The Washington Post ran an op-ed on Aug. 12, 2020, titled “Barr wants Michael Flynn’s charged dropped. Judges should be able to question that.” It is a perfect example of deliberate deception and obfuscation from a major news outlet.

@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn

THREAD

2/ There are two primary false premises that this piece pushes, and they are central to the anti-Flynn hysteria that has engulfed the media.

3/ The first is the dogged determination on the part of the media, the district court, and the district court’s appointed amicus, to ignore the shocking exculpatory evidence that U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen produced in April.

4/ It seems that they want us all to pretend the Jensen production never happened. And they have good reason for that, of course. The Jensen production not only exonerated General Michael Flynn, it implicated a host of Obama’s leadership at the DOJ and FBI and the current...

5/ ...Democratic nominee for President himself, in a conspiracy to undermine a newly elected president—in short, to execute a coup. We filed that first production of evidence on April 24, 2020, at ECF No. 188. You can view it here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e80e0d236405d1c7b8eaec9/t/5eab5945318c6f3c3787f75f/1588287820116/ECF-No.-188.pdf

6/ We filed Jensen’s second production on April 30, 2020, at ECF No. 189, available here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e80e0d236405d1c7b8eaec9/t/5eab5945318c6f3c3787f75f/1588287820116/ECF-No.-188.pdf That leads into the second false premise on which WaPo op-ed is based.

7/ WaPo says, “His lies may have prevented investigators from asking relevant follow-up questions.” That’s not true. As the Gov.'s motion to dismiss made clear, the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did so with no legitimate, underlying investigation to justified the interview.

8/ Barr stressed that point in his recent interview with @marklevinshow, he said: “the interview was untethered to any legitimate investigation.” His ten-minute discussion of our case is excellent:

9/Of course, WaPo must continue—with doe-eyed innocence—to pretend Flynn’s statements were material. To acknowledge otherwise admits the reality—the weaponization of the intelligence/law enforcement communities against Flynn, and the plot to undermine a legitimately elected POTUS

10/ That’s the key to understanding this deceptive hit piece, but The Washington Post continues to mislead in its more particular analysis of the current status of the Flynn case.

11/ The Post suggested that an appointed amicus is a regular occurrence, but it is not regular at all for a trial court in a criminal case to appoint an amicus. Appellate courts can and do appoint amicus, but at the trial level (in a criminal case), it is all but unheard of.

12/ Most strikingly, the Post does not seem to understand the debate over the scope of Rule 48a and the separation of powers, which is concerning, because the separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional system and the strongest defense of our liberty.

13/ It is uniformly acknowledged by courts across the country that the primary point of the “leave of court” in Rule 48a is to protect the defendant against government abuse—protect him from the government dismissing a case without prejudice so as to return and harass him later.

14/ Whatever 48a's "leave of court" permits, it cannot be read to allow the court to force the government to proceed with a prosecution the executive no longer wishes to pursue.

15/ Congress cannot transfer power from the executive to the judiciary. Congress can attempt to check the President’s power, but it may not fundamentally change the allocation of power. See the War Powers Resolution Act…

16/ No court has ever ultimately denied the government’s motion to dismiss a case under Rule 48a. The executive branch prosecutes, not the judiciary. If it seems that the case is being dropped for some untoward reason, the Founders believed the chief remedy is at the ballot box.

17/ WaPo is ignoring the relatively clear constitutional law here because it wants to create a deceptive narrative to match Mr. Gleeson’s false characterization that the government moved to dismiss “solely because the defendant is a friend and political ally of the President.”

18/ This is a manifest lie.

To acknowledge Jensen’s production, to agree that the DOJ has ample justification to dismiss, unravels the whole sordid and dirty scam that was and is the Russia Hoax—the first attempted coup in our nation’s history.

19/ Clearly, the Washington Post will say what it takes to downplay or attempt to completely hide the truth from the American people.

In that pursuit, the Post will be unsuccessful.

Justice and truth will prevail.