Recent reporting raised questions about the circumstances surrounding Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for making “false statements.”
Apparently, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who conducted Flynn’s January 2017 interview, believed Flynn had been truthful. Reportedly, the FBI decided to take no action. On March 2, then-FBI director James Comeyconfirmed this to the House Intelligence Committee.
In light of this, questions are being asked about the nature of Flynn’s guilty plea: whether the special counsel made Flynn aware of Strzok’s assessment; and, if not, whether he had an ethical, if not a legal, obligation to do so.
There are two intriguing questions, however, that should be asked and answered first. These questions go to Robert Mueller’s nature and whether he can be a fair arbiter:
Moreover, a closer look at this process may hint at what the special counsel has in store for the president.
The FBI’s disciplinary system consists of investigation, proposal, decision, and an appellate process to review the decision. In 2004, early in his tenure as director, Mueller fundamentally altered this system by placing the proposal and decision stages in the hands of a surrogate. This meant that, contrary to an established principle of judicial fairness, Mueller’s surrogate would be prosecutor and judge, assembling the case against an employee and deciding the outcome of that case.
Scarlet is red, and that's no lie
Apparently, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who conducted Flynn’s January 2017 interview, believed Flynn had been truthful. Reportedly, the FBI decided to take no action. On March 2, then-FBI director James Comeyconfirmed this to the House Intelligence Committee.
In light of this, questions are being asked about the nature of Flynn’s guilty plea: whether the special counsel made Flynn aware of Strzok’s assessment; and, if not, whether he had an ethical, if not a legal, obligation to do so.
There are two intriguing questions, however, that should be asked and answered first. These questions go to Robert Mueller’s nature and whether he can be a fair arbiter:
- What accounted for Strzok’s and Mueller’s vastly different assessments of Flynn’s veracity?
- What can we expect from Mueller when it comes to judging President Trump’s veracity?
Moreover, a closer look at this process may hint at what the special counsel has in store for the president.
The FBI’s disciplinary system consists of investigation, proposal, decision, and an appellate process to review the decision. In 2004, early in his tenure as director, Mueller fundamentally altered this system by placing the proposal and decision stages in the hands of a surrogate. This meant that, contrary to an established principle of judicial fairness, Mueller’s surrogate would be prosecutor and judge, assembling the case against an employee and deciding the outcome of that case.
Scarlet is red, and that's no lie
