 |
| Blumenthal |
During a 2018 New
Hampshire Public Radio
interview, U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal was asked by his host, Robert Siegel,
the following question:
SIEGEL: Your letter says that Michael Flynn
may have violated the law in his phone call or calls with ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. Are you alleging violations of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that no one's
been prosecuted under?
BLUMENTHAL: There may be violations of that law
but potentially of others as well. If there were improper statements or lies to
the FBI agents who interviewed him, there are very, very serious questions
about his compliance with our laws and also ethical standards.
When talking to
Blumenthal, NPR hosts should always pay close attention to the qualifiers.
Blumenthal, for two decades Connecticut’s Attorney General, is no
stranger to rhetorical caveats. Blumenthal
told his NPR host that Flynn “may be” in violation of the Logan Act and there
are “questions about his compliance” with the laws of the United States. If
Blumenthal were more modest, his modesty might compel him to acknowledge that his own ethical standards are
not in every instance congruent with those of much of the nation. Partial birth abortion, for instance, grates against the moral nerves
of a good many voters in Connecticut, while leaving unruffled Blumenthal’s politically
hand-tailored moral code.
Since Blumenthal’s
NPR interview, we know a good deal more about the Logan Act and the ethical standards
of partisan, politicized FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The
Logan Act has never before been used in a criminal trial, and General Michal
Flynn, it would appear from new information gleaned from previously redacted
and closed FBI files, was little more than cheese in the mousetrap of FBI
partisans intent on indicting or impeaching President Donald Trump by any means
necessary. Newly released documentation shows that upper echelon FBI chiefs Strzok and Page were quite willing to trample to dust legal procedures routinely
followed by their predecessors in order to bring to the ground their political presidential
prey.
Under pressure from
both the right and the left, Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
authorized the release of private text messages between Strzok and Page two
years ago, according to a story in Time published in January, 2020: “The 375 messages were released to media the
day before Rosenstein was scheduled to testify before Congress on Dec. 13,
2017.”
Newly released documentation,
previously unavailable, indicate Strzok had substantially edited a 302 report
filed by the agent in charge of investigating Flynn – which found no evidence
that Flynn had lied to the investigator. That report was substantially changed
by Strzok, clumsily according to Page, with whom Strzok had been having an
illicit affair that cost him his marriage but did not impair his editing abilities.
In one e-mail, Page
wrote to Strzok, “This document [the edited 302 report doctored by Strzok]
pisses me off. You didn’t even attempt to make this cogent and readable? This
is lazy work on your part.”
Strzok responded, “Lisa
you didn’t see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I was 1)
trying to completely re-write the
thing so as to save [the lead agent’s] voice and 2) get it out to you
for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon.”
Given the most recent bombshell disclosures, it would seem that if there had been “improper statements or lies to the FBI agents who interviewed” Flynn – and there were not, according to the initial investigator – the improper statements may have been imported into the initial documentation by Strzok, who had completely re-written the document that gave rise to the charges brought against Flynn.
This new wrinkle
would cause anyone more modest than Blumenthal to revisit and revise his
initial assumptions –perhaps even to call for the prosecution of Strzok and
Page. But, like all seasoned politicians, Blumenthal knows that time is a
stream that washes away all political posturing. The mouse has already eaten
the cheese, and the great work involving the destruction of Flynn’s character
has been completed. People forget and move on; reporters forget to revisit
tattered and questionable interrogatories. And in this way, political skullduggery
escapes the noose. With balled fists, it marches toward the future, leaving
behind in its wake scurrilous intimations more damaging than outright, brave
lies, stamping honor underfoot with its hobnailed boots. But not everyone can
be expected to wash his hands of the matter.
In the Wall
Street Journal, Kim Strassel writes, “Mr. Flynn in 2017 pleaded guilty
to a single count of lying to FBI agents about conversations he had with Sergey
Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Thanks to new documents the Feds
belatedly turned over to his attorneys, we know the FBI engineered this ‘crime.’
Handwritten notes from former FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap, made
before the Bureau’s interview of Mr. Flynn, ask the following: “What is our
goal? Truth/Admission, or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?”
Many reporters and politicians
in Connecticut – save Blumenthal, who has maintained a stubborn silence on
the new disclosures – know the answer to Priestap’s question.
Comments