Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS
It’s big week for due process. Mike and Jay talk about the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case against Michael Flynn, FBI abuses, and Mike makes a pitch for an Independent Justice Department. Then they discuss the new Department of Education rules guaranteeing rights to the accused in school sexual harassment and assault cases. Then it gets sort of weird.
The full text of the DOJ filing to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn
Be part of the discussion on the Politics Guys ‘BipartisanPolitics’ community on Reddit.
Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.
Hi Mike and Jay!
I love your podcast and look forward to listening to it every Saturday. With that said, Mike would you please let Jay finish his arguments? Jay is very patient and almost always waits for you to end your very lengthy arguments before he gives his side, but more and more you always jump in and interrupt Jay. I am here for the discourse on both sides, but when you continually cut Jay off I feel like I am only getting your side. Thank you!!
That’s a great point. Right after I hit ‘reply’ on this, I’m going to make a note – highlighted and in bold – that reads ‘don’t interrupt Jay’ and put it in my weekly show prep notes. – Mike
Your discussion on the Michael Flynn stuff was…. not great.
In particular Jay’s assumption that the reason why the FBI did what it did was for political reasons is the sort of “analysis” I expect to see from such reputable sources as the Daily Caller or The Blaze.
Leaving aside the merits of their investigation, and whether it was done properly or not, accepting the premise that the FBI/DoJ were acting out of partisan fervor is exactly what the right wing partisans are arguing in order to peddle their “Obama was behind it all” nonsense. Given that, at the same time, the FBI had literally actively sabotaged the Clinton campaign it is not credulous to accept that the FBI was engaging in a political investigation.
A far more plausible explanation is that the FBI legitimately felt that the Trump campaign had been compromised by foreign nation states. From the perspective of career counter-intelligence investigators it would seem HIGHLY suspicious to have so many people with direct ties to foreign governments. Paul Manafort worked as an agent for Ukrainian government and never told the US government. Michael Flynn worked for the Turkish government and never told anyone. Couple that with the Russian governments fairly clear preference for the Trump campaign along with Trump’s often slavish praise of Putin, and this is going to make investigators highly suspicious.
Did the FBI/DOJ overreach? Possibly, although Jay’s claim of exculpatory evidence is a bit of a reach. Notes from the investigators on their initial opinions which could have changed for any number of reasons is not exculpatory. Imagine a murder investigator doing an initial interview and writing in his notes “suspect seems believable and I do not believe he killed her” and the defense team claiming that his note is somehow exculpatory.
But if the argument is that this sort of conduct is generally unacceptable, then those claiming that Flynn is a victim should be demanding a complete overhaul of what is and is not allowed by investigators.
Thanks for commenting. It’s possible that I didn’t do a good enough job of separating my views of the FBI’s tactics concerning Flynn (very troubling) and what I see as the reasonableness – or actually, the necessity – of the larger Russia investigation. It seems to me that the narrative that the whole investigation is a ‘hoax’ is unfounded, and that *everyone* should be deeply concerned with efforts of a hostile foreign power to influence our elections. Whether or not the Trump administration actively cooperated with these efforts, their obstruction of justice (which I believe was documented in the Mueller Report) is also deeply troubling and more than sufficient grounds for impeachment.