Article Image

IPFS News Link • Trump Administration

Michael Flynn Turns State's Evidence?

• - Tracy Beanz

Why would Michael T. Flynn lie about his contacts with the Russian ambassador concerning perfectly normal communications during the Trump transition? It may be plausible to speculate that he was chosen to fall on his sword for the purpose of telling what he knows about the criminal activities of the Obama administration. It would seem to explain his motive for lying about perfectly normal activities of the Trump Transition Team.

In short, the contacts were in no way criminal. Indeed, they were perfectly acceptable and normal in the context of the Presidential transition. That's why ambassadors exist - to serve as a channel of communication between governments, including incoming administrations. Consider the following facts:

1. The maximum penalties for the charges against Flynn are 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

2. Under sentencing guidelines for someone with Flynn's record and set out in his plea agreement the government will seek NO MORE THAN 6 months in jail and $9500 in fines provided that -

3. Flynn cooperates with the government and provides all the information he has concerning unspecified criminal behavior on the part of unspecified parties - to include operating undercover to obtain information.

According to Wikipedia, Flynn "was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014." Is it possible that during his tenure as the director of the DIA he gained information about criminal activity by the Obama administration, perhaps related to certain events that took place in Benghazi on or about September 11, 2012?

It's certainly the subject of rampant speculation as to just what sort of incriminating evidence Flynn could provide to investigators. But the interesting aspect is that his connection to the Trump administration was both short and, except for lying to investigators, seemingly normal. Anyone with experience in plea deals will recognize this as a ploy to garner the cooperation of a witness to avoid prosecution, or provide cover for giving up larger players in the investigation. +++