Chase Bank’s motto “What Matters Most” took on a menacing meaning this week after Michael Flynn claimed that the bank canceled his account and the credit card due to the “possible reputational risk to our company.” If true, the report is a chilling expansion of the role of private companies to isolate and harass those with controversial views in our society. As shown with censorship, such private enforcement of speech controls has proven far more dangerous and effective than the traditional government programs. Indeed, the move would show how a type of Chinese “social scoring” could easily take hold in the United States.
While I was highly critical of the handling of his prosecution, I have also been highly critical of former national security Michael Flynn and his reckless rhetoric in the wake of the 2020 election. However, it is precisely his unpopularity that is allegedly the reason for Chase taking action against him.
This remains only an allegation by Flynn since there is no confirmation from Chase or additional supporting material. Some have noted issues with the postings to suggest that the notice may not be directed at Flynn. However, neither Flynn nor Chase have publicly denied the account.
On Sunday, Flynn posted a message from Chase informing him that it is severing its banking ties with him “because continuing the relationship creates possible reputational risk to our company.” The partially redacted letter, dated Aug. 20, stated that the bank’s action would be effective on Sept. 18.
Chase bank has refused to respond to media inquiries on the matter.
Such an action would be chilling for free speech. In China, a “social credit system” was announced in 2014, is “an important component part of the Socialist market economy system and the social governance system.” According to a 2015 government document, the program was designed to reinforce for citizens that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful.”
In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.
The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on left applaud such censorship. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.” Perhaps the same citizens and academics will embrace the Chinese model on social scoring and praise actions that the reported move by Chase bank.
If Chase has taken this step, it could increase pressure on other companies in our “cancel culture” to refuse to do business with others deemed personas non grata. Dissidents and controversial figures would face greater and greater isolation — a deterrent for others who consider voicing unpopular views.
We have already seen the social media companies seek to effectively disappear those who challenge corporate or government viewpoints on subjects ranging from climate change to election fraud to Covid-19. Corporate banishment would ratchet up this pressure by making it difficult for people to travel and function in society. A thousand “Little Brothers” have already been found to be more dangerous than one “Big Brother” in terms of free speech. This could easily make the Chinese social scoring look tame in comparison if the cancel culture starts to target banks and other essential areas for unpopular figures like Flynn.
Clue: General Ray Odierno
GENERAL RAY ODIERNO APPOINTED SENIOR ADVISOR TO JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) announced the appointment of retired four-star General Raymond T. Odierno, former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, to a senior advisory capacity at the firm. General Odierno will provide strategic advice and global insights to Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon, the Board of Directors and members of the Operating Committee on a broad range of issues including international planning and country risk analysis, technology, operations and the rapidly evolving issues of physical and cyber security. He will also provide his expertise to help structure and carry out the firm’s leadership development training programs and assist on other leadership and workforce development issues.
Additionally, General Odierno will represent JPMorgan Chase through engagement with clients, government officials and policy makers in the U.S. and internationally and will participate in the firm’s regional advisory groups in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America. He will also advise on the firm’s cities initiatives, including the Global Cities Initiative and New Skills at Work, meeting with mayors and other public officials to provide them with expert insight and advice that will help respective metropolitan areas thrive in the global economy and representing the firm in select events and conferences with JPMorgan’s partnership organizations.
General Odierno will also advise on JPMorgan Chase’s Military and Veterans Affairs strategy and execution as a member of the Military and Veterans Affairs Advisory Council, engaging on these important issues in public forums and with policy makers. The firm has committed to helping position military members, veterans and their families for success in their post service lives through innovative programs in employment, housing and education.
I wish i had something god to say about American Democrats. I just don’t. anybody that continues to vote for this really needs to find a mirror and look into it.
Who’d a thunk Jamie Dimon would go “Back to [that] Future?”
________________________________________________
“Economy of Nazi Germany”
The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[11] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.[12]
Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labor, composed of prisoners and concentration camp inmates, which was greatly expanded after the beginning of World War II. In Poland alone, some five million people (including Polish Jews) were used as slave labor throughout the war.[13] Among the slave laborers in the occupied territories, hundreds of thousands were used by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, as well as Dutch corporation Philips.[14] By 1944, slave labor made up one quarter of Germany’s entire work force, and the majority of German factories had a contingent of prisoners.[15]
The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[5] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[6] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[7] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[8] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[9] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[10]
– Wiki (excerpted)
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuc|< things up.” Barack Obama
Susan Rice is the President, inside the “empty suit” of feckless and doltish Joke Biden, ensconced by Obama after the successful Obama Coup D’etat in America, which was directed by the Deep Deep State.
What Would George Washington Do (WWGWD)?
It may very well be that he told us, without equivocation.
____________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Great video. But don’t expect any American station to cover this.
In our household, we consult with European, Asian (India, Japan) and Australian news media organizations to learn about our failed Blithering Biden and woke America.
You can get Sky News 24/7 on Youtube. It’s a stop along with others that are worth making.
Then why did Obama go out on the campaign trail with Biden?
I wonder how many thousands of “Russia And Trump colluded To Steal The Election” leftists in the media and government have Chase accounts? I’m sure Chase will be sending out their account cancellation letters soon too…..
Well lets see, good guess would be if they were meeting with Russian top spy’s and getting paid to speak, and acting as foreign agents unknown to our government, and lying about it to the FBI, then yes no business would want to deal with them.
So, you’re saying that Chase shouldn’t deal with Hillary Clinton, too, then?
This is the continued weaponization of the banking industry against businesses and individuals. It gained much steam under the Obama administration, with the FDIC influential in Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point tried to deplatform almost 3 dozen legal business types from the US banking system. Functionally putting them out of business or moving to cash based operations. [There was a WSJ article highlighting a money transfer business that moved from wire transfers, to international air travel with suitcases stuffed with dollars. All done transparently to TSA.] While President Trump thought he put an end to it, Operation Choke Point was already embedded in the bank policies, procedures and processes. Jamie Dimon reportedly said about Operation Choke Point – Shut them all down, meaning the “offending accounts”.
Chase Bank was an early pioneer in requiring small dollar business transaction originators to provide social security numbers to the bank. A business sends a runner to the bank with a deposit that includes a few hundred dollars withdrawal to restore its petty cash. Chase required the runner to provide their social security number to the bank to be retained for future transactions, even if the runner did not have an account there. The regulators were apparently so happy with this, they rolled it out to other large banks.
Banks are now required to document the significant percentage owners of a business in support of holding bank accounts of all types – checking, savings, loans, etc. This information will prove invaluable to the implementation of wealth taxes, for this information is available in no other place.
My take on the changes is summed up in a couple revised definitions. A bank customer is a criminal that has yet to be caught. A bank employee is an accomplice.
The issue around reputation really began with a small southern bank processing ACH transactions for a fraudulent business. As Mr. Turley points out, this weaponized banking system is and can be turned against individuals. This is just the beginning, with the potential for large swaths of people to be deplatformed from the banking system.
Chase whining about their reputation? lol. The same Chase who paid a nearly ONE BILLION DOLLAR fine for FRAUD?
“JPMorgan Chase is set to pay a record $920 million to resolve probes from three federal agencies over its role in the alleged manipulation of global markets for metals and Treasurys”.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-920-million-to-resolve-us-investigations-into-trading-practices-.html
This one link above doesn’t even scratch the surface. Take a look at these https://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-of-jp-morgans-massive-fines-jpm/
Jamie Dimon has had to trot out the White House cufflinks a number of times.
No loss. Do your banking at USAA. If they reject you, they’ll be out of business next week. a 49 year customer
This is amazing – the most corrupt and fined company in history concern about repetitional risk. Jamie is such a fraud and always has been.
Turley Keeps ‘If-ing’
Professor Turley is not completely sure ‘if’ Flynn’s claims are on the level. Which means there could be more than meets the eye to this matter.
That’s what I pointed out earlier. Even he admits Flynn’s claims are just allegations. But that didn’t stop him from going into a whole diatribe over private companies exercising their rights and how unfair it may seem because it’s wrong. Not illegal, but wrong. Obvious Flynn has plenty of choices to do business with another bank. Turley never mentions that option.
He’s only criticizing the bank’s actions as some form of discrimination because of who their customer is. I’m certain there’s more to the story than Turley seems to believe.
If you’re certain than you must have the proof. Where is it?
Anonymous, Turley’s ‘not’ certain and has no proof.
Anonymous,
“ However, it is precisely his unpopularity that is allegedly the reason for Chase taking action against him. (This remains only an allegation by Flynn since there is no confirmation from Chase or additional supporting material).”
Turley himself admits he has no real proof of what he assumes the reason is for chase bank’s actions. But given Flynn’s past associations and his legal problems it’s safe to say he violated some provision of their policy.
How long have you been having conversations with yourself, Anonymous / Svelaz?
Anonymous,
“ How long have you been having conversations with yourself, Anonymous / Svelaz?”
I’ve never done that. However you have been exposed before doing just that.
I am sorry, but you don’t seem to get it. JP Morgan Chase Bank has canceled General Flynn for possible reputational risk. The world now knows that. What bank wants to defend themselves to their regulator for opening that account??? I know of a business owner with operations in multiple states. The business was on the Operation Choke Point list. Their very large bank asked them to move for “reputation” reasons – they were a Choke Point business type. The business owner tried to move the banking relationship to banks, S&L’s and credit unions in the states they did business in. NONE of them would open an account. This is SCARLET letter stuff. You don’t just walk down the street top the next bank. This is VILE, TOXIC stuff going on.
On Sunday, Flynn posted a message from Chase informing him that it is severing its banking ties with him “because continuing the relationship creates possible reputational risk to our company.
It is our new normal. Instagram / FB did the same thing to Ms. Shana Chappell, the Mother of US Marine, Kareem Nikoui, (RIP), who was killed in Kabul by ISIS bomb attack. Her crime was blaming Biden for his death on her IG and FB pages. Why anyone supports woke leaning corporations is baffling yet here we are. Americans should divest themselves of any and all such businesses.
Mother of Marine killed in ISIS bomb attack has her Instagram account disabled after she blamed Biden for her son’s death and claimed President ‘rolled his eyes’ and ‘turned his back on her’ when she confronted him
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9943583/Mother-Marine-killed-ISIS-bomb-attack-Instagram-account-SUSPENDED.html
Etovir, it’s odd you can only find this story in a British tabloid.
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!
Estovir, see if Fox News is carrying the story.
Estovir, that was my favorite scene from the movie.
Its not odd Svelaz that you use the word odd. Your handlers need to provide you better verbiage.
Her account was reinstated shortly after discovering it was a error. She’s fine. Most likely the algorithm picked up a series of words that triggered a suspension.
Svalez:
“Most likely the algorithm picked up a series of words that triggered a suspension.” Are you saying that credit card companies have algorithms that monitor news about their cardholders, and then automatically cancel all of their accounts without a human reviewing it? Which seems more likely, that a computer cancelled all of the accounts without a human, or that massive public backlash made the bank change its mind?
What algorithm? This is Chase bank, not Facebook or Google.
Karen,
“ Are you saying that credit card companies have algorithms that monitor news about their cardholders, and then automatically cancel all of their accounts without a human reviewing it?”
No Karen, I was referring to estovir’s article about a military mom’s Instagram account being suspended. Not chase bank.
It’s odd how these “discovered errors” almost always seem to go one direction.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/regime-will-not-allow-dissent-instagram-takes-gold-star-mothers-account-attacks-pos-biden-part-partner-status-program-democrats/
Not odd at all. Our media is corrupt and in the business of hiding information. A lot of stuff is available in offshore news sites that never appears in the US.
Turley pled guilty to a felony. He was later pardoned because the President at the time was his friend. in any event, Turley seems to think Flynn is just some guy with conservative views and makes no mention of his felony history. A felony history seems very pertinent to the matter at hand when a bank cites a reputational risk – not from banking with a conservative but from banking with a criminal.
What was Turley charged with? This is news to me.
Flynn pleaded guilty to one felony count of “willfully and knowingly making materially false statements and omissions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation” about conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, “in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).”
He was also charged with making materially false statements when he filed to Register as a foreign agent.
Lying to the FBI is a felony.
That’s wonderful to know. But what did Turley do that he pled guilty to?
Providing a forum for Svelaz and her/him/shim many other sock puppets to post lies.
Obviously that was meant to say Flynn instead Turley. It happens to most posters who rush their rebuttals. I’ve been guilty of that too.
It would nice to think that they’re in a hurry, but I doubt it. It was done on purpose.
Svelaz, Flynn ran out of money to fight this, plus they were threatening his son. He was told that unless he pled out, they would go after his son. He fell on his sword.
As Turley has explained previously, none of those phone conversations were illegal. The agents pretended this was just a casual conversation.
His phone conversations were not a crime. He would have been aware that phone calls to the ambassador were monitored. As the article below states, the FBI’s job is to investigate crimes that have occurred, or were planned to occur, not to inquire about lawful behavior in order to catch someone in a lie.
As Professor Turley has discussed previously, the government withheld exculpatory documents from Flynn’s legal counsel, while they strong armed him to plead out. The bad acts were so egregious that the Justice Department dropped the case.
Now, I don’t know how much money you have, but I don’t have unlimited funds. It is exceedingly difficult for most Americans to finance a defense case against government prosecution, or in this case, persecution.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the entire Flynn case was one abuse of power after another, for Democrat political gain. The illegal unmasking. Spying on Trump’s campaign and administration and then lying about it. Claiming to be having an informal little chat while a superior later treated it like an interrogation where you’d better remember every single detail of every single answer correctly. Witholding exculpatory evidence while demanding someone plead out for not mentioning a conversation that was perfectly legal and in the purview of his job description or else they would go after his son.
Were you aware that he’d already incurred something like $5 million in legal fees? How much longer did you expect him to fight this? They were threatening him with prison time, further financial ruin, and his family was in jeopardy.
This should outrage you, regardless of his political affiliation. Why doesn’t it?
This was an abuse of power, not a guilty man. They went after a retired Army Lieutenant General, who served our country honorably. And they have persecuted him over politics.
Karen,
So sorry to disagree with respect but Trump FIRED him for LYING to Pence. He may not have been a criminally guilty man, but he was surely a dishonest man. Even Turley called him a disgrace after he insinuated that a coup may just be what this county needs- a view shared by a plurality of Trumpists I dare say.
Anonymous:
Lt Gen Flynn resigned. Yes, there was upset when he hadn’t told them about his perfectly legal conversations with the Russian ambassador. No, you do not financially ruin someone, throw them in jail, or cancel his family’s credit cards for that. See jurisprudence.
Do you support the government abuse of power against Lt Gen Flynn, and if so, is it because of his later statements about the election? Is abuse of power OK as long as you dislike the victim?
Flynn believed that the election was fraudulently conducted. If you believed that the election was fraudulent, wouldn’t you want there to be some remedy, such as another election? Do you recall Democrats claiming that George Bush stole the election from Al Gore, demanding recounts, or even another election? And then again when Trump was declared winner in 2016? Do you remember so many people urged the military to turn against Donal Trump? Chelsea Handler even urged them to assassinate President Trump.
Professor Turley vehemently disagreed with Flynn’s calls for a new election, guarded from fraud by the military. Flynn believed that Biden’s election was a fraudulent coup. A mere 4 years earlier, a great many people very highly placed in politics and government thought the same thing.
The excuses you’ve made for politically motivated government abuse of power against a dissenting citizen are appalling. Fascists always have their reasons for why human rights abuses are justified against their targets.
“Yes, there was upset when he hadn’t told them about his perfectly legal conversations with the Russian ambassador.”
No, they were upset that Flynn lied to Pence about the content of those conversations. Pence and Trump both said Flynn lied to Pence.
“Do you support the government abuse of power against Lt Gen Flynn…”
Again, Flynn pleaded guilty to knowingly making false statements to the FBI, which is illegal. So the first question is: do you agree that Flynn made false statements to the FBI?
Karen says:
“ Do you support the government abuse of power against Lt Gen Flynn, and if so, is it because of his later statements about the election? Is abuse of power OK as long as you dislike the victim?”
You insult my intelligence by asking whether I would justify abuse, if any, as retaliation for Flynn’s call for a military coup against the United States. You must think very ill of me to intimate that.
You ask:
“If you believed that the election was fraudulent, wouldn’t you want there to be some remedy, such as another election?”
Believing it does not make it so unless you are a Trumpist. There is a little thing called “evidence” which there is zilch.
You ask:
“Do you recall Democrats claiming that George Bush stole the election from Al Gore, demanding recounts, or even another election?”
Democrats did not say it was stolen. They said it was not correctly counted on account of the vagaries in the paper ballots. You are going to have to refresh my memory as to whom called for another election. Was it a Democratic leader or some crackpot?
You ask:
“ Do you remember so many people urged the military to turn against Donal Trump?”
No. Refresh my recollection. A call for a military coup a la Flynn?
You claim:
“Chelsea Handler even urged them to assassinate President Trump.”
And what? Guilt by association now? Is that the only name you can come up with? Give me the names of Democratic leaders and their statements if you want to back-up your statements. I do not accept your statements at face value because you have repugnant tendency to exaggerate and reduce matters into black and white simplicity.
You charge:
“ The excuses you’ve made for politically motivated government abuse of power against a dissenting citizen are appalling. Fascists always have their reasons for why human rights abuses are justified against their targets.”
Now, the gloves come off! Those are fighting words, but I’ll never hit a lady. Too bad you don’t act like one.
Jeff Silberman
Karen,
“ Svelaz, Flynn ran out of money to fight this, plus they were threatening his son. He was told that unless he pled out, they would go after his son. He fell on his sword.”
Nope. He willingly admitted guilt before a judge twice. The judge asked if his admission was under duress. Flynn said no. He’s a military officer. If he caved so easily to “threats” to his son he wasn’t a very good soldier. He was smart enough to know the feds could not do anything to his son. That poor excuse was debunked long ago.
Svelaz–“Nope. He willingly admitted guilt before a judge twice. The judge asked if his admission was under duress. Flynn said no.”
***
You are smart but have said you are not a lawyer. This statement shows it.
With guilty pleas there is always some type of duress and always some inducement. It is a stick and carrot situation. When it comes time to close the deal in front of a judge you say what you have to say. The truth would only be an unwanted annoyance that could bring out the stick again. Every lawyer who has prosecuted or defended a criminal case knows this.
By the way, what happened to the FBI officials who lied to other FBI officials?
The answer to that question tells us a lot about what is going on.
“As Turley has explained previously, none of those phone conversations were illegal. ”
He was charged with lying to the FBI, not because the conversations themselves were illegal. Do you agree that Flynn made false statements in his FBI interview? (Let’s leave aside for right now whether they were knowingly false. Let’s start with the most basic issue: did he make false statements.)
“The illegal unmasking.”
It was not illegal, and a reminder that a request for a name to be unmasked occurs because the person does not know the identity that was redacted. There was no way to know that Flynn was the person whose name would be revealed.
I’m not going to take the time to address each of your points. Let’s start with these.
“Were you aware that he’d already incurred something like $5 million in legal fees?”
And how much money did he raise? Kyle Rittenhouse is out on $1M bail because people donated it. Were Flynn supporters not willing to donate to him?
“This was an abuse of power, not a guilty man.”
I think he was guilty of lying to the FBI. I can provide evidence to support my view. Again, let’s start with the most basic issue: do you agree that he made false statements to the FBI? IIRR, he also lied to the judge in the personal statement he submitted later under penalty of perjury.
Anonymous:
The FBI presented this as a casual conversation, not an interview. There was no crime; they were in search of a crime. They were just having a casual conversation, with no Miranda rights. You pay a lot closer attention to remembering every detail when you are being questioned regarding a crime. This may be why the agents noted that they believed Flynn was either not lying, or didn’t think he was lying. As in, what did you do yesterday? Oh, nothing much. Liar!!! You talked to so-and-so! All interview materials are to be placed in the file within 5 days. However, these notes did not find their way there until 8 months later. That’s unacceptable at the Bureau. When were the notes even written?
Michael Flynn had written a paper harshly criticizing American intelligence efforts in Afghanistan back in 2010. He did not ascribe to Obama’s insistence that ISIS was Junior Varsity. He did not agree with their analysis of Syrian rebels. Obama fired him, and Flynn went on to become a vocal critic of Obama’s Middle East policies.
Under the Obama Administration, the FBI made Flynn a target. The FBI found no derogatory information in their database. They could find no derogatory information using a Confidential Human Source. They kept digging for dirt but couldn’t find any. An FBI memo concluded they were closing the investigation. However, political hack Jim Comey still wanted to try to find dirt. Any dirt. This was indicted in the Strzok texts. We all know how Flynn’s conversations were illegally unmasked. Listening in on the conversations of the National Security Advisor was espionage. Flynn’s investigative firm had prepared a report on a Turk living in America that was suspected of terrorism. The FBI believed they could get him for failing to register as a foreign agent.
In the FBI notes:
“The agent writes, quote, “what is our goal – truth, admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The note goes on to say, if we’re seen as playing games, White House will be furious, and, quote, “protect our institution by not playing games.””
Timeline:
“December 21, 2016–Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Israeli settlements (“resolution”).
December 22, 2016–a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016–FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to withdraw the resolution (link).
December 28, 2016–President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT official”), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the US Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the US Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.
– FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the US Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
– Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the US Sanctions.
December 31, 2016–the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN’s request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the US Sanctions and Russia’s decision not to escalate the situation.”
There IS NO 302 from the interview. Just some notes with Strzok’s recollections.
Flynn’s attorney’s had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which would’ve have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”
https://saraacarter.com/fbi-docs-reveal-flynn-was-not-lying-or-did-not-think-he-was-lying/
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/may/06/michael-flynn-did-not-lie-he-was-framed-by-the-fbi/
“The FBI presented this as a casual conversation, not an interview.”
That’s not true (per the 302 the DOJ included in their motion to dismiss), and even if it were: it’s illegal to knowingly make false statements to the FBI, and Flynn said under oath that he was aware of that.
“They were just having a casual conversation, with no Miranda rights.”
That’s legally irrelevant. Again, it is illegal to make false statements to the FBI. The relevant law is 18 U.S. Code § 1001.
“the agents noted that they believed Flynn was either not lying, or didn’t think he was lying”
And then they gathered more evidence, and they realized that he *was* lying, because he wouldn’t have made these particular false statements by mistake. He wasn’t charged for saying something like “oh, I didn’t do anything yesterday.” Are you even aware of what false statements he *did* make?
“We all know how Flynn’s conversations were illegally unmasked.”
No, we don’t. You believe this, but it isn’t true. What was illegal about asking for the redacted name to be unmasked?
“Listening in on the conversations of the National Security Advisor was espionage.”
a) He wasn’t NSA when the calls took place. There’s only one President at a time and only one NSA at a time.
b) They listen in on lots of the Russian ambassador’s conversations, and it’s not illegal for them to do so, even if he talks with an American.
““protect our institution by not playing games.””
What’s your point? They didn’t play games.
“There IS NO 302 from the interview.”
That’s false. The 302 from the interview was included as an exhibit when the DOJ moved to have the case dismissed.
“Flynn’s attorney’s had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which would’ve have warned him of penalties for making false statements.”
Flynn told the judge under oath that he knew it was illegal for him to make false statements to the FBI. He wasn’t mirandized because he wasn’t being investigated for a crime. The crime was him lying to the FBI, which occurred during the interview, not before the interview.
“McCabe … also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents.”
That’s false. He asked Flynn if Flynn wanted a lawyer present, and Flynn said no.
It’s striking that in all this, you didn’t answer the question: do you agree that Flynn made false statements to the FBI?
The unmasking:
The FBI spies on people without a warrant by legally spying on people they know their target will communicate with. It’s called incidental collection, and the NSA is infamous for it. Remember when James Clapper lied to Congress about it?
Senior Obama administration officials requested the unmasking. They specifically requested to unmask Flynn 39 times. Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, declassified the list of Obama officials involved.
“The list of officials showed that former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director James Comey, former vice president Joe Biden, and former president Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough all requested to see Flynn’s identity at different points.”
Merely by reading the transcript, they knew who this was. It is illegal to use unmasking for political purposes. Then the unmasked information was illegally leaked to WaPo. Remember, those conversations were legal, and in the purview of his job.
The FBI and NSA had become Democrat politicized. Activists in power abused their authority and access – Jim Comey, Strzok, etc.
Remember, the DOJ dropped the case against Flynn because the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.” There was nothing nefarious whatsoever about Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. Yet that’s not how it was portrayed.
The story collapsed like a house of cards, along with the rest of the Trump/Russia investigation, and turned on its head. Instead of Trump and Flynn colluding with Russia to fraudulently win an election and work as Manchurian Candidates, it turned out it was Hillary Clinton who tried to defraud voters with false information against Trump, gathered by Russian spies, riddled with Russian misinformation. They were the victims of malfeasance, not the perpetrators of it.
Lying to the FBI:
There is not a record of exactly what Flynn was asked and answered. This is because there was no official 302. Something like 8 months later, Strzok put some notes in the file. Flynn was not Mirandized. This was not presented as an official interview, but rather just chatting in his capacity of the incoming National Security Advisor. So what was said? Hey, Flynn, spoken to any Russian spies lately? No? LIAR! The Russian Ambassador passes on information to Putin so he’s a spy!
Since the agents who spoke with Flynn, already privy to the unmasking, thought that Flynn was either not lying, nor didn’t think he was lying, then this indicates a relatively innocent or harmless exchange.
Flynn pled out because he didn’t have a recording of the conversation. Didn’t have his layer present during the conversation. Had racked up $5 million in legal bills. They were threatening his son. They withheld exculpatory evidence. EXCULPATORY means that it cleared of guilt.
The phone calls were not a crime.
There is no transcript of the interview.
Agents who had his unmasking information believed he was telling the truth or unaware that it was untruthful.
He was not Mirandized or informed this was an official interview, in which he was carefully and painstakingly remember every detail.
Ergo, no, I do not think Flynn broke any laws in that interview.
Are you claiming he perjured himself because his plea deal routinely asked if he was under duress? You do realize that every plea deal is produced through leverage, correct? He was not bound and gagged, his hands weren’t broken to make him sign, but he was indeed pressured.
The bottom line is that you dislike Flynn, and will find endless excuses for the government abuse of power used against him. Politics washes away wrongs, apparently.
“They specifically requested to unmask Flynn 39 times.”
No. Again: when a name is masked, they **do not know** whose name is masked. They asked multiple times for **someone’s** name to be unmasked, and the name that was revealed turned out to be Flynn’s.
“Merely by reading the transcript, they knew who this was.”
A claim you provide no evidence for. I’m open to changing my mind if you present the transcript and explain how they’d know whose name was masked.
“the DOJ dropped the case against Flynn because the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.””
But that’s very clearly false. Barr was grasping for reasons to drop the case. They interviewed Flynn because it was clear that he’d lied to Pence. Only a dishonest DOJ official would say that it’s not a legitimate investigative basis to try to understand why the incoming NSA lied to the VP-elect about his conversations with the Ambassador of an adversary.
“There was nothing nefarious whatsoever about Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador.”
Actually there was. He was undermining the current President in multiple ways, including in the UN. But the real reason he lied seems to be that he was hiding that he did this with the approval of Trump’s transition team and was trying to hide his communication with *them*, not his communication with Kislyak.
“There is not a record of exactly what Flynn was asked and answered. This is because there was no official 302.”
No, it’s because the FBI doesn’t record their interviews. There *was* an official 302, and it’s public. It’s an exhibit in the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.
“So what was said?”
Read the 302.
“They withheld exculpatory evidence. EXCULPATORY means that it cleared of guilt.”
No, they withheld things that weren’t actually exculpatory, but that were later turned over. None cleared him of guilt.
“Ergo, no, I do not think Flynn broke any laws in that interview. ”
I didn’t ask that. I asked whether you agreed that he made false statements to the FBI. And now I’d add: if your answer is “yes,” do you know what those false statements were, based on the 302? Because my impression is that you don’t know what, specifically, he was untruthful about.
“Are you claiming he perjured himself because his plea deal routinely asked if he was under duress?”
No.
I think he perjured himself because of his own accord he chose to submit a personal statement under penalty of perjury that included false statements — statements that I think he knew to be false and that also contradicted earlier statements he’d made under oath to the judge.
“The bottom line is that you dislike Flynn, and will find endless excuses for the government abuse of power used against him. ”
No, the bottom line is that I believe the evidence shows that Flynn lied to the FBI about material issues. I’d be happy to discuss that evidence with you. But again, the first question is: do you agree that Flynn made false statements to the FBI, and if so, are you aware of what those false statements were?
(Your question apparently went over his head…)
Thersites,
I’m surprised you didn’t hear about it because, you know, people are saying that he pled to a felony. Everybody is talking about. Every where I go, people come up to me ask about it. It’s all over the place!
That may be the more logical explanation. Since being pardoned doesn’t change the record that he is still guilty of lying to a judge and having a felony charge against him on the record.
Look at it this way. Banks are won’t do business with legal weed businesses due to weed still being illegal by the federal government. They may be legal in states but banks can be subject to federal charges of enabling a illegal drug trade.
Glenn Greenwald believes otherwise. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/obama-official-ben-rhodes-admits
He was coerced to plead guilty to prevent prosecutors from pursuing his son with the same false accusations. Notably, he was only charged after the Mueller team took over the FBI investigation, and it was obviously done to pressure him into giving up some kind of evidence about the nonexistent Russian collusion. You remember, that the Mueller team finally had to admit they could find literally no evidence to support.
The DOJ tasked a DOJ attorney with over a decade of FBI experience to review the evidence, and he recommended the case be dismissed. Which it was.
Except that the federal judge in the case refused to dismiss the case, even though there was no prosecution. The only reason that Trump pardoned Flynn was because it was clear that the judge was determined to punish him one way or the other.
Everything about the Flynn case reeked of political gamesmanship, starting with the pretext of pursuing him over a “potential” Logan Act violation for literally doing his job on the president-elect’s transition team by talking to foreign powers for the new president, then accusing him of a FARA act violation on the claim that the private individuals he was working for were actually directed by the government of Turkey — which they were never able to prove — to extorting his attorneys by threatening to deprive them of attorney-client privilege, which would have put them out of business, to threatening his son who had a newborn child to coerce a guilty plea out of Flynn, to the federal judge taking the unprecedented step of appointing someone else to carry on the prosecution when the DOJ signaled they didn’t believe Flynn was guilty, all the way to the end when Flynn realized the only way to finally end the persecution was to accept a pardon from the outgoing president.
But sure, let’s just blame everything on Trump.
There have been allegations of Michael Flynn and money laundering. That would be the type of reputational risk a bank does not want a part of. Indeed, several people in Trump world have been involved in money laundering – some of them getting pardons from Trump.
But Turley assumes it is Flynn’s views, rather than his money laundering, which Chase Bank is concerned about.
Please provide links for the money laundering allegations. I would like to read them and be a better informed citizen. Thanks.
Major private industries have aligned with the Democrat Party to convergently evolve into Big Brother.
We have a Democrat Administration partnering with social media in order to censor information damaging to its messaging, and to promote approved propaganda. It did not even require nationalizing this industry. They did it on their own.
Most of the media and Hollywood have engaged in similar partnership.
The public education system, higher education, and surprisingly, many public schools, have followed suit. Expect to be condemned and harassed if you prefer to judge people based on their character rather than their skin color, or if you ascribe to the biological definition of gender.
Many large corporations have followed suit, believing that it is the most profitable way to go. Their employees are forced to attend CRT training, in which they must apologize for the color of their skin.
We now have blacklists. Disagree with the Democrat party line, and activists will try to impoverish you. Don’t believe me? Ask the Colorado baker Jack Philips. Activists have tried to get him to bake custom Halloween cake, a Satanic cake, a cake celebrating gay marriage, and a cake that’s blue on the outside but pink on the inside to claim that there is no biological definition of gender. As long as you do everyone Democrats tell you to, you won’t get hurt.
These activists go after artists in order to force them to custom create works that reflect far Left messaging. It’s like olden days when refusing a King’s commission could send you to the rack.
The most ludicrous part of all is Democrats call conservative fascists. This requires the total suspension of critical reasoning.
Karen,
“ We have a Democrat Administration partnering with social media in order to censor information damaging to its messaging, and to promote approved propaganda.”
They are not partnering with social media to censor information. They ARE combating harmful disinformation that is affecting communities and states.
Just look at the issue with invermectin. People are buying the stuff meant for livestock and ending up calling poison control because they are getting sick from taking it due to misinformation about its efficacy.
Some doctors are falsely claiming it’s effective against covid. When it’s not proven to be. It’s not even approved for treating COVID. How ironic, people taking a drug that is not approved for treating covid, while avoiding a vaccine that is. Many people claim they don’t trust the vaccine because they don’t know what’s in it. But those same people have no idea what’s in invermectin, it’s a neurotoxin meant to kill parasites.
Ivermectin works through multiple mechanisms and has been demonstrated clinically and globally to reduce hospitalization, disease progression, and death in 80 to 90% of cases. The issue is dosage, not consumption, of a drug with well-established safety data.
The vaccines are known to have marginal value (e.g. excess dysfunctional antibody production and short-lived immunity), disease promotion (a mutating and pathogenic spike protein reproduced through mRNA usurpation of cells), and limited safety-data, which may be suitable depending on individual risk assessment.
Most people have either preexisting (e.g. cross-reactive through alternative keying) or naturally acquired immunity, and only require early therapeutic treatment (e.g. complement, regulate) to supplement their immune system function.
n.n,
The latest Pfizer Fact Sheet has been updated to include cardiac risks and also adds this ominous phrase about “serious and unexpected” side effects that may be revealed’.
Multiple reports of varying degrees of reliability had indicated that the vaccine could cause heart problems well before Pfizer updated its Fact Sheet.
There have, of course, been many other indications of serious injury or death that appeared to have been caused by the vaccine and one wonders if those may be the ‘serious and unexpected’ side effects the new Fact Sheet is alluding to.
Anonymous argued with me that I couldn’t prove the side effects I was referring to because they weren’t in his older fact sheet and therefore couldn’t be ‘true knowledge’.
Others have made similar remarks. However, in a rapidly changing environment most of us have to make decisions based on clouds of information with varying degrees of reliability. It’s an adaptation to the real world and we experience the same process in buying a house, choosing furniture or college, or in making any other important decision. We must act with less than perfect information and without Fact Sheets to give us ultimate truth.
A great deal of information and reports indicates the vaccine may be dangerous, even deadly, for some. More reports not suppressed by Big Tech indicate that Ivermectin may be beneficial in treating Covid.
Fauci and Big Tech have not been reliable guides.
Each person has to make his own decision.
Let Darwin do his job and stop slobbering over big brothers knob. What the hell is the matter with people thinking that censorship is AOK?
God, you clowns are way way way more dangerous than years of ‘misinformation.’
Taliban in America.
There defiantly a ruling class in America.
Karen, Karen, Karen,
There you go again making another absurdly exaggerated charge which made me guffaw:
“As long as you do everyone Democrats tell you to, you won’t get hurt.”
I think you meant “everything” not “everyone.” Upon reflection, would you like to soften that accusation just a tad, e.g., insert “mostly everything” or do you stand by your guns?
Blithely making such brash assertions without any qualification undermines your credibility. Worse, you sound a lot like Trump, and that’s not a good look if you wish to influence people on my side!
Michael Flynn was his name!
He rode off with Robert E. Lee!
His great grandson has the same name
He rode off with Donnie Boy Trump!
(There’s music with this)
Does anyone still think the move to a cashless economy is a good idea?
Chase just showed what can go wrong.
No – it iis the end of humanity and civilization.
Does Hunter Biden have Chase accounts?
No reputational risk there, I am sure.
Chase just caved because of the backlash, and will now NOT cancel General Flynn’s cards. Just came out on the Radio. Not finding it on the internet YET.
Chase drops Flynn as a customer. Social media companies ban Trump and Berenson. The Left’s response is: “Well, they’re private companies. And they have that right.”
The issue is not their legal right to do so. The issue is whether their action is right. The issue is the obviously capricious and contradictory nature of their choices. (Chase, for example, actively supports the communist dictatorship in China, But, somehow, having Flynn as a customer causes a “possible reputational risk to [the] company”?!)
Leftists would observe a man viciously berating his wife in public. Then sit on their hands and reply: “Who am I to judge?”
There is nothing so unseemly than moral agnosticism.
Sam,
“ The Left’s response is: “Well, they’re private companies. And they have that right.”
Well, is it true that they have a right to do that? Are you implying that they don’t have that right? If not according to what law?
What if their policies are violated? Trump broke THEIR rules. Should he still have a right to be on their platforms.
“ The issue is not their legal right to do so. The issue is whether their action is right. The issue is the obviously capricious and contradictory nature of their choices. (Chase, for example, actively supports the communist dictatorship in China, But, somehow, having Flynn as a customer causes a “possible reputational risk to [the] company”?!)”
We don’t know the full circumstances that prompted chase to end their relationship with Flynn as a customer. Not even Turley which he admits, but that didn’t stop him from going off on assumptions and innuendo about censorship that is perfectly acceptable based in a company’s own policies.
It may not be right, but the issue is more about a company’s own rights as a private company to set its own rules regarding customers and who THEY choose to do business with. Banks are not required to accept anyone as a customer nor keep one if they are suspected of being a liability. Flynn is already known to be a liar and an advocate for overthrow the election, conspired with a foreign government. If he posed a liability the bank had a right to drop him.
“Well, is it true that they have a right to do that? Are you implying that they don’t have that right? If not according to what law?”
That’s the fallacy I was referring to. It’s called “legalism” — the notion that if something is legal, then it’s morally right (and if illegal, then morally wrong.) The Left keeps conflating a legal right and what’s morally right — in the attempt to whitewash despicable behavior by Chase, Facebook, et al.
Sam,
It’s not a fallacy if it’s true. Right?
Legalism; strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code.
The left keeps pointing out the facts of what the law allows and what it doesn’t.
Is it legal for private companies to censor speech if they deem it a violation of their policies?
Are private companies bound by the first amendment’s prohibitions?
Nobody is whitewashing anything. It’s just the inability of some republicans or conservatives to grasp the concept of what the law dictates. Some things may be legal, but morally wrong. Or some things may be illegal, but morally just.
If you want to be a nation of law and order. Then you must stick to what the law says regardless of what is morally wrong or not. Right?
It’s morally wrong to evict people during a pandemic, but it’s still legal to do so. Here republicans completely support evictions because it’s l…legal. Right?
Sam says: “There is nothing so unseemly than moral agnosticism.”
You plagiarized that quotation from Trump, didn’t you? He said it first!
No, I “plagiarized” it from myself. (But nice try.)
Prof. Turley’s next piece: “New-York Gazette discriminates against traitors by cancelling Benedict Arnold’s subscription.”
There’s always a reason why the Left thinks this is OK.
The Fascists and every other human rights abuser in history thought they had a good reason.
No one sees themselves as the villain, even while performing bad acts.
Karen,
“ There’s always a reason why the Left thinks this is OK.”
Yes, there are always reasons to justify certain actions.
What I find ironic is that nobody had said that what private companies are doing is illegal or unconstitutional. Not a single poster has pointed it out.
Republicans are all about the rule of law and sticking to the letter of the law. Yet when private companies do exactly that even if it seems wrong suddenly they are Marxists, tyrants, communists, or whatever sinister ideology is the fashion trend among republicans, they howl and wail about some sort of persecution, or agenda afoot because the law is not being violated in regards to these issues.
Bad acts that are not illegal are certainly unfair and unjust at times. BUT you can thank republicans for the majority of that. It is they who GAVE these companies utter freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. It’s the whole point of the republican philosophy of getting government out of the way of business and let them grow according to their free market principles.
Now that some businesses are exercising their right to conduct their business as they see fit those very same republicans are upset that they are subject to THEIR rules. Remember, it was republicans who cried and whined about excessive regulations and dictating how one should run their businesses. Now they are crying foul over the need to regulate them because they don’t like how THEY are treated.
Just shut up, you leftist moron.
Cute retort, clearly a failure to refute the facts.
Your observations would have more force if it weren’t for the fact that we know that the government has put pressure on banks to prevent legal but “unsavory” businesses from getting and keeping accounts before. How can we trust that this isn’t yet another government action, disguised as a private company’s decision?
You are also assuming that all Republicans are strictly lazzais-faire libertarian types. There’s a surprisingly large contingent who believe that, while too much regulation is bad, some regulation is nonetheless necessary.