Odd Timing Of Information Regarding Lieutenant General Michael Flynn And Sally Yates

Nothing Seems To Add Up With Regards To Sally Yates

Here is a clip that outlines what Sally Yates said with regards to Flynn:

Now, I hear a lot of “we felt” and “concerned.” A lot of feeling type issues. They talked about how Russia could blackmail Flynn over his lying to Pence. Pardon me while I link an NPR article from February.

What’s that? The actual transcripts show nothing wrong? So, then what was her issue? She had to of known about the conversation. If she knew about it and was briefed on it, she would have known there was nothing of substance in the transcript.

From the NPR article from Feb 15th, 2017.

The intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told Mary Louise they contained “no evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can’t be definitively ruled out.

Now, this is from January 24th, 2017 in a New York Post article:

The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.

Why would the NPR article’s “source” state that criminal wrongdoing can’t be ruled out when the FBI had already concluded their investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing? The FBI cleared Flynn on the 24th of January, something I would assume Trump was aware of. Here is a timeline of what happened as laid out by ABC from the information we learned in the hearing.

Jan 24th, Flynn is interviewed by the FBI.

Jan 25th, DOJ receives readout from FBI Agents.

Jan 26th, Yates calls McGahn wanting to talk about this and had a meeting later that day.

She states she went through Flynn’s conduct “in a fair amount of detail” but never actually listed the detail. What exactly did Flynn do? The gist of her argument seemed more to the fact that Flynn had lied to Pence or others.

Jan 27th, second in-person meeting and McGahn requesting to see the information.

Jan 30th, Yates contacted McGahn saying he was allowed to see the underlying evidence.

Well, Yates was fired that day due to going against the DOJ career lawyers with the Travel Ban executive order. The gist of the entire case she was making was that Flynn lied to Pence and Pence was on national television stating Flynn did not talk about any of the sanctions.

The next bit in the timeline was on Feb. 9th, where Pence first hears about this. Now, if I was a betting man, I’d wager that McGahn wanted to see the evidence knowing how partisan politics plagued Yates. Would you trust her when she’s talking mostly about her feelings with regards to Flynn? I wouldn’t, especially when he asked if Flynn should be fired and she basically said “no, I’m just informing you.” I’d want to confirm that information directly from the FBI and knowing how bureaucracy works, it probably took McGahn several days before he was even able to meet with the FBI to discuss the Flynn case/evidence. I would also be skeptical about Flynn being blackmailed over lying to Pence. Is that even significant enough to be blackmailed over? Call me crazy but that seems very minor. Do we also know that Flynn lied to Pence or that Pence was lying to the media and he knew about it?

We still don’t even know what was discussed with regards to “sanctions.” For all we know, the only thing discussed was that when pressed, Flynn said nothing would change. Anything else has been hearsay and conjecture. We literally have zero evidence of what Flynn said. Unless that part of the transcript gets released to the public, we won’t know a damn thing.

There are a lot of unknowns in this aspect and until Flynn takes the stand, I don’t think we will get any straight answers. Yates was very careful in how she answered each question and she didn’t actually give us any information with regards to Flynn. What we know from the NPR and NYPost article was that Flynn didn’t do anything wrong and there was nothing to be concerned about. So, what’s the issue? Is this all about Flynn lying to Pence? Well, we don’t know that either.

With how politics works, we have no idea what Pence actually knew. I’m not coming to the defence of Flynn, I just have to admit we don’t know anything. Why should I take someone’s word when that part of the transcript of his call won’t ever be released to the public? We know the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing so from that, we might be able to discern that he in fact did not talk about sanctions like the media kept suggesting.