General Michael Flynn Was Right To Discuss Obama’s Sanctions With Russian Ambassador

02/15/2017 02:05 pm ET Updated Feb 16, 2017
Then Defense Intelligence Agency director U.S. Army Lt. General Michael Flynn testifies before the House
REUTERS/Gary Cameron
Then Defense Intelligence Agency director U.S. Army Lt. General Michael Flynn testifies before the House

My latest Counter Propa article undermines the current groupthink regarding Russia, the U.S., hacking, and Michael Flynn. Before addressing the national security implications of General Michael Flynn’s phone call, let’s discuss certain events that never resulted in media frenzy. Michael Flynn is the target of a 1950’s McCarthy era character assassination, and a simple trip down memory lane will put things in perspective. If you’re worried about Flynn’s discussion with a Russian, then you’ve ignored recent history with Obama and Clinton.

President Obama’s former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency resigned for a phone call. The Obama administration approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. Bill Clinton earned $500,000 from speaking to a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin. The Podesta Grouplobbied on behalf of Uranium One, the corporation (eventually owned by Russia) that sold U.S. uranium to Russia. Which is more threatening to national security?

The New York Times states the following regarding Hillary Clinton’s ties to Russia in a piece titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Is Representative Adam Schiff aware Bill Clinton earned $500,000 from a Russian bank “with links to the Kremlin” that owned stock in Uranium One? Will Senator Kamala Harris demand an investigation into the Clinton Foundation?

As for the basis of today’s McCarthy era media frenzy, George W. Bush and Barack Obama looked the other way as Russia invaded bordering nations. The notion that Trump will be easier on Russia than Hillary Clinton ignores how Bush and Obama reacted to Russian aggression. Both presidents did nothing militarily or politically to stop Russia from achieving foreign policy objectives in Georgia and Ukraine.

In addition, WikiLeaks DNC emails forced Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign and CNN to sever ties with Donna Brazile. Putin doesn’t work at CNN or the DNC.

In terms of Trump’s victory, Russia doesn’t own America’s Electoral College. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan voted for Obama twice yet picked Trump over Clinton. To blame Russia for this ignores President Obama’s explanation that he simply campaigned harder than Clinton and visited more states. Furthermore, Russian hackers didn’t write James Comey’s letter; just one week before Election Day.

We’ll get to the Russian hacker theory in a moment, but first let’s discuss Michael Flynn’s resignation.

General Michael Flynn was right to discuss sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. First, The Washington Post already published an article in January titled FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit. The FBI’s counterintelligence agents listened to the call between Flynn and Kislyak and the FBI “has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government.” Calls for further investigation ignore the fact Flynn was already investigated by the FBI and exonerated.

Remember when Democrats cheered about Clinton being exonerated?

Perhaps General Flynn should run for president in 2020? I give my thoughts on YouTube regarding Flynn’s resignation in this segment:

If Vice President Pence had his feelings hurt because Flynn never disclosed the entire conversation, that’s an internal issue within Trump’s administration. Media outrage over Flynn possibly lying to Pence is amusing considering the “resistance” theme among Democrats. Apparently, Flynn resisting Pence is horrifying to certain pundits.

Furthermore, the notion that General Flynn betrayed the country or harmed national security is ludicrous. In 2008, Vladimir Putin wanted Obama over McCain. Why? The answer is simple. Obama wanted to reverse Bush’s policies regarding Russia. On December 4, 2008 The Guardian published a piece while Obama was President-elect titled Putin: Obama may ease Russia-US relations:

Russian prime minister suggests administration change will help negotiations between Moscow and Washington
Diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington should improve once Barack Obama takes office, Vladimir Putin today suggested.
Speaking before an invited audience at a live, televised question and answer session, the Russian prime minister welcomed the imminent handover at the White House.
“Usually… when there is a change of power in any country, and even more so in a superpower such as the United States, some changes occur,” Putin observed.
“We very much hope that these changes will be positive. We are now seeing these positive signals.
“If it’s not just words, if they are transformed into practical policy, we will respond accordingly, and our American partners will immediately feel that.”

Did you know Putin “welcomed the imminent handover” from Bush to Obama, over a more anti-Russian John McCain in 2008? Therefore, did Obama commit treason for publicly reversing U.S. policy on Russia? Of course not, and General Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador was simply a reversal of policy; like Obama’s more lenient Russia policy in 2008.

Now let’s get to Russian hackers “influencing” the election.

First, the DNC is merely a political party. If indeed Russians hacked the DNC, they didn’t hack into a government entity. Although Democrats like to believe Russia “hacked the election,” it’s still unproven that Russia even infiltrated the DNC or Podesta emails.

WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails, all written by DNC or Clinton campaign officials.

The U.S. government can’t print out even one Russian hacker email stating “Here you go Julian, here are the DNC emails that show Bernie got cheated, this will hurt Hillary…”

Second, even U.S. intelligence agencies are reluctant to say with 100 percent certainty Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta Emails. Here is the Joint DHS and FBI Russian hacking report. Quick, do a word search for “WikiLeaks” or “Julian Assange.” You’ll find no mention of either WikiLeaks or its founder in a report that serves as the basis for America’s renewed Cold War McCarthyism. You will, however, find an amusing disclaimer that wreaks of uncertainty:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise.

Sorry folks, no warranties regarding claims of Russian hacking. We could be wrong, but then again, who cares? Trump won and Democrats need an excuse.

The CIA has “high confidence” Russia influenced the election, but as for certainty, forget about it; “high confidence” is all you’ll get.

All of this brings us to General Flynn’s conversation with a Russian ambassador. If indeed he spoke about, or even alluded to Trump reversing Obama’s sanctions, then remember why Obama retaliated in the first place.

President Obama’s “sanctions” are retribution for a political party the CIA has “high confidence”was hacked by Russia.

The DNC has absolutely nothing to do with national security, unlike Hillary Clinton’s two FBI criminal investigations. Furthermore, it’s the corruption exposed within the DNC and Podesta emails that shouldn’t be sanctioned by Democrats, but that’s another story.

If Flynn spoke about better relations with a country Obama mentioned during a debate with Romney in 2012, then Flynn did something honorable. In 2012, President Obama made the following remarks to an anti-Russian Mitt Romney:

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”

Wow. The 1980’s are calling, huh? Democrats frothing at the mouth should remember Obama’s statement,“the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

The Cold War is still over. If Flynn spoke about Russian sanctions, imposed by Obama simply because the DNC (his political organization) was allegedly hacked, Democrats have not only failed to prove Russian hackers were culprits, but Obama failed to explain how these sanctions are in America’s interest. Half the country appreciates knowing Bernie was cheated and Hillary Clinton takes money from countries that fund IS. Simply saying “Trump wouldn’t have defeated Clinton without WikiLeaks” doesn’t correlate to U.S. national security.

If a 2005 audio of Trump was deemed newsworthy, imagine the euphoria among Washington Post writers if Trump’s emails showed corruption and foul play.

Considering the fact many progressives don’t want Hillary Clinton running again in 2020, the Russia narrative was never based on anything more than “highly confident” excuses for a devastating electoral defeat. Therefore, General Flynn did what Obama did in 2008 (remember that Putin wanted Obama, not McCain), just with a phone call that wasn’t approved by Mike Pence. President Trump is a coward for succumbing to the media’s renewed Cold War. General Michael Flynn should never have resigned, and Trump should never have sided with Pence, but that’s politics in America’s new and improved McCarthy era.

H. A. Goodman is the creator of CounterPropa.com and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication.

CONVERSATIONS