What makes for a good criminal investigative type of movie or TV series? Something sinister…real sinister. Stuff this sinister is hard to dream up for any creative mind. No need to dream anything up because we have one in the making and it’s coming out soon.
Stuff like this happens only in politics, in business and in the workplace. In real life, I would never want to be a part of dirty politics. As for me personally, I try to stay away from “politics” (in the negative sense of the word). But I am interested in what goes on in politics and public policy. (Before going to seminary, I studied public policy; thus, my interest in stuff like this.)
As I blogged in an earlier on FBI’s Flynn Outrage, this whole issue about Gen. Mike Flynn being framed for a crime he did not commit is all tied together with what liberals want. It also shows the level of desperation in how they want to impeach President Trump. The sinister-level of this whole ordeal might be at the level of Watergate. Thus, my comparison to the making of a good movie or TV series. Creative writers for Hollywood, wake up.
What would drive a person or a group to want to frame an innocent person for a crime he did not commit. The crime would have to be hideous enough to want to cover up a real crime. In this case of the FBI and James Comey, there is a real crime beneath the faked crime. Politics can get nasty and this story is it. There will certainly have to be consequences and repercussions.
There’s lots of details in this complex story. Too much for me to understand, and more than most people can absorb. Uncover more and you might get more truth on why the Roger Stone story also had a coverup. Andrew McCarthy at the National Review has written a great article that goes into detail about this whole complex ordeal of the FBI cover up. He writes:
“…. Why was Flynn set up? The answer to the what question has been clear for a long time: The FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn, hoping to lure him into misstatements that the bureau could portray as lies. In the frenzied political climate of the time, that would have been enough to get him removed from his new position as national security adviser (NSA), perhaps even to prosecute him. On that score, the new disclosures, startling as they are to read, just elucidate what was already obvious.
But why did they do it? That has been the baffling question. Oh, there have been plenty of indications that the Obama administration could not abide Flynn. The White House and the intelligence agencies had their reasons, mostly vindictive. But while that may explain their gleefulness over his fall from grace, it has never been a satisfying explanation for the extraordinary measures the FBI took to orchestrate that fall.
[ Flynn,] The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played — how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.
The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.
But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?
The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.
That is why Flynn had to go.”read full National Review article here