John R. Houk
© December 3, 2017
If you pay attention to Mainstream Media (MSM) on television
or print (Internet or otherwise), you are probably a foolish fellow for
believing the anti-Trump jubilation that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to
the FBI.
REMEMBER, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller mandate is to
investigate if Donald Trump and campaign colluded with Russia to influence the
outcome of the 2016 election to Trump’s favor.
Has ANY of Mueller’s prosecutorial indictments thus far had
anything to do with the Trump campaign directly colluding with Russia on the
election? NOPE!
Indicted so far:
1. Paul Manafort
Manafort is accused of concealing
from the United States his work as an agent of the Ukraine, and hiding tens of
millions of dollars he received. He allegedly hid the payments and laundered
more than $18 million through different U.S. and foreign corporations,
partnerships and banks, and failed to report these accounts to his tax
preparers. He also allegedly used the money from these off-shore accounts to
pay for his personal expenses, including real estate, luxury goods and services
for himself and his family. (
A Full List of All the Charges Filed in
Mueller’s Russia Probe; By
EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire;
12/1/17)
Time frame of accused
Manafort crimes:
2. Richard “Rick” Gates
Since Gates was charged with many of the same counts as
Manafort, several of the allegations are the same. The indictment states that
Gates conspired with Manafort in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in
the U.S. in favor of the Ukraine government. He also allegedly created a false
cover story and did not report foreign bank accounts. Gates was also accused of
using this money to fund personal expenses, including real estate properties. (A Full List of All the Charges Filed in
Mueller’s Russia Probe; By EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire; 12/1/17)
Time frame of accused Gates crimes:
3. George Papadopoulos
…
the special counsel announced the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos — which
apparently happened on or about October 5 — to a single count of making false
statements to government investigators. …
Papadopoulos was a low-level Trump-campaign adviser. He had contacts with
Russians who claimed to have close connections to the Putin regime.
As outlined in a 14-page “Statement of the Offense,” Papadopoulos’s principal
offense was to lie to the FBI about when these contacts occurred. He told the
FBI they happened before he joined the campaign; in fact, they happened not
only after he was aboard but only because he was aboard. Upon close
examination, the story unfolded in the offense statement is actually
exculpatory of Trump and his campaign.
…
Papadopoulos is a climber who was
clearly trying to push his way into Trump World. …
…
While living in London in early
March 2016, he spoke with an unidentified Trump-campaign official and learned
he would be designated a foreign-policy adviser to the campaign. These
arrangements are very loose. Papadopoulos was a fringe figure, not plugged into
Trump’s inner circle.
In London, Papadopoulos met an unidentified Russian academic (referred to as
“the Professor”), who claimed to have significant ties to Putin-regime
officials and who took an interest in Papadopoulos only because he boasted of
having Trump-campaign connections. There appears to be no small amount of
puffery on all sides: Papadopoulos suggesting to the Russians that he could
make a Trump meeting with Putin happen, and suggesting to the campaign that he
could make a Putin meeting with Trump happen; the Professor putting
Papadopoulos in touch with a woman who Papadopoulos was led to believe was
Putin’s niece (she apparently is not) …
In the most important meeting, in
London on April 26, 2016, the Professor told Papadopoulos that he (the Prof)
had just learned that top Russian-government officials had obtained “dirt” on
then-putative Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The dirt is said
to include “thousands of emails” — “emails of Clinton.” The suggestion, of
course, was that the Russians were keen to give this information to the Trump
campaign.
…
Notice that Mueller did not make
Papadopoulos plead guilty to collusion with Russia. For a prosecutor, there is
nothing better than getting a cooperating accomplice to admit guilt to the
scheme the prosecutor is investigating. It goes a long way toward proving that
the scheme existed. Once you’ve got that, it’s much easier to prove that the
cooperator’s confederates are guilty, too. But even though there’s a great deal
of evidence that Papadopoulos colluded with Russia, there’s no charge along
those lines. There’s just a single false-statement charge on which, according
to the plea agreement, he’s probably looking at no jail time, and certainly no
more than six months. Why no collusion charge? Because collusion is not a
crime.
…
First, it underscores that,
whatever “collusion” might have happened, at this point there is no
criminal-conspiracy case. …
Second, the offense statement
supporting the plea also helps Trump politically. There is an interesting
footnote on page 8. Here’s the context: On May 21, 2016, Papadopoulos emailed
an unidentified top Trump-campaign official, explaining with urgency that
Russian officials (presumably including Putin, at least in Papadopoulos’s mind)
wanted to meet Trump and “have been reaching out to me to discuss.” Mueller
then drops this footnote:
The government notes that
the official forwarded defendant PAPADOPOULOS’s email to another Campaign
official (without including defendant PAPADOPOULOS) and stated: “Let[’]s
discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It
should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.
…
Trump has no intention of meeting with Russians, and if there are going to be
meetings at all, it must be at a low level so the Russians do not construe
Trump to be making any commitments or accommodations. (
The Papadopoulos Case; By
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY;
National Review; 10/30/17 8:03
PM)
I spent more time laying out Papadopoulos’ guilty plea
because the time frame indicates his idiocy was actually during the 2016
campaign. Yet as Andrew McCarthy indicates, Papadopoulos was such a low
hanging fruit that the Trump campaign staff REBUFFED his self-initiated Russian
contact. Hence, no Trump crime here. As we hear the Dems say about real
crimes, Trump can truly say, “Move along – nothing to see here”.
And now the Mike Flynn guilty plea that has the Dems and MSM
all a twitter with glee that President Trump is about to be deposed. But first,
let’s begin with this ABC News moron getting caught spreading Fake News against
President Trump – Brian Ross:
ABC’s Brian Ross suspended over
erroneous Flynn report
12/2/17
ABC News investigative reporter
Brian Ross
was suspended for
four weeks without pay tonight over his
incorrect report that
Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that Donald Trump told him to contact the
Russians during his presidential campaign.
Why it matters: It was
a huge error that moved markets and damaged the network's credibility. The
report was also passed along by Axios and other news outlets. In a statement,
ABC News apologized and said the report "had not been fully vetted through
our editorial standards process."
The network later
corrected the report to
say that Trump gave him that instruction as president-elect — which is a big
difference, since there's nothing unusual about newly elected presidents
contacting foreign governments.
"We deeply regret and
apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by
Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our
editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the
next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we
corrected the mistake on air and online.
"It is vital we get the
story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience –- these are
our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday. Effective
immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay."
So, take that idiot Left! Still no proven Trump collusion
with Russia in the election!
4. Mike Flynn:
As previously reported General
Michael Flynn will plead guilty to lying to the FBI deep state operatives in
the ongoing Trump witch hunt today.
Once again — this verdict has
NOTHING TO DO with Trump-Russia collusion.
It’s just a way for the Democrat media and Deep State to erase an election and
eliminate Donald Trump.
Flynn’s conversations to the
Russian ambassador were not a crime.
Not disclosing this information to the corrupt FBI was his crime.
On Friday ABC News reported that
General Michael Flynn will testify against President Donald Trump in the
Russian collusion scandal.
President of Judicial Watch Tom
Fitton blasted Mueller and the Deep State operatives targeting Trump’s camp
simply for the crime of Donald Trump winning the Presidential election.
It is apparent that retired 3-Star General and fire National
Security Advisor Mike Flynn has the character flaw of lying to protect himself
even when no self-preservation is needed. President Trump the flaw latter than
sooner and fired him. Lying to the FBI is what Flynn pled guilty to not for
some conspiracy with the Russians to meddle in the elections.
In saying all that, it is Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Crooked Hillary,
probably Obama and a host of other Dem/Leftist playing a Deep State role that
should be investigated for real crimes that the Dem Alliance tries to pooh-pooh
away when actual links to illegalities can be seen by any honest person not corrupted
by Fake News propaganda.
*****************
President Trump:
“It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”…
December 2, 2017
President Trump sends antagonistic media into spastic fits,
and pearl-clutching circle-running, with a
single tweet about
Michael Flynn. Epic:
Praetorian professional punditry immediately jump into their
“he can’t” routine, filled with protestations about poor judgement and the risk
of commenting on an on-going investigation, and such… blah, blah, blah…
However, what seemingly never crosses their mind is that: A) Everything
asserted is 100% factual; and B) When there’s nothing to hide, there’s no risk. D’oh, dummies.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the President-Elect’s
Transition Team talking to any foreign government, or any official within any
foreign government. Ever. Period. Actually, that’s exactly what transition
teams are supposed to do; they reach out and receive information from foreign
government officials as the starting point to communication with a new
administration.
Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn
have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first
place?
It’s a great question.
The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment
that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a
tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any
scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were
“colluding” BFFs,….
and Flynn didn’t want
to fuel that nonsense.
That’s really the only reason to mislead about Russian
contacts.
And/or once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement
that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory
statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick
to it without clarification.
•
Sunday January 15th – VP-elect Mike Pence
appears on Face The Nation. [
Transcript
Here]
JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s
a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as
you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one
question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any
contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?
MIKE PENCE:
Of course not.
And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors
that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)
[*NOTE* Notice the narrative questioning at the time (early
Jan) was framed that ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of
meddling/election-collusion with Russians.]
•Friday January 20th – Inauguration
•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen.
Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI. [Either Flynn
contradicts Pence, or he tells a lie, those were his options.]
•
Wednesday January 25th – The
Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had
interviewed Flynn.
Yates said she
felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as
possible.”
•Thursday January 26th – (morning)
Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very
sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet
with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally
Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the
DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing
the matter. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office,
which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their
meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice
President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General
Flynn’s activity “
that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates
testimony, she
and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the
White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by
McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “
that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to
notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”
According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the
26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members
of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning)
White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she
could come back to his office.
•
Friday January 27th – (
late afternoon)
According to her testimony,
Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of
McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his
conduct.
Specifically,
according to Yates, one of the
questions McGahn asked Yates was, “
Why does it matter to DOJ if one White
House official lies to another?” She explained that it “
was a whole lot
more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
McGahn expressed his concern that
taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates
said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and
then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at
the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with
the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th – (evening)
In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner
with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under
investigation.
Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian
Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to
this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs
you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were
providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the
prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports
identical to those discussed; wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action
you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative? And/Or
be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something
it is not?
Think about it.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (
full pdf below)
with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain
from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.
According to
the plea,
while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when
he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which
the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its
response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”
Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn
had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on
a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that
Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d
spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.
There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security
adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters
as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process
crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:
You cannot view the current action through the transactional
prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are
political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The
players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political
battles for ideological wins and losses.
In essence, this is about leverage for political use.
Nothing about the current dynamic is factually encompassing
President Trump; it is all about optics, narratives and political leverage.
However, everything about this dynamic is factually encompassing the
existential threat that outsider Trump represents to the established way of
life in the DC Swamp.
Again, if you drop the legal prism and review everything
from the perspective of gaining or losing political leverage it all makes
sense.
____________________
Dems Celebrate NOT Realizing the Mud on Their Faces
John R. Houk
© December 3, 2017
_______________
President Trump:
“It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”…
About The Last Refuge
The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of
us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we
have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as
individuals in this growing community
Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you
purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism.
Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally
responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves,
we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work,
and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are
happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.
Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of
liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about
control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.
Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and
society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold
things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your
life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that
job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money,
it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in
liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and
safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the
world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is
an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making
oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try
to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more
comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of
expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his
own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is
also understanding that he has to make peace with … READ THE REST
.jpg)
