The relevant section of the long article--for our purposes--is the last section: "An unexplored aspect of a Flynn set-up". Dyer admits that the thesis she presents is still in its developmental stages, but she wanted to get it out because of the rapidly evolving status of the Mueller case against Flynn.
You can read the whole thing for the details. Basically, Dyer draws attention to Flynn's contract with a Turkish businessman, Ekim Alptekin, for the purpose of "repairing Turkey’s image in the United States." Of course you're asking, Ekim Who? Should I know this guy? The answer is, If you're Michael Flynn, former head of DIA, yes, you should either know who he is or find out who he is, PDQ:
... he’s a Dutch citizen of Turkish origin with an array of connections that include Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, George Soros, and senior U.S. officials ...
Dyer points out that Flynn's company, Flynn Intel Group, entered into this contract, perhaps not so coincidentally, in August, 2016--just as the race to election day was getting under way in earnest. Flynn had been in the running for the Vice Presidential nomination and had played a very prominent role at the Republican convention. He continued as a foreign policy adviser. What Dyer finds odd about this is simply this: Why hire the Flynn Intel Group for this job of "repairing Turkey's image in the US?"
For an objective like “repairing Turkey’s image in the U.S.,” you want former diplomats and senators: people who can open doors in New York, on Capitol Hill, at Commerce, in Foggy Bottom.
People like Bob Livingston, for example.
Dyer is skeptical, and quite possibly for good reason:
The Flynn Group, with its roots more in security, intelligence, and analysis, didn’t look like a good fit for the supposed objectives of the client. Yet near-simultaneously with the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, Flynn’s firm was contacted by a potential client who would end up linking Flynn to the same theme-bucket by which Papadopoulos was being pursued through Stefan Halper. ...
Given all this, it’s a good question whether Michael Flynn, undoubtedly a quick-minded, intelligent person with a highly-relevant background, realized at some early point that this approach from Alptekin was a set-up.
Then again, if Flynn went ahead and got involved with Alptekin in these dubious circumstances, maybe--just maybe--he isn't the quick-minded, intelligent person we've been led to believe he is.
In any event, as it turned out, “repairing Turkey’s image in the U.S.” involved talking up what a good guy Turkey's "democratically elected president," Recep Erdogan, is and why we shouldn't be harboring "Fethullah Gülen, a shady Islamic mullah residing in Pennsylvania whom former President Clinton once called his 'friend' ..." You can read all about it in an article Flynn wrote on November 8, 2016--the day of the presidential election. In March, 2017, Flynn revealed that he had been paid $530,000 for this "consulting work."
I'm not here to tell you any of this was in any way illegal. My point has to do with Flynn's poor judgment in getting involved in this situation and his seeming inability to make up his mind whether he could best spend his time trawling for clients or committing himself to the Trump campaign. This project--“repairing Turkey’s image in the U.S.”--was bound to be murky and controversial. That goes with the territory. Anything involving Turkey is bound to be murky and controversial, and with Erdogan and Gülen front and center in the mix, well, you're out on a limb from the start.
But maybe Flynn thought the smart thing was to cover all the bases. Maybe he didn't really think Trump would win, so better to hedge his bets.
My point is simply that Flynn should have made a choice. Accepting $530,000 to propagandize on behalf of Erdogan while still angling for a top spot in any Trump administration may not be illegal, but given that no Trump policy on Turkey had been enunciated it just shows questionable judgment. It may not be illegal, other retired generals do this type of lobbying/propaganda work for the highest bidder, too. But this close to the election, with a top national security post possible, it simply doesn't seem smart to me, it doesn't seem to me to show good judgment. My opinion.
But perhaps Trump's opinion, too, since in one of James Comey's memos--written after having dinner with Trump--Comey recounts that Trump stated that Flynn had "serious judgment issues."
None of this changes my view that Flynn was framed for a "crime" that he never committed. I still want to see him exonerated. But I also still think he was never a good fit for the Trump administration.