Category Archives: Military

TRUCKER CRACKDOWN BEGINS: Wild Scenes in Canada As Military, SWAT, and Police are all Sent in to Make Arrests and Tow Away Vehicles At Ambassador Bridge (VIDEOS)

Julian Conradson
February 13th, 2022 

DISCLAIMER: This article contains the author’s opinion.

On Sunday, the Canadian military was sent in to assist law enforcement officials as they forcefully cleared out the Trucker Convoy protest from the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit.

Armed with a court order granted the day before, officers arrested dozens of protesters and towed away any vehicles that remained in the area.

Several peaceful protesters are now facing serious punishment, including possible fines of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to a year, and even the “permanent” loss of their driver’s licenses.

Police handed out fliers on Saturday night, detailing the punishments for continuing to blockade the Ambassador bridge.

Notice the last bulletpoint: “these measures will be permanent.” To add insult to injury, Trudeau and his stasi Goons are openly mocking the protesters for challenging his tyranny and demanding a ‘permanent’ end to mandates.

Seriously, screw this guy. F*ck Trudeau.

Despite the warnings, the brave Canadians remained, ready to take whatever punishment was coming to them.

Videos from earlier in the day on Sunday show police forming a perimeter around the main protest after they had announced they would begin making arrests at 11AM.

Watch:

From Windsor police:

“Enforcement continuing, individuals who are located within the demonstration area are subject to arrest. People are advised to immediately vacate the area.”

Following the establishment of the initial police line, Riot squads and SWAT teams were dispatched to provide additional assistance. This appears to be when law enforcement began making the initial arrests.

As the crackdown ensued, members of the Canadian Military also arrived on scene to facilitate the arrests.

In one video, military members can be seen flanking the police as they progress towards the crowd of protesters.

“SHAME! SHAME!” The convoy participants can be heard shouting.

Watch:

In another video that compiles several arrests, a handful of military members are seen marching into the protest area.

Police can also be seen manhandling an old man as they arrest him and pull others out of their trucks.

Watch:

This was a sweeping effort that was coordinated by all levels of law enforcement.

According to the Post Millennial:

“In a collaborative effort between police at the local and national levels, authorities moved in and “peacefully” arrested multiple protestors while seven vehicles were towed just after dawn, Windsor police said.”

This is tyranny, plain and simple.

Amid Ukraine Tension, US Deploys Nuclear-Ready B-52 Bombers to UK

Despite repeated warnings from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the U.S. is driving the rise of tensions at Ukraine’s eastern border, the U.S. Air Force has deployed four B-52 bombers with nuclear capabilities to the U.K., where one official acknowledged that the deployment is at least partially connected to Russia’s recent military activities.

Two B-52 Stratofortress aircrafts arrived at Royal Air Force Fairford on Thursday, with two more following. The bombers integrated with other NATO members’ forces en route to Fairford, according to the Air Force, including “British Typhoon aircraft and Portuguese F-16s currently assigned to NATO’s Icelandic Air Policing mission.”

The U.S. military downplayed the deployment, saying it was a “long-planned Bomber Task Force mission,” but one U.K. defense source told The Telegraph, “Is this aligned to current tensions? Yes and no.”

According to The Telegraph, a former British intelligence official noted that the Pentagon could launch air strikes from Fairford as it has before.

“From Fairford they could operate against a range of targets: troop concentrations in southern Russia and Belarus, Moscow/St. Petersburg, even the naval bases in the White Sea,” the former official told the outlet. “In 1991 they hit Baghdad from Fairford, flew on to Diego Garcia, refueled and rearmed, bombed Baghdad again on the way back, and returned to Fairford.”

The bombers sent from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota are capable of carrying precision-guided and nuclear weapons.

As the bombers arrived in the U.K., President Joe Biden warned in an interview with NBC News that American citizens in Ukraine and Russia should leave immediately while the U.S. State Department issued a notice that it would not be able to evacuate Americans in the event of military action by Russia.

“We’re dealing with one of the largest armies in the world,” Biden told Lester Holt. “Things could go crazy quickly.”

“That’s a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another,” the president added.

The U.S. has claimed Russia is poised to potentially launch an invasion of Ukraine, with tanks reaching Kyiv within 48 hours of beginning an attack at the border.

Russia’s military has been conducting exercises near the border for two days after having assembled troops there in recent months. Russian officials deny having plans to attack Ukraine and have called on the U.S. to guarantee that Ukraine, a former Soviet state, will not be permitted to join NATO and for the alliance to withdraw troops from Eastern European countries, as well as other security assurances. The U.S. has rejected those demands.

In addition to the B-52 bombers, the U.S. is deploying 1,700 troops to Poland, while British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace arrived in Moscow Friday for diplomatic talks.

In discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss called on Russian to pull back its military presence at the Ukrainian border and de-escalate the situation.

“You first have to prove to me that we are the ones who created this tense situation,” Lavrov said. “The West is trying to make a tragedy out of this, while, increasingly, it’s similar to a comedy.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters Friday that negotiations with the West are ongoing and that he will speak with French President Emmanuel Macron in the coming days for further diplomatic talks.

America’s Military Should be Used to Oppress The Unvaxed, Says Leading Utah Newspaper.

Natalie Winters 
January 16, 2022

The editorial board of the 152-year-old Salt Lake Tribune has demanded that Utah’s governor deploys the National Guard to ensure that individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 “would not be allowed anywhere.”

The use of one of America’s most storied publications to lobby in favor of the oppression of those unwilling to take an experimental “vaccine” represents one of the most disturbing developments in 2022.

In the January 15th op-ed – “Utah leaders have surrendered to COVID pandemic” – the outlet bemoans state leadership for “waiving the white flag of surrender in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic.” Amidst a litany of complaints against Republican Governor Spencer Cox, the Salt Lake Tribune proposes deploying the National Guard, a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, to “ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere”:

“We might have headed off omicron with a herd immunity-level of vaccinations, but that would have required a vaccination mandate, which our leaders refused. Instead, we get, “No one could have seen this coming.” That is patently untrue. They were told what to do, and they refused.

Were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor’s next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.

But it may be too late for that, politically and medically.”

The outlet’s six-person editorial board includes former Governor and failed presidential candidate Jon Huntsman’s son, who bought in The Salt Lake Tribune 2016.

Dave Patel, who served as the Director of National Operations at the Department of Defense’s Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve under President George W. Bush, is also a member of the Editorial Board along with Michelle Quist, an attorney who has been a Utah Republican Party county and state officer.

Quist frequently pens op-eds in defense of “Never Trump” Senator Mitt Romney for the paper, including a piece on May 6th, 2021 lamenting former President Donald Trump’s influence on the Republican party:

“Why did they boo Romney? Because they’re unhappy with his votes for impeachment. Trump, again. And the Big Lie,” she explained before demanding: “Get. Over. It.”

While attacking Utah lawmakers fighting for election integrity, she praised Romney’s objection to the cause in an op-ed on January 15th, 2021:

On the bright side, Utah does have a senator — Sen. Mitt Romney — who was recognized nationally not only for standing up to Trump’s lies about the stolen election before the insurrection but even more eloquently after.

So, for Utah, it’s still an unanswered question as to whether our leaders will put country before party or themselves before all. And if they can’t refine a character like Romney’s, then any good we do will be quickly discredited by those who represent us.

The outlet’s call on the military to be used against unvaccinated Americans follows increasingly strict restrictions surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations and the ability to work and access businesses.

RUSKI BOOGEYMAN: Pentagon Plans For “Actionable” Intelligence Sharing With Ukraine If “Russians Attack”

Pentagon officials claim it’s all about “avoiding escalation” – but surely the Kremlin will see the revelations in this recent New York Times report very differently: “The Pentagon is working on a plan to provide Ukraine with battlefield intelligence that could help the country more quickly respond to a possible Russian invasion, senior administration officials said.”

This weekend Russia’s military announced the withdrawal of some 10,000 troops from near the Ukrainian border at the conclusion of what it dubbed “training drills”. But Kiev and Washington officials have been asking about some 100,000 additional forces said to be mustered in the region. Contrary to claims that an “invasion” is set for some point in January, there are significant signs this is the beginning of de-escalation

The NY Times report frames the currently in the works Pentagon planning as a contingency that would enable Washington to help thwart any Russian incursion into Donbas “in real-time”. But to most common sense outside observers, it appears a recipe for ensuring the US would get directly sucked into to any Russia-Ukraine shooting war

This further follows on the heels of Ukraine’s army showing off its guided anti-tank Javelin missiles, last week deployed in ‘live-fire’ exercises near a pro-Russia separatist region. But by all accounts, a robust intelligence sharing plan would mark a huge escalation in US military and intelligence involvement. NY Times writes:

But the proposal at the Pentagon for “actionable” intelligence is potentially more significant, two U.S. officials said. The information would include images of whether Russian troops were moving to cross the border. Such information, if shared in time, could enable the Ukrainian military to head off an attack.

The real-time nature of the sharing would also be clearly geared toward ensuring that Washington doesn’t hear about a sudden “Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine” in the newspapers the next day. While it’s not explicitly stated in the report, any authorization of such a program would more than likely involve a covert US intelligence presence on the ground in the region (of course, this very likely has already long been the case).

As described by one top former Obama admin official, Evelyn Farkas, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, “The number one thing we can do is real-time actionable intelligence that says, ‘The Russians are coming over the berm,'”. She added: “We tell them, and they use that to target the Russians.”

But if the Russian military knew such US targeting assistance were the case, it would immediately deem the US a direct party and aggressor in the conflict, opening up the possibility of a rapidly internationalized regional war centered on Ukraine. 

Meanwhile, the list of Pentagon “options” being drawn up doesn’t stop there:

The list of ideas being drawn up at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House include redirecting helicopters and other military equipment once allocated for the Afghan military to Ukraine, officials said. The administration is also considering sending additional cyberwarfare experts to Ukraine. The United States and Britain have sent some experts to shore up defenses in case Mr. Putin launches a cyberstrike on Ukraine either in advance or instead of a ground invasion.

The delay in actually implementing the US plan is tied precisely to fears that Putin would see it as enough of a serious provocation to set invasion plans in motion…

A lot if this will likely depend on whether Russia and US-NATO talks planned for next month actually materialize. Last week the Russian side made public what it says are agreed upon talks for “security guarantees” related to NATO eastward expansion, to be held in Geneva.

However, the White House has been much more vague so far on its level of commitment to the talks, with Jen Psaki days ago being unable to confirm where or when the talks would take place. 

NORAD Plans Air Defense Exercise for National Capital Region

Ryan DeLarme,
January 13th, 2021

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has announced that it will be conducting “Falcon Virgo”, a routine air defense exercise, on Thursday, January 14, through Friday, January 15, and again on Monday, January 25, through Tuesday, January 26, between midnight and 5:30 a.m. EST each day in the National Capital Region.

Patriots remain in the dark about any potential ongoing operations and disinformation campaigns seem to be at an all time high in the wake of mass censorship, so we’ve taken to reporting on things that can be seen and verified. The exercise is being described as a “routine air defense exercise” and we make no claim that is anything but a simple routine exercise, but it may still inspire hope or comfort to some that the good people in our military are preparing to defend the country while global tensions are high, especially considering that rival nations appear to have a lot at stake in this election.

Related Evidence of Biden Payments from China Support Tony Bobulinski and Show the Bidens Made Millions Swindling America

Related Senators Release New Evidence Tying Hunter Biden Business to Communist China, Russian Energy

Related Nancy Pelosi Admits China Wants Joe Biden to Be Elected President (VIDEO)

The aircraft participating in the flight exercise include Air Force F-16 aircraft, an Army UC-35A aircraft, a Navy King Air 300 aircraft, a Coast Guard MH-65D Dolphin helicopter, and Civil Air Patrol Cessna 182T general aviation aircraft. Some portions of the exercise could involve flights at approximately 2,500 feet and may be visible from the ground. If weather prevents regularly scheduled flights, the exercise will commence Jan. 27.

NORAD routinely conducts exercises with a variety of scenarios, including airspace restriction violations, hijackings, and responses to unknown aircraft. All NORAD exercises are carefully planned and closely controlled.

NORAD on Falcon Virgo:

“Falcon Virgo is a recurring exercise in support of Operation NOBLE EAGLE, which places emphasis on the surveillance and control of airspace over Canada and the United States. The defense of North America is NORAD’s top priority and NORAD remains on alert around the clock, every day. This exercise is a part of NORAD’s routine training program.

For more than 60 years, NORAD aircraft have identified and intercepted potential air threats to North America in the execution of its aerospace warning and aerospace control missions, and maintain a watchful eye over Canadian and U.S. internal waterways and maritime approaches under its maritime warning mission.”

US to Withdraw Over 2,000 Troops From Iraq

ZACHARY STIEBER 
September 9, 2020

The United States plans to withdraw 2,200 troops from Iraq before the end of September, a top U.S. official said Wednesday.

“We are continuing to expand on our partner capacity programs that enable Iraqi forces and allow us to reduce our footprint in Iraq,” Marine General Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, said during a visit to Iraq.

The drawdown will take the number of American forces to 3,000.

A senior administration official told reporters on Air Force One late Tuesday that there would be an announcement regarding further troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The official also said there would be an announcement concerning Afghanistan in the coming days.

President Donald Trump was returning to Washington from a rally in North Carolina.

Trump told those assembled: “We kept America out of new wars and we are bringing our troops back home. We are bringing them back home from these faraway places.”

The United States and Iraq in June affirmed their commitment to the reduction of U.S. troops in the country in coming months, with no plans by Washington to maintain permanent bases or a permanent military presence.

In 2016 Trump campaigned on ending America’s “endless wars.” U.S. troops remain in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, albeit in smaller numbers.

Trump told reporters during an Aug. 20 meeting with Iraq’s prime minister that, at some point, the United States will be completely withdrawn from Iraq.

“We have been taking our troops out of Iraq fairly rapidly, and we look forward to the day when we don’t have to be there. And hopefully Iraq can live their own lives and they can defend themselves, which they’ve been doing long before we got involved,” he said.

Iraqi officials have mulled ousting U.S. troops, but have not done so.

Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi asked in January for the United States to prepare to withdraw troops but later said he’d leave the decision to his successor.

Trump’s meeting was with Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, who succeeded Abdul-Mahdi. The new prime minister praised the United States for helping defeat ISIS, the terror group, and in toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The United States withdrew troops from Afghanistan earlier this year, meeting an agreed upon target of 8,600.

Reuters contributed to this report.Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

Judge Sets Date for Hearing in Flynn Case on Motion to Dismiss

JANITA KAN 
September 5, 2020

The federal judge presiding over the case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser, has set a hearing date to resolve the Justice Department’s (DOJ) request to dismiss the case.

In a late-night order, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan granted a motion to set an earlier deadline for the case and set a teleconference hearing for oral arguments on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss on Sept. 29.

As part of the order, former federal Judge John Gleeson, who was appointed by Sullivan as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue against the dismissal, is to submit his arguments by Sept. 11.

This comes after the full court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a request to intervene in the case and sent the case back to Sullivan to consider whether to accept the DOJ’s request to dismiss Flynn’s prosecution.

Flynn’s case is central in shaping the unsubstantiated allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in December 2017 about his calls with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. He later withdrew his plea prior to sentencing.

The case received national attention in recent months after the DOJ released documents, including, handwritten notes that revealed top officials in the agency had questioned whether the goal of questioning Flynn during an interview was to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Records also disclosed as part of the case showed that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were directly involved in discussions about the investigation during the transition period in early January 2017.

The DOJ later determined that the calls between Flynn and Kislyak were legitimate and that the FBI had no legitimate purpose question him about them, other than trying to catch him in a lie, which isn’t a proper investigative purpose.

Federal prosecutors then moved to dismiss the case but Sullivan refused to accept the dismissal and has instead pushed for further proceedings, including appointing Gleeson to determine whether Flynn should be charged with contempt of court for withdrawing his plea.

Flynn’s legal team then asked the appeals court to step in and demand that Sullivan accept that dismissal. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of Flynn but upon appeal to the full court, the court reversed and remanded the case back to Sullivan.

Petr Svab and Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan

Afghanistan Frees Nearly 200 Taliban Prisoners to Push Peace Talks

Hamid Shalizi and Abdul Qadir Sediqi
September 2, 2020

KABUL—Afghanistan has freed nearly 200 Taliban prisoners to spur long-delayed peace talks, as a team of negotiators readies to fly this week to Qatar’s capital, Afghan officials said on Wednesday.

The prisoners formed part of a group of 400 jailed “hardcore” Islamist separatists whose stalled release had appeared set to delay talks between the government and the insurgent group to end nearly two decades of war.

“The Afghan government has released another batch of the remaining Taliban prisoners and the work is still underway to move the prisoner exchange process forward,” Sediq Sediqqi, a spokesman for President Ashraf Ghani, said in a statement.

He did not give the exact number, however. Two officials said the releases from the main jail in the capital Kabul took place on Monday and Tuesday, at the same time that the Taliban freed six Afghan special forces.

About 120 prisoners remain to be freed in line with Taliban demands, including six whose release some Western governments, including Australia, have objected to.

A government-mandated negotiation team is likely to fly on Thursday to Doha, the initial venue for negotiations, said Fraidoon Kwazoon, the spokesman for Abdullah Abdullah, the head of the High Council for National Reconciliation.

“Tomorrow the team is leaving for Doha,” he told Reuters, without saying when talks were expected to start.

The 400 prisoners were the last of 5,000 whose release was agreed in a February pact between the United States and the Taliban allowing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The release was a condition for the start of talks between the Taliban and the government, which also wants the militants to free 24 members of the Afghan special forces and pilots.

The government was reluctant to release the last 400 prisoners, whom it blamed for involvement in some of the worst violence. After freeing 80 last month, it delayed further releases as the Taliban dismissed calls for a ceasefire.

Wednesday’s release came amid a surge in Taliban violence and clashes with Afghan troops. In eastern Paktia province, a Taliban car bomb killed three Afghan security forces, a regional official said, while elsewhere, the defense ministry said, 24 Taliban were killed in the last 24 hours.

Thousands of Afghan security forces and civilians have been killed since the February peace deal, data from the United Nations, and the government shows.

By Hamid Shalizi and Abdul Qadir Sediqi

The Michael Flynn Saga Reveals Democrats’ Near-Coup Use Of Federal Power

Margot Cleveland
AUGUST 28, 2020


For the last year, the discussion of the Russia collusion hoax as it relates to Michael Flynn has focused on the criminal case against President Trump’s former national security advisor. Now, all eyes remain fixed on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two weeks ago it heard, en banc, oral argument to decide whether to direct presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn.

To Flynn and his family, the criminal jeopardy he faced because of the perjury trap set by Obama administration holdovers is the most concerning. Reasonable Americans of goodwill should be horrified by the personal harm inflicted on the retired lieutenant general and his loved ones.

However, the criminal case is but half the scandal, and the mostly unexamined portion of the plot to force Flynn’s ouster from the Trump administration threatens a more lasting harm to our constitutional republic and the peaceful transition of power.

Political Opposition Sought to Decide a President’s Staff

That the Trump Resistance sought Flynn’s firing seems clear from the evidence. The day before then-FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his colleague Joe Pientka questioned Flynn about Flynn’s telephone conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, the Crossfire Hurricane team met to discuss the strategy.

On the morning of the interview, on January 24, 2017, Assistant Director of FBI Counterintelligence Bill Priestap apparently had second thoughts. “I believe we should rethink this,” notes from a follow-up meeting read. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

It now appears the primary goal was the ouster of the newly appointed national security advisor. What is less clear, however, is who plotted this plan or knowingly participated in its execution.

A brief exchange between Attorney General William Barr and Fox News’ Mark Levin three Sundays ago suggested these lines of inquiry. About halfway through the hour-long interview, Levin asked the attorney general about the Flynn case. Barr explained how he had appointed U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn case after Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, began accusing the Department of Justice of misconduct.

“Everyone who knew anything about that case thought it was hinky,” Barr explained. “It didn’t all add up,” he continued, “because the call, on its face”—referring to the late December 2016 call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador—“was a perfectly legitimate call for the incoming national security advisor to make.”

Jensen, whom Barr stressed had 10 years as an FBI agent then another ten years as a career prosecutor prior to his appointment as a U.S. attorney, “found a lot of things that had not come to light before.” “For example,” Barr continued, the evidence “showed clearly that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying.”

Significantly, Barr then added: “Now, this was later minimized in testimony as suggesting ‘Well, they meant he didn’t break out into sweat and his eye pupils didn’t contract, that’s all they were saying.’” “No,” Barr declared emphatically. “They were saying he didn’t believe he thought he was lying at the time.”

So, who stated in congressional testimony that the interviewing FBI agents, Pientka and Strzok, merely meant Flynn had not shown any indicia of lying? James Comey.

Comey Switches Testimony on Whether Flynn Lied

First, just a little more than a month after Pientka and Strzok interviewed Flynn, Comey testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. During his March 2, 2017 testimony, Comey stated, “I talked to them about this,” referring to their interview of Flynn, and “they discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.” Comey added that after the interview, the agents “drafted a 302 and reported to me and the deputy director.”

Then on December 7, 2018, Comey testified before the House Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight. During that hearing, Comey was asked whether “either of those agents, or both,” had told him “they did not adduce an intent to deceive from their interview with General Flynn.” Comey said “no.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy then asked Comey what Pientka and Strzok had relayed back concerning Flynn’s intent to deceive. “My recollection was,” Comey stated, “the conclusion of the investigators was he was obviously lying, but they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception: that is hesitancy to answer, shifting in seat, sweating, all the things that you might associate with someone who is conscious and manifesting that they are being—they’re telling falsehoods. There’s no doubt he was lying, but that those indicators weren’t there” (emphasis added).

Comey added that he recalled telling the House Intelligence Committee earlier “that the agents observed none of the common indicia of lying — physical manifestations, changes in tone, changes in pace — that would indicate the person I’m interviewing knows they’re telling me stuff that ain’t true.” “They didn’t see that here,” Comey explained. Rather, “it was a natural conversation, answered fully their questions, didn’t avoid. That notwithstanding, they concluded he was lying,” Comey unequivocally affirmed.

When Comey told Congress that the FBI agents “concluded he was lying,” Flynn was on the cusp of being sentenced for supposedly lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Just three days prior, the special counsel’s office had filed its sentencing memorandum with the court, maintaining that because of Flynn’s “substantial assistance and other considerations set forth below, a sentence at the low end of the guideline range—including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration—is appropriate and warranted.” For all intents and purposes, the Flynn case was over.

But when Flynn appeared before Judge Sullivan for sentencing on December 18, 2018, the judge exploded, suggesting the retired lieutenant general had sold out his country and possibly committed treason. Sullivan then suggested Flynn might face jail time if sentencing proceeded. Flynn wisely agreed to delay the sentencing hearing. Then, six months later, Flynn fired the attorneys who had represented him during the Mueller investigation and hired Powell.

Evidence Comey Never Thought Would Surface

Powell immediately demanded the DOJ provide all material relevant to the case against Flynn. Little of significance was forthcoming, though, until Barr tasked Jensen with reviewing the case. Jensen later released several pieces of exculpatory material that Comey likely never expected would see the light of day when he testified before Congress that the agents concluded Flynn was lying.

That evidence included handwritten notes dated January 25, 2017, that stated the FBI assessed that yes, Flynn made false and inaccurate statements, “but believed that Flynn believes that what he said was true,” and that the FBI concluded that Flynn was “largely telling truth as he believed it.”

A typed “Draft Work Product” dated January 30, 2017 was even more explicit, stating that on January 25, 2017, the FBI had briefed the National Security Division and Office of Deputy Attorney General staff on their interview.” The “FBI advised that they believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true.”

Was Comey present for the debrief at which these notes were taken? Did he receive the Draft Work Product that stated the FBI “believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true?” And what, if anything, did Strzok, Pientka, or others tell Comey?

While in his first time testifying on the Hill, Comey noted he had spoken with the agents, during his follow-up testimony, Comey said while that was possible, his recollection was that he had “spoke[n] to people who had spoken to the investigators themselves.”

Here, the recently declassified 302 interview summary of the special counsel’s July 19, 2017, interview of Strzok provides some help. According to the 302, Strzok stated that following the interview of Flynn, he and Pientka “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.” Significantly, Strzok then told the special counsel’s office that after the interview, they “returned to FBI Headquarters and briefed [Andrew] McCabe and Baker on the interview. McCabe briefed Comey.”

So did McCabe mislead Comey, leading Comey to falsely testify that the FBI agents concluded Flynn “was lying?” Or did Comey know the truth based on his conversations with Strzok or Pientka, or reading the reports?

Comey and Yates Misinformed or Lying

These questions matter, and not merely because an affirmative to any of them would call into question the veracity of Comey’s congressional testimony. Rather, they also matter because someone (or many individuals) similarly misinformed Obama Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates: Yates apparently did not know that the agents who interviewed Flynn believed Flynn thought he was accurately recounting his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Specifically, the 302 interview summary for Yates read: “Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer readout the following day. . . . Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself but understood from others that their assessment was that Flynn showed no ‘tells’ of lying and it was possible he really did not remember the substance of his calls with Kislyak. On the other hand, the DOJ prosecutors were very skeptical that Flynn would forget the discussion.”

The 302 summary of Yates’s interview further noted that Yates reiterated that, in hearing about the interview, “the DOJ prosecutors thought Flynn was lying, but the FBI didn’t say he wasn’t lying, just that he didn’t exhibit any ‘tells’ that he was lying.”

Yates’s 302 further noted that McCabe had discussed the FBI’s interview of Flynn with Yates. So, it would seem that McCabe also failed to tell Yates that the FBI agents did not think Flynn was lying. Given that Strzok and Pientka briefed McCabe after interviewing Flynn, it is inconceivable that they did not inform McCabe of their assessment that Flynn was not lying.

Did McCabe Lie, Or Did McCord, or Both?

But from declassified materials, it appears that it was not merely McCabe who failed to inform Yates of that important fact. Rather, Mary McCord, who served as the head of the DOJ’s National Security Division, appears to have likewise omitted this significant detail in briefing Yates.

McCord’s 302 stated that “following the Flynn interview, Priestap, Strzok, [Pientka], and FBI General Counsel went to the DOJ to brief them on the interview.” During this meeting, according to McCord’s 302 summary, “Strzok provided a readout of the Flynn interview, since he and another agent had conducted it.”

While McCord’s 302 statement was unclear on what exactly Strzok and Pientka told the DOJ representatives, declassified notes taken by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar reveal that during a read-out on January 25, 2017, Strzok and Pientka told McCord (and others) that the FBI assessed that “Flynn believes that what he said was true,” and was being forthright with the agents. The typed Draft Work Product also confirmed that during the January 25, 2017 briefing, the “FBI advised that they believed Flynn believed what he was saying was true.”

Yet it appears that McCord did not inform Yates of this significant fact because, as noted above, Yates’s 302 stated that Yates “did not speak to the interviewing agents herself but understood from others that their assessment was that Flynn showed no ‘tells’ of lying and it was possible he really did not remember the substance of his calls with Kislyak.” Significantly, Yates then said, “the DOJ prosecutors thought Flynn was lying, but the FBI didn’t say he wasn’t lying, just that he didn’t exhibit any ‘tells’ that he was lying.”

Not only did McCord apparently mislead Yates concerning the FBI agents’ assessment of Flynn’s veracity, according to Yates, McCord was “effectively ‘cross examining’ the statements Flynn made to the interviewing agents as compared to the transcripts.” But McCord did more than leave Yates uninformed or misled about the FBI agents’ view that Flynn had not lied: McCord inaccurately summarized the transcript of the calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador for Yates.

According to McCord’s 302 summary, following Strzok and Pientka’s questioning of Flynn, “McCord reviewed the Flynn transcripts and pulled out excerpts for Yates to reference in the discussion with the White House Counsel’s Office, should they be necessary.” Then, on “January 26, 2017, McCord accompanied Yates to the White House, where they met with White House Counsel Don McGahn and another attorney from his office, James Burham.”

Another Lie: That Flynn Discussed Sanctions

McCord further stated, as summarized in the 302 summary, that Yates “told them that the conversations made it clear that there were discussions on Russian sanctions in those calls, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on TV.”

But as all Americans (who don’t limit themselves to corporate media reporting) now know with the declassification of the transcripts of Flynn’s calls to Kisylak, Flynn did not discuss Russian sanctions with the Russian ambassador. So Flynn could not possibly have lied to the FBI or to Vice President Mike Pence about discussing sanctions with Kisylak.

So why did Yates think otherwise? Did McCord, who “reviewed the Flynn transcripts” and “pulled out excerpts for Yates” in preparation for the meeting, also mislead Yates about Flynn’s conversation with the ambassador? If so, was it intentional, or was McCord merely a victim of her own confirmation bias?

There is no doubt McCord held a bias: “When McCord left DOJ she was hired by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, serving ‘front and center’ in the whistleblower fraud run by Schiff that later led to the failed attempt to impeach president Trump.”

Intentional or not, Yates regurgitated the false claim to McGahn that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kisylak and then implied that Flynn had lied to Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. President Trump, believing Flynn had lied to the vice president, then fired Flynn, which was clearly the goal.

Another Tell in Comey’s Testimony

Comey unwittingly gave away the game when he testified before Congress that nothing had happened after President Obama raised Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador during a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting also attended by Yates. Comey testified that the following day he had briefed Yates on the calls, and then “nothing, to my mind, happens until the 13th of January, when David Ignatius publishes a column that contains a reference to communications Michael Flynn had with the Russians.”

The reason “nothing happened” was because there was nothing wrong with Flynn’s calls. They were “legitimate,” as Comey put it at the time. It was the illegal leak of the classified intel to Ignatius of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak that threatened Flynn’s position in the White House, and then only because the FBI questioned Flynn instead of asking him about the transcripts, or sharing the transcripts with the White House to allow the Trump administration to broach the issue with Flynn.

Flynn’s fate, however, was sealed when Yates conveyed to the White House that Flynn had lied to Pence and had been questioned by the FBI. Even then, had Yates conveyed the truth—that the agents believed Flynn had not lied—the Trump administration might have resolved the situation differently.

Instead, though, Obama administration holdovers and partisan career employees succeeded in causing the ouster of the new administration’s pick for national security advisor. And that plot only succeeded because of illegally leaked classified intel. These facts shake the foundation of our constitutional republic and threaten the peaceful transitions of power, and will be a blot on our country’s history long after Flynn obtains some semblance of justice.

Further, the targeting of Flynn was but one thread of the Obama-Biden administration’s attempt to interfere with the Trump administration. The spying on the transition team, the failure to provide Trump defensive briefings, the attempt to sidestep Trump’s attorneys general—successful with Jeff Sessions, but not Barr—and the weaponization of whistleblowing laws to impeach the duly elected president represent the most destructive attack on our government ever.

Come November 2020, Americans should make clear that such interference in their freely chosen commander-in-chief will not profit.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

11,900 US Troops Leaving Germany; 6,400 Returning Home

JULY 29, 2020 
RYAN MORGAN

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates as more information becomes available.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced Wednesday the U.S. is set to withdraw around 6,400 troops from Germany and shift move nearly 5,600 troops from Germany to other countries in Europe.

Esper’s announcement comes amid calls from President Donald Trump to reduce the number of troops in Germany. The reduction of approximately 11,900 troops from Germany will reduce the number of U.S. troops in the country from around 36,000 to 24,000.

“The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth,” Esper said of the plan. “Of the 11,900, nearly 5,600 Service members will be repositioned within NATO countries, and approximately 6,400 will return to the United States, though many of these or similar units will begin conducting rotational deployments back to Europe.”

While various U.S. units return home, Esper said units similar to the ones leaving Europe will begin making rotational deployments around the continent going forward. Esper said the plan is to consolidate U.S. headquarters in countries in Europe outside Germany, such as NATO bases in Belgium and Italy. He said, “This will strengthen NATO and improve the operational efficiency and readiness of over 2,000 Service members.”

Esper said around 4,500 of the U.S. troops returning home would be members of 2nd Cavalry Regiment, while similar Stryker units will head further east and around the Black Sea, reinforcing NATO’s presence in a key area between Russia and continental Europe. A fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will also shift from Germany to Italy, positioning those fighters closer to the Black Sea Region.

Another 2,500 airmen based in Mildenhall, U.K., who were scheduled to re-base to Germany, will remain in the U.K.

Esper also confirmed some troops will be sent to Poland, in line with a troop movement suggested by Trump last month during a press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda.

The decision to move troops from Germany comes as Trump has pressured the NATO ally to contribute more to the alliance. In his remarks last month, Trump said Germany is “paying a very small fraction of what they are supposed to be paying” and that they have had a “tremendous delinquency.”

Despite the approximate net 6,400 troops leaving Europe altogether, Esper emphasized U.S. forces in Europe are making the troop shifts in a way that meets five strategic goals he set out: enhancing deterrence of Russia, strengthening NATO, keeping allies reassured of a U.S. presence in Europe, improving U.S. strategic flexibility and European Command (EUCOM) operational flexibility, caring for service members and their families in the process.