Thursday, May 16, 2019

Uh-Oh! Developments In The Flynn Case

Undercover Huber has posted the latest:

Undercover Huber

BREAKING: D.C. Judge Sullivan orders DOJ to file on the public docket:
Fully unredacted parts of Mueller report that relate to @GenFlynn 
TRANSCRIPT of @GenFlynn's calls with Russian ambassador KISLYAK 
Both by May 31 2019

It's necessary to bear in mind that Flynn has repeatedly insisted--under oath--that he's guilty and that he wants to plead guilty and pay the price for his supposed crimes. As part of his plea he also states that he violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), although he was never charged for that supposed crime. Nevertheless ...

It seems to me to be unlikely that Team Mueller is pleased with this development. To my way of thinking--and maybe I'm wrong--but the second part in particular, the TRANSCRIPT of Flynn's calls with Kislyak, can only be relevant to the issue of why the FBI wanted to interview Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak in the first place. Does Judge Sullivan want to ask Team Mueller to explain why Flynn was subjected to a setup interview without counsel for doing his job?

There are a lot of moving parts here. If Flynn was already under FBI investigation, why was that? From what we know, it appears he was being targeted for political reasons. OTOH, it does appear that he violated FARA--but why not just warn him and require him to register, as is usually done? Further, it seems vanishingly unlikely that any previously initiated FBI investigation had anything to do with a supposed violation of the Logan Act--that doesn't pass the laugh test.

And then there's the question of whether Flynn's plea was truly voluntary--despite his statements under oath. It's hard to help a guy like Flynn who's his own worst enemy, but on the other hand Sullivan is nobody's fool in these matters. One wonders whether Sullivan is contemplating some rather dramatic intervention and wants the public record out there so that there will be no doubt about the basis for his actions.

Interesting days.


  1. "If Flynn was already under FBI investigation, why was that?"

    The first thing that comes to mind is that McCabe reportedly hated Flynn for the latter's support of Special Agent Robyn Gritz:

    "As Sara A. Carter and John Solomon of Circa News report:

    The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

    Flynn’s intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz’s case and an offer to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was soaring through the bureau’s leadership ranks.

    The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn….

    McCabe eventually became the bureau’s No. 2 executive and emerged as a central player in the FBI’s Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn.

    Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.

    In legal circles, that’s called motive."

    McCabe had the temerity to open an obstruction of justice case against his own President. If he could take down Flynn he probably thought he could take down Trump.

    1. All true. There's also the fact that he had criticized the Obama administration for its support of the groups that turned into ISIS.

      Those are motives, alright, but the question is: Did they have an valid reasons. I think not.

    2. I don't think their reasons were valid either. I think he was just a target of opportunity. But lacking more information it's just supposition.

      Flynn did display exceptionally poor judgement by attempting to monetize his tenure as head of the DIA (Flynn Intel Group).

      Obama certainly didn't have his back, as you pointed out. He made enemies in the FBI leadership. He was out of government. He generated controversy with his Flynn Intel Group foolishness. But worst of all, he became a senior advisor to the Trump Campaign.

      Then there's McCabe, with a history of holding grudges and destroying careers, whose wife took $770K from Hillary in a failed bid for political office.

      I'm inclined to think it was payback and Flynn was target of opportunity against the Glavnii Vrag.

    3. Agreed. I think it was largely payback. After all, almost any amount of law breaking can normally be tolerated within the Deep State--if you remain a team player.

    4. Flynn did display exceptionally poor judgement by attempting to monetize his tenure as head of the DIA (Flynn Intel Group).

      Yes, of course. Unlike everyone else who's served in government. How dare Flynn monetize his experience. Honorable men like Brennan and Clapper would never do such a thing as be paid for their opinions...
      /snark off.

    5. I won't put words in Anon's mouth. IMO, what Flynn did was likely no different and no worse than many other have done. That doesn't make it right. The fact that he did it so close to being chosen for the top national security post shows bad judgment, as does his choice of nations (Turkey) to champion for pay. Also foolish and naive was his failure to understand that he had a target on his back.

      None of that means he should be set up and convicted for a felony that he didn't commit. That's the real point, IMO.

    6. I'll just add that I very much want to see the people responsible for Flynn's setup pay a price. That has nothing to do with my opinion of Flynn and everything to do with my commitment to the rule of law.

    7. Mr. Wauck,

      You stated "I won't put words in Anon's mouth. IMO, what Flynn did was likely no different and no worse than many other have done. That doesn't make it right. The fact that he did it so close to being chosen for the top national security post shows bad judgment, as does his choice of nations (Turkey) to champion for pay."

      I agree. I think what I'm about to say, you will agree with. Flynn broke the law re: FARA and he should pay the price for that action. But it shouldn't be harsher than the going rate. My understanding is that the going rate the offender admits guilt, registers as a foreign agent and pays a fine.

      Same thing the Obama Administration did to Dinesh D'Souza with his campaign finance violation. They sought a five-year prison term for a ~$20K violation. When Barack's campaign committed a ~$230M violation, they paid a fine.

      Equal justice under law.

    8. That's absolutely correct. The reality is that, just as in the case of D'Souza, the Obama administration was gunning for Flynn because of his statements re ISIS. They tried to frame him as a Russian agent, then FARA, finally had to settle for lying that wasn't a lie.

  2. Flynn is being blackmailed. And he's not the only one. The Deep State plays for keeps.

    1. If you're referring to his son, I believe that would all fall apart if Sullivan follows the course he appears to be at least eyeing.

  3. Mueller's team first tried to create a John Dean type of witness who would agree to incriminate Trump in some sort of collusion act. Flynn was the first person to fall within Weissmann's target range, but Flynn didn't have anything incriminating to offer and wouldn't lie, so Weissmann tried using "leverage" via a threat to prosecute Flynn's son. This was an egregious abuse of power, but par for the course for Mueller/Weissmann, who have used this tactic many times previously. After failing to "flip" Flynn, Weissmann moved on to other targets (Manafort, Gates, Papadopolus, Stone, etc.), but Weissmann needed to keep Flynn from revealing the blackmail, so they compromised on a few minor guilty pleas and abeyance on prosecuting Flynn's son.

    If Barr doesn't make Weissmann pay for this abuse of power, then history will repeat itself in the next Democrat Administration.

    1. I agree that Weissmann must pay, but so must his enabler Mueller. And Comey. Nothing would surprise me less than that Comey knew that Ohr and Weissmann were involved in the Russia Hoax before the election.