The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
It Was A Frameup–the FBI Admits There Was No Legitimate Case Against General Flynn
Tucker Carlson Explains The unraveling of the Michael Flynn case
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

FBI documents forced out of the FBI’s hands reveal that the case against General Flynn was illegitimate and had in the FBI’s own words no evidence in its behalf. So FBI officials undertook to frame General Flynn. It is all completely clear in the released documents, and thus the Justice Department had to dismiss the case.

The presstitutes make much of Flynn having admitted that he lied to the FBI. They don’t tell us that the FBI threatened to indict Flynn’s son unless he cooperated in helping the FBI build a case against himself ( ). The lie was coerced. It was the price of not framing up General Flynn’s son. The same thing was done to “junk bond king” Michael Milken. They threatened to indict his brother unless he self-incriminated.

Tucker Carlson exposes the lying media for falsely reporting that the case against Flynn was dropped because of political influence when the evidence is clear that the case was dropped because it was a concocted fabrication.

The question is: Why have the corrupt FBI officials who intentionally tried to frame an innocent person not been arrested, indicted and put on trial? The FBI has a long record of corruption and fabricated cases. No sensible person, and certainly no honest judge or jury would trust a FBI indictment. Years ago there was a big scandal exposed. The FBI was manufacturing fake evidence in order to help corrupt prosecutors convict their targeted victims.

Peter Strzok is the disgraced FBI official who led the effort to frame President Trump’s National Security Advisor. This makes Strzok and his mistress, FBI agent Lisa Page, guilty of felonies, including obstruction of justice. Why aren’t they arrested? Who is protecting these criminals?

How can the FBI be allowed to get away with this?

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, FBI, Michael Flynn, Russiagate 
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. R.C. says:

    How can the FBI be allowed to get away with this?”
    Because they’ve never been called to task. Why? Because we have nigh 40 years of programmed (sub rosa) AmeriKants around, and certainly two decades of overtly programmed fools, who are children of fools, who have ALL been programmed to not be skeptics, but to believe that THEY, and THEY ALONE!, have learned all the mysteries of the universe, when they can’t find an address without a dumb phone.
    PCR is asking the type questions that won’t be answered until AmeriKan’t becomes AmeriCan again.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
    , @Realist
  2. Sulu says:

    Instead of being a law enforcement agency the F.B.I. has become a quasi gestapo that is unleashed periodically on the enemies of who ever is holding their chain. The people responsible for this need to be in jail at the very least. At the most they should be shot. Trump is Commander in Chief of the military. Why doesn’t he have those responsible assassinated? And please don’t talk to me about posse comitatus. These people know no rules. They have nothing but contempt for rules. The President is going to have to temporarily abandon the rules himself in order to bring them to justice.

    I bet if a few dozen of the worst offenders are found dead in various ways with suicide notes the rest will quickly get the message that they might just have to pay a price for their treason. Then the President should go in and fire everyone in the F.B.I. and rebuild the agency from scratch.

    I know, I know, someone is going to reply to me and start screaming about the Constitution. But of what use is it when your enemies don’t abide by it? Temporarily suspend the Constitution. Have a night of the long knives to kill the right people and then reinstate it.

    Besides isn’t America technically at war? Doesn’t the President have broad authority to punish treason during war time?


    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    , @Verity
  3. You can’t share this link.
    Your comment could’t be shared because this link goes against our Community standards

    Careful: FB blocks posting this URL, I wish I could post the screenshots
    “Unable to post this comment. Try again”

    Even I am shocked about the brazenness of MSM blatant LIES. It is not distortion, it is not omission, it is taking blatantly deceptive conclusions from distorted data. Still, we insist, the foundation of all dishonesty can be expressed in one sentence, as described in sincerity DOT net’s
    Orwell’s 1984 has been surpassed.

  4. The censored fb comment was exacly like this

    Here an example, it is incredible how MSM spread outright lies and total misinformation. Instead of clamoring to indict the corrupt FBI leadership, they claim that dropping the baseless case against Flynn is incorrect
    It is worth listening to Tucker Carlson that gives all details.
    (( link to this article here))
    Now if you refuse to read and listen, you will always remain brainwashed. If you manage to read and listen to the end, and still believe Trump is crazy, Flynn a criminal, and the FBI clean as a whistle, then I rest my case.
    It this prompts you to go on a month long soul search and verify facts yourself, then you have an open mind and will be transformed.

  5. One problem is the fiendish system of plea bargaining, the American corruption of the already corrupt English common law. Corrupt. Just for money, not justice. Just as the original adversarial system is just about money, money for lawyers. And giving god-like status to the judge above us, just a trick. And the dirty idea of the judge “sitting alone” that is well shown by the Assange hearings. In Ukkyland they can arbitrarily abolish the criminal jury as they did in Northern Ireland but they don’t replace it with three judges as they would in Germany, nothing to balance the bias of the sitting-aloner. They confuse sit with shit.

    It began, having only an adversarial system which has nothing to do with learning the truth, solely about winning the case, with demonization of the Star Chamber which was actually well-loved in its day, and low cost. And propaganda to this day against any investigative judicial system, which they insist on calling on calling not investigative but inquisitorial, to smear it with the stain of the Spanish Inquisition.

    We stick, our lawyers stick to a mediaeval system more than two and one centuries since the modern French and German systems were brought in. If I understand rightly those systems don’t allow pleading at all, would ignore a guilty plea and just look for evidence. And would have three judges. So there can be no plea bargains and any intrinsic bias in a judge of the kind so blatantly obvious in the Assange case can have no effect.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Curmudgeon
  6. @R.C.

    How do they get away with it? There is a long tradition of Republicans turning the other cheek or even working to help their adversaries. Notice how Lindsey Graham and others duck when asked when the GOP will get around to prosecutions.

    My theory as to the cause is that the donor class are liberals whose interest in the GOP is limited to getting their taxes down or promoting wars to benefit Israel. In other words, the root of the right’s helpless or self-defeating behavior is MONEY.

    The only remedy then is to somehow reduce the effect of money.

    However, courage — rare in the GOP — can be an equalizer. Bill Barr is a truly heroic figure: I am confident he will actually prosecute some of the high-ranking criminals.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Polemos
  7. He cucked for Israel by attacking the Iran Deal, one half-decent thing Obama did.

    And yet, he was treated like Iran by Jewish Power that destroyed him to get Trump, another pathetic Zionist shill.

    How Iranic.

    • Replies: @Meena
  8. @jack daniels

    How do they get away with it? There is a long tradition of Republicans turning the other cheek or even working to help their adversaries. Notice how Lindsey Graham and others duck when asked when the GOP will get around to prosecutions.

    As far as GOP Jews and Cuck-goys were concerned, the Russysteria was a great thing. More the Democratic Jews attacked Trump, the more Trump relied on GOP Jews and cuck shills to defend him and bail him out. In the US, ‘justice’ is a matter of power and connections, not truth and facts. Mere hysteria can destroy a reputation, career, or even presidency. So, the ONLY way Trump could save his ass was by having the GOP Jews and cuck goyim bail him out… and the fact was they weren’t gonna do much of anything until they were sure (1) Trump didn’t fix relations with Russia (2) he gave Israel everything it wanted (3) he kept troops in Syria and Iraq (4) he outlawed BDS (5) he supported Big Tech censorship of free speech (6) he gave Wall Street everything it wanted.

    Trump did all that, so the GOP Jews and cuck goyim finally decided to come to his aid… somewhat.

    So, GOP Jews and cuck goyim of Con Inc. were part of Russysteria behind the scenes and under the table. They merely played Good Cop to the Bad Cop played by the likes of Adam Schiff. Behind the scenes, Schiff and scum like Alan Dershowitz are high-fiving one another.

    Indeed, isn’t it odd that the Power never touched Trump on what could really have damaged him? Look at Trump’s long career, and it’s filled with corruption and connection with sleazebags, crooks, and gangsters. So, if the Dems really really wanted to dig up dirt on him, they could have found TONS. Clinton’s Whitewater stuff was kid stuff compared to skeletons in Trump’s closet. And yet, the Power didn’t go there. Why not? Because many of those scumbags in Trump’s past are Jews and Democrats. Trump has real close ties with Zionist thugs, Russian-Jewish gangsters, NY Jews, and Democrats of all stripes. The Power knew that to attack Trump on those things would lead to exposure of Jewish corruption and Democratic connections to Trump and other oligarchs. All of this was true and well-documented, but they were all ignored.

    Instead, the Power decided to throw a massive fit about Russia, Russia, Russia. They ignored Trump’s real shady past & abuses and instead focused on a totally fabricated conspiracy theory about Russia Hacking the US Elections and about Trump being Putin’s Puppet(when he’s been a Zionist puppet all along). What does this tell you about the politics of justice and truth in the US?

    We have a system that totally overlooks the real abuses & corruption and instead directs national attention on complete baloney. And enough Americans are dumb enough to fall for it. On Russysteria, it was the Dummycrats who fell for it. But now, we got China-Mania or Chicomedy, and it’s the Repuglies who are falling for it. What a pathetic bunch.

    In fact, it was Jewish Power all along.

    Distractionism is the dominant politics of America. ANYTHING to distract the masses from the Real Power and Real Abuses.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  9. While power is a complex thing, the main element is money. I didn’t used to think this but it became clear over time. Without the money looking over everyone’s shoulder decision-makers would act much differently. The college that fires a right-winger (if one happens to appear) would not do so if the big donors opposed and threatened counter-action. And so on down the line for politicians, judges, etc.

  10. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Thank you Ann, you are absolutely correct about plea bargaining — it’s an utter travesty of justice. It’s leads to a system in which around 99% of accussed plead guilty. They plead guilty b/c the police have “loaded” them up with a host of other, er, tangential, charges. Those charges will amount to decades in jail. Naturally, most will not obtain bail, or be able to post bail. Naturally most will not have access to anything but a public defender (who probably has ongoing list of 150 cases at any one time)
    Wonder why they plead guilty?
    (This also has the wonderful side affect that many questionable prosecutional precedents can be set b/c nobody is able to test them in court).
    But it’s “efficient” in a neoliberal sense. And those open handed (bribes …sorry,
    donations) private prisons do well, esp with their “slave”, sorry, prison labor.

  11. @Priss Factor

    Great comment, Priss. Only thing I’d do is dial back the “Jew” influence just a little. Not that I disagree: I just wouldn’t want people to think that the Goy aren’t quite able to be corrupt without tribal encouragement.

  12. BuelahMan says:

    But, but, but… covid.

  13. Lex Culus says:

    Clearly Covington and Burling were just good cops. Flynn was lucky to get an actual lawyer in time. But for CIA show trials like this you really need a William Pepper grade attorney, someone who can go over the court’s head with human rights.

    That’s the supreme law of the land, like the Bill of Rights, but unlike the toothless toilet-paper Bill of Rights, crooked courts can’t just blow it off. There are well-developed institutional safeguards at the international level that exert mounting pressure to which the US government is exquisitely sensitive. Look into it and you’ll see that most recent significant penal and judicial reforms were impelled not by our crap internal politics, but by international pressure of treaty bodies.

    Few US-trained lawyers would give Flynn this advice because they get brainwashed in law school, but here’s what they should have done off the bat. Invoke ICCPR rights chapter and verse. To decline to answer questions about his own actions: Invoke ICCPR Article 14g or Article 17. To decline to answer questions about somebody else: Invoke Article 22.

    What this does is drag human rights into US courts, which must come into compliance with the ICCPR. It opens lots of cans of worms regarding feigned US compliance with binding human rights commitments. It gives you access to UN special procedures, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, NGO participation in the Human Rights Committee, and Human Rights Council complaint procedures.

    Don’t waste your time arguing in horseshit US courts with bribed and blackmailed hacks in judge costumes. Go over their head to the world. Stop pretending you live in a legitimate state. This is a human-rights pismire, a pariah state that’s deep in the forcible-overthrow zone. Hey, if these DoJ scumbags want to threaten your kid, throw some bombs. Kick em in the legitimacy nuts.

  14. The FBI has a long record of corruption and fabricated cases. No sensible person, and certainly no honest judge or jury would trust a FBI indictment.

    So, isn’t it time to free Leonard Peltier, the Amerindian who is the longest-serving U.S. political prisoner?.

  15. Realist says:

    How can the FBI be allowed to get away with this?
    Because they’ve never been called to task. Why?

    Because both parties are two sides of the Deep State coin.

    The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

  16. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    The US thumbs its nose at any semblance of international law, invading and bombing other countries at will. It’s only logical that this has a corrupting influence internally as well. Amassing more wealth, more power, those are the highest values. It’s impossible to separate the external from the internal. All the security agencies and spying are mainly aimed at keeping the domestic population under control rather than fighting off foreign intrigues.

  17. But… Flynn could have avoided this mess if he didn’t lie in the first place.

  18. The Orange man should stick it to the FBI by announcing that the FBI headquarters building will be renamed, not, as most people would prefer, because it should not be named after a pervert in a dress, but because of the decades of corruption and blackmailing of congress that Hoover instituted.
    How could the shit-libs complain about that?

  19. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    You are correct about the system being adversarial, but is that the real problem? The system is based on the presumption of innocence, whereas the French and German systems are not. If anything, they are based on the presumption of guilt. Three judges is balance, but as I recall, in the French and Italian systems, the judges are active participants. That is a good news/bad news scenario.
    IMO, the problem with the English common law system is that it is no longer a justice system, it is a conviction system. The fact that even a Sydney Powell, who knows all of the backroom bullshit, had a hell of a time finally getting the exculpatory evidence, speaks to that loudly and clearly.
    At the grunt level, court appointed lawyers never stand a chance. The juries, allegedly peers, are often not instructed properly by judges, and the court appointed lawyers never take them to task. Juries are led to believe that the narrative put forward by the prosecution is gospel, and that the evidence, however flawed, fits the narrative. Prosecution witnesses are allowed to speculate, and given great latitude.
    I am acquainted with several retired police officers. I recall the look of horror when I asked a simple question about fingerprints: Unless you have compared everyone in the world, how do you know they are unique? Yet fingerprints are accepted as 100% truth, even in France, Germany and Italy. While the German and French systems have great attributes, they have corruption of a different sort. Just ask Sylvia Stoltz.

  20. Meena says:
    @Priss Factor

    Didn’t he reach out to Russia at Israeli suggestion or under the in -house rabbi pressure to reach out to Russia requesting them to veto an upcoming UN resolution against Israel before Trump had started his presidency ?

  21. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Russian crap. The Russian intelligence community–like the British, French, Israeli intelligence–is far more sophisticated than those two clown shows in Langley and DC. Back in the early 60s the CIA dispatched several of their spooks to Florida to meet with Mafia don Santo Trafficante Jr. in the hopes of enlisting his people for the purpose of assassinating Castro (for whom Santo had it in because Castro upset his plans to turn Cuba into one big casino).

    The story is told that when Trafficante heard some of their proposals, he rolled his eyes in disbelief.

    Russia has been doing foreign intelligence dating back at least to Peter the Great, when the Western Hemisphere was still a howling wilderness and barely colonized. The Russians never leave fingerprints–unless they want to. And the latter is called “dezinformatsya” (which needs no translation).

    Russian intelligence runs rings around that two-ringed circus show called the FBI and CIA.

  22. Verity says:

    It’s scary that I believe this is your truth! Once you start killing the “right” people extra-judicially the Constitution is a dead letter. It can’t be brought back in any meaning ful way. Also technically “at war” ! Are you serious? The only “technical” way is a declaration under the Constitution by the Congress not ” n o stinkin’authorization of force”. At home and abroad America has been a terrorist and rogue nation that has no concept of democracy and that will not change soon.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  23. Sulu says:

    The Constitution is already dead if people in power use what is supposed to be a law enforcement agency to bust people with totally made up evidence. What was done to Flynn was nothing less than treason, and treason should be met with force. If you try and fight someone that is not playing by the rules and you stay within the rules you are already at a disadvantage.

    My guess is you totally sympathize with the people that brought false witness against Flynn and you are horrified to find that there are people out there that think the President should use force against them.

    I stand by everything I said. The people that did this committed treason. Trump should unleash the military on them and have the lot of them shot. What would really put the icing on the cake for me would be if Trump were to call Flynn back to active service and allow him to put the hit teams together and compile a list of those Traitors that deserve death, and then carry out the mission. That would be sweet irony. This country is decades overdue for a night of the long knives.


  24. AWM says:

    “Even fat cats fry.”

    Time to fire up the grill.

  25. Polemos says:
    @jack daniels

    However, courage — rare in the GOP — can be an equalizer. Bill Barr is a truly heroic figure: I am confident he will actually prosecute some of the high-ranking criminals.

    What are your reasons for this confidence? With his long history in government, you probably have a lot of examples of his character, honor, and professionalism that you can cite.

  26. The issue that has been raised about the FBI wrongdoping is they set a perjury trap for poor Flynn.

    Thus the key questioin is how do you set a perjury trap that can trap a witness to lie. After all, perjury is making a material affirmation under oath about to an issue at hand that is contrary to fact. The affirmation that is contrary to fact is a witness answering a direct question with a directly false answer. So how then can a direct question trap a witness into answering it directly by affirming something contrary to fact when he can avoid it simply by answering it directly and truthfully.

    Neither the propoents nor the opponents of the perjury trap charge have ever explained what it is and how the trap is set.

    So let me offer an explanation.

    My guess is that it’s based on the Supreme Court dcision in Bronson v. US 409 U.S. 352 (1973) that the syllabus describes as: Federal perjury statute 18 U.S.C 1621 does not reach a witness’ answer that is litgerally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably ‘false by negative implication’/i>(e.a.). A perjury prosecution is not, in our adversary system, the primary safeguard against errant testimony; given the incongruity of an unresponsive answer
    it is the questioner’s burden to frame his intgerrogation acutely to elicit the precise information he seeks (pp. 409 U.S. 357-362) (e.a.)”

    So what is an unresponsive answer that is “false by negative implication” that the court held was not perjury.

    Well, here is an example from the Simpson case. Fung on cross-examination is asked: “And you were carrying that grey envelope” (the one allegedly containing Simpson’s blood sample that Vannatter acquired and was carrying around in an unsealed envelope contrary to the LAPD directions printed on the envelope). The simple, clear and direct truthful answer is either a case saving “yes, I was” or a case killing “no, I wasn’t” because the latter killed the chain of custody over the blood sample.

    So how did Fung asnwer it: “Either by itself, in a posse box or in a paper bag.” Fung’s answer is unresponsive to the direct question of whether he was carrying it, but it purports to say he was by identifying how how carried it rather than that he was carrying it that is not at all the same thing.

    Instead of drilling down to get a straight answer as the ruling called for Scheck do, he let it pass because he had on his possession a video tape showing Fung had nothing in his hands when he left the premises for the last time after Vannatter had arrived and could have given Fung the envelope that he then carried to the truck. He instead impeached Fung’s answer that he had carried it using one of those three methods he identified.

    Here is where the Supreme Court ruling comes in. For while Fungs’s answer was false by negative implication that he had carried the envevlope to the truck by one of the three methods he identified, it was not a directly false answer to the dirtect question he was asked about was he carryuing it. It was only false by the negative implication that he was carrying it that was implied by the methods he identified he used to do so.

    There you have the perjury trap. It wasn’t however Scheck who trapped Fung, it was Fung who trapped himself by giving a grossly misleading answer that implied he carried the envelope when in fact the video Scheck later showed proved it was impossible for him to have done it as he affirmed.
    Scheck would have been happy withn any answer Fung gave to his original question because if he admitted not carrying it, he affirmed breaking the chain of custody. If he falsely tried to claim he had, he would impeach himself.

    It was the case killing truth that nailed him (along with the case).

    But Fung’s answer was not perjury.

    So how did it become a perjury trap.

    Simple. Prosecutors over the years have whittled away at the basic ruling by convincing courts that such unresponsive answers should be considered perjury when Supreme Court expressly declared it wasn’t for the very simple and obvious reason that an attorney sufficiently competent to appear in court should be able to spot an answer that was obviously unresponsiove to the question and direct the witness to answer it using numerous ways to demonstrate to the jury the witness was being misleading, like asking”Did you not understand the question, because I can repeat it for you” or words of similar import.

    But having gottew those rulings, the perjury trap it forged for prosecutors became a great weapon against adverse witnesses who could now be threatened with perjury prosecutions for giving unresponsive answers that were misleading that they simply let slide as Scheck did bedcause he was going to impeach Fung with the video tape evidence not a perjury charge. Prosecutors, however, use it for the express purpose of setting up a perjury charge against witnesses who give evasive answers. The beauty of how prosecutors carved out this exception is that it’s practically useless to defense attorneys when prosecutors coach witnesses to give unresponsive answer who don’t have to worry about being prosecuted when they are doing the prosecution’s bidding, while the prosecution will defend their witnesses against perjury charges brought by the defense by relying on the Supreme Court ruling.

    That’s how prosecutors have their cake while they munch on it.

    And this passes for justice in America.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS