Skip to main content

Blumenthal and Flynn, a Retrospective



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

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p