Tag Archives: Michael 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.”

-Ryan

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.

FREE COFFEE:

♦ 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.”

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.

Durham Inquiry into Spying on Trump Campaign Could Drop Bombshells by End of Summer

 Isabelle Z.
August 10th, 2020

There has been a lot of speculation that U.S. Attorney John Durham will hold off on releasing the results of his investigation into spying on the Trump campaign until after the election to avoid accusations of political interference. However, sources who have worked with Durham on public corruption cases in the past have said they doubt he will yield to political pressure, with some believing he may even drop a few bombshells before Labor Day.

This is supported by the words of Attorney General William Barr, who refused to rule out the possibility of a pre-election release of information. Citing a long-standing policy by the Justice Department not to announce any new developments in politically sensitive cases prior to an election, Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) asked Barr if he would commit to not releasing any reports by Durham ahead of the election. In response, he simply stated, “No.”

Because that policy bars prosecutors from taking big steps in this type of case within 60 days of an election, Durham has until the Friday before Labor Day to make a move outside of this window. So far, Durham has been pretty quiet about his investigation into the Russiagate investigation of President Trump and his 2016 campaign. This has prompted lots of speculation regarding who could be prosecuted and when action might be taken.

Because the probe involves the Trump administration as well as high-level officials from the previous administration, including former Vice President Joe Biden, the consequences of the investigation could be significant. Notes that were recently declassified by the FBI show that Biden provided input in the investigation of Trump adviser Michael Flynn.

At the center of the case is government spying on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election and whether or not that surveillance was justified or was simply done to smear Trump’s campaign and, later, his presidency. Durham’s investigation is also looking into the potential role of the CIA and whether it monitored Trump advisers overseas or broke laws restricting spying on American citizens.

Should Durham release a report that indicates widespread corruption or seek a criminal indictment or plea agreements involving former officials from the Obama-Biden administration, it could turn voters away from Biden. If the news is postponed until after the election, on the other hand, it could dishearten Trump’s base.

Former assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker, who has worked with Durham on past investigations, said: “I would find it hard to believe that he punts under any circumstances.”

He added that delaying the work until after the election might risk throwing away 16 months’ worth of investigations. Should Biden be elected, Durham’s work would essentially be canceled out as the new president would likely replace Barr and Durham. However, if the reports and potential indictments are made public ahead of the election, a potential Biden administration would be in the position where they have to take further action or close the probe down and make themselves look even more corrupt.

“John knows this, and I fully expect he will take action before the election,” Swecker said.

Criminal charges could be forthcoming

He also believes that any action taken by Durham will extend beyond a report. In fact, he is expecting criminal charges to be announced. He said that Durham is not “squeamish” when it comes to bringing indictments and thinks the case would have been closed by now had crimes not been uncovered. He also pointed to a lack of media leaks from Durham’s office as more evidence that a serious corruption case is in the works.

The Attorney General has said that Obama and Biden are not targets in the case, but some experts believe that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith may be one focus of the investigation for his role in doctoring an email used to gain surveillance approval for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. A leak of sensitive information to a columnist from the Washington Post about conversations involving Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador may also be an area of interest in the investigation.

Trump told Fox Business that he heard the information Durham has uncovered in the investigation is “breathtaking” and will show he was maliciously targeted by the Obama administration.

Democrats appear to be quite worried about this investigation, and Barr’s recent refusal to commit to not releasing Durham’s report ahead of the election indicates that we could well get some answers within the next few weeks.

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.

-Ryan

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.