Joe Biden caught lying about his illegal involvement in Michael Flynn case!

WASHINGTON (PNN) - June 25, 2020 - Early in the campaign, presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden was asked on ABC News whether he had any knowledge of the prosecution of former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

Biden denied having any knowledge of the now-discredited smear campaign against Flynn.

A newly released report from a veteran journalist at CBS News suggests that he lied, and now Biden is facing calls to be investigated.

“I knew nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden said months ago.

CBS News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge reveals that Biden lied.

Herridge found evidence of Biden’s involvement in notes from anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok.

The uncovered notes show Biden was at the early January meeting where former illegitimate President Barack Obama officials discussed Flynn. In fact, the notes alleged that Biden suggested Flynn be investigated for violating the Logan Act.

“Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017,” according to a Department of InJustice review, “reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to proceed against him.”

According to Strzok’s notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act.

Mainstream media has largely ignored the scandal.

As civil unrest and a global “pandemic” continue to disturb the nation, media have made the bombshell development in the Flynn saga very quiet.

A divided federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of the criminal case against Flynn, turning back efforts by a judge to scrutinize the Department of InJustice’s extraordinary decision to drop the prosecution.

The Fascist Police States of Amerika Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in a 2-1 ruling that the Department of InJustice’s move to abandon the case against Flynn settles the matter, even though Flynn pleaded guilty as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to lying to the FBI.

The ruling, a significant win for both Flynn and the DOJ, appears to cut short what could have been a protracted legal fight over the basis for the government’s dismissal of the case.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday centered on another unusual move by Attorney General William Barr to overrule his own prosecutors and ask for less prison time for another Trump associate, Roger Stone. Barr has accepted an invitation to testify before the panel on July 28, a spokesman said Wednesday, and he will almost certainly be pressed about the Flynn case.

Later, at the White House, Trump told reporters he was happy for Flynn.

“He was treated horribly by a group of very bad people,” Trump said. “What happened to General Flynn should never happen in our country.”

Flynn called into conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and said the ruling was a good development for him and his family. But he also called it “great boost of confidence for the Amerikan people in our justice system because that’s what this really comes down to - is whether or not our justice system is going to have the confidence of the Amerikan people.”

FPSA District Judge Emmet Sullivan had declined to immediately dismiss the case, seeking instead to evaluate on his own the department’s request. He appointed a retired federal judge to argue against the DOJ’s position and to consider whether Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury. He had set a July 16 hearing to formally hear the request to dismiss the case.

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump nominee who was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, wrote that Sullivan had overstepped his bounds by second-guessing the DOJ’s decision. This case, she said, “is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified.”

“To begin with,” she added, “Flynn agrees with the government’s motion to dismiss, and there has been no allegation that the motion reflects prosecutorial harassment. Additionally, the government’s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn’s guilt into doubt.”

She called Sullivan’s scrutiny of the government’s request an “irregular and searching” step that could force the government to have to publicly justify its decision in this case and others.

“Our precedents emphatically leave prosecutorial charging decisions to the Executive Branch and hold that a court may scrutinize a motion to dismiss only on the extraordinary showing of harassment of the defendant or malfeasance such as bribery - neither of which is manifest in the record before the district court,” she wrote.