Just Keeping Up With Russiagate

John Solomon at Da Hill: Exculpatory Russia evidence about Mike Flynn that US intel kept secret

For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.

That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.

And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”

And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.

Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.

“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.

Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:

• Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
• He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
• The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
• When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
• DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
• Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.

It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.

Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?

The persecution of Gen. Flynn is a national disgrace, on the order of the Dreyfus affair, and for a similar reason. He wasn't part of the old regime.

And speaking of not speaking, Joel Mathis at Da Weeks politely requests James Comey, please shut up

t's time for Jim Comey to be quiet.

That's been the case for a long time now — and yet there the former FBI director was on Wednesday, weighing in on the debate over Mitt Romney's op-ed criticizing President Trump.

Comey isn't exactly wrong in his tweet. Trump's claim to have essentially fired Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was ridiculous. So was his historical revisionism about the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. But that was all plain to see, so it's not like Comey's commentary really helped anything.

And that's the problem. Comey isn't always wrong. In fact, he often seems to be well-intentioned. But frequently, his efforts aren't at all helpful. Even his laudable desire to get out the vote during midterm elections became the object of mockery.

So why won't he just be quiet? That's what former FBI directors tend to do, after all. They serve out a few years leading America's top crime-fighting agency, then retire to go live out a life of private sector riches, sometimes emerging to head up a commission or join a board as an act of continued public service. Mostly, they keep a low public profile, acquiring a kind of above-the-fray elder statesman status in the process.

Comey was never, ever above the fray. . .