Why Such An Extraordinarily Fierce Deep State Push-Back Against Michael Flynn? (Guest Feature by Lee Smith)

Consider the homework of journalist and author Lee Smith.

How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign

Michael Flynn posed a threat to the former president’s legacy and was made to pay for it

LEE SMITH [Author of The Plot Against the President]

MAY 20, 2020

Barack Obama warned his successor against hiring Michael Flynn. It was Nov. 10, 2016, just two days after Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States. Trump told aide Hope Hicks [*] that he was bewildered by the president’s warning. Of all the important things Obama could have discussed with him, the outgoing commander in chief wanted to talk about Michael Flynn.

The question of why Obama was so focused on Flynn is especially revealing now. The Department of Justice recently filed to withdraw charges against the retired three-star general for making false statements to the FBI in a Jan. 24, 2017, interview regarding a phone call with a Russian diplomat. The circumstances surrounding the call and subsequent FBI interview have given rise to a vast conspiracy theory that was weaponized to imprison a decorated war hero and a strategic thinker whose battlefield innovations saved countless American lives. There is no evidence that Flynn “colluded” with Russia, and the evidence that Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI has been buried by the bureau, including current Director Christopher Wray.

So if the Obama administration wasn’t alarmed by Flynn’s nonexistent ties to Russia, why was he Obama’s No. 1 target? Why were officials from the previous administration intercepting his phone calls with the Russian ambassador?

The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy which was rooted in ..continue reading...

~~~~~

[*] I encourage the serious reader to read the transcript of Hope Hicks’ testimony to the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, though lengthy. One can see many rhetorical strategies used by certain members of the Committee in attempts to, in my view, craft a perjury trap, thus framing the debate to an ideological end thereby endangering objectivity and obfuscating truth. Among such strategies are non-sequiturs, loaded language, arguments based on assumptions (which we heard frequently in the public hearings), false premises, and thinly veiled accusations. Some are more obvious than others.

Perhaps this is why we trust ideology-laced legal talent so little.

There is an old expression that goes two ways: “The Devil is in the details,” and, conversely, “God is in the details.”

I pick God; after all, Who made whom?

There is another old expression: “The truth will always come out in the end.”

But, make no mistake, the Devil is fierce, brilliant, and relentless–and his goal is destruction no matter what the political party, people group, or epoch.

Discernment, diligence, and dogged pursuit of the truth are of primary importance–not to mention prayers for wisdom and guidance.

And, I would add, to offer my own perspective, “keeping one’s ear close to the Throne”.–PBN