A federal magistrate denied the Department of Justice’s request to transfer the case involving former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn’s claims of unlawful prosecution to Washington, D.C.
“In sum, the Court concludes that the interests of justice weigh against transfer of this case to the DDC. Plaintiff is entitled to seek redress in his home forum, and Defendant’s Motion presents no overwhelming need to disturb that choice. The only party who would clearly be inconvenienced by relocation of this action to the DDC is Plaintiff, who would be forced to litigate outside of his home state. The Government is not over burdened by litigating here,” District Judge Mary Scriven ruled on June 12.
In March of this year, Flynn filed a $50 million lawsuit against the government alleging unjust prosecution, in accordance with the discredited Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Flynn filed the lawsuit in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida’s United States District Court. He is a Florida native.
During the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller, Flynn was soon hired as President Trump’s national security adviser. Flynn, a retired three-star general, initially pleaded guilty to the charge of lying to FBI investigators, but he later requested to withdraw his guilty plea when it became apparent that the FBI did not believe he was culpable of lying to its investigators. In addition, the aforementioned agents attempted to have the case against him withdrawn, but were overruled by their superiors.
Trump granted Flynn a pardon after the Department of Justice requested that the charges against him be withdrawn.
In their initial claim, Flynn and his attorney Jesse Binnall asserted that the prosecution’s case against Flynn was motivated by partisanship.
“Flynn was the target of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution that had no merit when it began, no merit during its course, and no merit in the end when the charges were withdrawn by the DOJ and ultimately dismissed by the Court after Flynn received a full pardon,” the initial filing alleged. “During that meritless and unlawful investigation and prosecution, Flynn was falsely and maliciously painted by the conspirators as a traitor to his nation who acted in concert with a foreign power, and the SCO even threatened Flynn’s son with prosecution unless Flynn were to plead guilty. ”
“The federal government’s targeting of a citizen for baseless criminal prosecution and eliciting a plea bargain through threatening family members is outrageous conduct of the highest order,” it said.
Special Counsel John Durham provided additional information regarding a report that was exceedingly skeptical of the FBI’s decision to launch a counterintelligence investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign during his appearance before a House committee on Tuesday.
“Durham testified for over five hours before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday over the details of the 306-page report. Released on May 15, following a four-year investigation, it concluded that the FBI should have launched a preliminary, not a full, investigation into ties between Trump and Russia. Durham also accused the department of a double standard in its probing of foreign interference on Trump’s campaign and then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s,” Politico reported.
“I want to emphasize in the strongest terms possible that my colleagues and I carried out our work in good faith with integrity and in the spirit of following the facts wherever they lead without fear of favor. At no time and in no sense did we act with the purpose to further partisan or political ends,” Durham told the committee.
“Former Special Counsel John Durham shut down a line of questioning from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., that sought to assert Donald Trump Jr. had committed a crime during a meeting in Trump Tower,” according to Fox News.
The exchange came during Durham’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Schiff referenced a Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr. and Russian individuals prior to the 2016 election that the lawmaker claimed constituted a crime.
“Are you aware, Mr. Durham, that [Robert] Mueller’s and Congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump campaign ‘very high-level and sensitive information” that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton…?” Schiff asked.
“Sure, people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that,” Durham retorted.
“Really? The son of a presidential candidate gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt on their opponent. Is that what you’re saying?” shifty-Schiff asked.
“I don’t think this is unique in your experience,” Durham shot back.
Schiff was then censured by the House.
“The Republican-led effort to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., over his claims about former President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia succeeded Wednesday, USA Today reported.
House lawmakers voted 213-209 along party lines to censure Schiff, with six lawmakers voting present. Immediately after the vote, Democrats in the lower chamber began chanting “shame.”