How to restore General Flynn's good name

Michael Ledeen writes in PJ Media,

...The accusations against Flynn were fanciful from the outset, and need to be undone. If justice is to prevail for this distinguished officer, he should be pardoned at once, and then the president has the opportunity for a positive step: create a high-powered commission to investigate the many sins of the intelligence community. Flynn’s plan to audit their budgets—no such appraisal has been carried out since World War II—was worthy and important. The president should make General Flynn the chair of that committee, to restore his good name and give intelligence the kind of serious evaluation we badly need.

Read more here.

The Resistance has a new hero! Flynn stays on Mueller's leash.

What did the commenters at Ace of Spades Headquarters think of today's actions by Clinton-appointed judge Sullivan?

Charlotte the sailor said,

I really hate these people. They are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that someone like Trump is never elected again so they can continue to make this country into a banana republic while all of them are exempted from the odious laws they pass for the hoi polloi.

May they rot in hell for an eternity.

They are scum to the max and the willing media is so stupid they don't realize that when the government these people want is implemented, the media will be the first to be dragged to the slaughter.

Bah wrote,

I do appreciate the acknowledgement that we are truly not a nation of laws but vindictiveness and raw power play, and no matter if one has served well the country one may still be a victim of the political class.

Ace added,

>>>I can't imagine why a Mueller fan would expend this much energy on calling attention to the 302s.

Because he was looking for MOAR EVIDENCE against Flynn.

And because he wanted to bring up this idea that if Flynn complains about FBI tactics, then he's not really accepting responsibility, and can be thrown in jail.

he wants to throw him in jail and is looking for any reason to do so.

Mikey NTH wrote,

If you are accepting the plea deal you cannot proclaim your innocence to the court at the same time. If you do you are rejecting the plea deal and the greater sentence can be imposed.

G.Gnome asked,

So. Who called the judge during the break and made him back off from the treason stuff?

Ace again:

He met with the Special Prosecutors team during the break, not Flynn's team.

Cuthbert the witless wrote,

Anywho it seems to me that the mental ravings of this judge with regard to treason, to the extent that Mueller had to reign him in, might indicate that this judge is a legit mental case and prolly should be taken off the case.

"Hide the ball and cover up their tracks!"

How about establishing a "Transparency Office?" Just what we need, more bureaucracy!

Something is keeping Trump from declassifying documents. I wonder what that might be!

Congressman Nunes believes the Mueller investigation is destroying America and the investigation needs to end soon!

In defiance of the judge's orders, Mueller does not supply original notes in Flynn case

Ace of Spades reports,

Whoa: Mueller Tells Judge in Mike Flynn Case to Go F*** Himself, Refusing to Deliver The Original Notes of the Flynn Interview As He Was Ordered To Do
—Ace of Spades
And of course, Mueller immediately wiped Strzok's and Page's phones.

Mueller was ordered to turn over all notes of the Flynn interview and the original 302 filed by Strzok and Pientka. That is an interesting 302, because, of course, it has been reported that the interviewing witnesses said that Flynn did not offer any deception.

But then seven months later, when Mueller's looking prosecute Trump, a new 302 gets written that says Flynn did lie?

And Mueller continues defying a judge, refusing to turn over the original, despite being specifically ordered to produce it?

I don't think this calls for a sentence of no time to be served; I think this calls for a striking of Flynn's plea deal and a statement that Flynn has no longer pled guilty and is now officially just innocent.

You cannot tell a fucking judge to go fuck himself.

And you would not do so, unless you had real crimes of your own to cover up.

"Intelligence officials are supposed to use their expertise in psychological warfare and disinformation campaigns against enemy states, but never against an occupant of the Oval Office."

Richard Pollock reports in The Daily Caller,

Since Trump and Flynn entered the White House, anonymous sources have given select reporters information about telephone intercepts conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Former intelligence and military officers told TheDCNF they agree Flynn was the victim of a highly orchestrated “disinformation campaign” generated by current and former intelligence officers, many with loyalties to former President Obama.

Intelligence officials are supposed to use their expertise in psychological warfare and disinformation campaigns against enemy states, but never against an occupant of the Oval Office.

...“Who pulled the NSA tapes on Mike Flynn?” asked retired Col. James Waurishuk, a 30-year intelligence officer who once served in the National Security Council. “Who compiled it? Who released it?” the retired Special Forces veteran asked in an interview with TheDCNF.

Waurishuk argued the many leaks meant the public is seeing the politicization of intelligence. “There are those in the intelligence community that are more concerned with their agendas than with national security,” he said.

“Notice how the intelligence community can leak Flynn’s conversation, but there are no leaks on Hillary Clinton and Benghazi,” he added.

Another former intelligence official, retired Col. James Williamson, told TheDCNF, “What is illegal is that Flynn has his conversations eavesdropped on. Who at NSA leaked the transcript?”

Williamson called it an “egregious overstep” by current and former intelligence officials.

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn said. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

Flynn said he apologized to Vice President Mike Pence about his earlier contention that there were no discussions about the expulsion order, which was part of the Obama sanctions.

“For the vice president, I feel terrible. I put him in a position. He’s a man of incredible integrity. I think the world of him. He is so good for our country,” he said. “I should have said, ‘I don’t know. I can’t recall,’ which is the truth. Looking back, that’s what I should have done.”

Read more here.

"Political forces in the swamp keep the boil of controversy going regardless of the substance of the content behind it. Like Brennan implied, you don’t want those CIA folks to have a chip on their black-hatted shoulders because they can leak, and you cannot rebuke the leak without breaking the law and discussing classified information / briefings."

Sundance gives us his take on the Flynn controversy.

The Washington Post was the originating source of the ‘controversy’/’fiasco’. As previously stated numerous times, The Washington Post is the official leak-outlet for the political arm of the CIA. And the most politicized of all agents ever inside the CIA was John Brennan – a black hat extraordinaire.



The political agents within the “intelligence community”, ie. the Big Black Hats, took the position that General Michael Flynn must have lied to Vice President Pence because their interpretation of the phone call they intercepted was that Flynn did give some form (context and actual communication unknown) of forward assurance to the Russian emissary that a Trump administration would not approach the Russian Sanction issue (which, we should remember, is based on a non-existent vast Russian election hacking conspiracy) the same way as the Obama administration.

To wit, the pre-inaugural Trump intelligence community, politically motivated as they were, alerted President-elect Trump (through Sally Yates) that their opinion (baseline that Flynn lied) was such that Flynn had now opened himself up for blackmail from the Russians.

...It’s ridiculous, however it’s also simply how political forces in the swamp keep the boil of controversy going regardless of the substance of the content behind it. Like Brennan implied, you don’t want those CIA folks to have a chip on their black-hatted shoulders because they can leak, and you cannot rebuke the leak without breaking the law and discussing classified information / briefings.

It becomes a “he said, and You can’t say“; a one-way conversation with the insufferable media more than gleeful to sell an undermining narrative.

Dec 25th 2016 – Flynn talks to Russian counterpart
Dec 29th 2016 – Obama announces sanctions on Russia
Jan 15th 2017 – VP Pence appears on Face the nation.
Jan 20th 2017 – Inauguration
Jan 26th 2017 – Sally Yates (acting DOJ) informs President Trump there might be a conflict between VP Pence’s stated TV version (was told by Flynn), and what Intel community communicate to Yates that Flynn actually expressed.
Jan 27th 2017 – White House counsel begins investigation to discrepancy.
Unknown date – DOJ/White House Counsel investigation finds no violation of law in Flynn communication content w/ Russia and informs White House.
Legal issue Removed – Issue is: Did Flynn mislead President, Vice-President, and key White House staff on content of communication.
Feb 13th 2017 – White House accepts Flynn resignation

Read more here.

."The professional political class have inflicted a major wound and successfully removed part of the President Trump administration. Now there’s blood in the water."

So General Flynn has resigned. Why? Is it a good thing he's gone? Here is Ace of Spades:

It's suggested that the main reason for the resignation was that he had lied to Vice President Pence about the substance of his discussion with the Russian official. There's also chatter that Yates (the Obama AG holdover who refused to defend Trump's travel EO), Clapper, and Brennan had previously tried to warn Trump that Flynn was "blackmailable" by the Russians.

And oh boy, do those three subverters of democratically-elected government officials have a huge supply of credibility in my book.

Incidentally, I hear the loss of Flynn is no great loss anyway. Natsec people I know complain about him a lot. Yes, he famously broke with Obama. But there was a reason Obama appointed him in the first place -- he shares most of the assumptions of other liberal defense wonks, and (I hear, can't confirm) he or his people have worked to keep out more conservative people out of key natsec positions.

Like, there's a whole coterie of people who think saying "The Muslim Brotherhood is potentially dangerous and should not be placed into key natsec roles" is some kind of extremist rhetoric that can't be tolerated.

Actually, I hear that a lot of Trump's picks are kinda liberal-ish on foreign policy so there's a lot of resistance to letting the Barbarian Infidels into the city from a lot of different people, but I gotta think Flynn was either one of the gatekeepers or could have chosen to overrule other people keeping out clear-eyed conservatives, but chose not to.

To be honest, I've wanted him out of there since the transition.

Sundance writes at The Last Refuge,

The professional political class have inflicted a major wound and successfully removed part of the President Trump administration. Now there’s blood in the water; and when there’s blood in the water in DC – the odds of surviving the frenzy diminish bigly.

With the intoxicating blood lust permeating the air the circling Majority Swamp Media (MSM) prepare to launch their attack on the White House Press Secretary. Can the young and vulnerable Sean Spicer enter the gauntlet and survive the onslaught. Tune in at 1:00pm EST and see. Millions will be watching:

" ...With Mattis and Flynn at his side, Trump intends to bring down the Iranian regime as a first step toward securing an unconditional victory in the war against radical Islam."

Caroline Glick writes,

Mattis has a sterling reputation as a brilliant strategist and a sober-minded leader. His appointment has garnered plaudits across the ideological spectrum.

In 2013, US President Barack Obama summarily removed Mattis from his command as head of the US Military’s Central Command. According to media reports, Mattis was fired due to his opposition to Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran, first and foremost through his nuclear diplomacy. Mattis argued that Iran’s nuclear program was far from the only threat Iran constituted to the US and its allies. By empowering Iran through the nuclear deal, Obama was enabling Iran’s rise as a hegemonic power throughout the region.

Mattis’s dim view of Iran is shared by Trump’s choice to serve as his national security adviser. Lt. General Michael Flynn’s appointment has been met with far less enthusiasm among Washington’s foreign policy elites.

Tom Ricks of The New York Times, for instance, attacked Flynn as “erratic” in an article Saturday where he praised Mattis.

It is difficult to understand the basis for Ricks’ criticism. Flynn is considered the most talented intelligence officer of his generation. Like Mattis, Obama promoted Flynn only to fire him over disagreements regarding Obama’s strategy of embracing Iran and pretending away the war that radical Islamists are waging against the US and across the globe.

Flynn served under Obama as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in 2014 for his refusal to toe the administration’s mendacious lines that radical Islam is not the doctrine informing and inspiring the enemy, and that al-Qaida and its fellows are losing their war.

What Obama and his advisers didn’t want to hear about the US’s enemies and about how best to defeat them Flynn shared with the public in his recently published book Field of Fight, which he coauthored with Michael Ledeen, who served in various national security positions during the Reagan administration.

Flynn’s book is a breath of fresh air in the acrid intellectual environment that Washington has become during the Obama administration. Writing it in this intellectually corrupt atmosphere was an act of intellectual courage.

In Field of Fight, Flynn disposes of the political correctness that has dictated the policy discourse in Washington throughout the Bush and Obama administrations. He forthrightly identifies the enemy that the US is facing as “radical Islam,” and provides a detailed, learned description of its totalitarian ideology and supremacist goals. Noting that no strategy based on denying the truth about the enemy can lead to victory, Flynn explains how his understanding of the enemy’s doctrine and modes of operation enabled him to formulate strategies for winning the ground wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And win them he did. As he explains in his book, Flynn oversaw the transformation of the US’s strategies for fighting in both theaters from strategies based on top-down decapitation of the enemy’s leadership to a groundup destruction of the terrorist networks.

Flynn’s strategy, which worked in both countries, was based on the premise that it wasn’t enough to kill “high value” targets. The US needed to develop a granular understanding of the terrorist networks from the village level up the line. Only by taking out the local terrorist leaders would the US be able to destroy the ability of the likes of al-Qaida, the Iranian-controlled Shi’ite militias and the Taliban to quickly mobilize new forces and reignite fighting shortly after every successful US operation.

...For instance, Flynn argues, “It was a huge strategic mistake for the United States to invade Iraq militarily.”

Iran, he said was the main culprit in 2001 and remains the main enemy today.

“If, as we claimed, our basic mission after 9/11 was the defeat of the terrorists and their state sponsors then our primary target should have been Tehran, not Baghdad, and that method should have been political – support of the internal Iranian opposition.”

Flynn’s final major contribution to the intellectual discourse regarding the war is his blunt identification of the members of the enemy axis. Flynn states that the radical Islamic terrorist armies operate in cooperation with and at the pleasure of a state alliance dominated by Russia and Iran and joined by North Korea, Venezuela and other rogue regimes. Flynn’s frank discussion of Russia’s pivotal role in the alliance exposes the widely touted claims that he is somehow pro-Russian as utter nonsense.

...With Mattis and Flynn at his side, Trump intends to bring down the Iranian regime as a first step toward securing an unconditional victory in the war against radical Islam.

Read more here.