Subscribe to EIR Online


Mueller Throws Pile of Crap at Michael Flynn; Media Sucks It Up and Amplifies It

Dec. 14, 2018 (EIRNS)—The Special Counsel made his submission to Judge Emmet Sullivan at 3:00 p.m. Friday, about Michael Flynn. It is a typical Robert Mueller show, seeking to protect out-of-control agents and lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice, who behaved criminally in this case, to justify his own criminal actions, and to feed the fake narrative that the President is, overall, in deep legal kimchee.

As most know by now, Judge Sullivan is exploring whether Flynn was set up, entrapped, framed, for the false statements to which he pled guilty and for which he is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 18, 2018. What else the judge is exploring is unclear. On Dec. 12, Judge Sullivan ordered Mueller to produce all documents by Dec. 14 relevant to an FBI interview of Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017, in which he made the alleged false statements. The judge got only two documents, at least on the public court record, from Mueller: The Jan. 24, 2017 memo written by fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe setting up the interview (in redacted form), and a July 19, 2017 FD 302 consisting of Mueller’s interview with fired and disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok who conducted the interview of Michael Flynn. The Mueller/Strzok 302 was written a full six months after the event and, itself, refers to an existing FD 302 written by the interviewing agents shortly after they returned from speaking with Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017. That first FD 302 was not produced on Friday, Dec. 14, 2018 on the public docket. It is clear from the public accounts of that 302, including the Mueller/Strzok reconstruction of July 19, 2017 which was produced, that the agents strongly argued and believed that Flynn did not lie to them. This assessment had also been stated to the Congress in March 2017, by fired FBI Director James Comey.

“Relevant documents,” as Judge Sullivan ordered be produced, is a legal term of art and involves a very broad category of documents. “Relevant” means anything proving or tending to prove a fact in dispute, in this case, whether or not Flynn was set up or deliberately entrapped. Here are the documents which we already know about which would be “relevant” to the Jan. 24, 2017 meeting with Flynn:

  1. The demand from British intelligence, specifically from former MI6 director Richard Dearlove, Stefan Halper, Christopher Steele and others, conveyed to the Obama Administration, that Flynn be fired from the Defense Intelligence Agency because he was “soft” on Russia, while falsely claiming and insinuating that Flynn was too chummy with a Russian-born professor at a Cambridge Security Forum event Flynn attended, spreading filthy gossip about this throughout the intelligence community. The actual reason for their targeting Flynn, however, was his opposition to the British/Obama Administration support for outright Islamic terrorists in the Southwest Asia, specifically their campaign of regime-change coups known as the Arab Spring. Flynn knew who did what crime and when they did it.

  2. The actual predication for investigating Michael Flynn as one of four targets in the FBI’s bogus Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, opened in July 2016, and otherwise known as “Russiagate.” The FBI investigation itself was the product of British demands and CIA/MI6 activities, including surveillance, infiltration, and entrapment activities directed against Trump’s presidential campaign because Trump pledged to end the U.S. role as world policeman and establish decent relations with Russia. The MI6/Christopher Steele dirty dossier on Trump, paid for by Hillary Clinton, was the backbone of the entire FBI counterintelligence investigation.

  3. The contacts between the Washington Post and the FBI and/or the Justice Department concerning the perfectly legal conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016. Someone leaked the contents of the classified intercept of that conversation to the Post’s David Ignatius with General Flynn’s name unmasked. The leaker or leakers committed two felonies, one for the unmasking and another for leaking the contents of classified intercepts. The Post article asked whether Flynn had undercut Obama’s sanctions against Russia for allegedly interfering in the election and whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act in his perfectly legal discussions with the Russian Ambassador.

  4. The missing documents in the chain here. The two documents produced publicly confirm that Andy McCabe instructed the agents to keep Flynn relaxed, told Flynn he did not need counsel, did not directly confront him with discrepancies or allow him to correct his statements, and deliberately decided not to give him standard warnings that this was an interview in which what he said could be used to prosecute him. On Sunday, Dec. 9, James Comey bragged to Nicole Wallace about all of this, saying that given the disorganization in the first weeks of the administration, he deliberately sent the agents to the White House, setting all protocols and rules aside, because he thought, he “could get away with it.” There have to be many documents reflecting Comey’s discussions with McCabe and DOJ officials about the White House visit. There is the missing 302 concluding that Flynn did not lie. There are obviously other documents showing why Mueller revisited the Jan. 24, 2017 frameup meeting after all of this, and they will not be favorable to Mueller or the Department of Justice.

Back to top