FBI to Michael Flynn: “Trust us. You don’t need a lawyer”

 

Flopping Aces

By

On January 24, 2017, the FBI interviewed Michael Flynn. At the time, Flynn was found to have done nothing wrong.

The FBI eavesdropped on telephone calls between President Donald Trump’s national security adviser and the Russian ambassador but found nothing improper, a U.S. intelligence official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said late Monday that there was never a formal “investigation” of the calls in December between retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington.

According to the source, who was confirming a Washington Post report earlier Monday, intelligence officials merely listened in as part of routine eavesdropping on Kislyak.

Yesterday we learned something critical- proof that Michael Flynn was set up by the FBI to take a fall. Many have wondered why Flynn would talk to the FBI without a lawayer present. It turns out that the FBI told Flynn NOT to include a lawyer.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

Who led this charade? None other than Andrew McCabe:

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Worst of all?

“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

They screwed him royally. This is atrocious. This is how the Comey/McCabe cabal ran the FBI. The country is once again reminded of the two tiered justice system established by James Comey; one for the democrats, and another for everyone else.

hillary clinton’s aides were given immunity.

hillary and her aides were allowed to destroy evidence.

hillary and her aides were allowed to dictate the terms of the investigation and interviews.

Cheryl Mills was allowed to sit in on hillary’s FBI interview. Andy McCarthy:

Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department.

Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.

When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.

hillary’s FBI interview was neither under oath nor recorded.

Paul Sperry reported that FBI lawyer James Baker wanted to indict hillary clinton but was overruled by you guessed it- James Comey.

James Comey is a pompous lying jackass who needs a good enema. Mueller should also get one. Flynn was framed- as I said nearly a year ago. Mueller then went on to ruin Flynn financially and finally got Flynn to cop a plea when Mueller threatened Flynn’s son with the same.

Michael Flynn was a three star general with 33 years of service, five of them in combat. He deserves better.

Want more proof that this is pure politics? The leak of the Flynn-Kislyak conversation is an egregious felony but Mueller has zero interest in it. As the Russian collusion fantasy falls apart completely democrats are turning to Trump’s personal finances.

It’s not about justice. It’s all politics and it needs to end. Mueller has created crimes that did not exist prior to his investigation.

Enough.

BTW, so you know:

In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 — nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.

Clearly, it went down that way so someone could rewrite it to incriminate Flynn.

Dangerous Times for the Constitution and Freedom

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

While We the People distract ourselves with porn stars and royal weddings, the cracks in our Constitutional order continue to multiply and widen.

Evidence continues to mount that a sitting president, Barack Obama, colluded in using the nation’s security and surveillance apparatus to subvert the campaign and then presidency of a legitimately elected candidate and president. This effort consisted of numerous illegalities: a mole planted in Donald Trump’s campaign; a FISA warrant granted on the basis of false opposition research paid for by his rival; the outgoing president’s expansion of the number of people allowed to unmask the identity of Americans mentioned in passing during surveillance; a rogue FBI director, James Comey, who illegally usurped prosecutorial powers to exonerate a felonious Hillary Clinton; and other FBI agents colluding in the plot to damage Trump. And don’t forget a Deputy Attorney General appointing the close friend of the fired and disgraced Comey as a special counsel to investigate the non-crime of “collusion,” an investigation that has gone on for a year with nothing to show but a handful of indictments resulting from dubious perjury traps.

To quote Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage” at these attacks on the Constitution?

Outrage is surely warranted. These assaults on the rule of law and accountability to the people are akin to the catalogue of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” published in the Declaration of Independence. Yet our “watch-dog” media in the main have become the publicists for this attack on the foundations of our freedom, as they flack for the political party that long has resented the limitation of power enshrined in the Constitution. Only a few Cassandras, notably FOX News’ Sean Hannity, are trying to alert the citizenry to the coming conflagration that if unchecked could leave the architecture of our freedom in smoking ruins.

 

In fact, what we are witnessing in the deep-state Democrats’ undermining of divided government, check and balances, and government accountability, is the culmination of a process begun over a century ago. Addled by the false knowledge of scientism and secularism in the 19th century, the progressives took aim at what they scorned as the archaic political structures based on the permanence of a flawed human nature’s susceptibility to corruption by power. Divided and balanced power, the progressives argued, is inefficient and incapable of solving the new conditions and problems created by industrialization and modern technology.

Instead, power must be concentrated, centralized, and expanded. The deliberations and votes of citizens in their towns, counties, and states must give way to the technocrats housed in bureaus and agencies, and trained in the latest discoveries and techniques of the “human sciences.” In 1925, Progressive publicist Herbert Croly expressed this hubristic and question-begging optimism for a “better future” that “would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.” All they needed was the power and authority to create and apply the mechanisms of this new knowledge.

First, though, the Constitution’s antique structures must be altered. This “increased amount of centralized actions and responsibility” required, as progressive historian Charles Beard wrote in 1913, the discarding of the “strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink with horror from modifying it even in the smallest detail.” And it required discarding as well the notion of “inalienable” rights that precede government and lie beyond its power, a belief that Beard called “obsolete and indefensible.” Rights can be created by government in order to suit its own ideological and political aims, as FDR promised in his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” which expanded rights to include health care, recreation, and a good job, to name just a few of the gifts government would bestow on the people.

Continue reading

Why the Second Amendment?

American Thinker

by Anna L. Stark

Once again and on cue, the gun-control zealots are calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens parroted the gun-grabber narrative in his recently published New York Times article: “[t]he demonstrators should seek more effective and lasting reform.  They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”  He further bloviates that the Second is a relic of the 18th century.  It’s a sorry state of affairs when a Supreme Court justice who was tasked with upholding the U.S. Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – must be reminded why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  You’d think a constitutional scholar would know these things.  It’s also proof positive that advanced age and wisdom are not necessarily synonymous.

The Bill of Rights Institute provides an excellent brief background on the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Simply put and stated eloquently, “[t]he Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.”  Unfortunately, not only are there those in favor of surrendering their Second Amendment right, but these same people believe that government forces are incapable of oppression, subversion, coercion, or any number of other forms of tyranny.  My advice to this particular group of naïve, nattering nabobs?  Pick up any American history book and revisit why America’s Founding Fathers were familiar with government oppression – they lived it, and many gave their lives fighting it.  As history has shown time and time again, tyrants conquer the populace by instilling fear.  They rely on killing or sinister threats of harm and injury to control the masses.  Heinous killing sprees and wretched oppression of the citizenry are the result of a people unable to defend themselves.

Continue reading

The Little Known Story of the Declaration of Independence

https://i2.wp.com/wallpapercave.com/wp/ETJzFo1.jpg

Image via wallpapercave.com

 

American Thinker

By Scott S. Powell

July 4th, also known as Independence Day, is a much more lighthearted and festive American holiday — with cookouts, parades, beach and boating parties and fireworks — than other patriotic holidays such Memorial Day or Veterans Day. Most people forget that when the 56 members of the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they were in fact signing their death warrants. At the time, Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth, while the thirteen American colonies were poor and disunited. The British Crown deemed the issuance of a declaration of independence an act of treason, which meant that all signatories would be punishable by death.

It is a little known historical fact that for this reason, combined with the low odds of prevailing against the British Army and Navy, the identities of the 56 members of the Continental Congress who committed to separating from England were not made immediately public. For the first six months following the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, copies of the document displayed only two signatures: John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress and Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress.

Indeed, things looked grim for the Continental Army in the first few months of the war for independence. Sir William Howe successfully led the British army to defeat the colonial army and capture New York City by September 1776. While his troops felt utterly overwhelmed, with retreat bringing on dejected morale, General George Washington was a man of extraordinary faith. When Washington first received a copy of the Declaration about a week after its drafting, he had immediately ordered that chaplains be hired for every regiment, stating his purpose was to assure that, “every officer and man, will endeavor so live and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”

What prompted the Continental Congress to begin displaying all 56 signatories of the Declaration can be traced to Washington’s determination and success three months later at the Battle of Trenton in December 1776 — a remarkable victory considering the odds were no better than they had been when he faced utter defeat in New York. Perceiving this a miracle and harbinger of more victories to come, and perhaps with apparent taking to heart of the last sentence in the Declaration that “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor,” the Continental Congress, aka the Founding Fathers, began posting the fully-signed copies of the Declaration throughout the thirteen colonies in January 1777.

If we take the Declaration of Independence seriously in terms of the words selected to mobilize support for the cause, the Founding Fathers placed everything on the line and trusted the Almighty for the results. As esteemed British historian Paul Johnson notes: “The Americans were overwhelmingly churchgoing, much more so than the English, whose rule they rejected. There is no question that the Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act.”

Continue reading

Protecting America Bears No Shame

cropped-american-eagle1.jpg

Family Security Matters

by JUSTIN O. SMITH

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the president’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’etat, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

Continue reading