The Flynn Transcripts

A few days ago I suggested that the Flynn Transcripts, when released, woud be a big nothing--in the sense that there would be no revelations of things we didn't know. We all knew that Flynn did nothing wrong. Sean Davis has written a good article () about the actual content of the transcripts, 

Declassified Flynn Transcripts Contradict Key Mueller Claims Against Flynn

Newly released declassified transcripts of call transcripts and summaries between Flynn and Kislyak contradict key claims made against Flynn by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Davis' basic point regarding the dishonesty of Mueller is well taken. In any 1001 False Statement prosecution, the statements in question, as made by the defendant, should actually be false--what a concept, eh? Mueller stands that concept on its head. In the Flynn prosecution the actual false statements were made by the prosecutors, a prosecutorial technique spearheaded over preceding years by the likes of Mueller, Comey, and Weissmann. Example:

According to the charging documents from Mueller, Flynn allegedly falsely claimed to Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agents that he did not ask Kislyak to “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsion of Russian diplomats and falsely claimed that he did not ask Kislyak to help defeat an anti-Israel resolution pending before the United Nations at the time. Mueller also claimed that Flynn lied when he said he didn’t remember Kislyak telling him that Russia would “moderate its response” to the expulsions.

The transcript of the December 29 conversation, which was cited by Mueller, does not include a request from Flynn that Russia “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsions of Russian diplomats. According to the transcript, Flynn asked Kislyak for Russia’s response to be “reciprocal” so that the U.S.–not Russia–would not be forced to escalate beyond the expulsions.

This is really shocking, even by previous liberal political standards of dishonesty. This type of behavior by prosecutors should be dealt with severely--by prosecuting the prosecutors!

At the end Davis touches on an aspect that interests me, because it deals with something that will play out in the next few days:

Following the release of the evidence that Mueller’s team had illegally withheld from Flynn and his defense team, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn. That motion is awaiting judgment in federal trial court.

The DoJ is not merely "awaiting judgment." Sullivan's response to Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus directed to Sullivan is due Monday. DoJ was invited by the DC Circuit panel to submit its own response--and the DoJ spokeswoman has stated that there will be a response. What interests me is whether DoJ will reference these now released Flynn Transcripts. Will they point out that these transcripts, which give the lie to Team Mueller's own false statements, were withheld from the Flynn defense team by Sullivan? 

Here we have the spectacle of a "judge" enlisting outside counsel in an attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of false statements made, not by the defendant, but by the prosecution. Was there any reason that Sullivan could not have demanded to see those Flynn Transcripts? No. This should prove shocking to the Court of Appeals.

What has become of our country?

Andrea Widburg has a nice summary of Davis' article, in which she emphasizes the key aspect--political, not really legal--and highlights the insanity of the Left's positioning and talking points--The Kislyak-Flynn phone call transcripts are a national Rorschach Test:

On the conservative side, Sean Davis wrote a comprehensive article explaining why the transcripts vindicate Flynn. Here’s the short version:

The December 29 transcript, as Bongino guessed, makes no mention of sanctions. It discusses only expulsions, and that’s what he talked to the FBI about. On the subject of expulsions, Flynn was concerned lest Russia escalate matters, forcing the Trump administration instantly to meet one escalation with another. He asked for a tempered, reciprocal response.

The two men also discussed their shared interest in ending Middle Eastern terrorism. Regarding Israel, the men spoke of it on December 23rd, not the 29th, so Flynn could not have lied about it vis-à-vis the call on the 29th (which was the subject of the FBI interview). In any event, American policy under Obama was to be neutral, meaning any discussions could not have violated the policy.

Ultimate, the December 29 transcript shows Flynn trying to prevent a dangerous tit-for-tat scenario so as to protect American interests.

But that’s not how leftists see it. In their alternate reality, the transcripts confirm that Flynn is a traitor. It’s impossible for these two realities to exist in a unified country.

To leftists, the key takeaways were Flynn’s request to Kislyak that, “Do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay?” and “What we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we’re gonna go.” Fundamentally, anything Trump and his team did that ran counter to Obama was treason. 

It's the usual craziness. Elections make no difference--US policy is Leftist policy. Once set in place the agenda of the Left can never be changed. Not even by an election.