Image 01 Image 03

If Comey, FBI Didn’t Think Flynn Lied, Then Why Did He Plead Guilty?

If Comey, FBI Didn’t Think Flynn Lied, Then Why Did He Plead Guilty?


President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn has come back into the news after The Washington Examiner‘s Byron York reported that former FBI Director James Comey told Congress the department doesn’t think Flynn lied to them.

Remember the fiasco is over him allegedly speaking to to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition period in December 2016:

On Jan. 24, 2017, two of Comey’s FBI agents went to the White House to question Flynn, and there was a lot of speculation later that Flynn lied in that interview, which would be a serious crime.

“The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy,” the Washington Post reported in February. “Lying to the FBI is a felony offense.”

According to York, sources close to Comey’s meetings with Congress last March said that what actually happened in those meetings did not match what the media reported:

According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.

Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning.

It’s also important to remember that as incoming national security advisor, it’s not illegal or out of the ordinary that Flynn spoke with Kislyak. Bush’s national security advisor Stephen Hadley even said that he didn’t find it a problem if Flynn spoke to Kislyak about Russian sanctions and a Washington Post report showed that nothing happened:

“I don’t see what would be wrong if [Flynn] simply said, look, don’t retaliate, doesn’t make sense, it hurts my country, it makes it harder for us as an incoming administration to reconsider Russia policy, which is something we said we’d do. So just hold your fire and let us have a shot at this.”

Indeed, it appears the FBI did not think Flynn had done anything wrong in the calls. On Jan. 23, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had reviewed the Flynn-Kislyak calls and “has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government.” (The calls had been intercepted by U.S. intelligence because the U.S. monitored the Russian ambassador’s communications — something which Flynn, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, surely knew.)

So why on earth did Flynn plead guilty!? I pitched this to Professor Jacobson, who brought up Flynn’s son, and it looks like he’s not the only one. Andrew McCarthy at National Review also noticed the oddities in this case as well.

Last September, the media reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller turned his eyes to Michael Flynn, Jr., due to “his role as chief of staff to his father at the Flynn Intel Group, a lobbying and consulting firm that worked for international and domestic clients.” From NBC News:

Several legal experts with knowledge of the investigation have told NBC News they believe Mueller, following a classic prosecutorial playbook, is seeking to compel key players, including Flynn and Manafort, to tell what they know about any possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Mueller has brought onto his team a federal prosecutor known for convincing subjects to turn on associates. Any potential criminal liability for Michael G. Flynn could put added pressure on his father, these legal experts said.

“Any time a family member is identified as a subject that does increase pressure,” said Peter White, a former federal prosecutor. “In the typical parent-child relationship the last thing any parent would want is for their child to get in trouble for something they initiated.”

In March, The Wall Street Journal published an article, in which former CIA Director James Woolsey claimed he attended a meeting with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Turkish Foreign Ministers to discuss removing Fehtullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania. Mueller put that meeting under investigation.

So even though Flynn didn’t do anything illegal or wrong with his phone call it’s not out of this realm that someone pressured him to plead guilty in order to release the pressure on his son over that meeting.

Just like everything else lately (like all those stupid memos) this has brought up more questions. Mueller has been investigating supposed collusion between Trump and Russia for a very long time. Did he feel like he had to show something?

This was not done by the Department of Justice. It was done by Mueller. Flynn was a popular target among those who hated Trump and I remember viewing statements by people who seemed like they were salivating at the thought of Flynn going down.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.




    YellowSnake in reply to Lewfarge. | February 13, 2018 at 7:40 pm

    Yep, Just like they did to Clinton – Bill that is.

    I do hope you remember this if Hillary becomes a target.

      starride in reply to YellowSnake. | February 13, 2018 at 7:57 pm

      Only Bubba was guilty,,,,, remember he lost his law license, and just in you cant understand it, the bar association that suspended his license, is not a government entity.

        YellowSnake in reply to starride. | February 13, 2018 at 8:33 pm

        You are right. I thought he ultimately plead to perjury. But the fact that after all the effort, time and money he was convicted of nothing makes the case that he was persecuted stronger.

        Meanwhile Gingrich was cheating with his soon to be third wife (a Catholic) and leading the charge to impeach Clinton.

        Here’s hoping Trump gets exactly the justice he deserves.

          Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | February 13, 2018 at 9:55 pm

          How is Gingrich’s affair relevant? Adultery is not illegal, and the Republicans did not go after Clinton for it. The R attack on Clinton was carefully kept to his actual crimes. The only people who attacked him for the Lewinsky affair were his fellow Democrats, precisely so that they could then turn around and say “but it’s not grounds for impeachment”. There was a deliberate D campaign to falsely convince the public that the impeachment was for moral offenses rather than for felonies for which other people went to prison.

          inspectorudy in reply to YellowSnake. | February 14, 2018 at 11:04 am

          We haven’t heard from the snake in a while so after reading his latest screed, maybe it’s time to go back under his favorite rock!

      I thought I smelled urine when I saw all of the quick downvotes.

      figured it was you

      “Yep, Just like they did to Clinton – Bill that is.”

      Yep, commie. Clinton’s are both dirty. The only question is which one is worst.

      Blue Dress lied, justice dried!!

      Eddie Baby in reply to YellowSnake. | February 13, 2018 at 8:39 pm

      You’re bringing up Bill “Stained Blue Dress” Clinton as an example of someone wrongfully prosecuted? Troll harder, dude.

Also, this seems to have Andrew Weissman’s methods and procedures all over it !

I suspect he had out of money for his own defense. If I were a betting woman, I would wager President Trump is waiting for the most troll-like opportunity to pardon him.

Mueller is seemingly a dirty cop using extortion to wreak havoc on those he chooses to without regard to guilt or innocence.

Fathers of two girls really shouldn’t play hardball.

Comey is a crook, as is Mueller.

Is there a Michael Flynn (Sr.) defense fund?

There’s a theory that Flynn plead guilty because the legal defense costs would be ruinous.

There’s another theory that he trapped Mueller or McCabe in a false prosecution. Someone already knew the 302s had been alrered.

    I’d still like to know why Judge Contreras recused himself

      Petrushka in reply to MarkS. | February 13, 2018 at 11:59 pm

      Was recused, not recused himself.

      J Motes in reply to MarkS. | February 14, 2018 at 4:32 am

      Perhaps because he approved the FISA warrants, and the Flynn case seeking dismissal is based on the purported fraudulence of the FISA applications that Contreras accepted in making his decision. Contreras might be called as a witness in the Flynn case. If the judge was an innocent dupe, he would recognize the conflict of interest and step out of the Flynn case accordingly. If the judge was in on the scam from the beginning, then he would want to drop that hot potato as fast as possible.

      All reports I’ve read have been careful to emphasize that he “was recused,” and specifically deny that he recused himself. No one is telling who ordered the recusal, so we are left to wonder if a high-ranking official in the DOJ who knows what’s coming is finally doing something to help right the ship. As far as I know, Contreras has not made any public statements (nor private statements that have been leaked) about his role in these two cases. Perhaps he is demonstrating a praise-worthy silence awaiting his testimony, or maybe he is panicked into silently planning an escape from justice or from the assassin’s bullet.

What does Gowdy think of Mueller now?

    oldgoat36 in reply to JHogan. | February 14, 2018 at 9:19 am

    The top powers of the FBI and butt buddies with Mueller can and do make lives miserable. I have a feeling that Goudy was strong armed in some way. There are a number of times where Mr. Goudy has turned from what would seem to be normal conclusions. I think that is also part of why he isn’t running for office again.

    The FBI was known for doing dirty to further their own agendas back in the J. Edgar days, I think today they are just as bad as back then. They were weaponized by the left. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Was he investigated under a FISA warrant too?

“Just like everything else lately (like all those stupid memos) this has brought up more questions.”

Since we live in a country with an alleged news media that does nothing but speak on behalf of the (D) party, these questions are never in the forefront of public discussion. Any answers we happen to get are shoved under the same carpet.

If you are never held accountable, there is no right or wrong. Just do what ever you want. This is especially scary when the full power of the Government is behind you.

Of course Mueller believes he needs to have some “scalps” to provide cover for the length and expense of his “investigation”. Just as Fitzgerald felt he had to produce at least one prosecution when he had to have known within a couple of weeks of being appointed that there was no crime in the crime he was appointed to investigate. Plame did not qualify as a Covert Agent under the Federal law protecting the identities of said covert agents, thus revealing her employer was not a crime. Not to mention her employer was well known among her and her husband’s friends. They made no secret of her employment status.

I’m reminded of a “Wizard of Id” cartoon, by Jimmy Hart.
A shyster lawyer says, “All men are presumed innocent until proven broke.”

Mueller stacked his team with people who already had a history of prosecutorial overreach. I think one of them destroyed the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson in the Enron case.

As I keep saying, Mueller didn’t select his personnel by accident. They were handpicked for a specific reason.

I wonder who else may have been blackmailed using the fruit of illegal surveillance. John Roberts?