Georgetown Professors, Bloodied and Bruised and Barely Breathing in the Washington Swamp, Pen Stunning Op-ed

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
AP featured image
Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, leaves the federal court with his lawyer Sidney Powell, left, following a status conference with Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)


It’s been a rough ten days for the deep state.

Still reeling from the public release of documents which prove that the case against Gen. Michael Flynn was a premeditated political persecution, the blows just kept on coming. Rep. Adam (the evidence is in plain sight) Schiff (D-CA) was forced to release 57 transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged Russian collusion. In contrast to their inflammatory rhetoric on CNN or MSNBC, not a single former Obama Administration official confirmed they knew of any evidence that President Trump, or any of his associates, had colluded with Russia.

Look, lying on cable TV is one thing, they know, but lying under oath could send them to jail.

Additionally, as many of us have long suspected, we learned that former President Obama had knowledge of everything that was going on.

Finally, Washington is abuzz with rumors that a “bombshell” is expected next week, information that will definitively implicate President Obama, who has miraculously managed to escape scrutiny for over three years.

And there lie the denizens of the deep state, bloodied and bruised and barely breathing in the muck of the Washington swamp.

In a desperate attempt to spin the DOJ’s decision to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, Georgetown law professors Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer penned the most dishonest and politically motivated op-ed ever published by The New York Times.

Katyal and Geltzer open with the following:


Criminal law specialists and members of the law enforcement community are tough to really shock. But the Justice Department’s announcement that it would drop criminal charges against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, has provoked, in addition to outrage, a sense of utter demoralization among them. They’ve never seen such a thing before. After all, Mr. Flynn twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.

But it’s important to understand why all Americans should be not just shocked but outraged. It’s not just because Mr. Flynn won’t go to jail or offer any service toward justice.

Sorry, professors, it’s too late for your faux outrage. You’re forgetting that Bill Priestap’s handwritten notes of a meeting of top FBI officials debating the best way to set up the 33-year military veteran were unsealed. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Also, we learned that the FBI planned to close their bogus case against Flynn on January 4 until FBI agent Peter Strzok decided to go after him for violations of the Logan Act. Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor; it was his job to speak with foreign officials during the transition.

Your propaganda cannot even begin to be considered honest debate. American citizens should be outraged that once trusted government officials were debating how best to catch Flynn in a perjury trap.

This is not a winning argument, gentlemen. Believe me, Democrats will lose independents with such an untruthful version of events. All but the most highly partisan are shocked and outraged over the Gestapo-like treatment of an American citizen.


In 2017, when he pleaded guilty, Mr. Flynn apologized to the judge for lying to investigators, saying, “I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.”

Sure, sometimes people plead guilty to crimes they never committed, but those people usually lack resources or exposure to the legal system. That is not the case with Mr. Flynn, a retired general and former national security adviser to the president.

Military service may have its rewards, however, huge paydays are not one of them. In March 2019, ABC News estimated Flynn’s legal bills at $5 million. He was forced to sell his $900,000 home and I imagine he had burned through much, if not all, of his liquid assets before doing so.

President Trump, AG William Barr, and far-right websites, according to these two complete frauds, are “all peddling the idea that Mr. Flynn was “set up” by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

Professors, the documents unsealed last Wednesday night could not have been any clearer. They say what they say. There are no gray areas, they are straightforward and do not require interpretation.

The left knows that the Flynn case was inextricably tied to the case against President Trump who was their real target. When the documents were unveiled, revealing serious malfeasance by FBI officials, Americans saw for themselves incontrovertible proof of what President Trump and his supporters have been trying to tell them for years.

The capstone to this narrative was the Justice Department’s voluntary release last week of additional materials to Mr. Flynn’s lawyers. This was itself an unusual event: Judge Sullivan had already heard arguments from the prosecution and the defense about these issues and rejected Mr. Flynn’s claims. But suddenly, Mr. Barr’s Justice Department decided to hand over more. Even in those additional materials, there was, as they say, no there there: no smoking gun, no withheld exoneration.


The lead prosecutor in the Flynn case, the duplicitous Brandon Van Grack, pursuant to a standing order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the presiding judge, was obligated to provide “all evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” This document can be viewed here.

In repeated filings, Van Grack has maintained that he’s fulfilled his obligations. Clearly, he did not.

The documents unsealed ten days ago should have been provided to the defense from the get-go when Brady materials are supposed to be handed over.

The following might be the professors’ most desperate argument of them all. (Emphasis mine.)

But what the documents actually spoke to was the care taken by F.B.I. investigators in making sure they adopted an approach that even a Trump White House couldn’t see as “playing games” when they interviewed Mr. Flynn. The documents certainly didn’t offer exoneration: They didn’t change the fact that he’d lied or that he’d later admitted he’d lied. Yet, it gave Mr. Trump and his allies something they could claim was … enough.

Flynn had not lied at that point. FBI officials were planning how best to make him tell a lie which they could then either prosecute him for or at least get him fired for. They were devising their strategy to create a crime where no crime previously existed. I have no words to describe the stupidity, let’s make that the stunning stupidity, of this attempt to rationalize the egregious misconduct of top FBI officials.


Next, they resort to ridicule, being the devoted disciples of Saul Alinsky that they are.

Never mind that the arguments made in the Justice Department’s court filing on Thursday don’t pass the laugh test.

Here’s the tell. The Justice Department’s new position isn’t that Mr. Flynn didn’t lie — that couldn’t be its position, because he did lie, and he admitted in federal court that he lied. Instead, the new filing argues that it was wrong for the F.B.I. to interview him in the first place. Look carefully at who the villain becomes in that narrative: not Mr. Flynn for lying, but the F.B.I. for asking the questions to which he lied in response.

Nice try, boys, but you’re wrong. As mentioned earlier, when FBI officials held their strategy session, Flynn had not lied. They were trying to figure out how to make him lie the next day. The records also show there had been text messages on whether or not to include the FBI’s standard warning about lying, which in the end, they opted to leave out. Much as you try to gaslight your readers, Priestap’s notes say what they say:

 “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

The professors realize that the jig is up. The deep state has done a masterful job of trying to cover it up for nearly four years. But finally, the truth has been revealed. On Friday, I wrote:

Although the case against Flynn was only one part of the Mueller team’s focus, its dismissal shattered the entire Russian collusion narrative. When you stick a pin into a balloon, all of the air escapes. You can’t pop one part of a balloon.

The Mueller probe ended last March when, after spending 22 months and $30 million, investigators had been unable to find evidence against President Trump.

Their parting gift was to say they had found “insufficient” evidence to indict the President. The writers of the report deliberately left the perception that they had found evidence alright, just not enough to meet the legal threshold required for an indictment.

They forced Attorney General William Barr into making the final determination on the question of obstruction of justice charges, which they knew could always be spun as needed for political purposes.

The lack of a conclusive exoneration from the Mueller team has served the left well.

It’s caused the “perception” of corruption by the President and his administration to linger in the minds of many voters, just as it was intended to. Although Trump’s base knows he did nothing wrong, there is no doubt this strategy has been effective.

The vindication of Michael Flynn, the clear, irrefutable evidence that top FBI officials were gunning for Flynn as an intermediate target as they continued to work against their ultimate target, President Trump, has had the effect of erasing doubts in the minds of independent voters. The ones who decide elections.


Perhaps we should forgive them. They’ve had a terrible shock and it may take time for them to absorb the blow. They have much invested in this fight which is now in its death throes. And we should expect op-eds and articles that, to use the professors’ own words, “don’t pass the laugh test.”

They are doing what Democrats do so often. They’re accusing the right of what they have done.

Sorry, fellas, but the cat’s out of the bag. The unthinkable has happened.

And as well-informed and as authoritative as professors Katyal and Geltzer try to sound, their op-ed is BS. In the end, they are just two more vipers swimming in the muddy waters of the Washington swamp.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos