Flynn vs. McCabe: If it weren’t for double standards there’d be practically no standards at all
Jonathan Turley is one of those pundits who aren’t conservatives and yet whose work I really appreciate. Another is (often, anyway) Alan Dershowitz.
Turley makes a good point about the completely different treatment of Flynn and McCabe for lying to investigators:
I have been writing…on the contrast between the treatment of McCabe and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. McCabe has been erroneously portrayed as “losing his pension” but has not been charged. Flynn was charged and accepted a plea deal under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making a false statement to investigators. Now McCabe is raising virtually the same defense that did not work for Flynn: that there was a lot going on and he was “confused and distracted.”
Given his willingness to hold forth publicly on his actions, McCabe does not appear to expect to be charged even though the Inspector General could refer a criminal allegation to prosecutors.
[McCabe] lashes about at President Donald Trump and critics to assert ”˜I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators.” He then added this familiar defense: “At worst, I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted ”” and for that I take full responsibility.”
That is reportedly the same defense raised by Flynn who admitted to meeting with Russian diplomats during the busy transition period but did not disclose or confirm that they spoke about sanctions. He reportedly also did not make such a disclosure to Vice President Pence. There was nothing unlawful in the meeting with the Russians or even unprecedented for an incoming national security adviser to discuss such points of tension between the countries.
We don’t know all the details, but it’s hard to see the differential treatment as anything other than politics. Oh, and position; McCabe is/was very much a higher-up in the law enforcement world (FBI) and Flynn is not.
There are also some differences in who it was that each man lied to, although both types of lie could be charged as crimes. Flynn lied to the FBI and McCabe to the IG. Here’s more from Turley (written a few weeks ago) on the practical aspects of this:
Ultimately, Inspector General Michael Horowitz has the authority to refer a matter to criminal investigators investigators in cases of false statements or other crimes. He can also refer matters to state bars in cases of professional misconduct by lawyers. He could do either in the matter of McCabe if investigators conclude that McCabe intentionally misled them. However, if history is any guide, McCabe is unlikely to find himself facing a charge.
It is a perceived luxury enjoyed by federal prosecutors that routinely charge others with even borderline false statements but rarely face such charges themselves. While most prosecutors adhere to the highest ethical standards, a minority of Justice Department lawyers have been accused of false or misleading statements in federal cases. However, they are virtually never charged with false statements by their colleagues. There is no such reluctance in using this easily charged crime against targets outside of the department.
Consider the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn…
Turley goes on to state that “investigators working under former FBI Director James Comey reportedly had concluded that Flynn did not intend to lie and should not be charged criminally for the omission.” To me, this makes it even more outrageous that he was charged nevertheless.
It’s really worth reading Turley’s whole article, because this really does seem like a case of prosecutorial persecution vs. prosecutorial leniency. Turley also goes into the history of what’s known as the “exculpatory no,” which used to offer relief from these sorts of prosecutions but was abolished by SCOTUS in a 1998 case—although McCabe seems to have earned an exception through an unofficial, extra-judicial “in-house exculpatory no.”
One of many examples of how the State and its cronies and parrots in media/entertainment and academia (but I repeat myself) treats Friends differently from Enemies. Just the fact that this distinction is clearly made in a variety of venues and contexts on a regular basis is infuriating. Enemies of the State are charged, violated, accused, berated, disparaged, defamed, mocked, denied, and suppressed. Friends are protected, privileged, excused, celebrated, and their sins denied or ignored when possible and explained and under/mis-reported when not.
If Donald Trump had not won the Presidency, then Andrew McCabe would still have his old job, and we would never have known how unfit he was for it.
So what is really going on? Double standards are used to fight against change. A lot of the elites are looking increasing like a pack of fools today, if not outright corrupt. And yet they could still get back in power easily enough, leading to conflict and turmoil, because of the real problems with their agenda, and because they just aren’t very competent.
Am I alone in perceiving a direct contradiction by Turley between these two assertions?
“most prosecutors adhere to the highest ethical standards
“Justice Department lawyers… accused of false or misleading statements in federal cases… are virtually never charged with false statements by their colleagues.”
IMHO, this is not just evidence of “prosecutorial persecution vs. prosecutorial leniency’ ”
It’s prima facie evidence of corruption.
A ‘good old boys/gals network’ among Federal prosecutors demonstrates an abandonment of ethical standards.
Forcing Flynn to plead guilty and going after his son are typical tactics from Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s “pit bull.”
Weissmann has a well documented history of extremely aggressive tactics that have bordered on the illegal and has resulted in several of his cases being overturned on appeal.
As an example, consider the Enron case:
““Do not misunderstand my disdain for him with ineffectiveness or something not to be concerned with,” said Dan Cogdell, who represented three Enron defendants. “He’s a formable prosecutor. If I’m Donald Trump and I know the backstory of Andrew Weissmann, it’s going to concern me. There is no question about it.”
The backstory: Defense attorneys say Mr. Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.
They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist.”
Weissmannn also got convictions on four Merrill Lynch executives that were later overturned.
“The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 vote in 2005, overturned the Andersen conviction. A year later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erased all the fraud convictions against four Merrill Lynch managers. The jury had acquitted another defendant.
“People went off to prison for a completely phantom of a case,” said Mr. Kirkendall.”
Read more here:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/22/christopher-wray-robert-muellers-top-prosecutor-kn/
The case against Trump and his associates will be extremely hardball. Standards of guilt don’t matter to men like Weissmann.
When accountability for particularly egregious unethical actions is absent, corruption flourishes. No more fertile ground for the rise of tyranny exists.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
March 28th, 2018 at 10:36 pm
Am I alone in perceiving a direct contradiction by Turley between these two assertions?..
A ‘good old boys/gals network’ among Federal prosecutors demonstrates an abandonment of ethical standards.
* * *
Case in point –
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/fear-loathing-at-the-doj-contd.php
“Howard’s case is important in its own way. The crimes charged were bogus. The government procured testimony through serious prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution represented fruit of the poisonous Yates Memo tree. Howard had the resources to fight the government’s case against him and his company, but it exacted an enormous toll. The case cries out for study and reform.
Howard has thus sought to engage prosecutors in discussion of the case in person before professional audiences of lawyers and businessmen for whom it holds immediate relevance. The prosecutors and their superiors in the department have sought to keep Howard from speaking to such audiences. “