Tag: Michael Flynn

Stunning Exculpatory Evidence About Lt. Gen. Flynn’s Trip to Russia Revealed

Exculpatory evidence about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s 2015 trip to Russia has been revealed by John Solomon of the Hill.

Contrary to the mainstream narrative that Flynn almost committed treason for attending a Russia Today (RT) dinner in December of 2015, the three-star general’s meeting in Moscow actually provided some “modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community.”

It turns out that before Flynn’s Russia meeting, he alerted the his former employer, the DIA, of his planned visit to Moscow and attended a “defensive” briefing which prepared him to extract intelligence for U.S. agencies and warned him of possible Kremlin efforts to compromise him. Upon his return from Russia, Flynn briefed officials on what he had learned.

**LISTEN: Dan discusses the Obama Administration’s attempt to destroy Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn**

All of this exculpatory evidence was kept under wraps by U.S. intelligence agencies, despite Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) pleas to publicly release some of this information.

Solomon writes:

Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw? And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security? Highly unlikely.

For the full story, click HERE.

Judge in Flynn Case Orders Deported Asylum Seekers Back to U.S.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has ordered that asylum seekers who sued the U.S. after being deported must be brought back into the country to have their claims heard again.

The ruling from Sullivan comes one day after he presided over the dramatic sentencing hearing of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Sullivan stated in his ruling today, “The Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ challenges to the credible fear policies, that it has the authority to order the injunctive relief, and that, with the exception of two policies, the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws.”

He also ordered the government to “return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported and to provide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”

The new immigration policies referenced by Sullivan were policies enacted by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and were meant to curb the number of “credible fear” claims.

In June, Sessions said, “The vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid. For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an immigration judge.”

In November, the ACLU represented a group of asylum seekers who sued the Trump administration over the asylum policies.

For the full story, click HERE.

Ep. 875 Here’s What Really Happened Yesterday

Subscribe: iTunes | iHeartRADIO | Stitcher | Android | RSS | SoundCloud | Spotify

In this episode I address the real scandal the FBI is covering up in the Hillary email scandal and the astonishing comments by Jim Comey this week regarding the infamous meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. I also address what really happened in the Mike Flynn hearing yesterday. Finally, I address the immigration crisis and the only path forward to save the GOP.

News Picks:

Comey to Congress: “Who Cares” Who Paid for the Anti-Trump Dossier

Former FBI Director James Comey doesn’t seem to think it’s important who paid for the salacious, unverified anti-Trump dossier.

When asked by Congressman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) who paid for the document during yesterday’s closed-door interview, Comey replied, “Who cares?”

Meadows tweeted today just after the transcript of Comey’s interview was released to the public:

I asked Director Comey about who paid for the dossier.

His response:

1) Republicans paid for it — (Republicans did not pay for it)

2) “Who cares?” Yes, this is an FBI Director apparently not caring to know who paid for information used to surveil Americans with a FISA warrant.”

According to Fox News, the transcript also reveals Comey’s rationale for sending the two FBI agents to interview Flynn in January 2017 without following standard protocol and the fact that the FBI knew “exactly” what Flynn had said to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to their questioning.

“The agents went to interview Flynn to try and understand why the national security adviser was making false statements to the vice president of the United States about his interactions with the Russians during the transition,” Comey said in response to a question from House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

He continued, “I knew certain classified facts about the nature of his interactions with the Russians. I knew that the Vice President was making statements that he attributed to conversations he’d had with Mr. Flynn that were starkly at odds with those classified facts.”

When Gowdy stated, “You knew exactly what General Flynn had said to the Russian Ambassador before you interviewed him.” Comey replied, “Yes.”

Other highlights from Comey’s testimony:

  • He claims he didn’t hand pick the FBI agents to interview Flynn–one of whom is known anti-Trump special agent Peter Strzok. He told Gowdy, “I didn’t know what agents would go. I wanted Flynn interviewed as soon as possible.”
  • He attempted to clarify his remarks that he “got away” with not involving the White House Counsel in the Flynn interview, telling lawmakers, “In a more established environment, there would’ve been an expectation that the FBI would coordinate the interview through White House Counsel.”
  • He pushed back against claims that the FBI didn’t tell Flynn the severity of the consequences of lying to Congress:  “He was an extraordinarily experienced person and so reasonably should be assumed to understand you can’t lie to the FBI,” Comey told House Republicans .”Second, it’s not protocol. The FBI does not do that in noncustodial interviews. And, third, you want to find out what the witness will say to you before you heat up an interview by raising the prospect that the witness might be lying to you.”

NBC News reporter Mike Memoli noted the apparent inconsistencies between Comey’s testimony to Congress and his interview with NBC’s Nicolle Wallace just days prior.

Tweeting a transcript of Comey’s comments, Memoli wrote:

What’s at odds:

Comey, to Wallace 12/9: Q: What did he think they were coming there for?

COMEY: “I don’t think he knew. We didn’t tell him.”

Comey, to Gowdy 12/17: “The Deputy Director … told him what the subject matter was. … He knew what he was going to be asked about.”

 

 

 

The Russia Hoax has Collapsed

The final nails are finally being hammered into the “Russian collusion” narrative’s coffin, and new developments from the past week should cause even Trump’s most hysterical critics to reconsider (which they won’t, of course).

Dan documented the death of the collusion narrative yesterday on the podcast. If you missed it – here’s what you need to know.

Comey Deflects Dossier Dirt

After speaking with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee, fired FBI head James Comey came out firing against Fox News and Trump. “So another day of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Steele dossier. This while the President of the United States is lying about the FBI, attacking the FBI and attacking the rule of law in this country. How does that make any sense at all?” Comey asked, before then blaming distrust of the FBI on Fox News.

Though truly, Comey should be blaming distrust of the FBI on the FBI’s actions. Even former assistant FBI counterintelligence division director Bill Priestap acknowledged that dossier wasn’t verified before being used to justify surveillance on members of the Trump campaign team. And as we documented in “Spygate,” there are countless other procedures the FBI ignored or violated in using the Steele dossier. Is concern over the FBI ignoring procedures to justify politically-motivated spying something that only concerns Fox News viewers? If so, that paints Fox News viewers in a positive light.

Of course, Comey is only deflecting to blame Fox News to deflect away from his own role in pushing the bogus dossier, which is even more bogus than we thought.

The Dossier – Glaring Errors Remain, Trump Critics Express Doubt, and Steele Admits Political Motivation

While it’s not like the dossier had any credibility in the first place, we can revise its “D-” grade for truthfulness to a straight “F” for a number of reasons.

  1. The dossier story that Michael Cohen visited Prague to pay Russian hackers remained unverified. Cohen’s spokesman Lanny Davis (a Clinton ally) laughed off the alleged Prague trip when asked about if it happened on MSNBC, telling host Kasie Hunt “No. No. Everybody, America, we all love Kasie’s show. No, no Prague, ever, never.” And Cohen, who is now turning on Trump, still denies the Prague story and hasn’t corroborated any elements of the collusion narrative (which he probably would if it were true).
  2. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Greg Miller said during a book interview that sources at the FBI and CIA don’t believe that the Prague incident ever happened. Miller said that Post reporters “literally spent weeks and months trying to run down” leads from the dossier, and that they “sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty.” Interestingly, that fact has yet to be reported in the Washington Post.
  3. “Russian Roulette” author Michael Isikoff (which pushes the collusion narrative) now acknowledges that the dossier is “likely false.”
  4. There’s no secret that the dossier is politically motivated (as indicated by the Clinton campaign funding its creation), but we finally have Steele on record admitting as much thanks to a lawsuit from Russian bankers smeared in his dossier. In an answer to questions from interrogators, Steele wrote “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

Is there anyone not in agreement that the dossier is a politically motivated hoax, except James Comey? It’s certainly not just “Fox News” saying as much, and thus far, the only evidence of attempted foreign meddling in the 2016 election came from the Clinton camp. Comey doesn’t have a problem with that, apparently.

The Framing of Flynn – New Information

In the past we’ve documented how Michael Flynn was setup, having not been charged with a crime relating to collusion, but rather for misremembering the contents of a telephone conversation he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak over sanctions. In late December 2016, the two discussed the sanctions against Russia Obama had just passed, and Kislyak promised that Russia would not react with sanctions of their own. Other sanctions related to Israel were also discussed. Flynn reportedly didn’t recall discussing sanctions when quizzed by the FBI.

At worst, it seemed that Flynn simply misremembered his conversation, which is extremely likely.

In a stunning new development, we’ve learned from a 302 report that proper protocol wasn’t followed to protect Flynn against entrapment. A 302 report contains accounts from the agents of what they said and did while interviewing Flynn, and the FBI waited over half a year to detail the Flynn interview. Interestingly, there were two 302 reports, which Robert Mueller claims was due to a drafting error (though many are speculating it proves the 302 was edited). The 302 contains numerous pieces of damaging information, including:

  • Flynn saying “yes, good reminder” when being asked about whether he discussed sanctions related to Israel with Kislyak (he did), even though the public was told Flynn lied in response to that question.
  • The fact that Flynn spoke with representatives from thirty other countries on December 22nd, making it likely that Flynn could’ve been confusing his calls when answering the FBI’s questions.
  • The revelation that Flynn had at least one other conversation with Kisylak (again, making it likely he could be truthful about the contents of a conversation he was confusing with another). Flynn thanks the FBI for this reminder (which isn’t indicative of an adversarial interview), and says he doesn’t remember if he discussed sanctions about Russia (which is radically different from a denial).

If I were asked to recall a random phone conversation while on vacation, I doubt I’d be able to do it. Add in thirty other calls, and faulty memory is to be expected. No one has yet to put forward a convincing motive for why Flynn would knowingly lie to the FBI. Given he didn’t do anything illegal, why would he bother?

For a more extensive summary, give the podcast a listen for yourself.

Judge Delays Sentencing in Michael Flynn Case

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has delayed sentencing for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn until his ongoing cooperation with federal authorities is complete.

During a dramatic hearing today, Sullivan asked Flynn if he wanted to delay the sentencing process so that his full cooperation with investigators could be considered. The judge told Flynn, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today [with the sentencing], you will not receive a sentence of incarceration.”

Robert Kelner, one of Flynn’s attorneys told the judge, “There’s that additional modicum of cooperation that he expects to provide in the [Eastern District of Virginia.] For that reason, we are prepared to take your honor up on the suggestion to delaying sentencing.”

Sullivan also repeatedly asked Flynn if he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to the FBI during a January 2017 interview. Flynn stated he did not wish to withdraw his plea.

After initially issuing what was described as “scathing” questions about whether or not Flynn committed treason, Sullivan later clarified his remarks, saying he wasn’t suggesting the Lieutenant General’s actions were treasonous but that he was “just curious.”

Mueller’s prosecutors said, “After looking at the definition of treason, we have no reason to believe he committed treason.”

Sullivan set a status hearing for March 13, 2019.

 

 

 

Top GOP Rep: “I Would Not Be Surprised” If Flynn Conviction Overturned

House Judiciary and Oversight committee member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Fox News yesterday that he wouldn’t be surprised if former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s conviction is overturned.

“I would not be surprised a bit if the conviction of Flynn is overturned because of the Justice Department FBI’s misconduct,” Issa said to Maria Bartiromo.

“When the FBI and the Department of Justice lies to someone and tricks them into making statements, and then charges them with a lie they entrapped them. This is conduct that we haven’t seen in a long time,” he continued.

Issa was referring to the shocking memo from Flynn’s attorneys last week which stated the FBI interviewed the three-star general under questionable pretenses and did not disclose to him the severity of the consequences if he lied to the agents because they wanted him to be “relaxed.”

That FBI interview eventually led to Flynn’s pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.

Former FBI Director James Comey was in charge at the time of the Flynn interview and will testify before Congress again today behind closed doors. He is expected to address these latest revelations in the Flynn case.

Congress will also press him on his disturbing comments–which came after his December 7 testimony–in which he told NBC’s Nicolle Wallace that he wouldn’t have “gotten away” with the Flynn interview if it was done in a “more organized administration.”

In a forum on December 9, Wallace said to Comey, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?”

“I sent them,” said Comey. “Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration.”

He continued, “So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”

Issa also told Bartiromo that he believed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will still testify before Congress prior to the Democratic leadership takeover in the new year.

“I talked to Chairman Goodlatte. He is still working on it,” he said of the possibility of Rosenstein’s testimony. “Rosenstein would like to avoid it, but I think we’ll get him,” he said.

Robert Mueller Releases Key Documents in Flynn Case

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has turned over key documents in the Michael Flynn case.

Fox News reports:

The documents – some of which are heavily redacted — were released in response to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordering prosecutors to hand over the government’s files and “memoranda” related to the FBI’s questioning of Flynn by Friday afternoon.

The documents include then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s notes after talking with Flynn to arrange his interview with the FBI. It also includes a so-called “302” report documenting what Flynn told anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and one other agent during their conversation at the White House.

The 302 report states that Strzok and the other agent “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” It also states that several unnamed people back at FBI headquarters “later argued about the FBI’s decision to interview Flynn.”

It comes days after Flynn’s legal team made the bombshell allegation that the FBI pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House.

On Tuesday, Flynn’s attorneys filed a sentencing memo in which they cited the 302 report from his interview with the FBI which show then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe urging Flynn to not have an attorney present for the questioning.

**LISTEN: Dan discusses disturbing revelations in Flynn sentencing memo**

“I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Flynn’s report also stated, “The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview.”

Before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

The Flynn memo points out that the 302 report reveals that FBI agents strategized on how to handle Flynn if he did not remember exactly what he had said in his phone conversation with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because the agents had already read transcripts of the phone call.

The memo states that FBI officials decided if “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used … to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said … they would not confront him or talk him through it.”

The Framing of Michael Flynn

Author’s Note: This essay is largely based off of our new book “Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump.”

On December 29th, 2016, Michael Flynn received a phone call while on vacation in the Dominican Republic from Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that would change his life forever.

Earlier in the day, in retaliation for Russian interference in the election (not collusion), then-President Barack Obama forced the closure of Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland, and slapped new sanctions against Russia. Is there any doubt that such a move would prompt Ambassador Kislyak to call Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser at the time, to discuss what had just happened?

In taking Kislyak’s call, Flynn must’ve been aware that the call would be intercepted and monitored, given that he was speaking on an unsecured line in the Dominican Republic. Had Flynn been on U.S. soil he would’ve been able to prevent such surveillance, but due to the timing of Obama’s firings and Flynn’s location in the Dominican Republic, his conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and recorded.

The two discussed the sanctions against Russia Obama had just passed, and Kislyak promised that Russia would not react with sanctions of their own.

Since the call was recorded, the FBI had an entire transcript of the conversation. If there were any wrongdoing, it would be evident in the transcript. Clearly, it was not, as at the direction of Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Flynn was questioned about the contents of his conversation with Kislyak on January 24th, 2017 by special agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka in a meeting set up by then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Rather than try to pry information from Flynn about the call, Flynn was merely quizzed about the contents of his own conversation, with Strzok and Pientka presumably looking for any deviation from the script to claim Flynn was technically “lying to the FBI,” even if unintentionally.

Sally Yates immediate concern from the Kislyak phone call was that Flynn violated the “Logan Act,” a rarely enforced law from 1799 that prevents Americans from corresponding with foreign governments (which is ridiculous, given’s Flynn’s political position). If the Logan Act actually were enforced, it would’ve been used to prevent Dennis Rodman from visiting North Korea, or Jimmy Carter’s various peace efforts. If Flynn had truly done something wrong, why would Yates be so desperately grasping at straws in citing the Logan Act?

Setting the Trap: Flynn Advised Against Legal Counsel

In a stunning new development, we’ve learned from a 302 report that proper protocol wasn’t followed to protect Flynn against entrapment. A 302 report contains accounts from the agents of what they said and did while interviewing Flynn, and the FBI waited over half a year to detail the Flynn interview. According to Fox News:

The August date on the FBI 302 cited by the Flynn team is nearly seven months after the Flynn interview took place, and about a week after reports surfaced that Strzok had been summarily removed from Mueller’s Russia probe because his persistent anti-Trump communications had surfaced.

Flynn “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.

Flynn’s attorneys alleged that Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities. According to Flynn’s legal team [and the 302 itself], FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to “confront” him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Bear in mind, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign was a secret at the time. Flynn had no reason to have his guard up.

Comey and McCabe’s Defense Seems Unbelievable

Even stranger, despite the charges Flynn now faces following the Kafkaesque line of questioning, when James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers about the Bureau’s counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the meetings said Comey told lawmakers the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t believe he lied or intentionally provided any misleading answers. The report also said FBI Director McCabe testified that the FBI agents didn’t suspect wrongdoing either. Yet McCabe also pushed Flynn to speak without a lawyer. For those reasons, and the role that Peter Strzok played in trying to thwart a Trump presidency, I find these claims doubtworthy.

It also doesn’t help the FBI’s credibility when two of those involved in Flynn’s entrapment (Strzok and McCabe) have since been fired for misconduct. Clearly, their claims that they “actually thought Flynn was innocent” cannot possibly be true, as if they were, Flynn wouldn’t have had to plead guilty to manufactured charges to avoid a personal bankruptcy. And let’s suppose for a second that they are true – that McCabe, Strzok, and Pientka all thought Flynn did nothing wrong. Then who was pulling the strings to decide otherwise?

What do you think is more likely? That Michael Flynn couldn’t perfectly recall the contents of a phone call made while on vacation, or that Flynn decided that he’d lie to the FBI’s face without any legal counsel over the contents of a phone call where nothing illegal is discussed? To ask such a question is to answer it, so it’s no wonder that entrapment was the goal all along.