by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche PAC:
The Special Counsel made his submission to Judge Emmett 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. Mueller’s minions do this by smearing, again, Michael Flynn, repeating the refrain: liar, liar, liar. Even Fox on Friday, in its anti-Trump Shephard Smith segment, was eating up Mueller’s cheap and poisonous spew. Clearly, the establishment is very, very freaked out that an actual Judge might end this national horror show.
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 December 18, 2018. What else the Judge is exploring is unclear. On December 12th, Judge Sullivan ordered Mueller to produce all documents relevant to an interview of Flynn at the White House on January 24, 2017, in which he made the alleged false statements. He got only two documents, at least on the public court record, from Mueller: the January 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 the Flynn interview on January 24, 2017. That first FD 302 was not produced Friday on the public docket. It is clear from the public accounts of that 302, including the Mueller/Strzok reconstruction of July 19th which was produced, that the agents strongly argued and believed that Flynn did not lie to them. This assessment was repeated 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 January 24, 2017 meeting with Flynn:
(1). The demand from British intelligence, specifically from Richard Dearlove, Stefan Halper, Christopher Steele and others, conveyed to the Obama Administration, that Flynn be fired from the DIA 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 of Flynn, however, was his opposition to the British/Obama Administration support of outright Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, 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 of 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 US 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 Kislyak on December 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.
The absurd citation to the 1799 Logan Act, which is unconstitutional and has never been enforced, did not spontaneously leap from David Ignatius’ profound understanding of 18th century national security laws. Ignatius is a dutiful scribe for the intelligence community, and also produces his own fiction. He is not a lawyer. But the Logan Act was the absurd pretext adopted by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and others for setting Flynn up. Relevant documents here include any documents indicating that the felonies involved in this leak were ever investigated.
Third year law students know that in order to avoid a valid claim of illegal entrapment, prosecutors must demonstrate that any target has a predisposition to commit a crime. Given what we now know about the pursuit of Michael Flynn, it is extremely possible that Flynn’s entrapment by the DOJ involved setting up the Post article itself in the hopes that Flynn would respond by denying a discussion about sanctions with Kislyak, thereby creating their figleaf of “predisposition.” We know also that the FBI and DOJ had the full Flynn/Kislyak transcript.
In fact, predisposition is exactly what Mueller’s argues in his attempt to deflect Judge Sullivan’s attention from the gross prosecutorial abuse here. Mueller, says that Flynn denied that he discussed Obama’s sanctions for election interference with Kislyak, to transition officials who he asked to deny the Post story, and to Vice-President Pence, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who responded to an onslaught of press inquiries generated by the planted story in the Post. Ergo, Mueller argues, before the fateful January 24th meeting, Flynn had already decided he was going to lie, was predisposed, and whatever the FBI did with respect to the meeting is really of no moment.
(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 Thursday, James Comey bragged 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 Flynn did not lie. There are obviously other documents showing why Mueller revisited the January 24th frameup meeting after all of this and they will not be favorable to Mueller or the Department of Justice.