House Intel Documents: FBI Has “Nothing Particularly Significant” Against General Flynn
The latest bit of explosive information from special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s investigation shows that the FBI deliberately chose to prosecute General Michael Flynn, though they had no reason to believe he was lying to them.
On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released an unredacted version of their final report on Russia, and the unredacted documents tell a completely different story than their redacted counterparts.
Compare them side-by-side:
“Deputy Director McCabe stated that, ‘we really had not substantiated anything particularly significant against General Flynn,'” says the newly unredacted version of the document.
But why would this have been redacted in the first place? The public was under the impression that Flynn lied to the FBI. McCabe says plainly that that there was no case against Flynn.
“The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case,” McCabe told the House Intel Committee.
But it gets worse. Disgraced former FBI director James Comey was in on the scheme.
“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception,'” the original redacted report says. “They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”
“General Flynn pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his December 2016 conversations with Ambassador Kislyak, even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn’s interview,” it continues.
The original redacted report leaves the reader with the assumption that Flynn must have lied about something – remember, the FBI’s story was that Flynn had improperly discussed sanctions with Russia during the Trump transition, and the feds actively pushed the implication that Flynn was working out deals with the Russians to soften sanctions against them, conveying the narrative that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Kremlin.
The unredacted report tells a completely different story. The following was redacted in the original report:
“In the call between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak, General Flynn ‘requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. sanctions [imposed by the Obama administration] in a reciprocal fashion,'” the document says.
Keep in mind that the FISA warrant obtained by the DOJ to wiretap these phone calls in the first place was granted based on the phony Steele Dossier.
Had the public known that Flynn was simply discussing Russia’s response to sanctions already imposed by Obama with an ambassador – which is completely normal for a diplomat during a presidential transition and in no way illegal – and not actively working with the Kremlin, the perception of his “wrongdoing” would have been much different. That is why the FBI redacted this portion of the report.
The question remains: Why would Flynn plead guilty to a crime that he really did not commit – or at least one that seems contestable?
The answer to that question remains unclear, though strangely Flynn’s sentencing hearing has been pushed back twice, which is nearly unheard of.
The federal judge presiding over Flynn’s case has also been changed. Judge Rudolph Contreras was forced to recuse himself from Flynn’s case after it became known that he was friendly with anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok.
Flynn’s case has been marred by partisan bias and federal overreach, as has the Mueller investigation as a whole. It should be a concern to every American that citizen – and a remarkable American hero, at that – can have his life destroyed for working on the “wrong” side of a political campaign.