FDL Review

In the first part of the series that FDL Review published on the investigation and prosecution of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, there was an excerpt from the FD-302 prepared after the FBI interview with Flynn. This excerpt was regurgitated in part three to postulate that "Flynn played fast and loose with the truth in the interview."

It is important to note that this excerpt is from a document that is now heavily contested, due to modifications by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The edits refashioned the perspective of Joe Pientka, the agent who accompanied Strzok at the Flynn interview and took the notes that underpinned the FD-302.


In an article published by the Federalist, Margot Cleveland of the University of Notre Dame notes that we do not have access to the original FD-302 for the Flynn interview, and that the one available was subjected to extensive manipulation. Referencing primary-source documents released by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jens…

The title of this analysis is “The Tragedy of Michael Flynn,” and this was a deliberate choice. It is intentionally politically ambiguous, as the left would argue that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is a tragic figure because he sold out his country by conversing with then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak; the right would say that Flynn is the victim of a tragically lawless prosecution by the same government that he served for over three decades. What has been attempted here is an apolitical analysis wherein readers can step away with the understanding that Flynn is not without blame, but also undeserving of the circumstances he has been subjected to.

Even those who believe that Flynn is “a traitorous Russophile who sold out both his honor and his country,” as asserted in the introductory paragraph of part one, should apply Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz’s “shoe on the other foot” standard and consider how they would feel if Susan Rice (Obama’s fi…

There are concerns that the investigation into Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was tainted by political considerations, and that his defense was weakened by conflicts-of-interest on the part of his first set of attorneys. The immediate fodder for the former sentiment is the latest release by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen: an FBI document from 4 January 2017 and a sequence of emails and text messages sent by Agent Peter Strzok.


The FBI document examines the intentions of Crossfire Razor (i.e., the investigation into Flynn): to ascertain whether Flynn “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation.” The memo outlines the activities of the FBI—checking databases, utilizing a confidential human source (i.e., an informant), and scrutinizing travel records. However, all of this work was for naught: The FBI found “no derogatory information” on Flynn and proclaimed, “The FBI is closing this investigation” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017).

The …

It has come into doubt whether Lieutenant General Michael Flynn lied, and whether it would be criminal even if he had.


The first point may appear inconceivable on its face, but consider that an FBI memo from 22 August 2017 noted that the agents who conducted the Flynn interview “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying” (Richey, 2018). Granted, that Flynn “did not think he was lying” is not evidence that he was not lying; similarly, an agent’s “impression” is not equivalent to reality. Flynn could have very well been lying through his teeth, but critical thinking suggests otherwise.

It is important to consider the facts dispassionately and logically. Several media outlets have noted that Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, would have known that his communications with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak were being surveilled. The Christian Science Monitor notes, “General Flynn well knew that any telephone co…

There have been disturbing revelations about the intentions of the FBI in investigating Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Since the lying-to-the-FBI charge was the only one that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could realistically bring against Flynn, it becomes increasingly essential to scrutinize these discoveries, which were made public by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen.


After the 2016 election, discussion was rife in the FBI regarding why and how to secure an interview with Flynn. On 21 January 2017, FBI Agent Peter Strzok emailed Edward William “Bill” Priestap, then the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, and recommended a “defensive briefing or interview” with Flynn unless precluded from doing so by the White House. Someone—perhaps a superior—responded to Strzok in the affirmative and declared a need to “debrief or interview” Flynn (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). We can say “perhaps a superior” is because after that email in the affirmative—sent on 2…

It has emerged that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s guilty plea was not as much of a profession of guilt as it was a protection policy for the retired lieutenant general and his family.


About a week after Flynn entered his plea deal, Foreign Policy published a Lawfare piece that noted,

The reason is the plea’s narrowness compared to the astonishing swath of public allegations of potentially criminal conduct on Flynn’s part. Reputable newspapers had reported Flynn’s failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, failures to disclose foreign contacts as required on his security clearance forms, large transactions with foreign actors, involvement in a strange influence-peddling scheme over nuclear plants, and even involvement in a kidnapping plot. Press accounts have indicated that Flynn’s son Michael Flynn Jr. also had exposure and that protecting his son was a priority for the elder Flynn. Yet the plea itself was limited. It was only one count for a set of false state…