Thank You for Your Service, Gen. Flynn

 

Here, in a few words–his own, from the sworn affidavit he filed with his Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea on Wednesday — is a sketch of the outstanding man the gang of hoodlums of the Weissmann investigation tried to utterly destroy for three horrible years:

I served over thirty-three years in the United States Army. Five of those years I spent deployed in active combat in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world in support of United States foreign policy objectives. (Para. 2, Declaration)

To have devoted my life to my country, only to be accused of crimes, slandered in the media with false and outrageous claims, and have my family threatened was an unimaginable nightmare-one that those have not walked in these shoes will find difficult to comprehend. (Para. 26, Declaration)

My own strong views about the lawlessness of these monsters visited upon the General and his family, as well as my deep and abiding admiration for him, and my conviction of his innocence, were made known in my previous posts, The Kafkaesque Persecution of Gen. Flynn and USA v. Flynn: Agonies Even Kafka Could Not Have Imagined.

There have been recent, and most significant developments in this disgraceful persecution, in filings of Motions which give rise to a real hope that the Court might finally see in vivid detail the many ways in which the duplicity and unethical conduct of the attorneys — on both sides– came together to create “a perfect storm” of treachery and betrayal. And, how all this led to the near-total destruction of the General, his family, the loss of his home (which had to be sold to help pay the $3 million in fees his former lawyers charged him for the privilege of helping to destroy his life), the savaging of his sterling reputation by a bloodthirsty media and, as we shall see later, even by the Court itself.

This is the way we say “thank you” to a man who achieved one of the highest military ranks (actually, second only to a four-star rank) while serving and fighting in combat zones for the nation he loves.

In order to explore the bizarre and frightening chain of events which led this great American to this point and, most importantly, to try to understand the significance of the filings of a few days ago, it is helpful to refer not only to persuasive brief filed on his behalf by his most talented new lawyer, Ms. Powell, but to also review several articles of the last couple of days, analyzing these events. These include the one I will focus on, “What’s Inside The Latest Court Filings in Michael Flynn’s Case,” by Margot Cleveland in The Federalist; a piece by Sara Carter titled “Flynn’s Defense Files Motion Saying His Former Legal Team Betrayed Him“; and two pieces by Fox News, “Michael Flynn takes on ‘egregious’ FBI misconduct, little-known FBI agent in guilty plea withdrawal,” and “DOJ relents, says it would accept probation for Michael Flynn as he moves to withdraw guilty plea.”

A review of these articles will give one a fairly good, brief insight into what these recent filings mean. However, to me at least, the true heart of the matter is the one written by the general himself, as it reveals like no pile of papers, no matter how skillfully written, the true, deep, lasting wounds which can result when lawyers are allowed to run amok as they did in this case.

The basic facts are fairly well known and are summarized in my previous posts and in one of the Fox News pieces. It states:

“I did not lie to them.”

With those words in a declaration and supplemental motion filed Wednesday, former national security adviser Michael Flynn formally asked a federal judge for permission to withdraw his guilty plea for making false statements to two FBI agents in the White House back on Jan. 24, 2017.

In a sweeping argument that took aim at the bureau’s “outrageous” conduct, Flynn’s legal team highlighted a slew of information that has come to light since Flynn’s plea — including that no precise record of Flynn’s statements to the agents exists and that the original handwritten FD-302 witness report from the interview is “missing,” with subsequent versions later “edited” in some undisclosed manner by anti-Trump FBI officials.

Moreover, Flynn’s team maintained he had no reason to lie about his communications with the Russian ambassador concerning how the country should respond to sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, or a then-pending vote on Israel in the United Nations. After all, Flynn said, he knew federal officials “routinely monitor, record, and transcribe” conversations like the ones he had with Russian diplomats.

Flynn’s argument found support in a Jan. 23, 2017, article in The Washington Post. Citing FBI sources, the Post’s article — published the day before Flynn’s interview with the FBI agents — directly stated that the bureau had listened in on his calls with the Russian ambassador and cleared him of criminal wrongdoing.

The Federalist article brings into sharp focus the recent filings and their (I apologize for using this tattered, beaten old word) explosive allegations against the prosecutors, the DOJ, the FBI, and Gen. Flynn’s former lawyers:

Yesterday, Michael Flynn’s legal team, led by powerhouse attorney Sidney Powell, filed a “Supplemental Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty” on behalf of the retired lieutenant general. Between the motion and the accompanying exhibits, which together exceeded 200 pages, Powell exposed several more troubling details about the prosecution of Flynn, involving both the special counsel team and Flynn’s previous attorneys.

Flynn had pled guilty on December 1, 2017, to one count of making a false statement to FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka when the duo questioned Flynn on January 24, 2017 about telephone conversations he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. At the time Flynn entered his plea, he was represented by Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony of the well-respected Washington firm of Covington and Burling, LLP.

Kelner and Anthony continued to represent Flynn until he fired them in June 2019 and replaced them with Powell. Powell sought a delay in Flynn’s sentencing, which had already been postponed from December 2018. She then sought to compel the federal prosecutors to produce previously withheld evidence, including a copy of the transcript and audio of the January 24, 2017, telephone call.

In mid-December 2019, presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan denied Powell’s motion to compel and set Flynn’s sentencing for January 28, 2020. Sullivan also directed the government to submit an updated sentencing memorandum, which it did. In its updated sentencing memorandum, the prosecutor backtracked on its previous position that Flynn had provided substantial assistance to the government and then government attorneys withdrew a previously filed motion for a reduction in sentence.

She then got to one of the major issues, ineffective assistance of counsel, and here we start seeing publicly for the first time the, to put it mildly, (alleged) less-than-honorable conduct of Gen. Flynn’s previous lawyers and how it led him into the house of horrors he finds himself in. That factor was:

…..whether Flynn’s plea was somehow tainted. It was, Powell posited, because of the ineffective assistance of counsel Flynn received both at his December 2017 plea hearing and again when Sullivan quizzed him about his guilt at the December 2018 sentencing hearing.

After setting out the governing legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel—that “counsel’s advice was not ‘within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,’ and that as a result he was prejudiced, i.e. ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial’”—Powell dedicates the remaining 30-plus pages of her brief to proving Flynn’s Covington lawyers provided ineffective assistance to Flynn.

To summarize this argument, she argues that the previous lawyers, the heretofore vaunted firm of Covington and Burling, had a conflict of interest in that they were involved with prior legal work for Gen. Flynn involving FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) about which serious questions had been raised, that they did not fully inform the General of the gravity of that conflict, which carried the potential of their own criminal liability, that, despite urging by the prosecutors to do so, they never adequately informed their client so they could proceed with his informed consent. One of the most jarring revelations was the fact that the Special Counsel’s office also threatened the former attorneys with prosecution:

“There’s one more issue I want to bring up,” Van Grack said. “Because Covington prepared the FARA registration, that would make you [Kelner] a fact witness.” “If we were to get to that point, we would litigate it very aggressively.” Kelner retorted, “We saw what you guys did with [Paul] Manafort, and we’ll definitely raise it with our client.”

At that point, any ethical lawyer would have immediately advised the client to seek independent counsel, as they now had a powerful self-interest in continuing their “go along to get along” approach with the Special Counsel’s office, which either did have, or had the appearance of having, a definite impact on the way they represented Gen. Flynn.

Before proceeding with a recitation of more seemingly egregious actions by previous counsel, I must note a careful caveat that these are allegations, subject to being tested by examination of counsel and, hopefully, the Court. They are, nonetheless, dramatic charges which, if proven, should put some licenses to practice law at risk. The following is one such accusation:

Flynn also asserts that his attorneys did not inform him that the special counsel had just disclosed that “the agents said Mr. Flynn had a ‘sure demeanor,’ and ‘did not give any indicators of deception’ and that the agents ‘had the impression at the time that Mr. Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.’”

Here, Powell also stressed that before Flynn signed the plea, he “specifically instructed Anthony and Kelner to call [the Special Counsel] immediately and ask if the agents believed that he lied. However, when Kelner and Anthony returned to the room where Mr. Flynn was about to sign the plea agreement, they did not inform the Flynns that Van Grack said, ‘both agents said ‘they saw no indication of deception,’ he had ‘a sure demeanor,’ and they ‘did not believe he was lying or he did not believe he was lying.’” Instead, according to Flynn, they said “the agents stood by their statement.”

In that connection, it should also be recalled that the person we now know as The Paragon of Virtue, a/k/a Saint James, the fired, disgraced and hopefully soon to be indicted James Comey, made an amazing public statement strongly indicating the whole interview was a deliberate, deceitful trap:

The Flynn filing also slammed former FBI Director James Comey’s “bragging and laughing on national television about his own cleverness and violations of FBI/DOJ rules in dispatching agents to the White House to interview the President’s National Security Advisor.” (In 2018, Comey admitted on-air that sending agents to the White House was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”)

However, in the final analysis, as a (recovering!) lawyer of more decades’ experience than I care to reveal, and as one who, perhaps naively, still believes in the Rule of Law, the most disgusting, repulsive, sleazy, chilling, frightening and clearly unethical conduct was the fact that Gen. Flynn was threatened with horrific consequences if he did not plead guilty:

Flynn’s plea and his decision to stand by that plea when appearing before Judge Sullivan in December 2018, was also the result of “undisclosed promises and threats,” Powell argued. “The government leveraged the threat of charges against Mr. Flynn’s son to induce that agreement,” Powell maintained, adding, “yet the government’s decision not to charge his son was not reduced to writing as part of the plea agreement; it was a secret, side deal between counsel.”

It was “that ‘understanding,’” however, that “was one of two necessary preconditions for Mr. Flynn to enter into the plea agreement,” Powell stressed. But “the government and Mr. Flynn’s prior counsel chose not to disclose that agreement to this court,” Powell concluded.

As noted above, and not to detract in any way from the brilliance of Ms. Powell’s briefing, to understand the heart and soul of this case, one must read and carefully consider Gen. Flynn’s sworn affidavit. The story of repeated deceptions and betrayals –and lies!– told by the Declaration is, in the truest sense of the words, tragically heart-wrenching. To pick a few examples found in the document, he makes it clear that he was a “fish out of water in a terrifying and completely foreign situation” and that the Judge’s comments at the December 18, 2018 hearing “stunned me. The entire experience was surreal, and that day was one of the worst days in my life.” This from a man who has served in several active combat zones!

In that regard, it should be recalled that the Court, Judge Sullivan, did, at the December 2018 hearing, make statements so degrading and insulting about Gen. Flynn that he had to backtrack on one of the more inflammatory charges in the course of the hearing. He also suggested that perhaps Gen. Flynn should be charged with treason — yes, he said this about a veteran of 33 years of service in the United States Army–and also suggested that “Arguably, you sold your country out.” 

What lessons do we take from this nightmare, all to different from the “things that go bump in the night” variety as this one is happening, right now, to an American family which, until Andrew Weissmann and his dangerous posse of tyrants descended upon them like locusts, was the very picture of the kind of American family everyone would admire.

  1. As much as it pains me to say it, never, never, never trust anyone with FBI or many, not all, with the Department of Justice.
  2. Never, never, never sit down and talk to prosecutors for three entire days as his former attorneys had Gen. Flynn do — they are called “prosecutors” for a reason as it is their job to put you in prison, not to become your friend.
  3. Be ever vigilant in your choice of counsel in the event of this kind of legal jeopardy–there are many sources of sound information upon which to base an informed decision in the public domain.
  4. If you are urged, against every instinct in your mind and body, to agree to something you know is not right, get out that minute and hire another lawyer. Once a lawyer has lost the client’s trust, as obviously happened in this case, it is, quite simply, over.

I hope and pray that this travesty of “Justice” comes to an end soon and that Gen. and Mrs. Flynn will be able to rebuild what had been a classic American family story. We have contributed to his legal defense fund and plan to so again; if anyone has an interest in getting in touch with the group handling this fund, just let me know.

May God Bless Gen. Flynn and his family, may God Bless America and may we, as the Nation they have so deeply loved and served for so many years, finally be able to say — with meaning — Thank You For Your Service, Gen. Flynn.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    Jim George: In that regard, it should be recalled that the Court, Judge Ellis, did, at the December 2018 hearing, make statements so degrading and insulting about Gen. Flynn that he had to backtrack on one of the more inflammatory charges in the course of the hearing. He also suggested that perhaps Gen. Flynn should be charged with treason — yes, he said this about a veteran of 33 years of service in the United States Army–and also suggested that “Arguably, you sold your country out.” 

    I agree with everything you said and also with the disgust at those going after Gen Flynn.

    Just one nit – wasn’t it Judge Sullivan who virtually accused Gen Flynn of being a traitor?  I had read Sidney Powell’s book (License to Lie) and got a fairly good impression of Judge Sullivan.  That episode used up most of my confidence that Gen Flynn would get justice.

    • #1
  2. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    WillowSpring (View Comment):
    Just one nit – wasn’t it Judge Sullivan who virtually accused Gen Flynn of being a traitor? I had read Sidney Powell’s book (License to Lie) and got a fairly good impression of Judge Sullivan. That episode used up most of my confidence that Gen Flynn would get justice.

    Thank you! Now corrected. No matter how many proofings one does, there’s always at least one little gremlin lurking in there somewhere! :-)

    As t Judge Sullivan, when the news came out about that hearing, I really could not believe my eyes that I was reading about the same Judge who handled thee Sen. Stevens case so heroically, and then when he came down so hard on both Gen Flynn and Sidney Powell a few months ago, I seriously thought this whole thing had just gone completely bonkers. Thanks again for the tip, Jim

    • #2
  3. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    And thank you, @jimgeorge, for doing yeoman’s work in keeping us all informed.

    I, too, have contributed to Gen Flynn’s legal defense fund and will try to do so again.

    At this point in my life, if an FBI agent asked me for the time, I’d refuse to answer.

    • #3
  4. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    I thought when reading the judge’s recent denial of Gen. Flynn’s motions to re-open discovery and so forth, which was couched in vociferous language stressing that he had pled guilty not once but twice, and distinguishing the Sen. Stevens case because it had gone to verdict with Stevens always denying guilt, that the judge was sorta kinda hinting to the defense that withdrawing his guilty plea was a lot smarter way to go. Now we will see if he allows him to withdraw it, enter a not guilty plea, and seek  a trial, before which it is to be hoped, the DOJ will drop the charges. Oh, AG Barr?? Where are you?????

    As for Gen. Flynn’s former counsel, those arrogant Covington Burling lawyers apparently thought conflict of interest concerns must only be for little people, I guess. But having themselves known potential criminal liability and they do not withdraw representation and tell Flynn to get new counsel?? Wouldn’t mind seeing them severely disciplined, if not suspended or even disbarred, and the CB firm made to pay enough $$$ to make Gen Flynn whole financially, even though the emotional scars are permanent.

     

     

    • #4
  5. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    This is an excellent, impassioned post.  My opinion on the whole episode has been colored by this article by Andrew McCarthy, who I consider to be a straight shooter (less there be a tendency to shoot the messenger).  McCarthy concludes that Flynn was mistreated but did not tell the truth.  Comments?

    • #5
  6. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    This is an excellent, impassioned post. My opinion on the whole episode has been colored by this article by Andrew McCarthy, who I consider to be a straight shooter (less there be a tendency to shoot the messenger). McCarthy concludes that Flynn was mistreated but did not tell the truth. Comments?

    I try to read just about everything McCarthy writes, as he is clearly at the top of the rank when it comes to legal analysis but, for some reason, I missed this article, which is even more weird since I have really worked on reading everything I could find about the Flynn case. I just printed it out and will get into it tonight and get back  to you on his conclusions, but, loath though I am to contradict a man of his towering stature when it comes to trials, generally, and Federal criminal trials, particularly, it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to convince me that Gen. Flynn knowingly lied about anything in that interview. In saying that, I have the best possible authorities to back me up — the FBI agents who conducted the interview themselves… until some “amendments” were made to their notes, for which I seriously hope they are indicted and disbarred. Thanks again for the tip about the article; I look forward to looking at it and will get back with you tomorrow on it. Sincerely, Jim

    • #6
  7. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I hope Sullivan will apologize or resign on the other side of this. 

    • #7
  8. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    I stand by what I previously posted on Flynn.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59533.html

    The Russia hoax was aimed at Michael Flynn and his role as a Trump advisor.

    It was all about General Flynn. I think it began on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, when Flynn changed the way we did intelligence against the likes of Zarqawi, bin Laden, the Taliban, and their allies.

    General Flynn saw that our battlefield intelligence was too slow. We collected information from the Middle East and sent it back to Washington, where men with stars on their shoulders and others at the civilian intel agencies chewed it over, decided what to do, and sent instructions back to the war zone. By the time all that happened, the battlefield had changed. Flynn short-circuited this cumbersome bureaucratic procedure and moved the whole enterprise to the war itself. The new methods were light years faster. Intel went to local analysts, new actions were ordered from men on the battlefield (Flynn famously didn’t care about rank or status) and the war shifted in our favor.

    I recommend Dakota Meyer’s book about Afghanistan. He tells about the ridiculous ROE and delays in getting support when his unit was ambushed. Obama was an enemy of Flynn as was McCabe who was getting even for Flynn’s support of an FBI agent who was sexually harassed by McCabe.

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/06/27/real-journalists-uncover-the-fbis-vendetta-against-michael-flynn/

     

     

    • #8
  9. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    TBA (View Comment):

    I hope Sullivan will apologize or resign on the other side of this.

    As he is an Article III, Senate confirmed, United States District Judge, the chances of his apologizing are — well, is there a known quantity less than zero? 

    As far as the possibility of such a Judge resigning because he insulted someone, the President would need to be filling a lot more slots very quickly is that trend ever started!

    Being an aging, graybeard, used up, etc., Trial Lawyer has fewer and fewer advantages as the days increase, but being able to say things about Federal Judges I dreamed about saying but could never say in the past is definitely one of them! 

    Having said all that I should definitely note I am in full agreement with you that he should do one of those things, especially after going back and recalling the specifics of that truly bizarre hearing in the course of researching for this piece. I cannot imagine what the Flynns must have been experiencing as he was hit with all these incredible accusations! Just one more indignity piled on to all the others. 

    Sincerely, Jim

    • #9
  10. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Jim George (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    I hope Sullivan will apologize or resign on the other side of this.

    As he is an Article III, Senate confirmed, United States District Judge, the chances of his apologizing are — well, is there a known quantity less than zero?

    As far as the possibility of such a Judge resigning because he insulted someone, the President would need to be filling a lot more slots very quickly is that trend ever started!

    Being an aging, graybeard, used up, etc., Trial Lawyer has fewer and fewer advantages as the days increase, but being able to say things about Federal Judges I dreamed about saying but could never say in the past is definitely one of them!

    Having said all that I should definitely note I am in full agreement with you that he should do one of those things, especially after going back and recalling the specifics of that truly bizarre hearing in the course of researching for this piece. I cannot imagine what the Flynns must have been experiencing as he was hit with all these incredible accusations! Just one more indignity piled on to all the others.

    Sincerely, Jim

    Sullivan is “senior status” and might be getting a bit senile. His famous reversal of Ted Stevens’ cases was years ago.

    • #10
  11. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    @hoyacon, I read that McCarthy piece and have these few thoughts, always with the caveat that his claim to expertise in this field is somewhere in the range of a million times more impressive than mine and his reasoning was very persuasive. He did hit on a couple of the areas which concern me the most about how this particular Judge will look at these arguments, the big one of which is, of course, that he pled guilty not once, but twice, and both times being fully represented by  counsel– who, at that time, were known to be competent, respected members of the Bar, however subsequent events turn out on Powell’s claim that they were not only incompetent, but less than honorable in their obligations to be candid with their client. Also, McCarthy comes at this from the standpoint of a former Federal prosecutor and there is no telling what he saw in some of the cases he handled which make him a lot more skeptical about what Gen. Flynn did than I am. I would be the first to admit that my entire attitude about this disgrace to the Legal Profession-both Bench and Bar — is greatly affected by what I see as the whole disgusting train of events, starting with the obvious deliberate intent to entrap him, as publicly not only admitted to by Saint James Comey but bragging and chuckling about it to an admiring audience  and then, from all the evidence we have so far, apparently “losing” the original 302 (anyone who believes that should see me about a great deal on a bridge) and then, at the behest of The Right Honourable Ms. Page, “altering” a later draft to fit their purposes. Where I practiced law, when a Judge had proof that anyone before his/her Court had “altered” documentary evidence, they would be before both the Court and the Bar Association in short order. McCarthy refers to these questions as “peculiarities”, but they are part and parcel of Powell’s claims that this kind of conduct was so prevalent and pervasive as to be sufficient to nullify the entire prosecution. The final point I would make about McCarthy’s analysis is that it was written long before the former lawyers were fired and Powell was hired, and after she took over, light started being shined on a whole panoply of unbelievable conduct on the part of the Mueller team. Of course, it was also long before the IG report, which was also damaging, to put it mildly, to the entire Mueller-Weissmann gang’s tactics. The final point I would make, and it is about the one document which persuaded me to write this piece, and that is Gen. Flynn’ s sworn affidavit, by which he is, in the true sense of the term, putting it “all on the line” as there are well known consequences to lying under oath in a Federal Court. Thanks a lot for the tip,

    Sincerely, Jim

     

     

     

    • #11
  12. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    @hoyacon, sorry, I got so carried away (we Cajuns are known to talk way too much at times!)  I forgot to link to an article which came out this morning from the NY Post entitled “The Flynn prosecution now stands exposed as massive FBI and DOJ abuse of power”–here’s a bit of it:

    The “crime” came days after the inauguration, when FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka questioned Flynn at the White House about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    Ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn asks feds to reverse guilty plea
    Yet the FBI had already reviewed transcripts of the calls and found nothing illicit. The visit was a fishing expedition: The agents even skipped the customary heads-up to the president’s Office of Legal Counsel — aiming to avoid having a lawyer present for the talk.

    Even so, Strzok and Pientka wound up finding “no indication” that Flynn had lied to them. But then FBI lawyer Lisa Page (Strzok’s mistress at the time) instructed them to alter their official writeup of the conversation to say otherwise. And that’s the entire basis of the charges against him.

    This wasn’t even the only abuse of power here: Before the inauguration, National Security Adviser Susan Rice ensured that the fact of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak would leak to the media. Then holdover Justice official Sally Yates talked up ridiculous charges that he’d violated the never-enforced, and plainly irrelevant, Logan Act.

    The stench is overpowering. 

    • #12
  13. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    I stand by what I previously posted on Flynn.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59533.html

    The Russia hoax was aimed at Michael Flynn and his role as a Trump advisor.

    Thanks for the link to your blog–very interesting! I read the Ledeen and Goldman articles and it seems that the more you peel the onion in this case the more layers there are to pull back — I know it was covered in one of the articles you linked to, but the account I heard was that in their very first meeting in the Oval Office, before Trump could even sit down, the first thing Obama told him was that he should not hire Flynn because he was nothing but trouble, or words to that effect. Seems that getting Flynn one way or the other was high on all of their lists, long before Russiagate got cranked up.

    By the way, I found it sadly ironic that the agent he was backing up had to sell her home and move back in with her parents after McCabe vindictively had her security clearance pulled. The echo is strong in that Gen. Flynn had to sell their home as well. 

    Like these authors, I pray that Trump just goes ahead and pardons Gen. Flynn and puts him back where he can do some real cleaning up, starting with that despicable little “Lt. Col.” Vindman and his twin brother and most if not all of those “agency consensus” worms who testified in the Schiff Show. 

    Sincerely, Jim

    • #13
  14. MichaelKennedy Member
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Flynn was Trump’s window into the snake pit in the NSC.  They could not let him in there to clean house.  There have been complaints that he relies on his kids too much.  In that den of thieves who else could he trust?

    • #14
  15. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):
    Ken

    Flynn knew where all the dead bodies were hidden.

     

    • #15
  16. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Congrats on the Ace of Spades link. You deserve it for all your hard work keeping track of this case’s unbelievably threads.

    • #16
  17. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Congrats on the Ace of Spades link. You deserve it for all your hard work keeping track of this case’s unbelievably threads.

    Thank you very much! I couldn’t find it, but appreciate your introducing me to another great news site! Thanks again for the kind words, Jim

    • #17

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.