The resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, as a result of one or more telephone conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, around December 29, 2016, has been portrayed by some media figures as the greatest event since Watergate, or maybe even 9/11. But there are dark backstories that are far more significant than whether Flynn had a perfectly legal conversation with Kislyak. They beg the question, “Why did the Left want Flynn gone?.
The controversy about Flynn’s phone conversation revolved around the issue of whether he discussed the sanctions the Obama Administration had imposed for the alleged Russian hacking, before Mr. Trump was inaugurated. General Flynn at first denied to the vice president that he had discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. But on February 9, 2017 The New York Times published a story saying:
Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.
During the Christmas week conversation, he [Flynn] urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions … by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material.
This teed Flynn up for firing because he had assured Vice President Pence that they had not discussed sanctions. Pence repeated that assurance on the Sunday talk shows.
Our intelligence agencies routinely eavesdrop on telephone conversations Russian officials like Kislyak, but since an American citizen was on the other end of the call, Flynn’s end of the conversation should have been “minimalized,” but apparently wasn’t. It’s unclear why.
During questioning by the FBI Flynn supposedly said something that was untrue. As a result, he in pled guilty to lying to the FBI. Now, Sidney Powell, writing in The Daily Caller reports that:
Judge Rudolph Contreras, who accepted General Flynn’s guilty plea, has suddenly… recused from the case. The likely reason is that Judge Contreras served on the special court that allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to surveil the Trump campaign based on the dubious FISA application. Judge Contreras may have approved one of those four warrants.
The replacement judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, is noted for holding federal prosecutors’ in contempt for withholding evidence potentially favorable to the defendant. In one case, which Ms.Powell cites, he ordered a special counsel be appointed to investigate the DOJ. He has already ordered Mueller’s people to make such evidence available to Flynn’s attorneys. The author advises Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea.
Shadowy groups work against the Administration
Another backstory comes from the Washington Free Beacon, which reported that:
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
The … resignation … of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.
One of the cabal’s prime missions was to block “the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration,” wrote the Free Beacon. “Since then,” it said, “top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House. They are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.” See also here and here.
The Free Beacon report also quotes unnamed sources, but with more specificity about what was actually said:
“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC [the National Iranian American Council], and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”
Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.
In a January 23, 2017 report, the Free Beacon revealed that:
Conflict in the White House over Brotherhood designation
On January 29, 2017 Reuters reported that a debate raged in the White House, with then–National Security Advisor Flynn’s faction being in favor of the designation. Flynn well understood Islam; he has called Islam a “cancer,” saying that it is a “political ideology masquerading as a religion.”
Certainly, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka would have been in favor. But others cited complications with Turkey and doubt whether the MB fit the legal definition of a terrorist organization. Some apparently support the Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood mobilizes to prevent the designation.
MEMRI reported a Brotherhood lobby was formed in the U.S.… to prevent Trump from designating the movement a terrorist organization”:
[The MB] Launch[ed] a widespread informational media campaign, including the hiring of U.S. lobbying and legal firms, outreach to the press in the U.S., and dissemination of informational content aimed at improving its image…, the MB attempted to convey that it is not a terrorist organization, but rather an ideological movement whose methods of operation are peaceful.
The sources also disclosed that the movement’s steps, not only in Egypt but in 82 countries. around the world, as well as its contacts with members of Congress and senior U.S. writers …, are meant to prevent the decision.
Was Flynn targeted to protect the Muslim Brotherhood?
Strangely, only two weeks after the Reuters article, Flynn was cast out of the White House.
Mike Pence, then vice president-elect, told CBS News on January 15th that Flynn had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak, based on Flynn’s assurances. But the Washington Post, in a February 9th article, quoted “Nine current and former officials”—unnamed, of course—“who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies,” saying Flynn did discuss sanctions with Kislyak. One even said: “either Flynn had misled Pence or … Pence misspoke.” That neatly teed Flynn up for a firing which came only four days later.
Mideast expert Clare Lopez wrote in 2013 that the Brotherhood has infiltrated our government since the GWB Administration and that this accelerated under Obama. But under Trump, who had declared war on “radical Islam,” the infiltration has quietly continued.
Removal of Flynn allowed the infiltration of the Trump National Security Council
On February 20, 2017 the president appointed a highly respected military strategist, H.R. McMaster, to replace Flynn as National Security Advisor. “A number of Republicans … admire[d] General McMaster and waged a … campaign to persuade Mr. Trump to select him.…A coterie of other national security conservatives…also lobbied for him,” said The New York Times.
They had made a fundamental error, which Trump emulated by taking their advice: they assumed that because McMaster was a good military man, he’d also be a conservative. It was also assumed that he’d be the point of the spear against radical Islam that Flynn would’ve been.
This is likely to be a fatal error in the War on Terror. Let’s face it: the prime threat to our national security is radical Islam, or more accurately, the Global Jihad Movement, of which the MB is a major part. So, the national security advisor must know the enemy.
But McMaster, like Obama and HRC, is strangely troubled by the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” Like them, he prefers to say “Radical Islamist terrorism”—only a splinter group is radical. After only eight days on the job, he even tried (unsuccessfully) to get Trump to use that terminology in his speech before a joint session of Congress in February. This was nervy, because Trump had repeatedly heaped scorn on Hillary for not being able to name the enemy.
McMaster set to work immediately to remodel the NSC, marginalizing Bannon and the Flynn appointees. On April 5th, The New York Times reported that “Mr. Trump removed Bannon, his chief strategist, from the National Security Council’s cabinet-level ‘principals committee’…. The shift was orchestrated by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.”
Thus began a reversal of Trump’s signature positions, the ones that got him elected, and launched a descent of the NSC into liberalism—even radicalism—as one former Obama ideologue after another found their way onto the council, and conservatives were thrown overboard.
This trend does not bode well for the War on Terror.
McMaster brought in people like Hamas-lover Kris Bauman, whose ideas are even more overtly anti-Israel than Obama, his former boss. Read all about him at the link; these can only be called “anti-qualifications” for the “NSC advisor on Israel-Palestinian matters.”
In the fall of 2016 Bauman co-authored a Mideast blueprint for Kerry and Obama recommending Israel’s retreat to the indefensible 1967 lines, with borders to be policed by U.S. troops and Palestinian Arab “security” forces and the building of airports in the West Bank and Gaza. That would allow import of arms or cement for terror tunnels, even a nuclear weapon.
In his 2009 PhD dissertation, Bauman “extensively quotes Robert Malley,” the notorious pro-Hamas Middle East NSC official under Obama, reports Dan Greenfield in FrontPageMag.
For more about Malley, see below.
Bauman blames Israel for the multiple Palestinian rejections of generous peace deals, Greenfield writes. “Kris Bauman not only equates Islamic terrorism and Israeli self-defense against terrorism, but at one point he actually equates Jews living in territory claimed by the terrorists with Islamic terrorism.”
“Bauman also quotes and praises the Soros organization’s attempts to push engagement with Hamas,” Greenfield reports. As if that isn’t damning enough, Greenfield adds: “He favorably quotes Walt and Mearsheimer’s anti-Semitic tract, The Israel Lobby.”
For the biggest NSC shock of all, Jordan Schachtel, writing in Conservative Review, said:
Robert Malley, the controversial “ISIS czar” to former President Barack Obama – whose critics have labeled him an apologist for Islamic terror groups – has attended National Security Council meetings on the grounds of the Trump White House, sources with direct knowledge of the situation confirmed to Conservative Review. [Emphasis added.]
Malley was at one point too controversial even for Obama … He was dropped early on from the 2008 Obama campaign after information surfaced that he had been meeting with members of Hamas.
Malley’s excuse? “I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” reported Hot Air.
ICG is a Soros entity.
Interestingly, foreign correspondent Cheri Nocita Berens, who is based in Cairo, wrote:
“[The] George Soros organization called the International Crisis Group (ICG) says it’s a non-profit, non-government organization (NGO) dedicated to preventing and resolving deadly conflict. But ICG was actually promoting protests, opposition parties, and violent unrest.”
wpDiscuz
