New Evidence Unveils McCabe’s Deception in Flynn Case

By Alexander van Koningsbruggen, Military & Intelligence Analyst

In the annals of American jurisprudence, few cases have so starkly illuminated the perils of politicized law enforcement as that of General Michael Flynn. Recent revelations, particularly those highlighted in the article “New Evidence Unveils McCabe’s Deception in Flynn Case” from Truth Over News, cast a troubling light on the actions of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe during the investigation into Flynn.

The Crux of the Deception

At the heart of the controversy lies a critical distinction between “sanctions” and “expulsions.” Flynn’s conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016 pertained to the expulsion of diplomats, not the imposition of sanctions. This nuance is not merely semantic; it carries significant legal implications. Sanctions involve formal economic and political measures, while expulsions are diplomatic actions.

Misrepresenting this distinction allowed the FBI to allege that Flynn had lied about discussing sanctions, thereby justifying their investigation. The article from Truth Over News underscores that McCabe’s own notes reference “U.S. sanctions,” suggesting a deliberate conflation of terms to support the narrative that Flynn had been deceptive. This mischaracterization formed the basis for the FBI’s decision to interview Flynn without legal counsel present, a move that deviated from standard protocol and raised serious questions about the agency’s motives.

Procedural Irregularities and Ethical Concerns

The manner in which the FBI conducted Flynn’s interview further compounds concerns about the integrity of the investigation. McCabe’s decision to send agents to interview Flynn without informing the White House Counsel’s Office or advising Flynn of his right to legal representation deviated from established procedures. Moreover, internal FBI communications reveal a premeditated strategy to elicit a misstatement from Flynn, with one agent questioning whether the goal was to “get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” This approach suggests an intent to entrap rather than a pursuit of the truth.

Compounding these issues are discrepancies in the documentation of the interview. The FD-302 form summarizing the conversation underwent edits that, according to Flynn’s defense team, altered the context of his statements. Such modifications undermine the credibility of the evidence and raise doubts about the FBI’s objectivity.

The Aftermath and Implications

The Department of Justice’s eventual decision to drop charges against Flynn acknowledges the procedural improprieties that marred the case. However, the damage to public trust in federal investigative agencies is profound. McCabe’s actions, as illuminated by the new evidence, exemplify a troubling departure from impartial law enforcement. The politicization of the FBI’s processes not only jeopardizes individual rights but also erodes the foundational principles of justice.

Conclusion

The Flynn case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing political considerations to infiltrate law enforcement. The deliberate misrepresentation of facts, deviation from protocol, and ethical lapses highlighted in the Truth Over News article demand not just public accountability, but legal consequences. Those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, in order to restore faith in our institutions and to affirm that no one — no matter their position — is above the law.

To truly safeguard the rule of law, federal agencies must recommit to transparency, adherence to established procedures, and the unwavering pursuit of justice.

By Alexander van Koningsbruggen, Military & Intelligence Analyst