THREAD: To expand on my piece today (linked below), some speculation--but logic-based. First, I disagree that gov't motion means prosecutors think the IG won't implicate them in wrong doing. Could that be? Sure, but I think it's unlikely. Here's why. 1/
2/ As I note in my article, gov't in Flynn case has maintained throughout no Brady material has been withheld & claims of misconduct both unfounded & irrelevant. Gov't also has said no reason to delay sentencing. That's the status quo.
3/ It would only make sense to wait for the IG report if it would change the status quo. Also, having doubled down on it's position, prosecutor would be wiser to push forward w/ sentencing memo as if the motion to compel were denied as if to show we're completely assured of it.
4/ On the other hand, there are several possible aspects of the IG report that would be extremely relevant to Flynn's case: First, if reports are true that an agent changed FISA documentation & under criminal investigation, that would be huge for Flynn case if same agent was on
5/ Flynn case. And that seems likely because they had a small co-hort working all the same cases. Mid-Year Exam, Crossfire Hurricane. And likely the F-Flynn File. Ditto if additional misconduct involving same players. Then there's possibility investigation revealed FISA on Flynn
6/ Also, even if IG report showing no misconduct visa-via Page, that doesn't mean there was none re Page. SO I just don't think that's the most logical expectation, whereas implicating same players for misconduct as in the Flynn case would. And remember one of the issues was
7/7 Whether Strzok was motivated by an anti-Trump bias. And Strzok interviewed Flynn. Other issue on the motion to compel: Again, gov't could just proceed as if it didn't matter for sentencing. Strategically that makes more sense. Yet, gov't INITIATED this joint motion. END
