Categories





The Phaserl








TheLibertyMill


Did The CIA Just Stage A Micro-Coup Against Trump Administration?

by Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post:

In a surprising turn, it has been announced that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has resigned from his post after allegations surrounding his “inappropriate” contact with Russian officials and his subsequent admission of providing “incomplete” information to the President and Vice President regarding that contact. The resignation takes place amide FBI investigations into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador and weeks after the Justice Department sent a warning letter to the Trump administration regarding the potential for Flynn to be subject to blackmail if the allegations were true.

In addition, the U.S. Army was reportedly investigating Flynn for his possible acceptance of Russian money during trips made to Russia in the past.

Of the less hysterical reports, Yahoo News at least attempted to refrain from channeling the ghost of Joe McCarthy. For that reason, its article “Conway: Flynn Resigned Because He’d Become ‘A Lighting Rod,’” can be used as a sample of how corporate media outlets are trying to portray the resignation, minus the hyperbole. It reads,

National security adviser Michael Flynn has resigned following reports he misled Vice President Mike Pence about contacts with a Russian diplomat, up-ending President Donald Trump’s White House team less than a month after his inauguration.

In a resignation letter, Flynn said he gave Pence and others “incomplete information” about his calls with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. The vice president, apparently relying on information from Flynn, initially said the national security adviser had not discussed sanctions with the Russian envoy, though Flynn later conceded the issue may have come up.

Such conversations would breach diplomatic protocol and possibly violate the Logan Act, a law aimed at keeping private citizens from conducting U.S. diplomacy. The Justice Department also had warned the White House late last month that Flynn could be in a compromised position because of contradictions between his public depictions of the calls and what intelligence officials knew to be true based on routine recordings of communications with foreign officials who are in the U.S.

. . . . .

A U.S. official told The Associated Press that Flynn was in frequent contact with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on the day the Obama administration slapped sanctions on Russia for election-related hacking, as well as at other times during the transition.

An administration official and two people with knowledge of the situation confirmed the Justice Department warnings on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. It was unclear when Trump and Pence learned about the Justice Department outreach.

The Washington Post was the first to report the communication between former acting attorney general Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, and the Trump White House. The Post also first reported last week that Flynn had indeed spoken about sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn’s Crime

Flynn’s resignation and the allegations made against him fit right in with the narrative being promoted by the Western corporate media, the Democratic Party, Soros-Republicans, and the faux NGO community; i.e. that the Russians are influencing American elections and now American policy via secret connections with the Trump administration and Trump supporters via the preponderance of Russian propaganda on American television. Such an exercise in abject delusional hysteria, however, would make Joe McCarthy scratch his head in disbelief. At least, in McCarthy’s case, there actually were some Communists lurking about.

In 2017, there has yet to be a single shred of evidence that the Russians hacked or influenced anything to do with the American elections or American policy, foreign or domestic. Regardless, the corporate media piranhas have a new carcass to chew on in their race to remind Americans of the big Russian bogeyman, drum up support for war in the Middle East and Ukraine as well as Russia itself, and to curtail virtually all rights and free speech under the guise of “national security” and Russophobia.

But what did Flynn actually do that was so wrong? His discussion with the Russian ambassador was nothing close to a scandal. He did nothing that would be interpreted as undercutting the Obama Administration’s aggression nor did he even say that Obama’s sanctions would be removed once Trump was in office. In fact, all he did was state that the Russians should not overreact to America’s current state of aggression because a new administration was soon to take over. A hint? Yes. A violation of the law or a scandalous act? Hardly.

Even the hawkish and McCarthyistic New York Times had to admit that, at worst, Flynn’s statements could be interpreted either way. “Still,” wrote the New York Times, “current and former administration officials familiar with the call said the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn.”

The New York Times then goes on to argue that Trump himself was more concerned with Flynn’s actions becoming a focal point of controversy than actual risks to national security or any real lawbreaking or perhaps that he was more angry that Flynn lied to Vice President Pence regarding the nature of the call and the statements made in it. But it doesn’t seem like Donald Trump to be overly concerned with controversy. It’s simply not in his character. After all, his entire campaign was built on controversy. So why is Flynn really out?

To be clear, Michael Flynn should have long ago been fired from his position as National Security Advisor. His radical obsession with Iran and his obvious crazed determination to go to war with the Persian nation is reason enough to ensure that he never gets near any position that would allow him to influence the U.S. government toward yet another imperialistic war of aggression in the Middle East. However, merely suggesting to Russia that, perhaps, when the new administration takes over, the U.S. might not continue to pursue a policy of World War Three is not necessarily Watergate or even grounds for firing. Given the fact that Trump had won the election and was merely waiting in the wings, Flynn’s statements should be taken in the proper context.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>