Tag Archives: General Flynn

Michael Flynn: “Please Read this ENTIRE Article” Exposing Twitters Big Secret

Editors Note: Former Director of National Intelligence and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn, posted an article on his Telegram Channel Monday morning. The article appears to expose what could be Twitter’s most damaging and eye-opening secret. His message reads as follows:

“Please read this ENTIRE article & expand your imagination. If free reign over our data & our lives have been given to a totalitarian group of despots inside the tech companies combined with a group of fascist USG bureaucratic insiders & crooked politicians, we no longer function as a democracy. This is what needs to be investigated.”


Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop

The metaphorical Jack had a great idea, to open a coffee shop where the beverages were free and use internal advertising as the income subsidy to operate the business.  Crowds came for the free coffee, comfy couches, fellowship, conversation and enjoyment.

It didn’t matter where Jack got the coffee, how he paid for it, or didn’t, or what product advertising the customers would be exposed to while there.  Few people thought about such things.  Curiously, it didn’t matter what size the crowd was; in the backroom of Jack’s Coffee Shop they were able to generate massive amounts of never-ending free coffee at extreme scales.

Over time, using the justification of parking lot capacity and township regulations, not everyone would be able to park and enter.  Guards were placed at the entrance to pre-screen customers. A debate began.

Alternative coffee shops opened around town.  It was entirely possible to duplicate Jacks Coffee Shop, yet no one could duplicate the business model for the free coffee.  Indeed, there was something very unique about Jack’s Coffee Shop.  Thus, some underlying suspicions were raised:

The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap.  The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.  A public-private partnership.

If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy.  Let that sink in.

The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database.  The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.


♦ June 2013: […] “Cloud computing is one of the core components of the strategy to help the IC discover, access and share critical information in an era of seemingly infinite data.” … “A test scenario described by GAO in its June 2013 bid protest opinion suggests the CIA sought to compare how the solutions presented by IBM and Amazon Web Services (AWS) could crunch massive data sets, commonly referred to as big data.” … “Solutions had to provide a “hosting environment for applications which process vast amounts of information in parallel on large clusters (thousands of nodes) of commodity hardware” using a platform called MapReduce. Through MapReduce, clusters were provisioned for computation and segmentation. Test runs assumed clusters were large enough to process 100 terabytes of raw input data. AWS’ solution received superior marks from CIA procurement officials”… (MORE)

♦ November 2013: […] “Twitter closed its first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013, at $44.90 a share. In the years since then, it briefly traded above $70, but more recently, it has struggled.”

Jack’s free coffee shop has been for sale, but there’s no viable business model in the private sector.  No one has wanted to purchase Twitter – it is simply unsustainable; the data processing costs exceed the capacity of the platform to generate revenue – until now….

And suddenly, the people who work in the backroom of Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop don’t want Jack to sell.

Twitter is not making a decision to decline the generous offer by Elon Musk because of stewardship or fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.  The financials of Twitter as a non-viable business model highlight the issue of money being irrelevant.  Twitter does not and cannot make money.  Growing Twitter only means growing an expense. Growing Twitter does not grow revenue enough to offset the increase in expense.

There is only one way for Twitter to exist as a viable entity, people are now starting to realize this.

What matters to the people behind Twitter, the people who are subsidizing the ability of Twitter to exist, is control over the global conversation.

Control of the conversation is priceless to the people who provide the backbone for Twitter.

Once people realize who is subsidizing Twitter, everything changes.

That’s the fight. (more)

♦ 2021, Public-Private Partnership – The modern Fourth Branch of Government is only possible because of a Public-Private partnership with the intelligence apparatus. You do not have to take my word for it, the partnership is so brazen they have made public admissions.

The biggest names in Big Tech announced in June their partnership with the Five Eyes intelligence network, ultimately controlled by the NSA, to: (1) monitor all activity in their platforms; (2) identify extremist content; (3) look for expressions of Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE); and then, (4) put the content details into a database where the Five Eyes intelligence agencies (U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand) can access it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are all partnering with the intelligence apparatus. It might be difficult to fathom how openly they admit this, but they do. Look at this sentence in the press release (emphasis mine):

[…] “The Group will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.”

Think about that sentence structure very carefully. They are “adding to” the preexisting list…. admitting the group (aka Big Tech) already have access to the the intelligence-sharing database… and also admitting there is a preexisting list created by the Five Eyes consortium.

Obviously, who and what is defined as “extremist content” will be determined by the Big Tech insiders themselves. This provides a gateway, another plausible deniability aspect, to cover the Intelligence Branch from any oversight.

When the Intelligence Branch within government wants to conduct surveillance and monitor American citizens, they run up against problems due to the Constitution of the United States. They get around those legal limitations by sub-contracting the intelligence gathering, the actual data-mining, and allowing outside parties (contractors) to have access to the central database.

The government cannot conduct electronic searches (4th amendment issue) without a warrant; however, private individuals can search and report back as long as they have access. What is being admitted is exactly that preexisting partnership. The difference is that Big Tech will flag the content from within their platforms, and now a secondary database filled with the extracted information will be provided openly for the Intelligence Branch to exploit.

The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This new admission puts a new massive filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 is an alarming admission of a prior relationship along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives. In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created, and turned those weapons into tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

It’s all Connected FolksSEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

General Flynn OpEd: “Here’s How We Can End The Ukraine Crisis Today”

Michael T Flynn
March 3rd, 2022

If you are not upset about what is happening in Eastern Europe, you are not paying enough attention to what is happening right here at home.

Everything is changing before our eyes. A war on our own soil is a very real possibility. Should this occur, what will you have done to try to prevent the war? Everyone talks about problems; what we need right now is solutions.

Like many across America, I am troubled by the Ukraine debacle — a totally avoidable situation, as I have already stated in a prior Op-Ed.

Think back in recent history to October and examine the Biden administration’s visit to Ukraine. Never mind researching the 1939 European borders or understanding the results of America’s war to defeat Naziism.

While you’re at it, consider the history of the Budapest Agreement, three identical political agreements signed at a conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest, Hungary, on Dec. 5, 1994. It provided security assurances from its signatories related to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (Look it up — we are all in violation of it.)

And let’s stop with the hypothetical question of what former President Donald Trump would do in this situation. The reality is that this crisis did not occur during his administration because of a variety of factors. Topping the list is demonstrated and strong leadership, so stop with the backward-looking questions and start with where we are right now.

In this piece, I want to offer an option. There are many — most are not good, and all will come with compromise and cost. However, without these, the real advent of a nuclear standoff — or worse, a nuclear exchange — is on the horizon. We can no longer kid ourselves about this reality. We have allowed ourselves to get to this avoidable point in history.

Background: It was a horrible mistake that Russian President Vladimir Putin made. He overestimated his popularity. While it is true that in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk he has about 51 percent support, in my assessment, he expected that level of support across the entire country of Ukraine. Clearly, that support never materialized.

Now Putin needs a safe way out. Hundreds of thousands of lives are being destroyed every day this continues. Something must be done to stop the death and ruination on both sides. Russians are dying by the scores as well, causing Putin more problems if he can’t get it under control quickly. There is an old saying: Better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

First, let’s try to understand Vladimir Putin. He is not crazy, as the propaganda media is trying to portray him as now. He is behaving as he always does. The best example of Putin’s personality is the story of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and his Super Bowl ring.

If you aren’t aware of the story, here goes: In 2005, Kraft met Putin. He took off the ring to show it to Putin, Putin admired it, and Kraft held out his hand to take it back. Putin put the ring in his own pocket and walked out, essentially stealing it. The White House insisted that Kraft said it was a gift, but many years later he told the true story of the theft of his ring.

Putin will do anything he can if he thinks he can get away with it. He will stop only when he thinks he cannot get away with it. It was why nothing ever happened when Trump was in power. He respected Trump and knew he couldn’t get away with anything. Now, under this feckless U.S. administration, Putin has seized his opportunity. He knows well what he can get away with.

He also believed (wrongly) that Ukraine would at least moderately support the invasion. If Ukraine did not welcome the Russians as heroes, Putin believed they would at least be tolerated. He and his advisers and generals have miscalculated badly.

There is an option that would give Putin an out. This option needs to be thoroughly analyzed and discussed. It gets Putin what he wants, affords Ukraine a unique and long-term security opportunity, allows Europe and the world to take a deep breath, and can stop this madness along with the horrible killing taking place on both sides (and this may only be the beginning).

I believe the key to unlocking this crisis is the Budapest Agreement.

As smart readers will remember, when the Soviet Union broke up after decades of the now-distant Cold War, Ukraine had more nuclear weapons than China and was the third-biggest nuclear power in the world.

Among other critical issues, the Budapest Agreement stipulated that Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons if both Russia and the U.S. agreed not to invade it. That is the basic agreement. Putin is in gross violation of this agreement, which affords the U.S. (and select European nations) the opportunity to enforce it. But this is only a starting point to a broader conversation about a peaceful solution.

The real conversation goes like this.

Part One: Russia wants a neutral Ukraine. The Budapest Agreement can be considered an agreement of neutrality. Obviously, if Russia adheres to the agreement, then Ukraine doesn’t need to join NATO. And NATO can agree that having Ukraine join would be a violation of the Budapest accord. This is something that I believe Putin would seriously consider (and possibly accept), and it meets half of his demands. This gives him a way out without killing more people.

Part Two: Putin wants Ukraine to renounce any claim to Crimea. Ukraine should agree, with a major caveat.

Putin argues that Crimea was unlawfully given to Ukraine in the 1950s and, true or not, he wants it back. Well, Ukraine will never get Crimea back under any conditions without a major war. Most don’t realize it, but Putin is popular in Crimea and there is a strong attachment to Russia in the region, so it is a loss to Ukraine, but not a substantial loss. (That is the reality of global geopolitics.)

The major caveat should be that Ukraine has made a lot of improvements in Crimea since the ’50s. A large price should be put on that. Russia is not just taking Crimea; it is paying for all the care that Ukraine has given Crimea since the ’50s. It should be a significant and long-term repayment.

Part Three: Finally, Putin must emphasize that the targeting of civilians was against his orders and that he will help to rebuild some of Ukraine. He can claim that senior generals or other Russian defense officials failed to follow his orders and publicly fire them. (Maybe those fired will be allowed to come to the U.S. and work at a Washington, D.C., think tank). However, the provision may be described, it gives Putin the chance to call this insane war off.

In the end, America has always stood for self-determination and the right to choose one’s government. Whatever claim Putin may try to make on Ukraine, either based on reality or his own fiction, it will never outweigh the people’s right to a free and fair election for a government that represents them.

As another famous president said about a voting bloc in our country, what do you have to lose? I do think this would be agreeable to Putin if the alternative is brutal sanctions and a reputation as a pariah.

What I don’t know is whether Ukraine would be agreeable. I do believe that if Ukraine can forgo NATO, it should be given immediate consideration for European Union membership. Obviously, Crimea would be a bigger pill to swallow, but Ukraine isn’t getting it back anyway. Bite the bullet for the good of humanity and the reality that you stand to lose your entire nation or worse if the situation continues. Push for a large payment from Russia and it will likely give it.

On this latter note, which I’m certain will get the most attention, Russia will lose the money in any case, either to economy-crushing sanctions or in paying back Ukraine. Better the money goes to Ukraine than just disappears due to sanctions. Russia doesn’t lose too much, and Ukraine gains a lot.

This option is sound. I believe it would be acceptable to both sides, and it gives Putin an off-ramp, something he desperately needs.

The bigger problem is that our current administration is not strong enough to deal with Putin. He likely has other cards to play against us. Maybe this option is one the U.S. should stay away from and instead can be pushed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the U.K. or President Emmanuel Macron in France.

A final point to be highlighted regarding the Budapest Agreement is nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation’s soil. The accord encouraged certain countries to give up nuclear weapons. With other nations now contemplating joining the nuclear club (like it or not), one lesson in all of this is to never give up your nuclear weapons. If a nation-state cannot rely on other countries to honor its borders, possessing nuclear weapons acts as a guarantor of security.

Like all options, this one is worthy of consideration. As I asked above, what do we have to lose (except everything)?

Gen. Flynn Files Restraining Order Against Nancy Pelosi

 Martin Walsh
December 21, 2021

Former White House national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn has filed a restraining order to block a subpoena from the House Select Committee that is investigating the incident at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

He argues in his complaint that the subpoena, which would demand information and testimony from Flynn, was issued without legal authority.

The filing stated that Flynn had no part in organizing, speaking at, or participating in the rallies, protest,s or incursions that took place on Jan. 6, 2020.

The filed complaint named all nine members of the Select Committee as defendants, as well as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“General Flynn did not organize, speak at, or actively participate in any rallies or protests in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, and he of course did not participate in the attack on the Capitol that day. Ex. A, Declaration of Michael Flynn (“Flynn Decl.”) ¶ 5. Nevertheless, the Select Committee—assuming the role of shadow prosecutor for the January 6 attack and working in parallel with the actual prosecutors at the Department of Justice—has diverted its attention from its important work to target General Flynn for a quasi-prosecution that is either aimless or transparently partisan,” the complaint reads.

“Despite not participating in any public events in Washington on January 6, Defendants have issued General Flynn a sweeping subpoena seeking twenty different categories of documents and a demand that General Flynn appears for a deposition in Washington, D.C. The subpoena demands records of General Flynn’s communications about the 2020 election and seeks to identify the basis for his beliefs and the persons with whom he associated, in addition to contacts with government officials. It thus constitutes a frontal assault on his 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and petition,” it adds.

Editors Note: See the filed complaint and filed motion here.

Earlier this month, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows announced he’s suing Pelosi and members of the partisan House January 6 Committee.

The lawsuit asks a federal court in Washington, D.C. to nullify subpoenas issued by the committee for Meadows’ testimony and his phone records. Meadows also argued that the demand for his cooperation with Congress is “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”

The lawsuit comes after Meadows informed the committee that he would no longer cooperate with its investigation.

Meadows argued in the filing that, “absent any valid legislative power,” may result in “grave harms” — namely that he could be “illegally coerced into violating the Constitution” in failing to comply with former President Trump’s claims of executive privilege.

“Mr. Meadows, a witness, has been put in the untenable position of choosing between conflicting privilege claims that are of constitutional origin and dimension and having to either risk enforcement of the subpoena issued to him” the complaint reads, “or, alternatively, unilaterally abandoning the former president’s claims of privileges and immunities.”

“Despite the need to maintain executive privilege and concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, Mr. Meadows continued to pursue the possibility of an accommodation that would allow the Select Committee to obtain non-privileged information,” the lawsuit alleges.

Meadows pointed out that he had handed over thousands of records to the committee, including “1,139 documents and 6,836 total pages” — all non-privileged — and “2,319 text messages and metadata from his personal cell phone.”

Meadows went on to argue in his lawsuit that the subpoenas from the House committee are “an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the Executive Branch’s authority to enforce the law and to expose what the Select Committee believes to be problematic actions by a political opponent. Congress has no authority to issue subpoenas for these purposes.”

Meadows announced that he is no longer cooperating with the Democrat-run Jan. 6 Committee, according to reports that cited a letter from his attorney.

Only two — Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — decided to sit on the committee

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

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

The D.C. Circuit Did Not ‘Bungle’ The General Flynn Case

Mark Chenoweth
Jul 7, 2020

A week ago Monday former federal appellate judge Michael Luttig took to The New York Times to attack the D.C. Circuit’s handling of the General Michael Flynn case. In an at times misleading and oddly vituperative op-ed, Mr. Luttig accuses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of not having “understood its own case” and of “bungl[ing] perhaps the most consequential political constitutional case in recent memory.” Serious charges from a respected sometime jurist would raise concerns if they were true; fortunately, a closer examination reveals that they are not. 

Judge Neomi Rao’s well-crafted and carefully reasoned opinion for the court, which veteran Judge Karen Henderson joined in full, covers the legal ground quite capably. But it is worth debunking some of the external criticism targeting the Flynn panel majority’s mandamus ruling, if only to counteract any misimpression that something untoward happened in this important—albeit unduly politicized—appeal. 

Mr. Luttig’s piece gives a breezy description of how federal district court judge Emmet Sullivan responded to the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against General Flynn. He writes: “Judge Sullivan scheduled a hearing to determine whether to give that approval. Mr. Flynn, in turn, asked the higher court, the Court of Appeals, to dismiss his prosecution now, before Judge Sullivan decides whether to dismiss it.” Reading that abbreviated account, which skips much controversial context, could leave an observer wondering what all the hubbub is about. 

Luttig does not just bury the lede, he practically buries the whole story. He omits how far out in the future the hearing was scheduled. He never mentions Judge Sullivan’s appointment of an amicus to “present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss.” Nor that this amicus, retired federal district judge John Gleeson, had just published a Washington Post op-ed calling for harsher treatment of Flynn. Nor does Luttig note Sullivan’s highly unusual invitation for other amici to weigh in on charges in a criminal case. Nor that Sullivan had turned away some two dozen requests earlier in the proceedings for amicus briefs in Flynn’s favor. He also neglects to point out that Sullivan asked his appointed amicus to assess whether Gen. Flynn perjured himself (either in pleading guilty or in seeking to withdraw his guilty plea). Finally, he fails to describe Mr. Gleeson’s apparent intention to investigate conduct by the Department of Justice (DOJ) outside the record

Instead of providing this background, Luttig sets up Gen. Flynn’s mandamus request as a radical reaction to a run-of-the-mill hearing. But Judge Sullivan’s was no ordinary judicial response to the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss. The whole reason Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, sought mandamus is that she did not believe the rule’s “leave of court” proviso permitted the judge’s ambitious amicus gambit. So, omitting those maneuvers leaves readers in the dark. Even if Mr. Luttig does not think Sullivan (or Gleeson) did anything wrong on the amicus front, his readers cannot fairly assess his indictment of the Flynn panel without these key facts and this procedural history.  

A second glaring absence from Mr. Luttig’s piece is discussion of case law. Presumably he agrees that judges must follow binding precedent. Given the D.C. Circuit’s U.S. v. Fokker Servs.case, no crystal ball was needed for this author to foretell back on May 14 in this space that Gen. Flynn might well seek mandamus or that granting it would be appropriate. “Few subjects are less adapted to judicial review,” Fokker explained, “than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether … to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” Fokker’s logic excluded any other outcome here, so the court’s appropriately heavy reliance on it to decide the Rule 48(a) question was reassuringly predictable.

Rather than take issue with the panel’s treatment of Fokker (or take on Fokker’s own handling of precedent), Mr. Luttig erects his argument on a weak falsework. No fewer than three times he states versions of the notion that “it was not the government that asked the appeals court to dismiss Mr. Flynn’s prosecution.” But this premise is simply wrong. While only Gen. Flynn filed a formal mandamus petition, the Solicitor General backed that petition, filed a strong brief in support, and used the lion’s share of time at oral argument to bolster the case for mandamus.

On page one of the Solicitor General’s brief, he states, “This Court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling dismissal.” At argument, Principal Deputy S.G. Jeff Wall said, “[W]e are asking that the district court be directed to grant the Rule 48 motion.” DOJ did not file its own mandamus petition, but Wall left no doubt about the government’s position. Like Flynn’s counsel, DOJ told the appellate panel it ought to direct Judge Sullivan to grant the Rule 48 motion. If one reads the S.G.’s brief and listens to oral argument, the point is indisputable. The government asked the D.C. Circuit to dismiss Gen. Flynn’s prosecution, and it did so repeatedly. Any contrary suggestion is misleading.

Finally, in a strange twist, Mr. Luttig concedes that “the court reached the result that almost certainly will be required by law after any hearing that the full court could constitutionally authorize Judge Sullivan to conduct.” Add, he adds, “the law will almost certainly countenance neither Judge Sullivan’s proposed interrogation of the government as to the political ulterior motives and purposes that he suspects—but only suspects—nor … a decision to deny his leave[.]” In other words, Luttig apparently agrees the panel reached the right result but thinks it did so prematurely or for the wrong set of reasons.

Yet mandamus is precisely the tool the law supplies Gen. Flynn—and DOJ—to prevent Judge Sullivan from launching an investigation outside the record. Had he simply held a hearing and interrogated DOJ there about any ulterior motives he suspected, mandamus would not have been sought nor such relief given. If the law compels Flynn’s prosecution to be dismissed eventually, as Mr. Luttig argues, it is difficult to understand what good could have come from allowing Sullivan’s questionable hearing to proceed.

While the trial court’s actions in response to the Rule 48(a) motion were unprecedented, the D.C. Circuit’s were not. As in Fokker, the In re: Michael T. Flynn panel majority recognized that there is an exceedingly minimal role for a district court to play in entertaining a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss criminal charges. It does not appear that Judge Sullivan will appeal this mandamus decision, and it would be even more unusual for the D.C. Circuit sua sponte to call for rehearing en banc.

Whatever Mr. Luttig’s ultimate intent, his misleading piece feeds a narrative of politicized judges ignoring law. Yet, far from bungling the case, the D.C. Circuit reached the result the rule of law compelled here. Even if the entire court of appeals were to rehear the case, it would be to loosen the binding force of now-Chief Judge Srinivasan’s unanimous ruling in Fokker, not to error-correct the panel majority’s proper application of that precedent. But now that the appeals court has directed Judge Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case, and vacated his appointment of amicus as moot, a rehearing en banc would just cause needless delay for no better result.

The Silent War – Gen. Flynn: This Is My Letter to America

EDITORS NOTE: Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 24, 1958) is a retired United States Army lieutenant general who was the 24th National Security Advisor for the first 22 days of the Trump administration until his forced resignation. He served as the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, from July 2012 until his forced retirement from the military in August 2014. Journalist Sara Carter has repeatedly stated on-air that Flynn “Knows where the bodies are buried”, an idiom often used to describe someone who has personal knowledge of the secrets or confidential affairs of an organisation or individual.
After his forced resignation, he continued to work in the field of intelligence gathering, many believing that he is part of a covert operation by defectors within the military (actual patriots) who have been planning a take over/cleansing of the Pentagon, DIA, FBI, and possibly the complete dissolution of the CIA, not to mention ceasing the endless wars in the middle east which we are seeing right now despite Deep-State proxy armies being activated to try and instigate WWIII.
The personal spiritual nature of his letter might be a turn off to some, I’d only ask that you think of what it has been like for a man in his position. Think like an Omnist, imagine that all spirituality is important, not in terms of which spirituality is right or wrong, but as systems of self governance. It is often when religion becomes organized and manipulated over centuries to fit powerful peoples agendas that they become the twisted distortions many view modern religion as, particularly Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. People turn them to hideous inversions of the original messages of love and peace.
Without becoming an evangelist, I’d suggest that we are all spiritual beings in nature no matter what user manual you subscribe to or even if you have invented your own, whatever suits your consciousness. It seems as if this aspect of our lives is being removed by the establishment and pop culture leaving a void where Hedonism, Sabbateanism, Nihilism and apathy can flourish.


General M. Flynn
August 5, 2020 at 11:17am

We are witnessing a vicious assault by enemies of all that is good, and our president is having to act in ways unprecedented in decades, maybe centuries.

The biblical nature of good versus evil cannot be discounted as we examine what is happening on the streets of America.

It’s Marxism in the form of antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement versus our very capable and very underappreciated law enforcement professionals, the vast majority of whom are fighting to provide us safe and secure homes, streets and communities.

When the destiny of the United States is at stake, and it is, the very future of the entire world is threatened.

As Christians, shouldn’t we act? We recognize that divine Providence is the ultimate judge of our destiny. Achieving our destiny as a freedom-loving nation, Providence compels us to do our part in our communities.

It encourages us in this battle against the forces of evil to face our fears head-on. No enemy on earth is stronger than the united forces of God-fearing, freedom-loving people.

We can no longer pretend that these dark forces are going to go away by mere prayer alone. Prayers matter, but action is required.

This action is needed at the local, state and federal levels. Action is also required in the economic, media, clerical and ecclesiastical realms.

Decide how you can act within your abilities. Stand up and state your beliefs. Be proud of who you are and what you stand for. And face, head-on, those community “leaders” who are willing to allow dark forces to go beyond peaceful protests and destroy and violate your safety and security.

Churches and houses of worship must return to normal. We invite everyone of goodwill to not shirk their responsibilities and instead act in a fraternal fashion. If for no other reason or with no other ability, act in a spirit of charity.

We cannot disrespect or disregard natural law along with our own religious liberties and freedoms.

I am witnessing elderly people lose their connection to all that is good in their lives: connections to their faith, their families and their individual freedoms, especially the simple act of attending church, something they’ve been doing for decades.

Let us not be intimidated or fear those who cry out that we are in the minority; we are not.

Good is always more powerful and will prevail over evil.

However, evil will succeed for a time when good people are divided from each other and their personal lives — children away from their teachers, preachers from their congregations, customers from their local businesses.

America will never give in to evil. Americans work together to solve problems.

We do not and should not ever allow anarchy and the evil forces behind it to operate on any street in our nation.

No one should have to fear for their very life because some dark, disturbed force is challenged by the very essence of what America stands for.

We are “one nation under God” and it is our individual liberties that make us strong, not liberties given to our government. Our government has no liberty unless and until “we the people” say so.

God bless America and let’s stand by everything that was and is good in our lives, in our communities and in our country.

Otherwise, America as the true North Star for humanity will cease to exist as we know it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. 

DC Appeals Court Puts Order to Have Flynn Case Dismissed on Hold

July 10th, 2020

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has put on hold its decision to order a lower court to accept the dismissal of the case against former Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The appeals court also ordered Flynn to respond to a request for rehearing filed by the district judge presiding over his case.

Flynn is to respond within 10 days, the appeals court said in a July 10 order, which also invited the Department of Justice (DOJ) to respond at its discretion.

“The Flynn defense team looks forward to filing our brief for the DC [appeals court],” Flynn’s lawyer, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, said in an email to The Epoch Times.

The order adds to a winding history of a case that the DOJ deemed over more than two months ago.

Beth Wilkinson, a lawyer for the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, asked the full DC court (en banc) to reconsider a decision issued by a 3-judge panel last month, which ordered Sullivan to accept the DOJ’s May 7 motion to dismiss its case against Flynn.

The appeals court has now paused the order before Sullivan’s rehearing petition is resolved.

A majority of the dozen active judges would have to agree to grant the petition. Seven of them were appointed by Democrat presidents. While judicial decisions don’t always break along party lines, the Flynn case has had broad political implications, particularly since the emergence of January 2017 notes indicating that both President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden were personally involved in the case.

The order for a response signals there is at least some will among the judges to look into the petition.

“I don’t think an en banc petition is ever dismissed outright immediately,” commented appellate attorney John Reeves, former assistant attorney general of Missouri, in an email to The Epoch Times.

“If none of the judges think it’s worth serious consideration, they just let it sit, and after about 14 days it is automatically denied/dismissed without any vote. But if even one judge requests a poll, then all the judges have to look deeper into the matter and formally vote one way or the other on the matter.”

Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI.

In January, he moved to withdraw his plea. In May, the DOJ moved to dismiss the case after a review uncovered documents suggesting the FBI questioned Flynn solely to elicit false statements from him.

Sullivan took the unusual step of holding back his approval of the motion. Instead, he appointed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to argue against the dismissal and set a hearing on the matter for July 16.

Backed by the DOJ, Flynn asked the appeals court for intervention (Writ of Mandamus), saying that Sullivan doesn’t have the authority to delay or question the DOJ’s motion in these circumstances.

On June 24 the appeals court ordered Sullivan to grant the dismissal.

Sullivan canceled the hearing in response, but hasn’t accepted the dismissal.

Mandamus takes by default three weeks to go into effect, giving Sullivan time to appeal for the en banc review.

Wilkinson has argued that the situation is not sufficiently extraordinary to require a mandamus because Sullivan has not rejected the dismissal yet and the order thus “threatens to expand mandamus beyond its properly circumscribed role.”

“All the district court has done is ensure adversarial briefing and an opportunity to ask questions about a pending motion,” she said.

Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, who authored the mandamus, emphasized that Sullivan appointed an amicus specifically to oppose the dismissal.

“In other words, the court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges,” she said.

She also noted that the amicus, former federal Judge John Gleeson, “had publicly advocated for a full adversarial process” and his appointment thus “demonstrated intent to scrutinize the reasoning and motives of the Department of Justice” which “constitute irreparable harms that cannot be remedied on appeal.”

She acknowledged that it “may sometimes be appropriate” for a judge to conduct a hearing before giving his leave to the government’s motion.

“However, a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions,” Rao said.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, it’s the executive who decides whether to raise or drop charges.

In the meantime, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen continues his review of the Flynn case on January orders from Attorney General William Barr.

Three days ago, Jensen handed over to Flynn 14 more pages of materials that, according to Flynn’s lawyer, further exonerate Flynn “of any intent to deceive or knowing false statement.”

Update: The article has been updated with a response from Sidney Powell, attorney for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Lawlessness: Judge Sullivan Appeals Order to Dismiss Flynn Case

Kristinn Taylor,
July 9th, 2020

Judge Emmet Sullivan filed an appeal Thursday of the 2-1 writ of mandamus ruling last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss the Justice Department criminal case against former Trump National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (US Army Ret.) Sullivan is asking for an en banc hearing by the entire eleven judges on the appeals court.

The main argument by Sullivan and Wilkinson seems to be, “Get off my lawn!”:

“The panel’s decision threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down. It is the district court’s job to consider and rule on pending motions, even ones that seem straightforward. This Court, if called upon, reviews those decisions—it does not preempt them.”

The appeal concludes with more swipes at the appeals court ruling and an ‘I was just doing my job’ justification.

“Judicial decisions are supposed to be based on the record before the court, not speculation about what the future may hold. All the district court has done is ensure adversarial briefing and an opportunity to ask questions about a pending motion. Outside the panel opinion, those actions have not been considered inappropriate—much less an extreme separation-of-powers violation justifying mandamus.

“Considering both sides of an issue before ruling is not ultra vires—it is sound judicial practice. The petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.”

Fox News reporter Kevin Corke notes that if the appeal is accepted the case could drag on through the fall or if rejected Judge Sullivan could appeal to the Supreme Court.

Trump attorney and campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis says Sullivan has no standing to appeal, “Not surprising but totally ridiculous. Sullivan is NOT a party. He actually has no standing to petition for en banc. He should be removed from the bench entirely after his egregious conduct.”

Obamagate: U.S. Officials Have Declassified List Of Obama Officials Who Were Involved In ‘Unmasking’ General Flynn

Ryan Saavedra,
May 11th, 2020

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified the list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the “unmasking” of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.

ABC News first reported the news but initially said in the title that Grenell was in the process of trying to declassify the list of Obama officials.

A source with knowledge of the matter told The Daily Wire that the list has already been declassified and now it’s on Attorney General William Barr to release the list.

ABC News appeared to later update their report, which stated:

Grenell, who remains the U.S. ambassador to Germany along with being the acting DNI, visited the Justice Department last week and brought the list with him, according to the official.

His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, specifically allegations that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn’s identity from intercepts of his call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Grenell’s visit came the same week that Attorney General William Barr moved to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn following his guilty plea for lying to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak.

Fox News reported in 2017 that the disclosing of Flynn’s identity could be “a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison” because “rules state that if an American with Constitutional protections is collaterally caught in such surveillance, his or her identity must be protected.”

In an interview last week, Barr said that the charges against Flynn were dropped because the FBI, which was under the leadership of then-Director James Comey, were not conducting a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

“A crime cannot be established here because there was not, in our view, a legitimate investigation going on,” Barr said. “They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that stage, based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the transition.”

When asked if the Obama administration set a trap for Flynn, Barr responded, “Yes. Essentially. They had started a counterintelligence investigation during the summer, as you know, related to the campaign. But in December, the team, the Crossfire Hurricane team, was closing that and determined they had found nothing to justify continuing with that investigation against Flynn.”

“On the very day they prepared the final papers, the seventh floor, that is the director’s office and the deputy director’s office up there, sent down word they should keep that open,” Barr continued. “So that they could try to go and question Flynn about this call he had with the Russian ambassador.”

“This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts. And we’re looking at the whole pattern of conduct,” Barr added. “I think a very important evidence here was that this was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation – was that they were closing the investigation in December. They started that process. And on January 4th, they were closing it.”

Former President Barack Obama responded to the decision by Barr by saying that he was “worried” that Flynn had been cleared from the illegitimate investigation because the “rule of law is at risk.”

Further Reading: Obama, Spygate, and the Shadow Presidency

Original Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-u-s-officials-have-declassified-list-of-obama-officials-who-were-involved-in-unmasking-general-flynn