On Thursday, the Justice Department announced it's desire to drop the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a move that does not come as much of a surprise following last week's revelation that FBI agents went to interview him in the White House with the intent of getting him to lie or to admit something that could get him fired or prosecuted.

In a statement, the DOJ said the January 2017 interview was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that it was dropping the case "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information."

So how did this case move from a Flynn guilty plea to the Justice Department wanting to dump the matter?  Was Flynn the victim of a very shoddy process or are other lawyers right that the FBI used standard tactics in speaking with Flynn?

Former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew C. McCarthy says the FBI conduct towards Flynn was highly improper and amounted to little more than an effort to get him to lie without any underlying criminal predicate.

McCarthy and Radio America's Greg Corombos also discuss whether most Americans will see this as a decision made on the facts and the law or through their partisan lenses.

In addition, McCarthy discusses Ventura County, California, officials announcing that COVID-infected patients may be forced to leave their homes if others in the residence test negative and there is only one bathroom.  Is that constitutional?  And what does it say about how governments are responding to this crisis?

Don't miss McCarthy's insights on these two critical issues.