Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that a new filing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee in the Michael Flynn case is a “hyperpartisan document composed of wild accusations.”
Jarrett made the comments two days after Democrats filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief arguing why Judge Emmet Sullivan should not sign off on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The committee claimed that the Department of Justice’s decision had signs of “corruption” and was influenced by President Trump. The brief cited the case against former Trump associate Roger Stone and the report by former special counsel Robert Mueller as evidence for why further examination of the department’s action was needed.
In the brief, House Democrats argued the DOJ's push to drop Flynn's charges is "the latest in a series of decisions that ‘represent a systemic breakdown of impartial justice...'”
Jarrett said the document is “feeble on the law [and] anemic on the facts.”
“The inane reasoning here by the Democrats is that, ‘Gosh, the president tweeted about the Flynn case and therefore, the decision by the DOJ to dismiss the charges must be corrupt,'” he continued.
Last month, the Justice Department moved to drop its case against Flynn after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI. Flynn later tried to withdraw that plea.
Jarrett said Democrats “offer not a scintilla of evidence, no proof whatsoever” in the brief, adding that “they completely gloss over the real reasons the Department of Justice upon a review of the Flynn case decided to move to dismiss.”
He noted that those reasons include the fact that “exculpatory evidence of Flynn's innocence was concealed from the court [and] concealed from the defendant.”
Jarrett also pointed out that “the FBI, [former FBI director] James Comey, [former acting FBI Director] Andrew McCabe [and former FBI agent] Peter Strzok had no legal or legitimate reason to even interview Flynn, which means that anything said was not material and that's an essential element of a false statement case.”
Oral arguments are set to take place Friday, when U.S. District Court Judge Sullivan will have to explain why he has not signed off on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss its case against Flynn.
Jarrett wrote a Fox News op-ed published on Thursday titled, “Flynn prosecution should end – lawyer makes weak arguments trying to keep the baseless case alive.”
Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.