Michael Flynn was set up

Wanna know how dirty this whole Flynn case has been from the get-go? The only actual crime that we know for sure was committed, surrounding the Flynn-Kislyak phone call of 12/29/16, was the illegal leaking of the details of that call by someone in the Obama administration to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, who wrote the following on 1/12/17:

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-obama-dawdle-on-russias-hacking/2017/01/12/75f878a0-d90c-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html

Thanks to the documents released by the DOJ last week in their motion to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn, the larger public now knows that there was nothing inappropriate about the contents of this phone call, and, further, that it is clear that Flynn was acting in the interests of the U.S. (Mind you, the FBI knew all this before they went to interview Flynn on 1/24/17, as did Mueller and his prosecutors in the case, as did all the former Obama officials who went on TV the last three years insinuating that Flynn was a Russian agent....but let's set all that aside.)

Getting back to the leak of the Flynn-Kislyak call to Ignatius, which is a felony. When the story came out many people were rightly concerned about the compromising of national security that such illegal leaks represented, and several GOP congressman called for an investigation of this leak. At that time, the person at the DOJ who was tasked with investigating such leaks from the intelligence community was Brandon Van Grack.

When Flynn was eventually charged in December 2017 with making false statements to the FBI, the guy who was appointed by Robert Mueller to be the lead prosecutor in the Flynn case was the very same..... Brandon Van Grack, who only withdrew from the case last week.

Gee, I wonder why the leak of the Flynn-Kislyak call was never seriously looked into for the past three years?


You couldn't make this stuff up even if you tried....

Look at the real journalists such as Andy McCarthy, John Solomon, Mollie Hemmingway, Kimberly Strassel, Sara Carter, etc..... who are digging out the truth. And the Pulitzer prize for journalism went to the New York Times and the Washington Post for leaked stories about the phony Russian collusion. What a joke.

Bick...Send this guy's posts to the mosh  pit until he learns to show who the hell he's talking to, so we can see the context!

He must be talking to himself because that description fits him perfectly!

Bick, this thread has been infiltrated by a representative of the 8th grade mean girls club.

Somebody's feelings are hurt because I simply reported uncontested FACTS about a retired federal judge who, we are assured on good authority, is a "much better person" than me.

Glad we got that settled. I'm devastated and may need to cry in the corner for a while. 

I couldn't agree more. BTW, since when have you become a hack for Falun Gong?

I case you didn't know, they're the ones who own the Epoch Times.

I was curious about the following quote from your...article..."The prosecutors had threatened to charge both Flynn and his son, Mike Flynn Jr., with multiple felony crimes related to illegal lobbying and assign them both stiff prison sentences unless Flynn agreed to plead guilty to the far less serious crime of making a false statement during an interview with federal agents."

Multiple "felony crimes"? They were going to "assign them both stiff prison sentences"? Who wrote this garbage, a fifth grader? Prosecutors don't 'assign sentences" and this information has been around for years, and you act like it's new. Absurd.

You do know that was an op-ed piece you posted claiming it was filled with "facts"...I'd say "nice try" but it was pretty pathetic.