Michael Flynn – No Collusion in “Statement of the Offense”

Posted by Tina

The media today was all abuzz about charges brought against Michael Flynn. Implications were made that the Trump campaign ordered Flynn to do something illegal.

But David French of National Review indicates otherwise in his article, “Offense Statement”:

Moments ago, the special counsel released Michael Flynn’s “Statement of the Offense.” This document lays out Flynn’s crimes in far greater detail than the short “information” released earlier today. It’s important to state this clearly as possible — the statement contains no evidence of collusion with Russia to influence the presidential election. Instead, it amplifies the fact that Flynn apparently lied about contacts that were lawful and appropriate.

Lawful appropriate contacts huh? Sounds like a Scooter Libby indictment could be on the way…while Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Lerner, Rice, et al have escaped jail and the humiliation of a criminal record. The injustice continues to be staggering!

There’s an update to French’s article. Eli Lake at Bloomberg is reporting that jared Kushner is the “very senior member” of the transition team who may have told Flynn to contact “every foreign minister or ambassador from a country on the U.N. Security Council to delay or vote against the resolution” on Israel.

I recommend the article to those who are curious about the Flynn case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Michael Flynn – No Collusion in “Statement of the Offense”

  1. Tina says:

    Ha! Breaking news from Gateway Pundit:

    On Friday, Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about making contact with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. In a stunning twist, the Trump White House revealed to CNN that the calls were approved by the Obama administration.

    One day historians will marvel at the level of injustice and corruption we’ve witnessed in 20 or 30 years.

    • Jim says:

      Then why did he lie about it under oath?

    • Chris says:

      You should not believe anything from Gateway Pundit or the Trump White House. What evidence did they provide that the Obama White House approved the calls?

      • Tina says:

        Chris I’ll let the Gateway Pundit respond to your comment: “VIDEO PROOF: Obama Admin Confirms ‘No Problem’ With General Flynn Contacting Foreign Officials”

        Footage has resurfaced of Obama State Department spokesman Mark Toner saying Flynn contacting foreign governments during the transition poses no issues. …

        … Transcript for the hard of hearing:

        REPORTER: “This building [the Obama State Department] doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate in contact between members of the incoming [Trump] administration and foreign officials, no matter what country they’re from?“

        OBAMA STATE DEPT SPOKESPERSON: “No, no…and again this has been ongoing. We have no problem with them doing such on their own.”

        This was during the transition. Do you recall at all what Obama was doing during his transition?

        See also here.

        And according to John Hinderakker at Powerline Barrack was not even the candidate yet when he tried to undermine GWB’s foreign policy, “Obama’s Secret Communications with Mullahs Undermined American Foreign Policy”:

        let’s not forget an infinitely bigger scandal: in 2008, while he was running for the presidency, Barack Obama deliberately undermined American foreign policy by secretly encouraging Iran’s mullahs to hold out until he became president, because he would be easier to deal with than President George Bush. I wrote about the Obama scandal here: “HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN.” Check out the original post for links.

        This is something Democrats do constantly when a republican is president. Kennedy did it when Reagan was president. Carter is notorious for interfering.

  2. Tina says:

    Andrew McCarthy also has a good article today on the Flynn case. An excerpt:

    Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed. Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

    Given the high crimes and misdemeanors of the last administration I’d say that’s highly likely!

  3. Peggy says:

    First, I find it very interesting that when candidate Obama went on his first apology tour in July 2008, to meet with world leaders in Europe, ME and Asia there was no major blow-back about him violating the one president at a time rule and violating the 1799 Logan Act.

    “It is important to note that it is not our intent to make policy or to negotiate,” foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said.”

    Obama Going Abroad With World Watching:

    “Sen. Barack Obama will make his international debut as a Democratic presidential candidate in the coming days with a weeklong tour of the Middle East and Europe designed to deepen his foreign policy credentials, confront questions at home about his readiness to be commander in chief, and signal the possibility of a new era in U.S. relations with the rest of the world.

    Obama’s visit is among the most unusual ever undertaken by a presumptive White House nominee, planned with the attention to detail of a trip by a president and as heavily hyped abroad as at home. The senator from Illinois will meet with a succession of foreign leaders, make symbolically important visits and hold at least one large public event — all with an eye to how the trip is playing in the United States.

    But the tour is fraught with risks. The large media contingent that will follow Obama means that any misstep or misstatement will be magnified and potentially read as evidence of his inexperience, adding to doubts about him. If he successfully navigates his itinerary, however, the political payoffs could be significant enough to affect the outcome of his race against Republican Sen. John McCain this fall.

    “The reward is potentially very big: that he substantially closes the very large and only large gap he has with John McCain and establishes a foreign policy credential,” said Republican strategist Vin Weber.

    But Weber said the trip could easily backfire if Obama does not carefully calibrate his message or if he creates the impression that he is running a premature victory lap. “He has thrown caution to the winds on this and gambled that the American people will like essentially what’s going to look like a presidential trip to Europe,” Weber said, adding: “America would like the president to be more popular in the world, but they don’t want to elect the president of Europe.”

    Obama officials were at pains in a conference call yesterday to play down the political ramifications of the tour. “The trip is not a campaign trip,” senior adviser Robert Gibbs told skeptical reporters. He and other advisers described the travel as a way for Obama to strengthen relationships and to exchange views on a variety of international issues.”


    Second, it’s a known fact that Hillary lied to the FBI during her email “interview.” Comey told us all she did when he explained all of the laws she’d broken just before he said he wouldn’t press charges against her. A dozen or more lies by Hillary with her attorney/s present and she’s free as a bird to walk in the woods. One lie by Flynn without his attorney present and he’s forced to sell his home to pay his legal bills and will end up broke or in prison.

    And last but not least, is ABC caught lying about Flynn and forced to submit a correction, but the damage had already been done since their fake news had already been repeated by most other news agents.

    ABC News seriously EFFED UP their Mike Flynn scoop and issued a CRAP correction:

    “Wow this is bad. ABC News literally made the market crash by more than 400 points with this headline blockbuster report – and it turns out it was fake news.

    Here’s the correction they issued:

    CLARIFICATION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* — initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZBTbc pic.twitter.com/GQAKwT1Eda

    — ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017


  4. J. Soden says:

    ABC has officially joined the Fake News ranks with this
    and is scraping the egg off their face today. So far, no comment from their big deal investigative “reporter” Brian Ross.

    • J. Soden says:

      OOPS! Should’ve been http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-01/abc-makes-epic-mistake-retracts-bombshell-flynn-story
      Messed up my left wrist yesterday and typing skills suffered. Sorry!

      • Chris says:

        ABC News has suspended the reporter who erred in that report. When was the last time the assorted 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, Sandy Hook truthers, Pizzagaters and other assorted dum-dums at Zero Hedge did this?

        • Tina says:

          How many times must I make things clear?

          We discuss things that are in the “news” and current events and opinion. Our own discussions include opinion…lots of opinion.

          ABC is a professional national news organization. As such it should be held to a higher standard when it comes to the facts.

          Zero Hedge is a blog. As such it is an opinion source.

          In my experience blogs often have the facts when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are busy spinning away. When they’re not spinning they are promoting or existing as political activists. It was never more apparent than during the Obama campaign and presidency. The monopoly the alphabets held for many years was unhealthy for the country.

          It’s not easy for a blog to get to the facts…not like it is for the highly paid professionals. A little perspective is in order. On blogs, where discussion is the point, there is room for disagreement, alternate sources, and opposing information. It’s a good thing. Rejoice!

        • J. Soden says:

          A 4-month suspension for his “bombshell” Fake News story – just like the one Pinocchio Williams got at NBC – and then he’s back on the payroll.
          Now ABC has Pinocchio Ross and much LESS credibility!

    • Tina says:

      ABC must have gotten serious blow back for the error. As FOX News reported this isn;t the forst mistake by Ross. He has a history that goes back to at least 2001. ABC suspended him this time:

      ABC News announced Saturday that Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross had been suspended for four weeks without pay over a botched “exclusive” about former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

      Ross’ suspension is effective immediately. ABC News spokeswoman Heather Riley would not comment on whether anyone else had been suspended in connection with the error

      During a live “special report” Friday morning, Ross reported that Flynn would testify that Donald Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while Trump was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump’s impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.

  5. Chris says:

    More concerning is that Trump changed his story today, tweeting that he knew Michael Flynn lied to the FBI at the time he fired him. This also confirms that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI at the time he told Comey to go easy on him. This could be obstruction of justice.

  6. Tina says:

    Another outstanding article by Andrew McCarthy at National Review expresses the problem with Meuller’s investigation:

    …we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements. The end game of the investigation is the removal of Donald Trump from the presidency, either by impeachment (which does not require proof of a court-prosecutable crime) or by publicly discrediting Trump to such a degree that his reelection becomes politically impossible. The latter can be accomplished by projecting the appearance of a critical investigation (notwithstanding that there is no underlying crime), turning administration officials into suspects, and hopefully generating the false-statement prosecutions that help depict the administration as dishonest and icky. While all that plays out, though, behold the frightening thing Mueller’s investigation has become: a criminalization of politics. In the new order of things, policy differences are the grist for investigation and prosecution. There is no evidence that Flynn or any other Trump associate was involved in Russia’s election interference. Instead, after being elected on the promise of significant policy shifts from the Obama administration, President-elect Trump directed Flynn, his incoming national-security adviser, to make contact with foreign counterparts, including but not limited to officials from Russia. This is standard operating procedure when administrations change — that’s why they call it a transition.

    Always pleased to hear from you Libby. You are as “out there” as you’ve always been. I’m sure you’ve amused yourself, which I guess is the point.

  7. Peggy says:

    Democrats had better wake up before they put this country into a constitutional crises and another civil war against each other, is Allen Dershowitz’s warning. The people have spoken, deal with it and grow up. When a major democrat leader speaks up and says what members of his own party are doing is wrong the warning should be taken seriously.

    “If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz said.

    ‘Hope Over Reality’: Dershowitz Doesn’t See Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump:

    “Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz disagreed with claims that there is an obstruction of justice case building against President Donald Trump, calling it “hope over reality” from some Democrats.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on “Meet the Press” that a Senate investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election has revealed possible obstruction.
    “I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice,” Feinstein said.
    On “Fox & Friends,” Dershowitz countered that Trump had the constitutional power to fire FBI Director James Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.

    “If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz said.”


    Also, what the he77 is Obama doing meeting with foreign leaders and saying America doesn’t have a leader? Isn’t he violating the Logan Act by undercutting the current president by attempting to negotiate with those leaders?

    This is the second time he’s done this, the first was in July 2008, when he was a candidate. Will he once again get away with it or be held to the same rules and standards as Trump?

    Matt Drudge: “Is citizen Obama violating the “Logan act” when he lobbies foreign governments and world leaders against America’s current foreign policy?”


    Oh how funny, look what I found posted by Tina back in February.

    Long Before Flynn Obama “Flew straight into the Logan Act”
    Posted on Monday, February 13, 2017 by Post Scripts:

    “In July 2008, independent of any policy conversations by staff, candidate Obama went to the Middle East and Europe and spoke extensively, one-on-one, about policy with leaders from Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, the West Bank, Israel, France, Germany and Britain. As a candidate, not as a president-elect.

    Without thought of violating the Logan Act, Mr. Obama conducted substantive conversations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s Prime Minister Elud Olmert, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair and opposition leader David Cameron. In short, in an effort to transparently promote his presidential candidacy, with all manner of topics, candidate Obama flew straight into the Logan Act.”


    • Tina says:

      Peggy the left has been getting away with this stuff for many decades. They hold their own to very different standards. Corruption has reached a new level of ugly. There are so many instances and layers the stinkin’ pile has become top heavy. An inverted pyramid is bound to come crashing down at some point. A more deserving pack of rats is nowhere to be found.

      ““In July 2008, independent of any policy conversations by staff, candidate Obama went to the Middle East and Europe and spoke extensively, one-on-one, about policy with leaders…”

      That was candidate Obama too, not transition team Obama. Remember how the media praised him as the most brilliant candidate to come down the pike? Ugh…such obvious cheer leading by the MSM!

      Some pigs are more equal! (totalitarians in positions of power right in our midst)

      • Peggy says:

        Democrats have rats in their name for a reason for sure. It’s like living in a tornado these days with major news, scandal and even good news breaking several times a day. Keeping up with it all is mind blowing.

        At lease one of the “Rats” in Florida is going to prison for her conviction for fraud. She’s an even bigger rat because she used children too.

        Another from Illinois has decided to not run for congress, a day after filling his papers to run. The only thing that happened during those days was the disclosure of the $17 million used for sexual hush payments. He’s not given a reason and with them wanting to take over control of congress it must really be bad. Sincerely hope it’s not because of a health issue for him or his family. We’ll find out some day soon.

        And last but not least, is the word on the street is Diane Feinstein is running scared about getting reelected after the verdict releasing the killer of Kate Steinle. Her phones must have been ringing off of the hook for her to say Trump was on the path to obstruction of justice. She just had to jump on that far left lying progressive bandwagon to show she was still one of them and sooo deserving of their votes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *