Mueller vs. Flynn

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was President Trump's incoming National Security Adviser. As such, it would not be improper for him to be speaking to foreign officials. On January 24, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey sent two agents into the White House of the four day old Trump Administration to interview General Flynn. Comey told the MSNBC audience how proud of himself he was, because sending in agents to the White House is "something I probably wouldn't have done or wouldn't have gotten away with in a more organized administration." You see, the agents knew Flynn had spoken with the Russian ambassador. Whether the FBI or NSA picked up Flynn's conversations, the name of a US citizen should not be "unmasked" without some good national security concern. The Obama Administration was not concerned with that.

A few comments on the above. Four days into the Trump Administration Comey was already after Trump. His own comments reflect that he knew he was "getting away" with something. Even if not illegal, he knew it was clearly improper. But Comey has demonstrated his propensity for improper behavior previously. After all, instead of reporting the FBI's findings on the Hillary Clinton investigation to Attorney General Lynch, who had the responsibility of deciding whether or not to prosecute, Comey, not the prosecutor, took it upon himself to close down the investigation and decide there would be no prosecution. Then there was Comey's leak of his written memos of conversations with Trump to friend and Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, in order to get the information leaked to the press and get a special counsel appointed. It was hardly a surprise that Comey's colleague and good friend, Robert Mueller, was appointed the special counsel.

The memos in question had to do with Trump asking if Comey could "let this go" with regards to Flynn. When Flynn met with those FBI agents he either forgot (questionable) or lied about speaking with the Russian ambassador. Which means, if he lied, he lied about something that was not illegal. When Comey testified before the Senate he was asked why he didn't just tell Trump that it was improper to ask the FBI Director to let it go. Comey: "If I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in...maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance." Trump was neither a lawyer nor a politician. Just how difficult would it have been to explain the impropriety to a new President? (Then again, Comey's boss A.G. Lynch, was not strong enough to tell Bill Clinton it was improper for him to be speaking with her in private on the tarmac in Phoenix, while she was investigating his wife.) Or, maybe Comey has repeatedly demonstrated his desire to "get" the President, rather than help a non-politician new President understand the process.

Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador was not illegal. Lying to the FBI is illegal. The issue with Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador is that Flynn was not yet the National Security Adviser. The conversation occurred during the transition period when Obama was still in office. The Logan Act of 1799 (date not a typo) makes it criminal to have unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. A total of two (2) people have been indicted for a violation of the Act - in 1802 and 1852. Neither was convicted. More recently, John Kerry as a former Secretary of State, took it upon himself to speak with foreign leaders in order to try to save the Iran nuclear deal. There was Kerry, then a private citizen, undermining the official policy of the United States of America. He could have/should have been prosecuted. But he was not. No, that was reserved for Flynn, a Trump associate. Hillary Clinton could have/should have been prosecuted. But she was not. Nor has Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe or James Comey.

As for Flynn, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target." Frankly, I am sickened by the entire Mueller investigation. But let me be clear. I opposed the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings. He had two years left in his term. He was elected to that office. I objected to Trump saying "lock her up" with regards to Hilary Clinton. Impeachment should be rarely used. Prosecution of high government officials should also be rare. So, what are you saying, Mike? That government officials are more important than the rest of us? That they are above the law? No. I am saying that I do not want to see this great country degenerate into a third world style government - where people on the outs are either imprisoned, exiled or worse. The political divide between the two parties is as bad as any of us can recall. The Democrats and the Left have wanted Trump out of office since Trump was inaugurated. So, the next time a Democrat gets elected to the office of president with a Republican Congress, that person gets impeached? Or indicted?

I'm kind of old fashioned. I prefer that people who win presidential elections (absent death or resignation) be able to serve out their full term. Or, maybe we can go with coup d'etats - if not violent ones, then through special counsel. Because that is exactly what is happening now.