Friday, April 24, 2020

UPDATED: Why The Michael Flynn Case Is Potentially So Important

The reason the Michael Flynn case is so important is because it potentially gives John Durham a hook not only into all the major players in the Russia Hoax, but also the fake impeachment. Let me repeat that: ALL the major players.

Why was the Deep State so intent on silencing Michael Flynn? There were three interrelated reasons.

1. Flynn, as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), had written a paper that exposed the foreign policy establishment of the Deep State--and the policy of Obama--as directly connected to the rise of ISIS. The United States was supporting radical jihadists. This provided Obama and all those in the top levels of his administration who were connected with national security a reason to wish to silence Flynn.

2. Flynn, as head of DIA, had sought to transform the agency into a much more proactive collector of intelligence--in effect, to make it a competitor with the CIA. To say that James Clapper and John Brennan wanted Flynn punished and excluded forever from any position of influence is putting the matter mildly.

3. Flynn, a longtime insider in the national security and intelligence world, had an insiders knowledge not only of the institutions concerned with national security matters but of many of the major players. The list goes on.

These would be the people urging DoJ and FBI to do something about Flynn. Something drastic, to silence him. The investigation and prosecution accomplished that. Who was involved?

At DoJ it's a long list. Investigating a former General and former head of DIA as an agent for Russia is a very big deal. It didn't happen without involvement of everyone at the top levels. Loretta Lynch. The AG had to be in on it. Sally Yates. Mary McCord--yes, she as part of it, before she went on to become the principle legal counsel advising Michael Atkinson and Adam Schiff on impeachment matters. Yes, it's not impossible that Durham could end up there. Rod Rosenstein--that goes without saying. He supervised the whole Mueller Witchhunt and specifically authorized significant matters, like, permitting Mueller/Weissmann to target Michael Flynn, Jr.

Team Mueller is clearly in Durham's crosshairs. I've speculated in the past that Durham may feel he has unfinished business with Mueller, going back to Durham's thwarted investigation of Mueller's corruption in Boston. Andrew Weissmann would have been behind all the decisions and tactics deployed against Flynn. Also lower level prosecutors like Brandon Van Grack, Jeannie Rhee, Zainab Ahmad.

At the FBI Peter Stzok is a small fish compared to the top two--James Comey and Andrew McCabe, along with their legal counsels, James Baker and Lisa Page. And of course many more.

The New York Times says Durham is even probing Grand Jury witnesses about David Ignatius, recipient of FBI leaks about Flynn. Could a journalist be a part of a criminal conspiracy? Why not?

All of these people and more were involved in the false prosecution of Flynn to one degree or another. All can potentially be jammed up by Durham with regard to the Flynn case, and then required to cooperate about all the rest of the Russia Hoax. And possibly much more having to do with the weaponizing of the national security establishment against President Trump.

Whether Durham ever gets to the total end of that road of course remains to be seen. But if I'm a betting guy, I say Durham right now is loaded for bear.

Interesting times lie ahead.

UPDATE: If the case against Flynn is dismissed, Flynn will be free to talk as much as he wants. Think about that!


  1. From an outsider's perspective, we seem to be in a weekly cycle of new disclosures and new developments. It all got kicked off with Barr's interview with Fox News. I was almost wondering what new development would there be for this weekend. I was not disappointed.

    1. A weekly cycle of new disclosures and new developments suits me just fine.

    2. Oh, man - me too!

      Quarantine Theater - bring it on ;^>

  2. Wow on Mueller’s Boston issues - and he became head of the FBI?



  3. Trump should appoint Flynn again. Day after his plea is vacated.

  4. As I remember Flynn and brehnan had major dispute over personnel.
    The top is Rotton.

  5. MW wrote:

    >> Whether Durham ever gets to the total end of that road of course remains to be seen. But if I'm a betting guy, I say Durham right now is loaded for bear. <<

    This reminds me so much of that scene toward the end of le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," when Smiley is closing in on figuring out who the Russian mole is, and is interrogating Tobey Easterhaze:

    Toby Esterhase : You're on a damn long road, George. What happens to you if you never reach the end?

    George Smiley : With Lacon and the Minister behind me?

    In our current, real life version of the scandal, Durham is Smiley. AG Barr is Lacon, and the Minister is POTUS.

    Game, Set, and Match.

  6. Related breaking News, by John Solomon:

    Article refutes long-standing evidence-free claims about Russian Alfa Bank and Trump campaign computers secretly colluding in 2016, based on a cyber security report released today.

    Buried in the story is this blockbuster:

    >> The Ankura team did, however, find evidence that suggests so-called "threat actors" conjured the appearance of a connection between the Trump servers and Alfa Bank servers by creating false Domain Name System activity (DNS). If this is true, it "would constitute a potential violation of various U.S. laws," says the report.<<

    That's "active measures" to intended to frame the Trump campaign.

    And that goes to the heart of the Deep State defense of "mistakes were made..." -- it's codswallop. Active measures like that only happen by intentional acts to frame somebody.

    I'm betting there's another shoe to drop on this... like who was responsible for the cyber-tampering to frame the Trump campaign.

    "Wide-ranging" doesn't do justice to the breadth, scope, and audacity of this conspiracy.

  7. Durham news:

    >> Jeff Carlson
    "An F.B.I. agent who oversaw public corruption in Chicago and served in Ukraine as an assistant legal attaché, Peter Angelini, has also joined Mr. Durham’s team."

    Oversaw public corruption in Chicago & served in Ukraine... <<

    The Ukraine connection is intriguing.

  8. More on Durham hirings:

    >> Scarpelli, a top prosecutor...was detailed to the team along with a federal prosecutor from Manhattan, Andrew DeFilippis.

    Two former F.B.I. agents, Timothy Fuhrman and Jack Eckenrode, are also assisting. <<

  9. I've always believed that the Russia Hoax would have been launched against Donald Trump whether or not he won the election.

    Trump was possibly the most high profile Birther (I hate that term) and committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of Obama and his loyal minions, which, if we had a curious press that was not in the tank for Democrats, might have resolved some of the mysteries that still surround Obama - who he is and where he comes from.

    Obama was desperate to destroy Trump, not embarrass him, or even remove him from an office they thought he'd never achieve, but to completely and utterly destroy him - both reputationally and financially for daring to challenge Obama's carefully manufactured legend.

    Unfortunately, the RINO/CoC Establishment had no inclination to help Trump either. He'd unmasked "the most talented group of potential Republican nominees ever" as (for the most part) a gang of weak sisters, i.e., Jeb!, the Establishment choice, who would have lost gracefully to Hillary. They, too, are fearful of what Trump might expose about their corruption.

    I shudder to think of how difficult it would have been for private citizen Trump to defend himself against all these spurious charges. How many billions would it have cost him? Would his billions have been enough?

    In my opinion, no private citizen has the where-with-all to defend himself against the combined weight of the corrupt Democrats, corrupt Republicans, federal government bureaucrats and a hostile press. Even with the bully pulpit, Trump has no clear advantage in this war. All he has is us. I pray that we're enough.

    Perhaps I'm naive, but I have faith in AG Barr and John Durham. I just hope their efforts aren't too late.

    1. That's how the Deep State and its Left allies roll. Barr knew what he was taking on, better than most.

    2. Your comment about Jeb Bush & Hillary Clinton reminds me all over again that our two party establishments deigned just a few short years ago to shove down our throats not just dynastic candidates - which alone is bad enough - but weak, horrible ones at at that, who were not at all wanted by us, the people.

      The Republican establishment has been forced into getting a little bit more in tune, for now, with its voters, but their Democrat counterpart is now trying to shove down our throats an obviously not mentally fit Joe Biden.

      Think about that.

      This is who our ruling elite is. This is how much they really care about what We The People want or think, and we should never forget this, imo. Never.

    3. Anne,

      I think you are right, and that is terrifying.


    4. Ray, I fear President Trump is not out of danger. Recall the Democrat discussions emphasizing that a SITTING president cannot be indicted under DOJ guidelines.

      Donald Trump will not be president forever. When he leaves office, I fully expect the fury of the Democrats to be unleashed in an avalanche of lawsuits designed to bleed him dry, if not spurious criminal complaints on an evidentiary par with those lodged against Gen. Flynn.

  10. Thank you, Mark, for your excellent insights and summary. I will refer those family members and friends who don't understand my obsession with the Flynn case to your post.


    1. Gina, that was a pretty slapdash summary on the spur of the moment. However, it hopefully helps explain why Van Grack fought so desperately to block all Brady material, why the Deep State wouldn't just drop it.

    2. Thank goodness for your high standards, Mark. What you consider "slapdash" is much more valuable than anything the lazy, mendacious self-proclaimed analysts and journalists foist upon us.

      I appreciate your efforts.


  11. Legal Question: If Trump pardons Flynn, can Flynn "talk all he wants."

    1. Anyone can talk all they want. It's just that when you're being prosecuted in a national security state you may run afoul of legal restrictions re classification or prudential considerations imposed by your lawyers.

      OTOH, Flynn is not going to be pardoned. The prosecution will be dismissed at some point, and it looks now sooner rather than later.

    2. If the verdict gets booted, does Flynn have grounds for a lawsuit? The government nearly bankrupted him, right?

      Ever so slightly off topic: what is your take on Steele's claim he no longer has documents pertaining to his Russian source for the fabled dossier?

    3. Yes.

      My take is that NSA should have his emails that he says were wiped. Also that he better never show up in the US again.

  12. Mark

    What are your guesses on say 3 years from now, will have happened?

    Sundance thinks Barr is trying to minimize the damage, while saving the institution. That is why he has supported Wray and Rosenstein.


    1. Ray, I can't possibly predict 3 years from now, but I will say that sundance and those behind him are full of it re Barr. I don't support all of Barr's policy positions, but I believe he's doing everything possible to obtain justice for the president and to steer the federal justice system back onto the straight and narrow. I've several times tried to explain that, as AG, is not simply free to replace every USA or career employee he dislikes or disagrees with. For example, every USA is just as much a presidential appointee as Barr is. That's part of why it took as much time as it did to maneuver Jesse Liu out of USA-DC. Trump and his WH counsel office are undoubtedly involved in this, along with McConnell, who does the confirmations. It's not easy. Re Barr, sundance hasn't a clue. And he will never ever acknowledge when he's shown to be wrong or when evidence contradicts his past confident assertions.

    2. Thanks Mark for the reply.

      Wrays actions, such as issuing a statement on Nunes Fisa memo bothers me. Nunes thinks it may have cost the house in the midterms.

      And Anthony Weiners laptop is still MIA.

    3. I don't see Wray being dismissed before the election, unfortunately. There are political considerations involved. What if a vacancy comes up on the SCOTUS between now and the election? That takes precedence over a nomination fight re the FBI. Trump has to choose his fights. That's what Barr critics don't get. Barr dumping Wray becomes Trump's fight, not just Barr's.

  13. Who whispered into Flynn’s ear that Convington and Burling, LLP would faithfully and vigorously defend him?

    Obama’s wingman, AG Holder, was hired for about $5 million to grease their skidds. Heck, they are on retainer by California to oppose anything Trump.

    I smell some serious civil lawsuits coming.

    - TexasDude

    1. Yeah, I've long wondered how Flynn decided to go with such a Deep State connected firm. How could he have failed to realize that Covington, institutionally, was aligned with the very cabal that was out to get him?

    2. His choice re: Covington may be as simple as the fact that Flynn is a life-long Democrat, and Covington was a go-to legal firm for Dems in Washington.

      Keep in mind that at the time (early 2017) it was not clear that what was happening to Flynn and Trump was all part of a much larger conspiracy. We only know that in hindsight.

      Flynn may have thought this was nothing more than a misunderstanding that could be cleared up by some friendly lawyers making a few calls and meeting with a few people in DOJ. Also recall the initial need for legal representation was to retroactively file the FARA registration that the FBI guy kept pestering Flynn to do for Flynn's lobbying business. Covington may well have been considered to have expertise in this legal area, and thus would be a logical choice for that reason as well.

      By the time he may have realized somebody was out to get him, he was already deeply invested in Covington, and switching lawyers at that point would likely have cost him even more money for new lawyers to get up to speed, whereas Covington already was up to speed.

      Lastly, not even in Flynn's wildest dreams could he have imagined his lawyers acting in cahoots with the prosecutors, in complete violation of the professional, ethical obligations to him as his legal counsel. Nor could he have known that when they had asked him to waive Covington's conflict-of -interests with regard to his FARA filing, which it turns out Covington had botched, it was an UNWAIVABLE conflict. Nor did he know the prosecutors would fail to notify the court of his counsel's unwaivable conflict that he didn't know about, but they did.

      And thus, when Covington steered him into a plea deal, Flynn had no way of knowing that his own legal counsel was selling him down the river, in part, to cover their own asses for the FARA application they botched.

    3. "may be as simple as"

      Or, as simple minded as. Where did he ever get the idea that voting Dem gave him immunity from malicious prosecution from other Dems if he strayed from the plantation?

    4. I thought the very idea of a politicized, malicious investigation was a fringe idea 4 years ago. Unfortunately I was wrong.

      I am still grappling with the nastyness /immorality of what was done to Flynn, Trump, and Trump's supporters. I did not think this was possible in the US. Reminds me of the John Doe investigation in Wisconsin, that nobody was punished for.

      >voting Dem gave him immunity from malicious prosecution

    5. This is why, Ray, I am astounded that any constitutional carrying Republican will say anything negative against Trump.

      If it can happen against a former media darling, former NY registered Democrat, it can happen to anyone.

      I also assert that this was not their first rodeo, first time, in this and Trump was the first to dsy eff you and your momma too.

      - TexasDude

    6. Also, if it can happen to a supposedly current Democrat Army General, it can happen to anyone.

      - TexasDude

    7. Tex, neither side of the Unitary Party feels an affinity toward Trump. He had the effrontery to run for President as his first foray into elective politics.

      If he'd run for governor of NY first, things might have been different, but I doubt it.

      Trump is the consummate outsider and threatens ALL of them on both sides of the aisle, as he owes allegiance to no one except his voters. A possible exception to this statement is the Freedom Caucus.

  14. I have a little experience on the subject of military promotion for the upper ranks. One does not get promoted without "playing the game", i.e., an aspirant to flag grade (general) must have not only high level sponsorship from more senior officers but also have political sponsors. Some are able to latch onto their mentors' political sponsors but most have their own.

    With this said, I find it remarkable that Gen. Flynn was so politically naive. Did he think that publishing a paper criticizing Obama's foreign policy choices (support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Eqypt among other examples) would endear him to Obama and his cabal of true believers?

    I have read his brief supporting his plea withdrawal. When his Covington attorneys asked him during their initial meeting "whether he 'had anything' on Trump", he should have run, not walked, out of the meeting.

    Further, any firm that has Eric Holder as a partner is one that Flynn, as a member of a Republican administration, should have steered clear of, no matter whether he was a life-long registered Democrat or not.

    I remain astounded that a 3-star general could be so unaware of the political currents swirling around him.

    1. "I remain astounded that a 3-star general could be so unaware of the political currents swirling around him."


    2. Back when many were pushing for Colin Powell to be a new Eisenhower for the Republican nomination the main argument against it was that "He has no political experience." I had to laugh at that one. In the military promotion above O-5 is a political blood sport.
      Tom S.

  15. >I remain astounded that a 3-star general could be so
    >unaware of the political currents swirling around him.

    As a counter argument, I am still astounded what was done to Flynn, which most people 4 years ago would regard as not possible in the US:

    - Logan Act use by Sally Yates
    - US AG to recuse himself on Russia
    - Leak of Calls
    - Being Monitored for "Counter Intelligence Reasons"
    - Having the Whitehouse Review Stuff Monitored
    - Having the Trump Campaign being spied on
    - Unmasking of Intercepts by Susan Rice in the Obama White House
    - FBI Entrapment
    - Corruption of a Lawyer (Covington) by Justice Department
    - Using charges against Son not registering as a Foreign Agent (many in Washington Guilty of this), to get him to plea bargain

    And it sounds like there is more dirty stuff that was done.

    1. All true. But it needn't be a "counter." Politics is full of manufactured scandals. Perhaps not on the scale of the Russia Hoax, but equal in the viciousness of the perps.

  16. Interesting update via Maria Bartiromo:

    >>Maria Bartiromo
    Breaking News: sources tell me @GenFlynn
    will be completely exonerated this week.
    It was a total fraud. A Set up. More tomorrow @MorningsMaria
    @SundayFutures <<

    She tweeted that at 5:12 this afternoon.

  17. I've been following politics for a long time and knew the Dems and Reps were a uniparty. But, like Ray, I'm still astounded by how corrupt the Unites States is. I watched too many shows as a boy showing that the USA is on the side of right, always. Think The FBI, the Lone Ranger, Dragnet, The FBI Story and the like.

    The scales are finally, fully off of my eyes. I'll never be the same again. And, that's a good thing. I'm seeing life as it really is. I'm appreciating the wisdom of the Bible and the Founding Fathers. The LORD said to be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves.

    As the Who sang, "I won't be fooled again."

    1. Television. Or is it Tell-a-vision?

  18. Flynn's lawyer just received ~17,000 pages of new documents from Covington & Burling that were supposed to have been turned over a year ago.

    >> Tuesday’s supplemental notice, which was signed by Flynn’s former defense counsel Robert Kelner with Covington and Burling LLP, stated that the reason the documents were turned over so late to Powell was due to “an unintentional miscommunication involving the firm” information technology personnel had led them, in some instances, to run search terms on subsets of emails the firm had collected for its response to document requests United States v. [Bijan] Rafiekian, the case involving Mr. Flynn’s business partner and their FARA-related work through their consulting firm, rather than on the broader sets of emails that should have been searched.” <<

    >> <<

    1. That's hilarious. They must have consulted with the FBI crew--here's what you do, you run highly specific searches so you won't find what they're looking for. Not looking good at all.

    2. ... and then blame it on the IT people.

    3. Exactly. Worked for Hillary, didn't it?

    4. Judge Sullivan reacts:

      Covington must re-execute the search for ALL documents, deliver any not already delivered, and CERTIFY COMPLIANCE by 4 May.

      >> <<

    5. >> Margot Cleveland
      BREAKING: @SidneyPowell1
      confirms that following redactions, DOJ and Powell will enter a consent order for the unsealing of Exhibit 3 which is the recently discovered (by outside U.S Attorney) and turned over FBI material related to @GenFlynn
      . <<

  19. Sydney Powell on Hannity TV at very end of segment dropped this comment:

    "They [FBI] altered the 302 until McCabe approved it."

    She expects to get the redacted version of documents filed under seal by late Wednesday at the latest.

    1. There's plenty of evidence pointing in that direction--the texts between Strzok and Page, the length of time, etc.

  20. Breaking:

    >> Sidney Powell

    · 6m
    While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even more appalling that the Friday production. We have requested the redaction process begin immediately. <<


    >> <<

  21. Holy Cow, Batman:

    >> Multiple congressional committees approached Michael Flynn’s original defense counsel to raise the prospect of immunity in exchange for Flynn’s congressional testimony but were spurned, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told The Federalist.

    After Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to federal investigators, representatives of multiple congressional committees with oversight responsibility for national security matters asked Flynn’s lawyers if Flynn would testify before Congress in exchange for a congressional grant of immunity. Robert Kelner, Flynn’s attorney at the time, immediately dismissed the overtures, sources told The Federalist. During one conversation, Kelner allegedly responded that in situations like the one facing Flynn, the prosecution essentially “owns” the defendant and added that he would be unlikely to pursue congressional testimony without the approval of former Spygate Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

    Flynn was not told of these immunity conversations with congressional officials before they were rejected on his behalf, a source familiar with Flynn’s case told The Federalist. The former White House national security adviser and three-star Army general fired Kelner and the rest of his defense team at the Covington law firm in June 2019 and is currently trying to withdraw his guilty plea. <<

    >> <<

    The highlighted sentence goes to the heart of the "inadequate (if not worse) defense" argument.

    1. What do you find significant in that?

    2. Later in the same article, the quote some legal scholar who says essentially Covington was duty-bound to at least inform Flynn that Congressional Committees were seeking his testimony in return for immunity.

      Flynn's attorneys summary rejection of the immunity offers without telling Flynn about is surely proof of inadequate/incompetent counsel, if not evidence that counsel was working AGAINST their client's interests.

      Granted it took place after the plea deal, but inadequate counsel at that point makes the claim of inadequate counsel before the plea deal all the more believable.

    3. "rejection of the immunity offers without telling Flynn about is surely proof of inadequate/incompetent counsel, if not evidence that counsel was working AGAINST their client's interests."

      I agree that a lawyer should inform a client of all such matters. However, I would want to know whether the other example cited (Ollie North) was concerned with Congressional testimony under immunity BEFORE North was tried. For that reason, even though the matter should have been discussed with Flynn, I might not want to put too much weight on it--absent further knowledge of what was going on.

      To my mind, the problem for Flynn's lawyers would be that if Flynn agreed to testify to Congress Team Mueller might be able to void the plea deal, leading to eventual revelation of the conflicts.

      I'm kind of thinking out loud.

      In and of itself, I would not be inclined to regard it as evidence of ineffective representation.