Michael Flynn

Legal Expert Believes Flynn Plea Deal Only Proves Mueller’s Weakness

While the left was busy patting themselves on the back regarding the Michael Flynn plea deal, reality began to set in for the legal experts observing the case.

Flynn’s plea deal played like a slam dunk in the liberal media when it was announced just a day ago.  Suddenly, Robert Mueller had his first scalp, and the left would soon be rid of their scourge in the Oval Office through some bizarre twist of the legislative knife.  In reality, Michael Flynn is being charged with a simple process crime, and will likely avoid any jail time whatsoever.  But still, the left began popping champagne bottles and high-fiving each other.

Then, an eerie air of concern wafted into the celebration as legal experts began to dismantle what this procedural maneuver really means for the future of Mueller’s probe.  The consensus seems to be that the Special Counsel is sitting on a whole lot of nothing.

“On Saturday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s ‘Fox & Friends,’ Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea is a ‘show of weakness’ for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

“Dershowitz said, ‘Well, the last thing any prosecutor wants to do is to have to indict his primary witness for lying. Because if you indict your witness for lying, it really means he’s not useful as a witness, he has no credibility. I’m sure the prosecutor was trying to indict him for some scheme or conspiracy that involved other people in the White House, but there is nothing there, and he had to, finally come down and indict him for lying, which makes him a useless witness. So, this is not a show of strength by the prosecutor. It’s a show of weakness. It’s a show that they really have nothing on anybody above of Flynn and that Flynn made the terrible mistake about lying about something he could have told truth about. Because the two things he lied about were perfectly lawful and perfectly proper for somebody to do during the transition. And so, I think it really reflects a weakness, not a strength in Mueller’s prosecution.'”

Within centuries of legal precedent to stand behind, maneuvers at this level of government aren’t often executed unless both parties understand what at least the next few moves are going to be.  This allows us to eliminate the possibility that Mueller is simply diverting attention or employing other trickery to mask his next move.  It is likely that what we see is what we get.

And what we’re getting is a nothing-burger, hold the cheese.

Please leave your comments below