Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s sin was lying to liars, not colluding with Russians.
When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, former National Security Adviser Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to the electorate.
In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the United States. K.T. McFarland, Flynn’s deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that Obama’s expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at “boxing Trump in diplomatically,” making it impossible for the president to “improve relations with Russia,” a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.
To defuse President Obama’s spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot of which was that Russia “retaliated” by … inviting U.S. diplomats and their families to the Kremlin for a New Year’s bash.
A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn’t you say?
Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Kushner likely instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the U.N. Security Council’s favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by Daddy and the first daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.
One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s violations, here, is that Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect’s promised foreign policy – diplomacy with Russia – is not illegal.
Perversely, however, lying to the U.S. federal government’s KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.
The U.S. government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated “criminal” label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?
By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common criminals.
An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them.
Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned – not for the offense of insider trading, but for lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so scared of conviction – wouldn’t you? – that she fibbed. The lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See “Insider Trading Or Information Socialism?”)
This kind of entrapment – the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn’s case about a non-crime – is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make “a materially false” statement to a federal official – even when one is not under oath.
It’s perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into fibbing. By such tactics, the State has created a category of crime from which a select few are exempt.
Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.
Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported to have threatened the junior Mike Flynn with a legal kneecapping.
Ultimately, the State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and power of an accused. The power differential between the State and an accused means he or she, as the compromised party, will cop a plea.
The Flynn guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal that subverts the very goal of justice: the search for truth.
In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor, Flynn’s punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced. President Trump’s former national security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught.
Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.