The Case for Exterioring Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s Legal Dismissal

Despite his current status as not incarcerated, the judicial proceedings surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case present a compelling argument for a legal dismissal with prejudice. This article explores the compelling reasons for such a dismissal, the implications of the biased judiciary, and the broader context of the Trump administration's approach to the Russia probe.

The Case for Dismissal and the Bias of Judge Sullivan

It is evident that Judge Sullivan’s involvement in the case has created a biased environment, warranting a dismissal of the case with prejudice. The appointing of a retired federal judge to prosecute the case further underscores the need for a thorough review of the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. The dismissal should be immediate and definitive, ensuring justice is served.

Legal Violations and the Violation of Civil Rights

The case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hinges on the violation of legal standards regarding entrapment. If it is proven that the prosecutors violated US law and court decisions, it would mean that the prosecution itself is void due to the substantive and procedural violations. Under US law, any case tainted by such violations becomes null and void, and the parties involved in the prosecution, including the prosecutors, should be held accountable for violating the subject’s civil rights.

Lie Under Oath: Irrefutable Evidence of Wrongdoing

Claims of wrongdoing against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn revolve around allegations of perjury. According to his own admissions under oath as part of his guilty plea, Flynn either lied to the FBI or lied under oath when he admitted to his previous statements. Both scenarios constitute a clear violation of the legal obligations to tell the truth, and he should be held accountable for his actions.

Political Shenanigans and the Trump Administration's Attack on the Russia Probe

The Trump administration has been accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in a campaign of disinformation regarding the dismissal of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case. It is important to note that the current proceedings lack a legitimate foundation, as there was no substantiated investigation related to his interview with Pientka and Strzok. Prosecutors’ initial assessment indicated that any errors or inaccuracies were due to memory lapses rather than deliberate lies. Furthermore, critical evidence required under legal procedures was not produced, raising serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process.

Legal Ramifications and the Need for Reform

The ongoing issues with the Flynn case highlight a broader need for legal reform. The failure to produce essential documents and the lack of transparency in the judicial proceedings indicate a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law. It is imperative that the legal system be reformed to ensure that similar irregularities are not repeated in the future.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Given the compelling evidence of bias, procedural violations, and perjury, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to dismiss Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s case with prejudice. This dismissal would not only serve justice but also address the pressing need for legal reform in the prosecution of national security cases. Simultaneously, the government officials involved in the misconduct should be held accountable to restore public trust in the judicial system.