Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

THREAD: Tomorrow is hearing on Government's Motion to Dismiss criminal charge against @GenFlynn. I didn't have time to write up a lawsplainer tying in new exculpatory evidence @SidneyPowell1 and DOJ filed, so here's a thread. (Limiting comments until finished). 1/

2/ This @FDRLST provides the lawsplaining of the elements for 1001 charge and why DOJ properly filed motion to dismiss. In short, any "lies" were not material and no lies. thefederalist.com/2020/05/04/you…

3/ Starting with "no lies." Let's first point out that Statement of Offense undisputed and inaccurately stated Flynn lied about discussing sanctions. thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/new…

4/ On any other supposed lies in conversation, the evidence since revealed shows that: a) agent's did not believe Flynn lied (not merely that they thought he didn't show signs of lying) thefederalist.com/2020/08/28/the…

5/ The mosaic of evidence now also strongly indicates that the goal was to question Flynn in such a way they could claim he lied. We have the notes saying "what's our goal," get him to lie? We have changes to 302 and missing 302. We have testimony that FBI cut out agent

6/ who would have interviewed Flynn and that agent said the other team members purposefully didn't ask follow-up questions, which when asked would clarify the testimony and change meaning of testimony.

7/ We have Strzok and Page after chatting w/ Strzok talking about how he felt when Flynn said something they knew was not true. We have Flynn's actual words hedged with "I don't think so." There was no lying and Special Counsel knew it.

8/ And even if you think there was lying, the withholding of this evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel, justify dismissing charges. AND that is all without considering "materiality," which is even stronger basis. Continued after Latin Review.

9/ Okay, back. So on materiality: As my article linked above explained, any lie must be material. If it isn't material, there is no crime. Period. As that article also explained, the "materiality" set forth by Special Counsel's office was false.

10/ Special Counsel argued material to Russia collusion investigation BUT documents uncovered showed that was not reason they interviewed Flynn. They interviewed either a) for Logan Act; or b) perjury trap. And we no investigation of Logan open or would there be a basis for that.

11/ New evidence proves that in spade. We had notes before saying either Logan or perjury trap; but now we have FBI agent confirming, along with evidence they cut him out to prevent Flynn from clarifying. AND also that Flynn case was kept open for no legitimate reason.

12/12 And again, EVEN if this wasn't all true, the withholding of this evidence in violation of Sullivan's standing order would justify DOJ dismissing charges anyway. Sullivan has a choice: Mea cupla, even though much delayed. Or, Resist and leave unsalvageable his reputation.