Shortly after the news broke about Flynn yesterday, Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes promised to write something stupid about the decision and luckily for all of us, Byron York took one for the team and read it.
He was also good enough to take the basis of their entire argument apart:
It's no surprise the @lawfareblog people are upset about the Flynn decision. The government's 20-page brief is 'not an honest document,' they say. Its account is 'not accurate.' 1/5 https://t.co/4QJRlEj7kT
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 8, 2020
The whole piece from the Lawfare blog is just a hot mess of awful and angry but this paragraph, in particular, is really bad:
As astonishing as the motion is, it does not come out of nowhere. Van Grack is only the latest of Mueller’s prosecutors to withdraw from a case seemingly in light of mishandling by the Justice Department under Barr: In February 2020, all four assistant U.S. attorneys prosecuting Roger Stone removed themselves from the case on the same day that the department filed a sentencing memo undercutting their work. U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, selected by Barr to conduct an ambiguous “review” of the Mueller investigation, continues his work. A year after the public release of the Mueller report, Barr has yet to give up on his project of dismantling the investigation—even in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
So instead of orange man bad, orange man’s AG bad!
HA!
Lawfare says there were good, solid reasons for the FBI to question Flynn on January 24, 2017 because, among other things, Flynn 'offered to undo sanctions imposed against a foreign adversary.' But did he? 2/5
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 8, 2020
We’re going to go with no, no he did not.
Start with this, from the Flynn statement of the offense, by Robert Mueller's prosecutors: 'Flynn called the Russian ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. sanctions in a reciprocal manner.' 3/5 pic.twitter.com/vCPK8r0S3v
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 8, 2020
Then there's this, from the Mueller report: 'Flynn requested that Russia not escalate the situation, not get into 'tit for tat,' and only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner.' 4/5 pic.twitter.com/QinjROgm2b
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 8, 2020
So ask yourself: Does that constitute offering to undo the sanctions, as Lawfare says? Not at all. To make things worse, Lawfare makes the claim in a passage accusing DOJ of dishonesty.' Which leads to the question: Who's not being honest? 5/5
— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 8, 2020
Ooh, ooh, we know! And it rhymes with Raw-Pear.
Everyone now sweating it out waiting for Durham's report
— Aaron Lawson (@alawsonlawyer) May 8, 2020
Yup.
And they should be.
***
Related:
