To all the blue check mark media bros and @lawfareblog larpers play acting like you're worried about the "rule of law" with regard to @TheJusticeDept's decision to drop the @GenFlynn charges...

This thread's for you...

Prosecutor Van Grack deceived Sullivan, made a secret deal w/Flynn's Covington attorneys, avoiding Giglio requirement for disclosure to the judge.

The secret deal?

Plead guilty or we go after your son & take him from his newborn child.

What father wouldn't protect his son?

Moreover, even IF Flynn lied, a dubious claim given that we STILL don't have the original 302 in Pientka's handwriting, it isn't illegal to be dishonest about an immaterial fact, as @TheJusticeDept pointed out in their Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

And in fact, the agents who conducted the interview, during which the FBI claimed Flynn lied, stated immediately after the session that they didn't detect any deception. This is according to both @Comey and Andy McCabe.

Couple this with the fact that the FBI failed to advise Flynn that false statements during the interview could be criminally prosecuted, a FBI procedural requirement. That they were even discussing "slipping it in" indicates they were laying a perjury trap for Flynn.

And finally, as if there was any doubt, the coup de grâce is the handwritten notes of Bill Priestap, where he asks, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get [Flynn] to lie, so we can prosecute or get him fired?"

So, take your argument, that 'Flynn plead guilty & therefore MUST be guilty', because 'who would plead guilty of lying if they didn't lie', and shove it right up the deepest, darkest recess of your corrupt, decrepit carcass sideways.

Enjoy next week.

I hear it'll be epic.

Addendum A:

Flynn didn't lie. @Comey's report on the CI investigation proves it.

He states that what Flynn actually said was, "'I don't remember talking to him about this. I'm sorry, but I didn't' -- he said: 'My recollection is that I did not talk to him about that.'"