Posted by DrJohn on 24 January, 2018 at 7:41 pm. 10 comments already!

 

On January 24, 2017 Michael Flynn was interviewed by the FBI. He was a victim of entrapment.

Two people familiar with the matter said Trump was unaware that Flynn had spoken with the FBI until two days after the interview took place. An attorney for Flynn did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

A brief phone call from the office of Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, to a scheduler for Flynn on Jan. 24 set the interview in motion, according to people familiar with the matter. The scheduler was told the FBI wanted to speak with Flynn later that day, these people said, and the meeting was placed on Flynn’s schedule. The scheduler didn’t ask the reason for the meeting, and the FBI didn’t volunteer it, one person familiar with the matter said.

Later that day, two FBI agents arrived at the White House to speak with Flynn. A lawyer for the National Security Council typically would be informed of such a meeting and be present for it, one person familiar with the procedures said. But that didn’t happen in this instance, and Flynn didn’t include his own personal lawyer, two people said. He met with the two federal agents alone, according to these people.

“No one knew that any of this was happening,” said another senior White House official who was there at the time.

“Apparently it was not clear to Flynn that this was about his personal conduct,” another White House official said. “So he didn’t think of bringing his own lawyer.”

He didn’t bring a lawyer, which made the job of inducing Flynn to incriminate himself a cinch. The motivation to do so by at least one of the interviewers was more than apparent.

The interview was kept secret for two days.On December 1, 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. Flynn was charged with lying about doing something that was entirely legal.

The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

“He may have believed they were criminal”

Indeed. And given the interviewer, it would shock no one to learn that the agent led Flynn believe it was criminal. The interviewer had “unfinished business” and needed to “protect the country” from Donald Trump with an “insurance policy.”

“Now Gen. Flynn, it would look really, really bad were you to have talked to the Russians about sanctions, wouldn’t it? That could go really bad for you. Did you talk about sanctions with any Russians?”

Flynn was had and Strzok, fresh off writing Comey’s exculpation of Hillary Clinton, knew exactly what he was doing. One cannot help but notice that the the texts between Strzok and his paramour are missing for this critical period.

Clearly, Flynn was a step on the ladder to eventually ensnare Trump and force him from office for the crime of defeating Hillary Clinton in the election. Let’s be honest- Trump has been framed. The problem for the FBI now is that this is fruit of the poisoned tree. Not only was Strzok biased but his bias affected his performance. Flynn was entrapped. The conviction should be thrown out of court.

 

Exit question: If they’re missing, how does anyone know that there are 50,000 texts missing?

>