The unjust political prosecution of Lt. General Michael Flynn

Gen. Michael Flynn (center) and Gen. Stanley McChrystal (right)

(First of  two parts)

About a year ago, an American hero, Army Ranger and retired 3-star general, Michael Flynn, was forced to list his Alexandria, Virginia home for sale to help pay his legal fees to combat one of the most egregious political prosecutions in the nation’s history.

Former General Flynn is not a wealthy man having spent three decades in the Army. This prosecution has destroyed his ability to seek employment or acquire speaking engagements.

Tomorrow (Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018), he is scheduled to be sentenced by District Judge (for the District of Columbia) Emmet Sullivan for pleading guilty to one count of lying to federal agents.

The former general’s plight is an American abomination. It is an appalling episode in our history which every justice-loving citizen should despise.

There can be no other reason for the prosecutorial attack on Lt. Gen. Flynn other than it being part of an aggressive, coordinated attempt to undo a lawful election; in this case by going after one of the President’s top advisors, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or the National Security Advisor.

Ultimately it is the unethical prosecutors, acting illegally on behalf of the Washington establishment, who are sending the message that anyone who helps an outsider try to win the presidency.  So hear this: D.C. is a closed political club and you better not try to push your way in or we’ll destroy you and those around you one way or the other. You not-so-rich underlings better have a big monetary stash because we have considerable power and unlimited financial resources and will incarcerate you if we can and if not, we’ll bankrupt you even if you’ve committed no real crime.

This case clearly illustrates that the federal establishment only lets in those it deems committed to preserve, protect and defend — not the Constitution  — but the Deep State.

The highest ranking federal investigators conspired and used extraordinary deception to attack the office of the presidency and place the nation at risk by this scheme to place the National Security Advisor in legal jeopardy.

It was admittedly orchestrated by former FBI Director James Comey, the top federal cop in the country at the time and put into motion with a lie by Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI to the National Security Advisor of the United States, a person had no idea that the FBI would be conducting a deceitful offensive against the office of the presidency.

General Flynn incorrectly and foolishly thought the FBI was on his side.

 

Why Target Flynn?

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was highly regarded in military circles. so much so, Barack Obama brought him into his administration as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2012.

He was branded as a problem early on. Flynn was considered an innovative, shake-things-up guy that, not surprisingly, rattled an entrenched bureaucracy right from the start. What would be perceived as innovative in the private sector is considered unacceptably disruptive by the Deep State.

But more importantly, he was perhaps the lone voice within the Obama administration who did not buy into the required narrative that Al-Qaeda was dead and that ISIS was to be dismissed as the “JV team” as President Obama stated in January 2014. By April of 2014, his resistance to go along with the administration-wide narrative resulted in his removal a few months later.

According to an Obama administration whistle-blower and as reported by investigative journalist, Sara Carter, “‘The investigation into Trump didn’t start with Carter Page or George Papadapolous, but with Flynn. Flynn was already on the CIA and Clinton target list. Those same people sure as hell didn’t want him in the White House and they sure as hell didn’t want Trump to win.'”

After Flynn’s removal as DIA chief and as the 2016 election approached, he became a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and was selected to be his National Security Adviser soon after the election.

 

The Case

Shortly after Christmas 2016, Flynn chose to vacation in the Dominican Republic in advance of the latter stages of the transition period and before his official duties as National Security Advisor were to begin.

On December 29, 2016, while still on vacation, he received and accepted a call from Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak (along with a number of additional similar calls that day). The call by the Russian ambassador was not a surprise given that earlier in the day, President Obama had imposed strong sanctions against the Russian government, including the expulsion of 35 diplomats, along with the forced closure of Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland for Russia’s purported interference in the 2016 elections.

Because Flynn was out of the country and on an unsecured line, his call was recorded by the National Security Agency. The transcript of the call was provided to the Obama administration’s hierarchy on Jan. 2, 2017.

It only took someone in the Obama administration just a few days to decide that going after Flynn was worth committing at least two federal crimes. The first felony was leaking classified information (the fact of the phone call) to David Ignatius of The Washington Post who published his article just 10 days later on January 12. The second crime was the unmasking of an American citizen, Michael Flynn, as being a party to the conversation. Both are federal crimes according to Victoria Toensing, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

The publication of this information gave the upper echelon of the FBI the opening they were obviously looking for. Director Comey and his second in command, Andrew McCabe quickly launched a potential perjury trap for Flynn. Comey sent two FBI agents to talk with Flynn on just the second business day following the inauguration of Donald Trump  when the administration was just getting settled into the West Wing.

Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, 2017. On the following Tuesday, January 24, McCabe personally called Flynn about what the Wall Street Journal said was “other business” but asked if two of his agents could come to the White House to talk with him under the guise of “an FBI training session.”

McCabe wanted Flynn not to be legally attentive in any way by both avoiding the White House counsel’s office and making sure Flynn had no idea these agents were looking for any misstatements that could be considered perjurious.

According to the FBI summary of the meeting (form FD-302), the FBI honchos wanted Flynn as relaxed and unguarded as possible.

The FBI’s protocol requires the writing of a 302 within five days following an interview. The FBI has always relied on a summary from recollection and handwritten notes to serve as the official memorization of interviews and interrogations. In 2014, the DOJ “encouraged” FBI to use video or audio recordings at some interviews but this particular discussion relied exclusively on the handwritten notes taken by one of the agents.

The 302 summary must be written and filed contemporaneously to reduce the possibility of an erroneous report. (This is a problem in itself. Sloppy notes by a student may result in a bad grade; sloppy notes by an FBI agent with an ax to grind could result in a jail cell for the interviewee.)

There was no reason for Flynn to be on his guard other than talking to FBI agents. He had no idea that there was an FBI counter terrorism investigation targeting (only) the Trump campaign and administration was in progress.

The Obama administration supposedly used the 1799 Logan Act as the preposterous reason for putting the spotlight on Flynn. This law was written so private citizens could not conduct U.S. foreign policy on their own.

Key personnel in every incoming administration begin to establish relationships with their foreign counterparts during the transition period. It’s critically necessary for the seamless transfer of power. (In over 200 years, there has only been two prosecutions under the Logan Act. The last one was in 1852 and neither resulted in convictions.)

There could have been only one true reason to “interview” General Flynn.  After all, the agents already had the transcripts of his conversation with Kislyak so they couldn’t have been in Flynn’s office to learn something additional about it.

Flynn clearly would have known his phone call had been captured and transcribed so one of the major unknowns is if he intentionally lied to the FBI agents or misremembered. The 302 summary said (as did James Comey in his testimony to Congress) that Flynn appeared “‘relaxed and jocular’ and ‘clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.'”

Did he intentionally mislead as the Robert Mueller prosecutors maintain and to which he pleaded guilty to one count of lying? Or had he sincerely not correctly remembered what was stated on that call but agreed to cooperate with Mueller because he was driven to near bankruptcy and threatened with the prosecution of his son?

Federal law prohibits knowingly or willingly making false or fraudulent statements (lie) to federal agents — in most cases. So if he did in fact lie to the agents, was this even a crime?

Harvard professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, believes that Flynn did lie but doesn’t think what he did constituted a crime. For it to be a crime the lie had to be “material to the investigation.” Dershowitz said it was not: “‘If the FBI already knew the answer to the question, and only asked him the question in order to give him an opportunity to lie, his answer, even if false, was not material to the investigation.'”

*   *   *

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a highly decorated Ranger and a 3-star general who retired in April 2014 served in the U.S. Army for 33 years including 5 in combat. He is an American hero who has served with courage and honor.

Former FBI Director Comey used the illegal unmasking and leaking (both had to be done by officials within the Obama administration) of Flynn to go after (victim) Flynn. Then Comey and ultimately special prosecutor, Robert Mueller used the leverage of this “process” crime to secure Flynn’s cooperation in an attempt to ultimately remove a sitting president from office.

If this is not Mueller’s intent, then my question is why, after nearly two years, has he made no attempt to investigate the actual crimes that were committed by the leaker(s) in the Obama administration?  By ignoring those crimes, by letting those criminals go scot free, Comey, Mueller, et al. have clearly shown that this is and always has been a one-sided, political prosecution.

Leave a Comment

x Shield Logo
This Site Is Protected By
The Shield →