The media has continuously repeated the charge that then-NSA Flynn lied to Vice President Pence, proving he is still a liar and could have been blackmailed. CNN fake news reporter Marshall Cohen has been right on it.
People forget the “blackmail” element of the Flynn saga. This is from former DOJ official Mary McCord’s testimony to Mueller. She explains very clearly why it was a serious national security problem that Pence (and Priebus and Spicer) publicly repeated Flynn’s lies about Russia. pic.twitter.com/WgUI8fxUpK
— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) May 11, 2020
The media is using this ruse to distract Americans from the framing of the general. They are likely wrong about the alleged lie to Vice President Pence since the White House only appears to have a summary. We say “appears” since we haven’t heard it from the President or Vice President.
When President Trump said the lie was a misunderstanding and he would rehire him, it was probably because of something he knew about the case.
One thing that seems apparent is the White House was never given a transcript of the Flynn call, at least not at that point; they were given “tech cuts” or a summary of tech cuts. VP Pence could have been fed a distorted view of the conversation with tech cuts, especially from the actual dirty cops who framed him. Flynn might have told the truth as he knew it.
Undercover Huber explains that tech cuts are a summary of raw signals.
A “Tech Cut” (referred to by Comey about Flynn) is a *summary* of an audio intercept, usually FISA. “Take” (redacted from the transcript) is likely the raw signals intelligence word for word https://t.co/Q3vQzHWY7w
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 14, 2020
Huber continues, “As Flynn’s name wasn’t masked, and there was no FISA on Flynn (according to IG), this strongly suggests there was a FISA on Kislyak, with raw NSA take summarized by FBI Also: likely means Pence wasn’t shown a literal transcript of the call by McCabe, but a summary of it.”
Sources may have only seen a summary; Techno Fog agrees. There is a secret transcript out there somewhere.
Correct – there is a “secret report summarizing Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak” out there somewhere.
[Screengrab from 2/13/17 WaPo article]
I’ll add that sources who said they saw the actual “transcripts” may have only seen the summary. pic.twitter.com/RddzI0WFzG
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 14, 2020
IT WASN’T AN UNMASKING
We know that call wasn’t unmasked since there were no unmaskings between December 29, 2016, and January 4, 2017. There were no wiretaps or FISA warrants either.
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino did figure out another way they could have gotten the transcript or listened in without leaving a paper trail. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch could have ordered the surveillance, and she could have also allowed the president to order it. That wouldn’t leave a paper trail. They might have had the exact transcript in this case, but they’d never show it to the White House and give it away. They gave them a summary, and there are many ways a summary might have given a false impression, different from the one Flynn gave.
As for President Obama, he either called for Flynn’s firing and a probe based on only tech cuts or worse, he had the actual transcript. Either way is not good for him but good for General Flynn.
THEN THERE’S THE LIE ITSELF
It’s also important to note that the Obama executive order regarding sanctions against Russia was announced on December 28, 2016. The expulsions of dozens of individual Russians were announced the next day, on the 29th, when Flynn spoke with Kislyak.
There is NO MENTION of the sanctions in the edited version of the 302. Flynn told FBI agents he had discussed the expulsions with Kislyak. Flynn had NOT BEEN ASKED about the sanctions. These were two separate actions. Had he been asked, he would have discussed them. If they didn’t ask, how could he lie about it?
The last two paragraphs were added after publication.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
