General Flynn Was Framed by Deep State


They would defend their need to know based on the subject matter and the area affected. Treasury would arguably be included because of potential financial crimes, energy because of the nuclear angle, and Ambassadors because they are essentially extensions of the White House. Ordinarily the actual secretaries and Ambassadors would get a summary of the hundreds - perhaps thousands - of documents they get per month, but given the profile and politics of the Flynn story you can bet they were glued to the latest message traffic.

Biden was on that list too. Even in his semi-senile state he's got his work cut out for him denying his involvement this election season.


Gold Member

Biden Spox Melts Down; Insults Journo Who Revealed Unmasking Role As 'Partisan, Rightwing Hack'

Update (1745ET): The day just keeps getting better and better. The left is now moving the goalposts, parroting the new talking point that: 'sure, Biden unmasked Flynn - but that just goes to show how concerned everyone was about him.'
Biden spokesman Andrew Bates, meanwhile, took to Twitter to insult journalist Catherine Herridge as a "partisan, rightwing hack who is a regular conduit for conservative media manipulation..." for revealing Biden's involvement in unmasking Flynn.

He then deleted the tweet and issued a statement accusing President Trump of "dishonest media manipulation to distract from his response to the worst public health crisis in 100 years," adding that the documents "simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government -- including among career officials -- over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials or other foreign representatives."

Somehow their response failed to include why Biden tried to lie on Tuesday about knowledge of the Flynn investigation.


Gold Member
Comey and clapper are getting questioned by the senate. But they will likely all plead the 5th and not say anything

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are vowing to haul James Comey and James Clapper back before Congress to ask which one committed perjury about briefing then-President Barack Obama on Michael Flynn’s calls with Russia’s ambassador.

Comey, the fired former FBI director, said in newly released congressional testimony that Clapper, the former US intelligence chief, briefed Obama. Clapper testified, however, that he did not.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told The Post, “You don’t have to be a senior at city college to realize one of them is lying. I think we ought to call them both back in and ask them: Which one of you guys is lying to Congress?”

“If you or I lie to Congress, it’s supposed to be a felony,” Kennedy said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told The Post he plans to hold hearings about a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting in the Oval Office where Obama startled then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who ran day-to-day operations at the Justice Department, by informing her about two December 2016 calls between Flynn, a campaign adviser and transition aide to incoming President Trump, and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

“We’ll have hearings about the Jan. 5 meeting,” Graham told The Post. Comey and Clapper “definitely” would be invited, he said.

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SC) noted the Judiciary Committee’s role to The Post, saying that “these guys can’t seem to shoot straight. Clearly there were a lot of misstatements and everything else that need to be researched and further investigated.”

Reps for Comey and Clapper — who are among the top officials who tried to “unmask” Flynn’s identity during the Russia probe, according to a report by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell — did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The FBI under Comey routinely bypassed Justice Department leaders, including in announcing a decision not to criminally charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information.


Gold Member


Gold Member
Does anybody know what the justification is for granting access of this resource to Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and Deputy Secretaries of Treasury and Energy? I remember being baffled that Susan Power even had the ability to use this when she claimed others did in her name. It seems like the kind of thing only The President, NSA, Need To Know Intelligence Officials, and Need to Know Defense officials should have.

Theres supposed to be a legitimate reason and said reason explained in formal request. Those request forms associated with the 39 people, including Joe Biden, on that list have not been released. Some people are saying thats because they are possibly in the hands of a grand jury investigating all this.

Meh...I hope so but Im not holding my breath


Gold Member

The satellite cuts off, how convenient!

elsewhere in that interview, he says he won’t testify on unmasking because he’s afraid of ‘rona.

It probably won't be that hard to find him a doctor that hates Trump that will write him a note saying he is sick with the China virus, "can't testify sorry"


Gold Member
Open Memorandum to Barack Obama by Sidney Powell.

May 13, 2020


To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell

Date: May 13, 2020

Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal

Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.

First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.

McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.

Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.

Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.

Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focusses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.

Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.

Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.

Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.

Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.

These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.

Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.

1 As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.



My understanding is that as head of DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) under Obama from 2012-2014, he had dirt on the IC's/Obama admin actions with regards to spying on political opposition and other illegal activities. Once Trump won and he became National Security Advisor, he became an immediate threat to everyone connected to all the dirty work done under Obama.

It's kind of like divorce in modern America. Doesn't matter if you're innocent; once your wife/ex-wife claims you slapped the hell out of her and sexually molested the kids to gain the upper hand in the courts, your credibility is severely damage and it can take years to un-screw; assuming you even have the money/resources to fight off the bogus claim.

Before Flynn could make his move, they took him out of play and in addition, put the Trump administration on defense within the first month of the Trump's term.

Just like false allegations in a divorce rape case, sometimes the good guy wins in the end after a very painful battle. Hopefully, this is the case with regards to all the Spygate/Flynn/Russiagate/Fake Impeachment stuff and the day of reckoning is coming very soon.

Certain people need to get life in prison and perhaps even the death penalty for what has occurred with regards to the all the aforementioned. If we don't see the counter-punch soon from either Trump and/or Durham, this country is finished.

It looks like Flynn did know about the corruption of the Intelligence Community and was planning to audit them once he became the Nat Sec Adv. That's why Obama and the Deep State wanted so desperately to get rid of him. Though it is still unclear if this corruption was just in the Middle East and if and how much the IC was lining their own pockets.

But it’s the corruption itself that’s stunning. In early April, Powell told the Vicki McKenna Show that the disgraced intel leader and others in the intelligence community were targeting Flynn over billions of taxpayer dollars that he knew were not being properly accounted for.

“Powell, who took over Flynn’s defense last summer, told the Vicki McKenna Show on 1310 WIBA Madison on Tuesday that her client was ‘totally set up’ because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration,” the Washington Examiner reported Wednesday.
“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions [former Obama era CIA Director John] Brennan and company were running off books,” she said.

full article here


Gold Member

BREAKING: New DNI instruction removes FBI from cordeword SIGINT briefings and products that contain sources/methods. They have been ordered to return to core LE/CT work

More: The FBI will no longer receive raw or refined sources and methods COMINT/SIGINT product, only sanitized analyst product

The orders have already gone out to the relevant IC commands, including INSCOM. Now FBI's access will only be granted on a per-incident basis if matter is not directly related to terrorism or a criminal activity under active investigation

To be clear: With the exception of terrorism and criminal matters the FBI is out of the raw intelligence business.



It looks like Flynn did know about the corruption of the Intelligence Community and was planning to audit them once he became the Nat Sec Adv. That's why Obama and the Deep State wanted so desperately to get rid of him. Though it is still unclear if this corruption was just in the Middle East and if and how much the IC was lining their own pockets.
Flynn was director of DIA, he knew plenty. This was while Crapper was the Director of National Intelligence.

The intelligence community is the strangest collection of left leaning, war mongering big government neocons you could never imagine. It stuns the conscience to think such a motley bunch of swamp rats exists in a way even Hollywood couldn't parody.

Flynn wasn't one of them. They hated him for it, but the hate turned to fear when he was about to become the national security advisor. Even they knew what they were doing was flaky, as evidenced by that manicured, post-hoc email drafted by that cunt Susan Rice.

Max Roscoe

Orthodox Inquirer
General Flynn would have been the only sane advisor in the Trump administration, which is why he had to go. He replaced the insane and evil Susan Rice and was replaced by the equally nutty H R McMaster who wrote some bizarre revisionist book about the Vietnam War.

Flynn would have pushed for normal relations with Russia, or at least not for antagonizing and worsening relations for no reason as we have seen since then. Everyone else in the Trump cabinet is either malignant or incompetent, from lying fat Mike Pompeo down to sleepy Ben Carson.

Trump is not a very bright or curious man, and he is easily influenced by those who play to his ego. He could have been a good president if he surrounded himself with good non-deep state advisors, but this was not allowed to happen. How much of a role did Jared Kushner play in selecting advisors?


Gold Member
I saw this as well, would love for Flynn to be put in charge of the fbi or even replace Kushner and run Trump’s white house(I can dream)