Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would be dropping charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Liberal Fox News personality Juan Williams isn’t happy about the move, and during a television appearance on Tuesday, he called the DOJ’s decision on Flynn’s case a “diversionary tactic” designed to benefit President Donald Trump, Fox reported.
Williams blasts DOJ decision
“The question here is about the behavior of Michael Flynn,” Williams insisted on Tuesday’s installment of Fox News panel show The Five. “I mean, you can’t say President Obama told him to call [Sergey] Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, and discuss the sanctions regime for Russian interference.
“I don’t think anyone wants to make that case,” he continued. “Well, I don’t think that’s Obama. I don’t think that’s Biden. No one’s saying, ‘Oh, yeah. You know, he’s the one that told Flynn. Go ahead and act as a lobbyist for Turkey, but don’t register as a lobbyist.’
“Look, I think this is all a waste of government energy, resources and time when we should be focused on the coronavirus and trying to get this economy back in order,” Williams said of the recent developments in the case.
Supporters have long argued that the retired Army lieutenant general was targeted for entrapment, and new evidence recently came to light that appeared to back up their claim.
Handwritten notes that Fox News has attributed to the FBI’s former head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, discuss what the agency’s objective was supposed to be when it interviewed Flynn in January of 2017.
“What is our goal?” one of the notes allegedly read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
Turley: FBI notes on Flynn “chilling”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University who famously testified during President Trump’s House impeachment trial.
In a tweet, Turley seemed to be deeply disturbed by what Priestap’s notes had to say, referring to the material as “chilling” and stating that “we need to hear from the DOJ official on the meaning of this note.”
“It suggests the use of a flagrantly unconstitutional act to trap a top Trump official,” the constitutional scholar went on to conclude. Chilling, indeed.