Does the Latest ‘Leak’ By the Left Exonerate President Donald Trump and Flynn?
The more the Left attempts to incriminate President Donald Trump and others by publishing leaked information obtained from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into “Russian collusion and obstruction of justice” the more the Left incriminate themselves.
A CONFIDENTIAL January 29, 2018 20-page letter from Trump’s attorneys and addressed to Mueller, ‘miraculously’ fell into the hands of The New York Times and was recently published.
While it may have been hoped that the contents of the leaked letter would serve as the “smoking gun” to bring down the Trump administration, it clearly does just the opposite.
It also cements for the public the role those on the Left have played.
First, the letter exonerates Trump of any “intent” to obstruct justice when he spoke to then FBI Director Comey about national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The contents of the letter show that Trump believed Flynn was no longer under investigation when he asked Comey, (according to Comey), “to let the Flynn case go.”
Trump was led to believe this by acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover.
Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn and informed him about the DOJ’s belief regarding Flynn’s transition conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and indicated that Flynn could potentially be susceptible to foreign influence or blackmail because the Russians would know he had lied.
However, “DOJ leadership would not advise the White House that transcripts of the calls existed, and of concerns about the content of those transcripts, until Jan. 26, 2017, and even then, when asked by the White House, the DOJ refused to confirm that an investigation was underway.”
Secondly, with the assistance of hindsight and recent revelations which were not available when it was written, the letter also supports the assertion that at the time Trump asked Comey to let the Flynn case go, the FBI did not believe Flynn lied to the agents who questioned him as part of the Mueller investigation.
As you may recall, the final report of the House Intelligence Committee contained an unredacted section written by Republicans on the panel.
The final report detailed testimony from Comey and then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
The report indicated that McCabe in particular testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn (one agent was Peter Strzok) “didn’t think he (Flynn) was lying.”
Subsequently, it has been alleged that McCabe altered Strzok’s notes on Flynn and destroyed the evidence.
The report also noted that Comey testified in regards to the agents that questioned Flynn,saying that:
“the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”
Comey later contradicted what was contained in the report, when he recently spoke to Fox News’s Brett Baier.
Baier asked Comey in May if he had told Congress that he didn’t believe Flynn had intentionally lied.
“No … .And I saw that in the media. I don’t know what — maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that and didn’t say that.”
There’s only one problem. Evidence shows that Comey contradicted himself a year earlier.
In a May 11 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Sen. Charles Grassely, R-Iowa, quoted from notes which were taken by a “career, nonpartisan law enforcement officer” who attended a March 14, 2017 briefing by Comey.
The agent who was the person at the briefing, quoted Comey as saying the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn “saw nothing that led them to believe he was lying.”
Grassley also quoted from committee staff notes that indicated “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he (Flynn) was being untruthful.”
Any court of law presented with the above evidence would rule unequivocally that Flynn did not lie to the FBI and should be exonerated of any such charge.
A court would also find that the evidence does not support an attempt by Trump to obstruct justice when he asked Comey to let the Flynn case go.
Rather, the court could reasonably conclude that Trump, who believed the case was closed on Flynn, was merely asking Comey to put the past behind him.
Trump knew that Comey and Flynn would need to clear the air in order to work together in the future and Trump could have been asking Comey to move on.
In conclusion, based upon the latest “leaked evidence” published by the mainstream media, the headlines tomorrow should read that Trump and Flynn were both wrongly accused and both have now been absolved of any wrongdoing.
Immediately thereafter, Trump should pardon Flynn and allow Flynn to sue the federal government for financial and emotional damages.
Something tells me that pardon is not far off.