Weak Tea on Flynn.

Wow. A former female "assistant attorney general for national security" is spinning her wheels in the NYT now, trying to justify the prosecution of Michael Flynn.  Her reason?  He potentially could have been broken by blackmail from the Russians, who knew he was lying to President Trump about discussions with Vice President Pence about Russia.

Georgetown Law Professor Mary McCord

Remember  -- this is key -- those discussions were big "nothing burgers" that took place in December 2016, after the election but before the inauguration.  As a member of the incoming administration, Pence was reaching out to a Russia that had diplomats expelled from the United States in the waning days of the Obama admiinstration.  He reminded Russia that President Trump would be in office in January, and the new administration did not intend to follow the same policies as the past (outgoing) administration. (Hang tight, was the "message" sent.)

The FBI was aware of this innocuous conversation -- not criminal or treasonous at all -- only because former President Obama had authorized America's intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign because there were accusations of collusion with Russia in winning the 2016 presidential election.  Nothing there -- I think we can all agree after 3 1/2 years of unsubstantiated allegations, false dossiers, and an expensive impeachment trial and Mueller Report that turned up... nothing.

But today in the NYT, we see an actual attorney on national security issues offered up -- potential for blackmail! -- to justify or excuse the flawed Flynn investigation and prosecution.  Her theory is, when the media reported that Flynn said he had no Russian contacts, the FBI knew of that cursory call in December.  So did the Russians!  If they wanted, they could have blackmailed Flynn that they would report him for "lying"  about having no contact with Russia!

This is such a reach -- potential for blackmail! -- , and so sad the woman would think her article  persuasive.   If that's justice, I'm glad the attorney and author of this piece is not employed in that line of work anymore.*

I wonder if this woman knows the petty reasons -- potential for blackmail! -- that homosexuals were kept out of military and national security work for decades -- potential for blackmail! -- that were really weak-tea reasons for justifying poor policies that had no real excuses. (It's a fallback often, like disorderly conduct charges when cops otherwise cannot find a reason to justify arrest.) Bob Barr did the right thing re. Mike Flynn. The nonsense prosecution for "lying" likely took years off Flynn's life too, that he won't easily get back.

An honorable military man, vs. a grasping and ambitious attorney turned law professor.  Who do you trust on natioanl seucirty issues, and who is making mountains out of molehills at the expense of sowing (creating!) disunity in our country?

The editors at the New York Times have already showed their hand in the continued editorials against Mike Flynn.  It's not a newspaper anymore.  It's an advocacy den.

#DividedWeFall
------------------
* She's just teaching at Georgetown Law now... temporary, visiting slot