notes that further exonerated Flynn.” 

When all of the aforementioned evidence was examined by the Department of Justice, they filed a motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn altogether. But that’s when things got even weirder. 

“Judge Sullivan, instead of just granting the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss and withdrawing Flynn’s guilty plea, appoints an Amicus who is a vocal proponent against Trump [this is akin to assigning another prosecutor to pursue a criminal investigation into Flynn. [Latin for “friend of the court,” an Amicus informs and advises the judge as to matters of fact or law that might otherwise escape consideration.] Notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Justice made a motion to end the case! Sullivan’s decision also violated a Supreme Court decision on this point that was barely 2 weeks old at the time Sullivan granted the Amicus." 

What were some of the more troubling revelations to come out of the case? 

"The most troubling evidence that was revealed—only after Flynn got new counsel—was the fact that the FBI meeting, the final one that resulted in Flynn’s ‘lying to the FBI’ was nothing more than a set up. They did not need that final meeting. They had already investigated Flynn for four months and determined no wrongdoing. The FBI knew they had no need for the last meeting. It was purely the set up to get him to lie so they could get him fired or prosecuted. 

Reading back through the previous judgments, it really makes you question why the judge pressed so hard to get Flynn to confirm, under oath and penalty of perjury, that he was admitting his guilt in full awareness of fact and law—even though he did not know of these internal notes of the FBI—because his previous conflicted counsel did not obtain them. Or had obtained them, but did not disclose them to their own client!" 

Do you think it was the right decision for Flynn’s case to be dismissed? 

"If someone had asked me before I made my first video, I would’ve thought it was purely political, but also that Flynn should not be exonerated and his guilty plea should not be withdrawn. All I understood from the situation was that he admitted he lied to the FBI. Now, I know that it is arguable whether or not he lied in the first place. Given the fact that he provided equivocal answers to questions, and all relevant information was already in the hands of the FBI...knowing the threats against him and his family to plead guilty... knowing how the FBI set up the interview specifically for the purposes of getting him to lie so they could get him fired or prosecuted—100% the case should be dismissed. The entire criminal judicial system should be overhauled, and the FBI investigated and reprimanded for their conduct in this file. It was a pure political hit job. 

Then Judge Sullivan turned this into a judicial circus, seemingly in an attempt to force Trump to pardon, so they could claim it was a political decision to pardon Flynn, and not a judicial one to withdraw his guilty plea. They wanted to conceal the FBI misconduct. But for Flynn’s new counsel, and the rigorous efforts to obtain and disclose the additional evidence, they would have gotten away with it—and a great injustice would’ve been committed."