"The Whole Thing Is Completely Absurd": Kremlin Blasts Notion That Flynn "Influenced" Putin

As the U.S. media and Washington D.C. legislators continue to lose their collective minds over the Michael Flynn charges, Kremlin  press secretary Dmitry Peskov took to the podium earlier today to dismiss the notion that Flynn"s comments to former ambassador Sergey Ivanovich had any impact on Putin"s ultimate decision to retaliate against U.S. sanctions as "completely absurd."  Per the RT:

“Flynn was in no position to request anything of Sergey Ivanovich [Kislyak, Russia’s former US ambassador] let alone to expect any requests to be relayed to Vladimir Putin – the whole thing is completely absurd,” said the Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov during a media briefing in Moscow.

 

In the end Russia did postpone its response, but Peskov says that “the decision was taken by Putin alone, and cannot be attributed to any requests or recommendations.”

 

“What information Putin receives from his ambassadors is of no concern to anyone else,” said Peskov. “The Russian president makes all decisions independently on the basis, as he has said many times, of Russia’s national interest.”

For those who may have just returned from a remote island and missed the "shocking" revelations of the past three days, as we"ve detailed numerous times, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn plead guilty last Friday to lying under oath by denying to the FBI that he urged the Russian ambassador to delay a decision on retaliating against U.S. sanctions and attempted to influence a U.N. vote.  Of course, the conversations in question happened after the election, during the transition period, and wouldn"t have been an issue but for Flynn"s seemingly inexplicable decision to lie about them.  Here"s more from NBC:

A two-page charging document filed last week listed two false statements Flynn made about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. It said Flynn falsely claimed that he had not asked Kislyak "to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the U.S. had imposed against Russia," and that he didn"t recall Kislyak telling him Russia had decided to moderate its response as a result of his request.

 

Prior to the Dec. 29 call with Kislyak, Flynn called a senior official with the presidential transition team who was with other members of the team at Trump"s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to discuss what to say to the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions, according to the statement of offense.

 

Court documents also said Flynn falsely claimed that he didn"t ask Kislyak on Dec. 22 to "delay a vote on or defeat" a U.N. Security Council resolution, and then falsely denied that Kislyak had described Russia"s response to the request. Before that call, a "very senior member" of the transition team directed Flynn to contact foreign officials, including those from Russia, to learn where they stood and influence the vote, according to the statement of offense. The "very senior member" was Jared Kushner, three people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

 

According to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charge, Flynn made the false statements to the FBI on Jan. 24, two days after he was sworn in as national security adviser.

Of course, the real question from here is what Flynn"s plea deal means for the White House.  Not surprisingly, the Left has celebrated the development as an indication Flynn could potentially implicate President Trump in the "Russian collusion" investigation while Trump supporters have argued that the decision to pursue Flynn over false statements clearly indicates that they have nothing else of substance.  Per the Wall Street Journal:

To Mr. Trump’s supporters, the charge against Mike Flynn for making false statements was evidence that investigators were nowhere near proving collusion with Russians to interfere in the 2016 president election, the matter at the heart of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative mandate.

 

But Mr. Trump’s detractors viewed the plea deal as a milestone—the first senior aide to Mr. Trump to turn on his former boss—in an investigation that continues to escalate.

 

Both versions make assumptions about what information Mr. Flynn has to offer, a mystery that will reveal itself over time. For now, Mr. Flynn’s deal with the special counsel and his team suggests at the very least that Mr. Mueller believes Mr. Flynn has something valuable to share and that his investigation is unlikely to end soon, said former federal prosecutors.

 

“A guilty plea at this stage really could mean a whole lot of different things, and folks are in a hurry to have the plea meet their predetermined narratives,” said Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national-security law and law professor at the University of Texas.

So what say you...is the "Russian collusion" investigation weaving its way into the Oval Office or are escalating suggestions of the President"s downfall just another "nothing burger?"

Did Mike Flynn Wear A Wire During Conversations With Jared Kushner?

By now, other potential Trump administration officials who might’ve interacted with Michael Flynn following his Jan. 24 interview with FBI agents - where the former general lied about the details of his conversation with then-ambassador Kislyak - are probably tearing their hair out trying to discern whether the former National Security Adviser – who served in that post for less than a month before being fired for allegedly misrepresenting these same conversations to Vice President Pence – might’ve worn a wire during their interactions.

Of course, there’s nothing in Flynn’s Nov. 30 plea agreement that definitively answers the question of whether Flynn wore a wire.

So, in the interest of reading the tea leaves, the Guardian spoke to a handful of experts about whether there was any language in the plea agreement to suggest that Flynn – who tried to cover up the fact that he intimated to then-ambassador Kislyak that Trump would roll back some of the sanctions against the Putin government while also soliciting a Russian veto of a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements – might’ve been wired for sound.

Their conclusion? That certain language in the Flynn plea about ‘covert actions’ suggests that, yes, he did wear a wire.

Section eight of the deal reached by Donald Trump’s former national security adviser in the inquiry into Russian meddling in the US election is entitled “cooperation”. It specifies that as well as answering questions and submitting to government-administered polygraph tests, Flynn’s cooperation “may include … participating in covert law enforcement activities”.

 

Long-time students of federal law enforcement practices agreed, speaking anonymously, that “covert law enforcement activities” likely refers to the possibility of wearing a concealed wire or recording telephone conversations with other potential suspects. It is not known whether Flynn has worn a wire at any time.

 

“If the other subjects of investigation have had any conversations with Flynn during the last few months, that phrase must have all of them shaking in their boots,” said John Flannery, a former federal prosecutor in the southern district of New York.

And if there’s one member of the Trump inner circle who might have something to worry about thanks to Flynn, it’s senior Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner.  

“The one who must be particularly terrified is [Trump son-in-law and adviser] Jared Kushner, if he spoke to the special counsel’s office without immunity about the very matter that is the subject of Flynn’s plea. I think he must be paralyzed if he talked to Flynn before or after the investigators debriefed him."

But aside from the language about covert action, few other details about what actions might’ve taken can be gleaned from the plea. Even the date when Flynn began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation remains a mystery - though at least one prominent Republican donor was telling friends in July this year that Flynn was already helping the Mueller probe, the Guardian reported.

The exact nature of the information that Flynn provided to Mueller also is not yet known (though we imagine, given the sieve-like nature of the Mueller camp when it comes to media leaks, some of these details will likely begin appearing in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post). However, if there’s one clue as to the magnitude of the assistance that Flynn provided to Mueller, it’s the updated sentencing guidelines for the single charge of obstruction that Flynn has chosen to eat instead of trying his luck with a trial.

Considering the severity of Flynn’s crimes in the eyes of the FBI (which doesn’t look kindly on people who knowingly hinder investigations), the dramatic reduction in the former general’s sentencing suggests that he is going to help Mueller take down at least one other senior member of the Trump inner circle.

The main clue in the plea agreement about the importance of the information Flynn has already provided lies in the discrepancy between the maximum penalty for the crime he has admitted and the maximum sentence the special counsel has promised to recommend.

 

According to the document made public on Friday, Flynn could have been sentenced to as much as five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. As long as he cooperates in full with all of the special counsel’s requests, the document says the “estimated sentencing guidelines” range from zero to six months, with a possible fine of between $500 and $9,500. The proposed sentencing reduction also partly takes into account the fact Flynn has no criminal record.

 

“No prosecutor I know would agree to reducing a sentence that dramatically unless the witness had provided very significant information about at least one other target of his investigation,” Flannery said. “You wouldn’t get such a low sentence unless you had implicated a big target. The person that you’re lifting up allows you to sit on the ground.”

The exact language in the plea agreement requires Flynn to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely and with this Office and other Federal, state and local law enforcement authorities identified by this Office in any and all matters as to which this Office deems the cooperation relevant”.

If Flynn refuses to cooperate fully, “the agreement will be considered breached by your client.” The agreement says any breach will have a serious impact on Flynn’s sentence.

Experts told the Guardian it was notable Flynn pleaded guilty before being indicted by a grand jury, though the logic here is easy to spot. By sparing Flynn this very public embarrassment, Flynn has more reason to feel genuinely grateful toward the former FBI director. It also makes sense from a strategic perspective: By preserving Flynn’s cover, the former National Security Adviser was free to begin recording incriminating information that could be useful for Mueller.

Whatever the nature of the agreement, Flynn has every incentive to provide Mueller with as much useful information as he possibly can. According to the agreement Flynn must cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely and with this Office and other Federal, state and local law enforcement authorities identified by this Office in any and all matters as to which this Office deems the cooperation relevant”.

If Flynn refuses or fails, “the agreement will be considered breached by your client.” The agreement says any breach will have a serious impact on Flynn’s sentence.

To be sure, the idea that Flynn – or even Papadopoulos before him – wore a wire is still, at this point, mere speculation. While it sounds like prosecutors wanted both men to do so, in Flynn’s case, Mueller may have included the suspicious passage in his plea for another unrelated purpose: To scare other potential witnesses or targets into being completely truthful with investigators.

Since there was no legal requirement for Mueller to include this information about covert law enforcement activities in the plea agreement, Flannery believes it was put there “to put the fear of God” into anyone who may have given the special counsel answers that conflict with Flynn’s information.

Of course, the nature of Flynn’s cooperation was immediately overblown by ABC in an error that might cost one senior correspondent his career – indeed, it has already greatly damaged what little credibility he had left. ABC suspended Brian Ross – who erroneously reported that Flynn would testify Trump instructed him to contact the Russians during the campaign. Flynn was actually preparing to testify that a senior Trump official 0 revealed to be Kushner – ordered him to do so during the transition. Outreach between the transition and foreign regimes is legal and common.

So, aside from undermining President Obama during the waning days of his administration, Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was otherwise completely legitimate, which begs the question: Why’d Flynn lie? His actions, of course, were technically violations of a rarely enforced law against soliciting these types of quid-pro-quo arrangements. But the risk of being caught in a lie was far greater than risking possible punishment for his conversations with Kislyak.

So why’d he do it?

* * *

Full Flynn Plea Agreement:

Flynn Used White House Position To Lobby For Mid-East Nuclear Reactors: WSJ

Rumors that former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn might be the next former Trump administration official to be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller have been circulating for weeks now. Last week was no exception, with US media reporting that Flynn’s legal team had decided to stop cooperating with the White House council and President Donald Trump’s administration.  Now, in the latest Flynn development to arrive Tuesday evening, the WSJ reports on Flynn’s push during his brief tenure in the administration to convince President Trump to support a plan to build roughly a dozen nuclear power plants across the Middle East.

Private-sector backers of a controversial Middle East nuclear plan worked with former national security adviser Mike Flynn to promote it inside the White House, to the point of sending him a draft memo for the president to sign authorizing the project.

 

At issue was a proposal to build dozens of nuclear reactors, billed by its backers as a “Marshall Plan for the Middle East.” Before joining the White House, Mr. Flynn, a retired lieutenant general, had advised some of the U.S. companies involved in the plan in his capacity as a consultant.

At the heart of the issue is whether Flynn abused his position within the administration to help benefit his consulting clients.

Mr. Flynn’s efforts to promote the plan included telling a National Security Council staffer to create an official directive detailing the plan for President Donald Trump to sign, according to people familiar with the matter. He also brought the project to the attention of a key administration ally, these people say.

That said, if passed, the plan was projected to generate $250 billion in revenue for U.S. companies. However, according to WSJ, the memo never made it to the president’s desk. But this may not matter: Mueller is separately investigating Flynn’s work before he joined the White House as part of a probe into whether he improperly concealed financial ties to Turkey and to Russia.

In response, a White House spokesman said “the White House and National Security Council have rigorous processes in place to ensure that all outside proposals are thoroughly evaluated for their potential legal and policy implications.” In his White House disclosure forms, Flynn revealed his relationship with two of the companies involved in the project, but didn’t reveal any payments. He later amended those forms, saying a third company paid him more than $5,000. He said his relationship with the companies ended in December 2016.

Details of Flynn’s work promoting the project from inside the White House first became public in September. But this latest report sheds light on exactly how far Flynn about how far it progressed inside the administration, and how Flynn’s former staffer continued to promote it after he left office in February after misleading Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Lavrov.

In addition to Mueller’s probe, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating Flynn’s relationship with the companies involved and to what extent his prior consulting career overlapped with his role of one report, though it’s not clear exactly which companies were involved, according to WSJ which also reminds us that two ranking House Democrats said in September that Flynn appeared to violate federal law by failing to disclose details of his work for the firms on his security-clearance interview and renewal application in 2016.

What’s more, since Flynn’s resignation, his former private-sector colleagues continued to lobby various federal agencies about the plan, recently meeting with Jared Kushner (whose role in the administration, according to NYT and WaPo, has been greatly diminished).

In its story, WSJ tries to lend the impression that Flynn prioritized his lobbying work over his duties as National Security Adviser. Much of Flynn’s work on the project, however, was routed through intermediaries, who spent much of their first weeks on the job coordinating Flynn’s lobbying pitch.

One of the people Mr. Flynn brought with him, former Army Col. Derek Harvey, said at a meeting during the first week of the new administration that Mr. Flynn had told him to develop a regional economic and energy plan for the Middle East. When staffers pointed out there was an NSC office that handled economic and energy issues, Mr. Harvey said Mr. Flynn had directed him to take the lead on the issue.

 

Mr. Harvey met with a private-sector backer of the nuclear plan the first week of the Trump administration. Days later, another of the project’s backers, Robert “Bud” McFarlane, a national security adviser to President Reagan, emailed documents to Mr. Flynn.

However, sources inside the White House and other lobbyists affiliated with the effort said Flynn’s work was carried out at Trump’s request. They added that Flynn had been invited to join their group in the summer of 2016, but that in December he said he wouldn’t participate.

In one incident that has drawn Mueller’s scrutiny, Flynn reportedly forwarded an email from McFarlane asking to prepare a package for the president to the NSA’s staff. Derek Harvey, one of Flynn’s subordinates, then told his staff to put the contents of the draft memo into an official “cabinet memo” from the president. There is no indication such a memo ever made it to Trump.

Yet unsurprisingly, Harvey – a close ally of Flynn’s - the administration’s senior Middle East adviser, was dismissed in July after clashes with NSC staffers. He is now senior adviser to the chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“It’s sad to see The Wall Street Journal attacking Republicans for promoting a policy, long supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations, of advocating overseas for American nuclear power,” said Jack Langer, a committee spokesman.

In summary, while the WSJ disburses numerous details about this lobbying efforts, the nature of Flynn’s exact crime is unclear: was his crime to abuse his position of power and push for a certain political outcome in exchange for some backdoor cash exchange? If so, is it also not time to also look at the Clinton Foundation, where the amount of money exchanged was orders of magnitude greater. Especially since while the implications of the article remain confusing, one thing is quite obvious: none of the above had anything to do with the Trump campaign, or the Russian government.

Mike Flynn Refuses To Honor Senate Subpoena

Just a few short days after receiving a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee, requesting documents relevant to the Committee"s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election, AP reports that Senator Burr, the top Republican on the committee, says that Michael Flynn"s lawyers say he will not honor subpoena.

Last week, in a joint statement from Commttee chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-Va.) the committee disclosed that it had first requested the documents in an April 28 letter to Flynn, but he "declined" to cooperate with the request.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today issued a subpoena for former National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. The subpoena requests documents relevant to the Committee"s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. The Committee first requested these documents in an April 28, 2017 letter to Lieutenant General Flynn, but he declined, through counsel, to cooperate with the Committee"s request.

CNN also reported that the FBI had also issued subpoenas relating to Flynn"s business records, so the ousted National Security Adviser is now at at the center of both investigations, although as disclosed, he did not comply with the committee"s earlier request.

And today we get confirmation from Senator Burr, via AP, that Michael Flynn"s lawyers say he will not honor subpoena.

This is perhaps not entirely surprising given Yahoo"s reporting that late last month, fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn—under investigation by federal prosecutors, with his lawyer seeking immunity for him to testify to Congress–met with a small group of loyalists at a restaurant in the northern Virginia suburbs.
Saddled with steep legal bills, Flynn wanted to reconnect with old friends and talk about potential future business opportunities. But one overriding question among those present were his views on the president who had fired him as national security advisor. Flynn left little doubt about the answer.  Not only did he remain loyal to President Trump, he indicated he and the president were still in communication. “I just got a message from the president to stay strong,” Flynn said after the meal was over, according to two sources who are close to Flynn and are familiar with the conversation, which took place on April 25.

We are sure Democratic leadership will have some great soundbites soon (of course, forgeting Hillary-related obfuscations of various government subpoenas during the election campaign).

Obama Warning Trump About Flynn is the Definition of a Non-Story

NBC news is reporting that President Obama warned President elect Trump about hiring General Flynn.

What does that mean? Furthermore, what has Flynn done to deserve the ire of the main stream media to this large degree? Flynn"s "Russian ties" is centered around a phone call made to the Russians, after the election, discussing things like normalizing relations. It"s important to note, not everyone is convinced that "the Russians" hacked the elections or had anything to do with Wikileaks.

So, ahead of Sally "the hero" Yates" testimony, the MSM is trying, desperately, to paint a narrative around a kind hearted Obama looking out for the best interests of Trump -- generously offering him sage advice against hiring Flynn.

Who believes this shit?

Source: NBC

Former President Obama warned President Donald Trump against hiring Mike Flynn as his national security adviser, three former Obama administration officials tell NBC News.
 

The warning, which has not been previously reported, came less than 48 hours after the November election when the two sat down for a 90-minute conversation in the Oval Office.
 
A senior Trump administration official acknowledged Monday that Obama raised the issue of Flynn, saying the former president made clear he was "not a fan of Michael Flynn." Another official said Obama"s remark seemed like it was made in jest.

 
Wait a second, you mean to tell me a leftist democrat told a right winger to not hire another right winger? Fucking shocked.
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

In other news, Trump reminds people that Flynn had received the highest security clearance under Obama and to ask Yates about leaks, under oath.

General Flynn was given the highest security clearance by the Obama Administration - but the Fake News seldom likes talking about that.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017

Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017

What"s amazing is how this non-story is being peddled around today, hitting #1 on Reddit, in spite of the fact that it is literally a nothing-burger.

Trump Nominee For Navy Secretary Withdraws

Another Trump nominee for a critical government role has decided to withdraw. After two prior Trump nominees,  Army Secretary choice Vincent Viola and Labor nominee Andy Puzder, both removed themselves from consideration for their appointed role in recent weeks citing insurmountable opposition or conflicts, moments ago financier Philip Bilden, a senior advisor at HarbourVest Asia and President Trump’s pick to lead the Navy, was said to become the third Trump appointee to withdraw his nomination.

"Philip Bilden has informed me that he has come to the difficult decision to withdraw from consideration to be secretary of the Navy," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a statement Sunday evening. He added that "this was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests."

Bilden"s vast financial holdings, many of which he earned in Hong Kong, would have made it difficult for him to survive the scrutiny of the Office of Government Ethics, USNI News reported.

Bilden, who built his career in Hong Kong with the investment firm HarbourVest, was a surprise pick for the Navy post but had been Mattis’ preferred candidate. Yet like billionaire investment banker Vincent Viola, who withdrew his nomination to be secretary of the Army earlier this month, Bilden ran into too many challenges during a review by the Office of Government Ethics to avoid potential conflicts of interest, the sources said.

Bilden"s withdrawal leaves Mattis with just Air Force Secretary nominee Heather Wilson, a former New Mexico Republican congresswoman, in line for a top political post. Her Senate confirmation has not yet been scheduled.

Bilden served as an intelligence officer in the Army Reserve from 1986 to 1996 and is on the board of directors of the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation and the board of trustees of the Naval War College Foundation.

Some background. According to USNI, Financier Philip Bilden has withdrawn himself from consideration to be the next Secretary of the Navy.

Sources in the White House and the Navy told USNI News that Bilden’s extensive financial holdings would likely not meet the Office of Government Ethics standards to serve in the position. In order to serve he would have to divest much of his foreign holdings, USNI News understands.

The White House is scheduled to make the announcement this evening. Bilden was formally nominated as Navy Secretary on Jan. 25 after back-and-forth reports in the media as to whether he or former congressman Randy Forbes would get the job. The White House called Bilden “a highly successful business leader, former Military Intelligence officer, and Naval War College cybersecurity leader [who] will bring strategic leadership, investment discipline, and Asia Pacific regional and cyber expertise to the Department of the Navy” in its statement announcing Bilden’s selection.

Bilden served as a military intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1986 to 1996 after attending Georgetown University on an ROTC scholarship. In 1996 he moved to Hong Kong for business and resigned his commission.

In recent years, he had been involved with the Navy through serving on the Board of Directors of the United States Naval Academy Foundation and the Board of Trustees of the Naval War College Foundation. Additionally, one of his sons graduated from the Naval Academy and another is currently a midshipman there, and the White House statement noted that he comes from “a military family with four consecutive generations of seven Bilden Navy and Army officers.”

In a statement, Defense Sec Mattis added that he"ll make a recommendation in the coming days to Trump for a leader who can guide Navy and Marine Corps.