The Flynn Tapes: A New Tell

[brooklynite]

New York Review of Books

In early February 2017, a senior White House attorney, John Eisenberg, reviewed highly classified intelligence intercepts of telephone conversations between then-National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, which incontrovertibly demonstrated that Flynn had misled the FBI about those conversations, according to government records and two people with first-hand knowledge of the matter. It was after this information was relayed to President Trump that the president fired Flynn, and the following day allegedly pressured then-FBI Director James Comey to shut down a federal criminal investigation into whether Flynn had lied to the FBI.

Eisenberg reviewed the intercepts on or about February 2, 2017, according to confidential White House records and two former White House officials. Despite the fact that not only Eisenberg but presumably also other senior White House officials learned this information, they apparently took no immediate action. Only on February 8, 2017—after The Washington Post contacted the White House to say that it was about to publish a story about the intercepts showing that Flynn had lied about his conversations with Kislyak—did administration officials do anything. That same day, confidential White House records indicate, then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, White House Counsel Don McGahn, and Eisenberg directly confronted Flynn about what they learned from the intercepts. On February 10, Vice President Mike Pence, Preibus, and McGahn spoke to Flynn again, but received no satisfactory explanations from him, and recommended to President Trump that Flynn be fired. On February 13, 2017, Flynn resigned.

A former senior White House official, with first-hand knowledge of the matter, expressed disbelief at the inaction: “You have a White House lawyer learning that the national security adviser to the president of the Untied States has possibly lied—about his contacts with Russians—not only to his own White House, but also to the FBI, which is a potential felony, and nobody does anything?” The person added: “I have no reason to question John Eisenberg’s integrity or that he is an exceptional attorney. I guess I buy into narrative that this was a White House in disarray, because the alternative is too painful to contemplate.”

Aside from the unexplained, six-day delay of the White House to act on Eisenberg’s information, these new disclosures, building on my July 31 reporting for the Daily, constitute the strongest evidence to date that President Trump may have obstructed justice. Perjury and obstruction of justice cases depend largely on whether a prosecutor can demonstrate the intent and motivation of the person they want to charge. It’s not enough to prove that the person attempted to impede an ongoing criminal investigation; the statute requires a prosecutor to prove that the person did so with the corrupt intent to protect himself or someone else from prosecution. The president’s legal team has claimed that Trump did nothing wrong because he did not understand that Flynn was in criminal jeopardy when, according to the former FBI director’s testimony, he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn. The new information that Trump and others in the White House were aware that the intercepts revealed that Flynn had lied to the FBI directly contradicts those claims.

[gratuitous]

1. Good luck with a defense of "I didn't know this was obstruction! I was just protecting myself"

This is one of the inevitable by-products of folks inexperienced in the ways of government. I'm no expert, but I do know that if I was to be put into a high position of government, I'd make damn sure I knew the rules. "Oh, I have direct evidence that somebody high up is a stooge for a hostile foreign government? National security could be compromised? Guess I'd better just clam up and lay low." No, you report it to somebody.

[mr_lebowski]

2. Incontrovertible evidence Trump attempted to Obstruct Justice by telling Comey to lay off Flynn

This article, if accurate (and it definitely has the Whiff of Well-Sourced facts), pretty well proves intentional intent to obstruct on Trumps part.

Previously, the 'defense' by the WH of Trumps action in doing so was that he was unaware that Flynn had lied to the FBI. This article proves that is a LIE.

The only question left is ... WHY did Trump commit a crime on behalf of Flynn, who he barely knew, and JUST gave the job to? Why did he NOT want the FBI poking around into the subject of 'people close to Trump, talking to Russians about Sanctions'?

Recall that the Trump Tower meeting was still very much a 'secret' at this time. And that we now KNOW that those very close to Trump, including his Personal Lawyer, Campaign Chair, and SON ... were talking to Russians about both receiving stolen data FROM Russia, and about Russian sanctions, in the heart of the Presidential Campaign, at Trump Tower.

We also know that THE DAY that the meeting was set up, Trump made a public statement declaring he was 'very soon, maybe Monday' to make a major speech describing the many evil doings of Hillary Clinton (suggesting he knew he about to receive 'dirt' from the Russians ... the meeting at TT, was over that very weekend).

We also know data stolen by Russians, harmful towards Dems and Hillary, was VERY soon (within weeks) after this meeting, publicly distributed by Russian Intelligence Assets i.e. Guccifer 2.0, at their DCLeaks website, and soon after that, through Wikileaks.

We also know Trump trumpeted Wikileaks Wikileaks Wikileaks all summer long on the campaign trail in 2016. We also know that Trumps LONG TIME confidante (and pimp) Roger Stone had advanced knowledge of which STOLEN documents Wikileaks were about to reveal.

We also know that the provenance of these documents was, according to the UNANIMOUS proclamation of 13 US Intelligence Agencies ... RUSSIA.

The REASON, therefore, for Trumps February 2017 acts of obstruction surrounding Flynn, couldn't be more obvious.

But yeah, just a 'unfair witch-hunt', right, IQ45? If that's true, then Trump ... is most definitely the Witch.