Mike Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI. Side note: Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI, repeatedly, but apparently, James Comey, arbiter of all that’s good and decent (just ask him) saw into her pure heart and decided she didn’t mean to lie or delete emails or destroy evidence like phones, iPads, and computers. See Comey’s ridiculous tweet post Mike Flynn news:
“But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24 https://t.co/o89PSY1YBd
— James Comey (@Comey) December 1, 2017
Is this a big deal? Lots of journalists and lefties (redundant) are salivating. National Review’s Andy McCarthy shares a note of caution:
Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.
To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.
Rumor is that Mike Flynn worried for his family finances and legal costs by resisting the charge.
Here’s a lawyer’s slight problem with McCarthy’s perspective:
/2 The reason is this: yes, you generally spell out the entire conspiracy in a cooperator’s guilty plea — in many cases. With more sophisticated cooperators, in white collar cases, you don’t always — you play the cards closer to the vest.
— Sign Popehat’s Yearbook (@Popehat) December 1, 2017
You can read more at his Twitter page.
It’s now known that Jared Kushner is the one who directed Flynn to talk to the the U.N. Security Council.
Will Mike Flynn bring down the Trump Administration or is this much ado about nothing? Don’t incoming administrations make connections to other governments?
By the way, Brian Ross is the only reporter saying that candidate Trump rather than President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact the Russians. The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin writes about Brian Ross’ relationship to the truth here. [Note, we transitioned the website from a different platform a year ago, thus the lack of comments.]
JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised “full cooperation to the Mueller team” and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump “directed him to make contact with the Russians.” https://t.co/aiagnvr8eS pic.twitter.com/r8u2LWAd0O
— ABC News (@ABC) December 1, 2017
Brian Ross is a lying liar who lies. Heres ABCs “clarification”. They can’t even call it a correction or better yet, retraction.
CLARIFICATION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* — initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZBTbc pic.twitter.com/GQAKwT1Eda
— ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017
Screenshot credit: CNN