News in Flynn Case – Documents Released and Judge Sullivan Has Well Founded Suspicions…

Things are going to get interesting in the Michael Flynn sentencing review; not because of the recently release documents [Here – and Here – and Here] but rather because it appears Judge Sullivan suspects what we’ve previously outlined.

In addition to the documents, Judge Sullivan is asking the DOJ to provide the transcript of the 12/29/16 call between Mike Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak.

Why is this important?  Because it appears Judge Sullivan suspects the transcript of the phone call will match statements from Flynn to the FBI.  Ergo Flynn did not lie to the FBI.

Since reviewing the November 30th, 2017, pleading we’ve been pointing out how the FBI admits to intercepting the Flynn-Kislyak call, but the FBI never put a factual transcript in the court record. Why not?

It’s a long, but necessary, story.

On December 29, 2016, President Obama announced a series of sanctions against Russians who were located in Maryland.  This was Obama’s carefully constructed response to provide additional validity to the Joint Analysis Report.  After fueling the Russia conspiracy for several weeks the Obama administration knew this action would initiate a response from both Russia and the incoming Trump administration.

After the December 29, 2016, sanctions against Russia, the Obama IC were monitoring Kislyak communications and watching for contact with the incoming Trump administration.

Additionally, it is suspected Flynn may have been under a FISA surveillance warrant which seems confirmed by the Weissmann/Mueller report. The FBI intercepted, recorded, and later transcribed the conversation.  [Notice how Judge Sullivan says: “and any other audio recordings”; ie he’s suspecting additional surveillance.]

In the January 2017 background, the media were continuing to follow the lead from the Obama White House, and Intelligence Community (writ large), by fueling a narrative that any contact with Russians was proof of collusion of some sort.   In addition, the communications team of the Obama White House, DOJ, FBI and aggregate IC began pushing a narrative surrounding the obscure Logan Act.

The ridiculous Logan Act angle was promoted by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and targeted to infer that any action taken by the Trump campaign prior to taking office was interference with the political Obama Russia action.  Any contact with Russian government officials would be evidence of collusion. That was the plan.  DOJ Deputy AG Sally Yates was in charge of pushing the Logan Act narrative to the media.

The first two weeks of January 2017 was a merging of two necessary narratives: (1) Russian interference; and (2) the Logan Act. Each deployed against any entity who would counter the Russia narrative story.

The media were running this dual narrative 24/7 against the incoming Trump officials and demanding repeated answers to questions that were framed around this story-line.

On January 3rd, 2017, the new congressional year began.  SSCI Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position within the Gang-of-Eight, and turned over the reigns to Senator Mark Warner.  Warner was now the vice-chair of the SSCI; and a Go8 member.

On January 6th, 2017, the Obama White House published the Intelligence Community Assessment, and declared:

We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.  (pdf link)

It is not coincidental the ICA was “high confidence” by Brennan and Clapper; and less confidence by Mike Rogers (NSA).

With the Flynn Dec. 29, 2016, transcript in hand, the DOJ and FBI began aiding the Logan Act narrative with Obama intelligence officials supporting the Russia Conspiracy claims and decrying anyone who would interfere or counter the official U.S. position.

On January 14th, 2017, the content of the communication between Flynn and Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post by an unknown entity. Likely the leak came from the FBI’s counterintelligence operation; the same unit previously carrying out the 2016 campaign spying operations. [Andrew McCabe is highly suspected]

The FBI CoIntel group (Strzok, McCabe etc.), and the DOJ-NSD group (Yates, McCord etc.) were the largest stakeholders in the execution of the insurance policy phase because they were the epicenter of spygate, fraudulent FISA presentations and the formation of the Steele Dossier.

The media leak of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak was critical because the DOJ/FBI were pushing a political narrative. This was not about legality per se’, this effort was about establishing the framework for a preexisting investigation, based on a false premise, that would protect the DOJ and FBI.  The investigation they needed to continue evolved into the Mueller special counsel.  This was all insurance.

The Flynn-Kislyak leak led to Vice-President Mike Pence being hammered on January 15th, 2017, during a CBS Face the Nation interview about Trump campaign officials in contact with Russians.  Pence was exceptionally unprepared to answer the questions and allowed the media to blend questions about campaign contacts with necessary, and entirely appropriate, transition team contacts.

Sunday January 15th, 2017 – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing.

Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

*NOTE* The incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media.  At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.  VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.

The toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview now became a much bigger issue.

Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised.  Michael Flynn is now contrast against Pence’s false point without clarification.  As National Security Advisor Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.

Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.

During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn.  [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]

How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry, and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th and what actually took place on December 29th, 2016, is why the FBI ended up with the initial conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.

It is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in.  The FBI were intercepting those communications.  So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had an issue to exploit.

We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the text messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.

The day before the Flynn interview:

January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!

♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)

[We’re not sure who “John” is, but we know “Bill” is Bill Priestap, FBI Deputy Director in charge of Counterintelligence. And “Jen” is Jennifer Boone, FBI counterproliferation division]

So it’s the day before they interview Flynn.

Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?

The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS.  In essence they were admitting to monitoring Flynn, that’s why they were so nervous.  They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap and the difference in public statements by VP Mike Pence.

There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and Flynn likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking.   Remember, the alternative: if Flynn is brutally honest, the media now runs with a narrative about Vice-President Pence as a national liar.  

Wednesday January 25th, 2017,  –  The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

Thursday January 26th – (afternoonSally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

Friday January 27th – (morning)  White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

[*If you consider that McGahn was trying to thread the needle between Mike Pence’s poorly worded response to CBS, and Michael Flynn’s FBI questioning that came after Pence’s statement, McGahn would see the no-win situation Flynn was in during that inquisition.]

McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.

This why the issue of how the FBI agents write the 302 summary of the Flynn interview becomes such an important facet.   We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.

Don’t forget, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak to the Washington Post.  A massive leak of highly classified information:

Within the case against Michael Flynn, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack later filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and a delay in the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then another edit on May 31st, 2017.

To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)

What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating was a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview.  Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.

In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. In hindsight it seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.

However, we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):

The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:

The interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.

It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading.  The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it (three weeks after the FBI interview).

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.

This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the more brutally obvious reasons why authorizing Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein should be regarded as participating in a political framing against the Trump White House.  

The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview was the way the DOJ and FBI could control the interview content; and specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot openly challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.

See what happened?

Does it all make sense now?

Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview. Likely because Flynn didn’t lie; but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose. Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.

See how that went down?

However, after Weissmann and Mueller enter the picture, they need to force Flynn to admit to the construct of the 302 as presented.  For that they need some leverage.

The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017.  The recently released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe.  The first scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.

The second scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017.  The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.  One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

This second scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr.  Additionally this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):

General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey on/around July 31st, 2016.

The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak:

Page #12 October 20th, 2017, Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October 2017 timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and cornering him into a guilty plea

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo #2) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

Forcing a plea for ‘lying to investigators‘ by threatening prosecution for FARA violations was the identical strategy used against both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted.  After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby. 

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening.  A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

This entry was posted in Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Russia, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

322 Responses to News in Flynn Case – Documents Released and Judge Sullivan Has Well Founded Suspicions…

  1. farrier105 says:

    “John” in the text messages is probably John Brennan, who often gave McCabe/Strzok direct orders, bypassing “The Jimster,” who is bathed in hot water now.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Razor1 says:

      I’m really concerned about the medias role in this whole matter. There has been a conspiracy between dims, government agencies, and the media to promote lies and propaganda. This is a violation of the media’s fiduciary relationship to the public, and likely fcc license violations. This needs vigorous inspections right away, before 2020.

      This activity must be stopped. It has evolved into a massive civil rights volition of far to many citizens. It has created a chilling effect among our citizenry, lowered citizens participation because they don’t to face a setup prosecution from angry mobs, and it’s building our nation on a foundation of lies and misrepresentations! We need honest elections and honest news and opinion shows that debate based on true facts.

      Liked by 11 people

      • sarasotosfan says:

        The FCC needs to investigate the roles, if any, the broadcast media companies have played. If they have knowingly participated in this conspiracy, their broadcast licenses need to be revoked.

        Liked by 9 people

        • Jederman says:

          I agree 100%. War-game it for a second. Remove a corrupt “news” media from this whole episode. How far would the rotten obama WH have gotten?

          Take it a step further, what if we had an ethical news media that employed journalist with personal and professional integrity who reported truth wherever it led? I’m certain we wouldn’t be where we are now.

          Huge fed bureaucracies would know they are being watched and held accountable. Great fantasy, anyway. Hopefully there is legal leverage to withhold broadcast licensing and/or compel them to remove “news” from their programing and title and officially acknowledge they are merely biased talking heads expressing Left wing opinion.

          As dirty as the LE/IC/DoS etc etc… peeps are in this mess, I’ve always had trouble deciding who is the dirtiest the DS bureaucracy or the lousy and phony “news” media.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Dutchman says:

            With what we know, and THINK we know, I am wondering how much of the corporate media ‘lockstep’ promulgation of the Media matters talking points is voluntary, and how much is COERCED.

            Reading the emails to Podesta, where the reporter sent his,article to Podesta for approval, PRIOR to sending it to his own editor, the tone sounds an awful lot like someone who COULD be coerced.

            If, as we think, this weaponising and misuse of NSA database was going on since at least 2008, it would be foolish for them NOT to use it to coerce/blackmail reporters, or better yet go to the TOP. Blackmail the CORPORATIONS, or the top people, in order to have them take their talking points, word for word, from Media matters.

            Not that all would need to be coerced, but as we look at ‘sanctions’ of almost any talking head who strays off the plantation, and the systemic shutting down of conservative voices on social media, it certainly seems POSSIBLE this unified message is not ONLY due to TDS and ideological, it COULD be coersion, where neccesary.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Mo says:

          Faith in government bureaucrats is powerfully hard to break, seemingly.


        • Alfred Barnes says:

          Nick Sandman is doing just that, and it’s a beautiful thing.

          Liked by 5 people

          • sarasotosfan says:

            Sandman isn’t capable of doing anything more than slapping them. They need to be knocked out if they have conspired.


      • gsonFIT says:

        Bleeding over into social media too Razor1. I don’t think there is a Fiduciary Standard in this industry but there should be. First Amendment doesn’t legalize false narratives. MSM has been screaming fire in the theater for 3 years

        Liked by 4 people

      • Linda K. says:

        The WaPo has this story, but is focusing only on a statement from Trump’s lawyer talking to Flynn’s lawyer about the President’s “fondness” for Flynn. The fact that disclosure of Flynn’s actual conversation and his statement to FBI might prove Flynn didn’t lie is never mentioned in the article. I truly hope that this release of info will exonerate General Flynn and put Weissman and Mueller and their criminal tactics in the spotlight.
        I am so grateful for the insight I gain from Sundance’s analysis of events. The WaPo has totally missed the real story and is presenting this development as new proof of Trump’s , badness. Yet, here is evil in our midst, corrupt Prosecutors and the unlawful spying of the Obama’s on their political enemies and then persecuting them and threatening their families till their target cooperates..
        Judge Sullivan, please let justice prevail and get these guys.

        Liked by 7 people

        • Pelayo says:

          I have always felt that Judge Sullivan knew this was a BS charge and was actually coaxing Flynn to withdraw in previous proceedings. The winds have shifted with Barr and I think Judge Sullivan does not want to be on the wrong side of history. That is why he is saying let me hear the audio myself. I would not be surprised if he throws the case out.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Alfred Barnes says:

            If he does, there should be perjury charges associated with it, Weissman, Mueller, Rosenstein, etc.

            Liked by 3 people

            • Dutchman says:

              Perjury doesn’t begin to cover it. Coercion and conspiracy to commit perjury, conspiracy to commit misprison of felony, and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, just for starters.
              And, EACH ‘affirmative act’to further the conspiracy is a seperate charge.

              At 10 years each, pretty easy to get to what is effectively a life sentence, and a terrific incentive to flip.

              Not saying it WILL, but this case, and how Sullivan handles it COULD , seperate from what Barr is doing, blow this wide open.

              Sullivan has the opportunity to supplant Judge Sirrica, in the History books. I pray he has the courage.

              Liked by 1 person

          • signfollies says:

            I thought the same until Sullivan called Gen. Flynn a traitor. I think Sullivan is in way over his head and is now trying to salvage his reputation and to not be used by the Deep State as was the FISA court.

            Liked by 1 person

      • redridge45 says:

        Use duckduckgo or Google and look up Operation Mockingbird…also, the last administration made ‘propaganda’ legal…



      In that context of that text message, Mullah Brennan makes all the sense in the world.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Joemama says:

      “John” is John Brennan. John Brennan was Strzok’s 2nd boss, since he was the liaison officer between the C_A & the FBI. He worked for both agencies. I wonder if he is still on the C_A payroll, after being fired from the FBI.

      On a 2nd topic, it seems to me that Rod Rosenstein is clearly a black hat, since he authorized the special counsel to go after General Flynn’s son. It now appears that he may be helping Barr & company. Might he have become a “states witness” (not sure if that is the correct term – I mean a criminal who negotiates lenient treatment for ratting out on his co-conspirators).

      Liked by 3 people

  2. mj_inOC says:

    Sent from my iPhone



  3. Dim Osmab says:

    Just bring in court Strzok and Pientka, and let them testify

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Citizen Owner, USA says:

    Sydney Powell knows all about Weismann, and Judge Sullivan. Hopefully, she’ll stop in and provide some thoughts on this.

    It appeared to me, when the judge asked Flynn 3 times if he really wanted to plead guilty at his last appearance, the the game was over for the Special Counsel team. If the judge’s past history in the Sen. Stephens case is any indicator, Flynn is going to walk, damaged…but free.

    Its a travesty what was done to this man & his family. The nation owes him an apology & renumeration for what was done to him by the “normal”* employees of our DOJ.

    * Normal, because this is how the majority of the prosecutors in the DOJ behave. The rogue prosecutors would be the ones, if any exist, who actually follow pure legal procedures.

    It is way past time to bring Admiral Rodgers to the witness stand.

    Liked by 18 people

    • DJ says:

      Due to the nature of his knowledge, I highly doubt that Admiral Rogers will ever testify publicly, if that’s what you meant.


      • Beau Geste says:

        There is probably an indictment of flynn’s son, in the “secret” withheld parts of the mewler/weissman report. To prevent flynn from withdrawing his fake plea that he “lied”.
        The use of government threats against family, to extort (fake, or any kind of) plea is appalling. The courts should not condone family threat criminal extortion by the government.

        Liked by 5 people

        • dayallaxeded says:

          That’s why Judge Sullivan has to do this and has been pulling the truth out of FIB/DoInJ tooth by tooth. If this goes down the way Sundance has surmised it might, Judge Sullivan will have developed a record of misconduct and maybe criminality on the persecutors’ parts that will make it impossible for them to pursue any further actions against Flynn or anyone else for that matter. Meanwhile, Gen. Flynn has lived up to his plea deal, until it’s voided by the judge.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Another Scott says:

          If there is a “secret” indictment of Flynn’s son being used to effectively blackmail Flynn into his guilty plea, who is in charge of that? It can be cancelled by the good guys now right?


    • dayallaxeded says:

      Here’s hoping that Gen. Flynn gets full remuneration, plus punitive damages from Weissman, Strzok, et al., personally. What a pleasure it would be to see direct deposits of 30% garnishments of each and every one of their paychecks into Gen. Flynn’s bank account for years to come!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dutchman says:

        Unfortunately, there is a law holding prosecutors personally and financially ‘harmless’or immune; its why the U.S. government paid for Muellers misconduct in an earlier case.

        I THINK the statute includes ‘if prosecutors, ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, and following DOJ policies and procedures, it certainly should.

        The idea is no prosecutor would prosecute if they knew that, due to an ‘honest error’ they prosecuted an innocent person, and could be personally held liable for millions of $.

        And, thats REASONABLE. However, the,way it is written, or applied is what has given Mueller, Weisman and a few other prosecutors licence to go ‘rogue’and commit major prosecutorial misconduct with impunity.

        Yet anothrr thing that needs to change.
        Barr has his work cut out for him.


  5. Sammy Hains says:

    The question to Mike Pence was about anyone having “contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election.”

    He answered correctly and truthfully. The Russians Flynn and others had contact with were NOT trying to meddle in the election. That was a dangerous hoax perpetrated by the deposed 0bama regime.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Trump Train says:

      Exactly. Pence is a fool to fall in this trap.

      did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

      MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And


      • gsonFIT says:

        Also Pence thought fellow Patriots worked in Washington. Maybe opposing party but we all work for America right?

        F the bureaucracy. There should be NO lifetime careers in U.S. Government

        Liked by 2 people

        • littleanniefannie says:

          Pence was a little too trusting of those in government. As a former Congressman he was either a) not ever personally involved in any of the devious behavior of some government employees or b) he was naive enough to believe in the innate goodness in his fellow human beings (which translates that those in the criminal cabal are not human). Pence was clearly duped by the “meddling” term. He knew there was no meddling but the media had been spoon fed the question by Team Obama.


          • Newhere says:

            I don’t think he was “duped” necessarily — more like egged into defensive posture. Agree he wasn’t prepared for the full onslaught on conspiracy theory taking shape around him. In fairness, it was extreme, sudden and bizarre. His blanket answer to a blanket question is the type that normally could be cleared up with a follow-on statement. But we’d already entered the Twilight Zone.

            Liked by 2 people

            • WSB says:

              I do not know why Pence’s statement could not have been clarified?

              Most statements such as his go completely unnoticed. Why did this one stick, and Pence never clarified it to being the difference between campaign and transition team is beyond me.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Dutchman says:

                I think its a combination of political vs. legal, concern with optics.
                “Pence said NO campaign officials communicated with Russians meddling in election.
                Now he backtracks, attempting to “Clarify”.

                You see the problem? Knowing what we know NOW, its easy to say “Well, F the press, they are going to say bad things,anyway.
                Adopt the honey badger attitude!”

                But, as a New administration, they were probably hoping the unprecedented assault and hostility with thecpress would abate somewhat, and they could develop a working relationship.

                I don’t fault Pence, overly. I think he was sandbagged, the administration was sandbagged, by nefarious embeds taking advantage of a new administration that still didn’t have its sea legs.

                Liked by 1 person

                • WSB says:

                  So, I understand this. But as someone in business, not politics, I would have thought the chain of events would have been dealt with. Very bad oversight, or maybe McGahn played this. That is more my thought.


              • panicearly says:

                This a rope a dope. Pence didnt clarify for a strategic reason.
                If your enemy is committing crimes, you dont interfere. Especially if you are innocent. The hunters got trapped and flynn was the bait.
                Flynn cooperating with Mueller (30 hours) is how you introduce evidence.
                Mueller has to file all statements made by flynn on the record.
                Flynn played them like children.
                There is a reason why his sentence is postponed 3 times for a guilty plea:-)

                Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        Well “fool” seems a bit harsh. He wasn’t prepared for the media and all of Washington to have shut off their brains. And as SD rightly pointed out — that time was flat-out bizarre, the sudden tidal wave of paranoia over the notion of anyone “talking to a Russian.” Even Pelosi said she didn’t when of course turns out she had. Was she “lying”? Why do ambassadors even exist in Washington and every capital city — they talk to everyone, it’s kind of their whole job and purpose.

        Pence wasn’t ready for this level of “gotcha” both in the moment and fallout — he was answering the *subtext* of the question (“did anyone around Trump having something to do with Russian interference”) — an easy mistake in real life. In any world that hadn’t lost its marbles, the “inconsistent statements” would be transparently obvious to reconcile.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yy4u says:

        Pencemis easily sand bagged. I saw Chris Wallace sandbag him when he was Gov of IN


    • Newhere says:

      Exactly. Maddening from the start. Yates’s dramatic rush to the WH on the flimsiest of pretexts — an incoming DNI talked to an ambassador, wires end up crossed among senior incoming officials in a way that is easily cleared up — it was also so stupid even in real time, but TDS had taken over and the media had turned off their brains and grabbed their scripts.

      Liked by 2 people

      • littleanniefannie says:

        Flynn worked in the Obama administration. He should have known what a crooked band of liars was in control and the simple manipulation of facts to shape a narrative was the norm in all aspects of the Admin of 44! He should have suspected that they had spied on his conversation with the Russian ambassador from the get-go and should have called them on it at that point.
        At the very least, his attorneys should have stepped up when the blackmail using his son started. This is KGB at its finest—maybe Gestapo—but definitely not the way we, as American citizens, expect our government to operate. Ironically, the very ones who railed against waterboarding as torture and screamed that the results would not be honest but shaped to provide information that the “torturers” wanted used the exact premise to achieve the same result.
        Truly amazing. This explains again why Mueller was chosen after Weissmann was anointed as the real leader of the S.C. team. Mueller was used (played in the parlance of today’s youth) and he was proclaimed to be “woke” by the discoveries of his team. Yeah, right!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Newhere says:

          I agree, it seems the whole gambit should have been immediately obvious to Flynn. Suddenly the FBI lights his doorstep in the WH, without having gone through regular protocols, and he shoots the breeze with them as if all is normal? *McCabe’s* FBI? Let’s be real — he knew exactly who these guys were “working for”; apart from everything else, Flynn knew the FBI deputy (McCabe) had it in for him personally, if for no other reason than he penned a letter in defense of a career counter-intel operative who McCabe abused his power to flush from the bureau. There’s something else going on here we don’t know. Hopefully we’ll learn. The Flynn set up just doesn’t pass the smell test.

          Also, accepting SD’s outline as correct — it seems Flynn had a number of ways to deflect and avoid the “trap,” besides having to contradict Pence, lie, or explain he misspoke. Others have pointed out that Pence’s answer was literally true (no one did talk to “Russians trying to meddle”) so there’s one clarification right there. There were other ways to “clarify” without having to “correct,” like, “Vice President Pence was defending our team against the outlandish accusation that any one participated in Russian attempts to meddle in the election. He said emphatically no one did. He was correct. Obama’s Justice Department apparently worries that Mr. Pence should have catalogued every chat anyone had with Russia’s ambassador. Of course, that would have insinuated such conversations involved ‘meddling,’ which would have been false. No one lied. No one is compromised. Concern duly noted.” Point being, Flynn and Pence are pros and this should have been navigable. Whole thing beggars belief.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Dutchman says:

            Wow! I THINK we are getting lodt in the weeds. Flynn DID NOT lie to the FBI.
            What I THINK happened is he and his son ‘failed to register as foreign agents’
            a technical violation that 1/2 of d.c. was guilty of. It was an inside the beltway ‘common knowledge’ thing. After you leave Govt., you sell foreigners that because of your former position, you have ‘influence’ ,and will lobby to represent their interests.

            We see it with Podestas and Manafort.
            Anyway, they THREATENED Flynn and his son with that, unless he ‘co-operated’, in which case he could plead guilty to ‘lesser charge’ of lieing to FBI.

            Problem with the case is, he didn’t lie to FBI. Prosecutors figured it wouldn’t be a ‘problem’, since he was pleading guilty, and they had the threat to prevent him from recanting plea.

            So, its really NOT about Pence said vs. Flynn said. Flynn didn’t lie, FBI agents who interviewed him, (and who were setting him up) even said so.

            Its about the FARA violations, and whatever he and his son had going on with Turkey. And, dimes to donuts, the evidence for that came from ‘unauthorised survellence’, and parallel construction.

            Complicated business, folks.


          • Mac says:

            The most likely reason for the firing of Flynn was that Trump was concerned about getting his agenda moving and did not want to deal with peripheral problems. And, as the Flynn-Kislyak conversation, and the Pense statement, continued to heat up, Trump decided that replacing Flynn was the better option. Trump made a number of similar decisions, during the first year of his Presidency.

            Remember, Trump is not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist. While he was elected, partially, to drain the DC swamp, HIS main goal was to make America great again, economically. To achieve that, he was willing to put ideological actions on the back burner or forget them altogether. His biggest problem was he never dreamed that the Establishment would set fire to the entire building to get rid of one rat.

            Flynn probably DID recognize the trap that the interview represented. And, it is very likely that he did not lie to, or even mislead, the interviewers. Hence the need to edit the 302s and the need for the Flynn, jr insurance policy, to insure he pled guilty.


          • OldParatrooper says:

            One thing to bear in mind about Flynn is that he spent the majority of his life in the military intelligence field, where honesty and integrity are expectations, and even when you disagree with someone, you play it straight. Flynn’s MI background poorly prepared him for political shenanigans and FBI duplicity. Had he been a HUMINT officer he might have been better prepared to recognize what was happening.


  6. 8675310 says:

    I have trouble continuing with the article, once you have gone along with the false narrative of the left. You said that Pence said that Flynn didn’t talk to the any Russians. That is not the question that was asked. “…did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?” “…who were trying to meddle in the election”, is the qualifier.

    Liked by 11 people

    • I strongly agree. And if Sundance is going to do it, the least he could do is call McGahn — and Pence, and Trump — out for doing so also. These principles looked weak-minded, when compared to the blanket shrugging off that Democrats do when faced with their own conflicts of narrative. When are the ones on our side going to stop doing that, jumping into the arena as prepared by the criminal, and now Insane, Left?

      “Are you kidding? Pence was merely saying there was no collusion with Russian meddlers, and of course there wasn’t. An incoming administration is not allowed to talk with other nations’ leaders? That’s crazy, what’s the matter with you? Oh, I see, you just want to embarrass President Trump, or worse. Well, try not to be stupid about it, by lying to the American people. You are deliberately dividing America for the benefit of one party, the Democrats, over another. That’s not journalism; that’s partisan muckraking of the highest, or should I say lowest, order.”

      That’s all any of them needed to say. And order the FBI, and CIA, and Obama, to stand down on Flynn or be prepared to back up their Russia hysteria in the highest court in the land. Instead, President Trump fired Flynn “for lying to the Vice-President”. And the weakness of that was gleefully noted by all of Trump’s enemies, and would-be enemies (like Sessions, who was thus emboldened to recuse himself from any semblance of competence or moral judgment).

      Liked by 4 people

      • Judith says:

        Exactly, @harrydhuffman. The whole thing was absurd on the face of it. Both Pence AND Flynn answered the question correctly.

        When oh when will good patriots stop jumping when the Enemedia says jump? Screw the Enemedia! They are nothing but a bunch of naked Emperors prancing around for their own amusement. Enough already!

        I will note that one of the very few people in Trump’s cabinet given a free pass by those hyenas is lyin Ryan’s bestie, Mike Pence. Why isn’t he on the Enemedia’s hit list too?

        Why, indeed!

        Liked by 2 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      I get stuck on facts too, but the left are masters at rewriting history.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. TwoLaine says:

    Mary McCord’s side of the story on Communist PBS:

    Trump’s Showdown
    Mary McCord
    Acting Assistant Attorney General, 2016-17

    Mary McCord, wife of Sheldon Snook. How convenient.

    “McCord is married to Sheldon Snook, who also worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. In fact, it was McCord who got her husband his job as dministrative assistant and court liaison to the public and news media by recommending him to Judge Hogan. Snook also served as spokesman for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He currently works in a similar capacity for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Brant says:

    Why do judges only get suspicious when documents are released? Rhetorical question.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. dwpender says:

    My fervent hope is that we soon see someone from Barr and/or Durham’s office ask Judge Sullivan to continue Flynn’s sentencing date further because the General is now “cooperating” materially and extensively in new criminal investigations.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Beau Geste says:

      Sullivan knows that he will look bad when the facts come out if he sentences flynn for being extorted bt mewler threatening flynn’s family. The people mewler falsely accused in Mass. got lots of money – maybe flynn can sue when the declassification and other facts/ecidence comes out.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Bulldog84 says:

    There’s no reason whatever that anyone needs to review a 302 other than whoever prepared it. Having someone review it who wasn’t even present for the interview is incomprehensible. This has the stench of composing fiction.

    It’s long, long past time for the FBI to start recording non-emergent interviews. Welcome to the 21st century.

    Liked by 2 people

    • H.R. says:

      Bulldog84: “It’s long, long past time for the FBI to start recording non-emergent interviews. Welcome to the 21st century.”

      Yet, on a couple of TV shows I happened to have been paying half-attention to, the FBI conducted interviews using video.

      I’m thinking that script writers just assume that the FBI would be video recording, just like all other State and local law enforcement agencies do. I assumed the same until the use of 302s was brought up here on CTH.

      I really don’t think that the vast majority of US adults are aware that the FBI uses 302s and does NOT use video recorders for interviews. I’ve not seen 302s discussed anywhere else but here on CTH.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dayallaxeded says:

        All of which leads to the ineluctable rule that no one should ever speak to FIB or any LEO for that matter, without counsel and a recording of their own. No matter how much they may threaten or dissemble that one isn’t a “target” or won’t be in any trouble if they talk voluntarily, only bad things happen when we forego our God-given and Constitutionally protected rights.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. digleigh says:

    What’s this new hit piece on Huffpo, supposedly about Trump admin./connection to Congress supposedly trying to influence/obstruct Flynn investigation?? Saw it also run across Fox this am…… CYA for this article’s contents? If Flynn’s ordeal was a set-up/frame job/untrue (Pienka’s “dont think he lied….”) , then there was nothing to obstruct… Of course, this is from one unnamed source , etc… Normal fake news m.o. from MSM!!! Anyone know anymore details?


    • III% says:

      I read the filing. To me it read very similar to part 2 of the Mueller report. They are saying that Flynn relayed that he and/or his attorney(s) received communications from people that *could have* affected his willingness to cooperate. Key words being *could have*.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mac says:

        The specifics of the communications with administration members has never been reported. Considering the facts in the Flynn case, it is entirely possible that the simply the urging of fellow administration members to fight a flawed charge and requests not to fabricate evidence once he had pled guilty.


        • III% says:

          That very well could be. Of course as delusional as some of the rabid anti-Trump people are, “How’s the weather?” could be a “veiled threat/promise” “dog whistle”, you name it. It is truly strange what some people read into things that the majority of people would think nothing of. I would not be surprised to find this is some variation of that.


  12. namberak says:

    Pretty much every time I see a picture of Gen. Flynn I think of Ronald Reagan’s secretary of labor, Raymond Donovan who was falsely accused of, indicted for, and found not guilty of fraud. After the trial, among other things, he told the NYT ”The question is, should this indictment have ever been brought? Which office do I go to to get my reputation back? Who will reimburse my company for the economic jail it has been in for two and a half years?”

    Liked by 5 people

  13. convert says:

    I pray that Sullivan is that one rare bird in this saga so far: a judge with some integrity and backbone, who will actually do the right thing and free Flynn, clear his name, and bring these evil diabolical prosecutors to justice. Along with McCabe and company facing criminal charges for their perjury, obstruction, leaking, and sedition, the Flynn case and the truth of the plot against PapaD and Carter Page must be revealed and their names cleared as well. It’s the only way to even think of moving forward and restoring any faith in federal law enforcement.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Judith says:

      I think these Feds have gotten to the point that they no longer even attempt to hide their malfeasance and treasonous acts. It is right smack in our faces. Brazen.

      So what are we going to do about it? Wait for them to arrest themselves? Or force the swamp to belch out a few minnows while the big fish dive into deeper waters? What?

      Liked by 3 people

  14. We the people know says:

    Attorney General Barr practices the art of understatement:
    “If we’re worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abuse their power and put their thumb on the scale.”

    If we are talking about Lady Justice and her scale, and we’ve been paying attention, we know that in actual fact they more than laid a finger on Lady Justice. Lady Justice was dragged off her pedestal, beaten with her scales, had her blindfold ripped off and was gang raped. And, the “people” who did it wrap themselves in the American Flag like it’s some sort of invisibility cloak…hiding their vile selves. They have no souls. I don’t recognize them as human beings.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. Lester Smith says:

    The general Flynn is one piece of the a multitude of criminal activities. This I believe is why wikieleaks has many of the answers. Has doj sent representives to question Julian. The timing of Barrs revealing his concerns and intention to investigate during the senate hearing coninsides with Julian’s detention. Was it the white hats or black hats behind the jailing.
    1. was Julian detanted to silence him from revealing the where, when and who furnished Clinton’s emails. Black hats.
    2.Did DOJ and Barr have Julian detanted to expose the truth and hold those responsible accountable and subject to the law of the land.
    White hats

    Liked by 1 person

  16. MattyIce says:

    Thank you SD, a lot of work went into this post and it shows.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. TexanInFL says:

    This is probably a question asked/answered but can Flynn be pardoned by Trump? The depth of deception, corruption of the maggot infested FBI/DOJ/Obama WH makes me nauseous. There is no way this would ever have come to light without the hand of God. I pray daily for our President because the people who hate him are demonically evil.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Laramie Evan says:

    Candidly, I think you’re reading too much into this and seeing things that aren’t there.

    Your premise is that Flynn had to cover for Pence’s misstatements stemming in part from an interview Pence gave to Face the Nation. You infer that Pence misspoke and had claimed that there were no contacts between Trump officials and Russians. Thus, Flynn had to try to “thread the needle” (your words) in trying to rehabilitate that misstatement.

    But, that wasn’t the question Pence answered. The question itself is quoted in your text:

    “Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?”

    So, Flynn wasn’t tasked with trying to correct a misstatement unless he thought or knew that Kislyak had been trying to meddle in the election. That’s highly unlikely since we now know that it’s unlikely Russia meddled in the election — this was all a ruse engineered by the DNC, Clintons, Crowdstrike, FBI/CIA, etc.

    Since Flynn didn’t have to rehabilitate a misstatement by Pence — he didn’t have to “thread the needle” — the whole premise here falls apart. He wasn’t maneuvered into lying because he was trying to cover for Pence or made careful statements such that Pence’s earlier comments would not be deemed false. Pence’s statements were easily defensible — both then and today. They’re entirely accurate:

    No Russians meddled in the election. Thus, no Trump officials had any contact with Russians trying to meddle in the election.

    Even if that weren’t true, I’m unaware of any suggestion from anyone that Kislyak was trying to “meddle” in the election.

    Liked by 2 people

    • yy4u says:

      Six to fifteen million Russians would have to immigrate into the United States illegally and a large number of them vote in a general election in order to do the same harm done to our electoral process as being done by the illegal immigrants (11 million to 30 million estimated) already here. Let’s talk REAL meddling. Let’s talk having no right to vote and yet voting anyway. Let’s talk the 2018 midterms.

      Liked by 4 people

  19. I’m sure that pardons will be issued at some point, but it is far more effective if convictions are overturned by the Courts. Right now, both the Intelligence community and the Justice community are fully engaged, knowing at this point that they were lied to, by many very highly placed officials. That’s not a smart thing to do when you get caught.

    I fully expect most if not all of these cases to be reviewed, carefully searched for more evidence of malfeasance on the part of those who presented them, and for convictions to be vacated. “Knowingly lying to a Federal court” is a hideous crime, and it now looks like many people did it with impunity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Postscript: One of the many things which I expect to see addressed in the Inspector General’s report is, “how were so many people able to do this, so successfully?” What procedural reforms need to be implemented within the Justice process to make this kind of abuse more difficult?

      Both judges and the public should be able to implicitly rely that the basis for judicial judgment and fact-finding is complete, accurate, correct, and truthful. Obviously we’re a long way from that right now – and we didn’t know it.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. yy4u says:

    Senator Ted Stevens was railroaded by DOJ in 2008 in order to give the Dems the AK senate seat. Judge Sullivan was the judge who threw out that case. It was too late, of course. Stevens already had lost. That is the huge flaw in our system. People who cheat to win their place in House or Senate or who benefit for someone cheating for them (as in the Stevens case) get to keep their seat. I have always though when voter fraud is discovered, when hanky panky like happened to Stevens is discovered, that district and/or state should be REVOTED. I don’t care how much it costs. Whatever it costs, it is less expensive than losing trust in our representatives having won fairly (or lost unfairly).

    Liked by 4 people

  21. gsonFIT says:

    “McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn”

    Yates and the DOJ are more than willing to reveal Flynn, but not a word about Papadopoulus, Manafort or Carter Page. How can coup justify this inconsistency? Goes to the same point Strassell made in WSJ yesterday. Why didn’t Comey let PDJT-elect know that dossier was used to get warrant on Flynn? It was presented as unverified and potential propaganda and a reason for PDBs.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. This needs to be considered. Flynn said he did not consider the expulsion of the 35 Russians to be sanctions. See


  23. David Peers says:

    If you read the Washington Post Flynn article today Flynn looks like he might have turned into a bigger rat than Cohen.

    Some of the transcripts the judge ordered released are transcripts of Trump people trying to keep Flynn onside. They don’t sound good.

    I would be careful on this, Sundance. This might be the opposite of what you are surmising. I don’t think Judge Sullivan is a fan of Flynn.

    Hope I’m wrong.


    • Newhere says:

      I don’t see what the worry is. So far, on the whole Flynn affair, we have quite a lot of talk from Mueller’s team, and before it Obama’s team, characterizing what happened — what Flynn did or didn’t do, what he said, etc., and why. So let’s see the underlying evidence. Why not. Is the worry that the primary evidence — transcripts and recordings — might be worse than the picture that Mueller et al have tried to paint? We should welcome the release of evidence, period.


      • David Peers says:

        Today Trump is distancing himself from Flynn. Looks like this is something the Dems are going to be able to bang on about for awhile.

        Interesting timing. I’m sure it’s not coincidental given so much about lying is starting to tumble out.

        I also wonder if this stuff coming out about Flynn now was Mueller setting a little post-report time bomb for Trump.


        • Newhere says:

          Do you mean Trump’s tweet that Flynn evidently was “under investigation” for a long time and why wasn’t he (Trump) warned? Yes, this is an odd one! One interpretation is Trump is using this new dust du jour over Flynn to highlight an important fact — under counter-intel rules, any American target should be warned if they’re unwittingly swept up. Especially a presidential candidate. Also highlights the question — why was Flynn being investigated?

          Agree though, the tweet is distancing, even if in an understated way … that’s a head scratcher. SD has warned before that Flynn may legitimately be in hot water under FARA for Turkey lobbying. Curious to see where all this goes.


    • III% says:

      I think I will wait in the actual recordings that I can listen to for myself before making a decision. At this point I’m not even sure I trust the “transcripts”. Transcripts are typed up by people and we all know that people are fallible and quite frankly could have altered things to further a narrative.


    • gsonFIT says:

      Mueller would have already leveraged any potential obstruction charge regarding Flynn. I think Obama had been listening to Flynn since the General spoke out against the Obama/Iran deal in 2015. Obama Admin had been creating a fall for Flynn before Donald Trump emerged. So he was conveniently used when a cover up became necessary. Remember what McCabe said, “First we are going to F Flynn then we are going to F Trump” but this comment was made without bias.

      I recall a potential kidnapping scheme with between Flynn and Turkey for a Turkish Cleric. Of course that never came to happen but there was some lobbying payment that were not disclosed. I have wondered if Flynn fell on his sword for the Pence incident because of coincidental guilty feelings for the potential Turkish Cleric scheme. Keep in mind Flynn’s son was part of his lobbying group and there was mention of his culpability too.



    Stroke and Page were nervous about how the Flynn interview would go because they knew Flynn knew THEY knew what he had said and yet they were hoping to entrap him. Plus, they had Sally Yates breathing down their necks.
    What crooks these people are…


    • Newhere says:

      And they knew it was beyond hutzpah for Obama’s DOJ to march over to the White House to accuse incoming senior officials of “lying” to each other, based on the thinnest of thin pretexts, revealing in the process that the politicals of the old guard were busy using the transition to trawl wiretaps on the regime just voted in to replace them. The natural response would have been, “concern noted. And you’re fired.” They were nervous because that could have been the end of Crossfire Hurricane right there.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. If Sullivan is a white hat he will insist that Flynn withdraw his plea. However, if I were Flynn, I would not trust Sullivan.


    • Newhere says:

      Sullivan’s commentary last time — whatever’s going on beneath the surface that might be tweaking him — was horrendous judgment, and frankly unconscionable.

      I don’t believe a judge can “insist” that a defendant do anything. He has the authority to reject the plea. And he should shut up and do so, if he believes it is falsely predicated. Enough berating the defendant because he doesn’t like the posture of what’s in front of him.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Alan Reasin says:

    The tainted Steele Dossier and now this, tells me anyone investigated/prosecuted under this hoax needs to be reimbursed for the costs of their defense. I hope Flynn and others sue the IC, DoJ and FBI officials for restitution.


  27. TPW says:

    Maybe I don’t get the big picture….but what would be the big deal in just saying Pence was mistaken and had no knowledge of the phone call….????? also how will Barr handle finding out his “friend” Mueller is a corrupt bastard who needs to be disbarred … on words not intentional……will he indict his friend….lets hope so. Mr Mueller without doubt needs to go to jail…there will be no skirting the issue….if he doesnt……we have no hope of cleaning up the system.


    • HB says:

      Those are my thoughts on Flynn. Just say the VP was mistaken. End of story


    • Shadrach says:

      Remember the degree of Russia Russia hysteria in the media back then. It was much worse then than it is now. It was insane. Saying Pence didn’t know wasn’t an option. It wasn’t that long ago…surely you remember?

      I listened to the Face the Nation interview, and Pence stuck his foot in it. I don’t think it was deliberate, I think he just screwed up and said something stupid without thinking. But the potential ramifications of that screw-up were a total destruction of the Trump presidency, given the climate at the time.

      Here’s a link to the video (I put a space after // to not clutter up the thread). The statement Pence makes is just after 2:30 minutes into the interview.



  28. “There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS”

    How in the world VP-elect Pence’s answer to –
    OHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing.
    “Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?”
    MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.

    The question was specific – “contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election”

    And the answer was emphatic – “Of course not.”

    The question was not just – “contact with the Russians”

    Am I reading this wrong, that this is a lie imposed on gullible electorate by the MSMs?


  29. tozerbgood8315 says:

    PDJT asks a very good question just a few hours ago.

    “It now seems the General Flynn was under investigation long before was common knowledge. It would have been impossible for me to know this but, if that was the case, and with me being one of two people who would become president, why was I not told so that I could make a change?”

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Who prepped John Dickerson for his interview with Pence? Was CBS a witting participant in the process? Was there a Rhodes to Rhodes to Dickerson process. CBS will have a great deal to answer for if that level of corruption is discovered…

    Liked by 1 person

  31. tozerbgood8315 says:

    Who wants to bet me that the investigation of Flynn started right after he came aboard the Trump Campaign?

    “The special counsel’s disclosure also sheds new light on a cryptic passage in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on Russian interference released last year. The report said Comey, in closed-door testimony, indicated there was an open case on Flynn — which was about to be closed, until Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador.

    “Director Comey testified that he authorized the closure of the CI [counter-intelligence] investigation into General Flynn by late December 2016; however, the investigation was kept open due to the public discrepancy surrounding General Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak,” the report said. “Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe stated that, ‘We really had not substantiated anything particularly significant against General Flynn,’ but did not recall that a closure of the CI investigation was imminent.””

    Liked by 1 person

  32. dayallaxeded says:

    Pretty sure it’s been noted here before that Flynn was probably one of the earliest targets of <0's bureaucrat insurgency, b/c he was in <0's admin and likely knew what closets a number of skeletons were hiding in. It was <0's first order of bidnez to silence Flynn.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. OldParatrooper says:

    I find it fascinating that the FBI initiated a Counterintelligence Investigation on the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for a visit to his Russian counterpart agency the GRU.

    Did they initiate a CI investigation on Director Brennan of the CIA when he visited the FSB in Moscow in March of 2016?

    Did they initiate a CI investigation on Barack Obama for his visit to Pakistan?

    Or was Flynn a target already for his support of Robyn Gritz’s sexual discrimination claim against McCabe and others in the top levels of the FBI?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yy4u says:

      Or maybe because he warned against arming the Syrian rebels because it would lesd to the resurgence of Al Qaeda…which happened only it was ISIS


  34. letty bromenschenkel says:

    “stay strong” is obstruction?
    who knew


  35. JL says:

    It wasn’t ****four***** Trump associates.

    It was ****5****, and Paul Manafort was not one of them. Paul Manafort was Simpson’s target.

    The 5 that were investigated were all the Trump associates that had contact with Stephan Halper. Manafort is irrelevant.

    The 5 Trump associates that had contact with Halper were:

    …FBI enterprise counterintelligence investiga-
    tion into five Trump campaign associ-
    ates: George Papadopoulos, Carter Page,
    Sam Clovis, Stephen Miller, and Michael

    There were the 5 campaign associates that had contact with Halper of some sort. Stephen Miller never met in person, but he was invited to a security symposium in London which he declined to attend.Everyone else on that list traveled to London and met with Halper. Some of them also met with Dearlove.

    That is the common thread that ties the people that were subjects of the counterintelligence investigation together. Manafort had nothing to do with Halper!

    The only reason Manafort was ever targeted was because he was so dirty he became a target of convenience. Simpson pushed for that prosecution because he’s had it in for Manafort since 2007. Mueller went after Manafort so hard because it became obvious to him very early on that there was no Russian collusion, and he had to prosecute someone, anyone, for some sort of foreign influence.

    When you look at all the factors between these people, Manafort is the odd man out.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Sidney Powell says:

    I would caution about reading anything favorable to Flynn into Judge Sullivan’s rulings.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dayallaxeded says:

      Good admonition! I’m going to redouble prayers for Gen. Flynn–he may have always been a little whack, but neither he nor any other generally law-abiding USA citizen deserves this BS! May God have mercy on him and his family!


    • Sidney, that is my fear.

      I wish you could be prosecutor against Andrew Weissmann.



      OTOH, anything Flynn had to say to muller regarding POTUS has already been baked into his report (with the exception of the 12 cases reffered to in the report still underway).
      Any clue as to what these cases are about??


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s