[M11293]

Barr was mostly appointed AG to preserve the institutions -as they currently are. I see Barr's appointment as a compromise -Russia hoax quickly fizzles out, as does the exposure of FBI corruption. McCabe, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, etc. are all freely walking about and publishing their little books concerning revisionist history.

Unfortunately, Flynn's case being dropped limits the further discovery phase of the case. I imagine there is far more damming evidence buried at the Bureau. Some of that evidence likely links other parties and cases to their corrupt methods.

It is interesting to see The Man Himself directing and advising most of this corruption. I think just about anyone with a brain and healthy suspicion believed/knew this was the case. But the fact that material memos, now public, link Obamallamadingdong to times, places, and discussions concerning the Flynn railroad sure are interesting.

Under the law, and I am not saying we are under the law as we have a two tiered justice system, nor do I truly believe this would ever happen, but could Obama himself be prosecuted? Could Flynn sue Obama? Could Obama be subpoenaed to testify in court?

Durham? Paging Durham.

 

[kabanchik]

General Flynn should begin by filing civil suits against ALL who had ANY involvement in his set-up, and sue these bastards, INCLUDING OBAMA HIMSELF, for EVERY PENNY THEY HAVE, or ever WILL have. This, of course, is on top of the SEVEREST criminal penalties possible. Heads need to roll on this sordid & DISGRACEFUL affair!

 

[M11293]

General Flynn should begin by filing civil suits against ALL who had ANY involvement in his set-up, and sue these bastards, INCLUDING OBAMA HIMSELF, for EVERY PENNY THEY HAVE, or ever WILL have. Heads need to roll on this sordid affair!

A civil suit is not enough for what happened. Obama and Co. would just pay him off, and down the memory hole this all goes. Rinse and repeat.

 

[rickgman]

A civil suit is not enough for what happened. Obama and Co. would just pay him off, and down the memory hole this all goes. Rinse and repeat.

Here's where personal desires conflict with practicality. The best one can hope for in this case is to prevail in a civil suit. Criminal prosecution is unlikely because it is pretty much a lost cause.

 

[JayKosta]

Flynn is unlikely to pursue any civil action - doing so would just expose him to having to answer more questions and having more information about the situation made public.
He's standing on the bottom of a hole, why keep digging?

Jay

 

[stoky]

 

[seagiant]

Hi,
Well...Anyone with half a brain cell knows...

All this corruption leads back to Obozo and Hillary!

Give me a break!USN5

 

[Lucky#13]

Based on an analysis of former lawyer on the National Security Council, it was not a procedural error per se, but that 'predication' (aka justification) did not exist for any interview to even take place in January 2017. The DoJ argues that no matter how much lying took place when interviewed by the FBI - even if the subject confesses to the court that he lied - but because 'predictation' did not exist according to a single interim political appointee, the subsequent lying to the FBI with regard to a counter-intelligence investigation is completely irrelevant/immaterial. Seriously, that is their full argument.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ugly-day-justice-department

An Ugly Day for the Justice Department

...Attorney General Barr argues this fact pattern was irrelevant, and that the reportedly "multiple calls" on December 29, 2016 b/t the General and the Russian Ambassador was also irrelevant, and that predication did not exist. Ergo, the January 2017 interview should never have taken place and all that flowed from that is immaterial. It is noteworthy that not even one career DOJ attorney signed yesterday's motion to dismiss, only a single political appointee did, who is acting in an interim/temporary capacity. The attorney who did the case work and prosecution withdrew a few minutes before filing, presumably in protest.

(Note: none of us will ever see the transcript of the NSA's intercepted conversation b/t Fylnn and Kislayk, or between Kislyak and his Russian colleagues circa December 2016 about the expulsion of Russian spies that day and the new sanctions imposed on Russia, etc, but apparently whatever was said created some sort of internal flag that caused that transcript to land in the inbox of the FBI counter-intelligence section to follow-up on. The transcript is classified info and the motion to dismiss is silent on this topic, but presumably the contents would speak to the issue of predication, but as I noted previously, we don't get to see whatever the senior FBI counter-intel guys read at the time. Whatever it was, they decided to interview Flynn in late January 2017.)

....



The DOJ argument really boils down to fact patterns don't really matter if the Attorney General says that predication did not exist, and therefore it is actually legal for a high-level gov't official to lie, repeatedly, to the FBI during a counter-intelligence interview. Even if the official confesses to lying about Russian contacts and lobbying for the Turkish gov't in two court proceedings, while being represented by qualified legal counsel in an effort to get a plea bargain and thereby avoid more serious felony charges - none of that matters if 'predication' did not exist for an interview with the subject.

***

I'd rather spend my time on this forum discussing the M14/M1A and hobby-related topics, but I hope others might consider that the twisted 'logic' used in the motion to dismiss is typically found in George Orwell novels. It is not found in DoJ arguments prepared by professional career attorneys who serve the pubic. Welcome to the New World.

Wow. Starting out with quoting a partisan hit-job article from a Brookings Institute, left-wing subsidiary. You might as well have just sourced from Adam Schiff, Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller. I have rarely read a more smelly piece of garbage. This completely distorts reality, using misdirection and the same kind of innuendo that the whole collusion hoax was based on.

I don't have time now, with plenty of work on my plate today. But this all needs to be broken down again, and I'll make the time to do it later. But I was not going to let this stand without calling out your propaganda post. There is not an ounce of reality in your post. Period.

 

[Lucky#13]

Flynn is unlikely to pursue any civil action - doing so would just expose him to having to answer more questions and having more information about the situation made public.
He's standing on the bottom of a hole, why keep digging?

Jay

I can see what world you live in. To date, there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that Michael Flynn did anything immoral, illegal or unethical. It is now well documented that he didn't even commit the crime he plead to, and that his first law firm violated federal law, along with the prosecutor, in denying Flynn the information that proved they had no evidence of lying to the FBI. We have not only Strzok and Pientka's own statements that Flynn showed no signs of lying or hiding anything, but also both James Comey and Andrew McCabe testified under oath before Congress in 2017 (before Mueller was appointed) that Strzok and Pientka told them Flynn was honest and never lied in the interview.

McCabe testimony, Spring of 2017: "... the two people who interviewed (Flynn) didn't think he was lying."

Comey testimonty, Spring of 2017: “the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”


What Flynn was never allowed to know- and what his Covington attys did not tell him- was that the prosecutor had nothing, that said prosecutor has also signed a deal with Covington to NOT investigate and prosecute Flynn's son, and that the who plea offer was a planned deception to force him to "cooperate" in an effort to go after Trump, based on a total bluff. They literally lied to Flynn to convince him they had something and would indict him and go after his son if he did not enter the plea as offered, knowing that if he called their bluff the case would have to be closed right then and there. See K.T. McFarlane and Jerome Corsi for examples of what happens when you call their bluff. They have to drop everything and let you go. The difference with Flynn is that they had the ability to hang his son's fate and the false claim that he had contradicted himself when, in fact he hadn't. Remember, only the prosecutor and FBI (oh, and President Obama it now turns out) had the word-for-word transcripts of the Kislyak phone calls. Only they knew Flynn had NOT actually contradicted himself, knowingly or otherwise. They tricked him into thinking that he had, and with the aid of Flynn's own attorneys who were protecting their relationship with the agency. Flynn not only has a whopper of a case against the government, but the legal malpractice case of a lifetime.

So you might want to get your head out of the sand box and learn what actually happened before you continue to post DNC talking points.

 

[Roadkingtrax]

 

[stoky]

 

[Random Guy]

Remember, only the prosecutor and FBI (oh, and President Obama it now turns out) had the word-for-word transcripts of the Kislyak phone calls. Only they knew Flynn had NOT actually contradicted himself, knowingly or otherwise

Nope. The historical record is different. Bob Woodward (who became famous for bringing to daylight President Nixon's crimes back in 1973-74), noted the following in his book, Fear.

...On January 26, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates had come to the White House. She told White House Counsel Donald McGahn that intercepts showed that Flynn had not been truthful about contacts with Russians and was worried that Flynn could be a blackmail target.

Flynn had denied discussing the sanctions 10 times, Priebus calculated… Priebus tracked down White House Counsel McGahn… Priebus asked him if they could get the transcripts of the conversations that Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador.

Yes, McGahn said, of course. Soon he had the highly classified transcripts of three communications between Flynn and Kislyak that the FBI had intercepted during the routine monitoring of the Russian Ambassador.

McGahn and Pribus were joined by Vice President Pence in the Situation Room to review the transcripts. Pence had backed Flynn’s denial publicly.

In all three transcripts, Flynn and the ambassador discussed the sanctions. In the last call, initiated by Kislyak, the ambassador thanked Flynn for his advice on the sanctions and said the Russians would follow it.

That nailed the story and it explained Putin’s curiously passive response to the sanctions. Normally the Russian president would be expected to retaliate expelling some Americans from Russia. But the day after Obama announced the sanctions, Putin announced he would not.

President-elect Trump praised Putin, tweeting “Great move on delay (by V. Putin)-I always knew he was very smart!”

The sequence suggested that Trump might have known of Flynn’s role. But it was unclear what Flynn said to the president about his conversations with Kislyak.

By Bob Woodward’s reporting, VP Pence actually read the three transcripts in the Situation Room with McGahn and Priebus weeks prior to his firing.

A quick google search regarding 'Pence Flynn Lied' produced some hits, including this one:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i-knew-flynn-lied-to-me-about-russian-contacts-when-he-was-fired/

Pence: I knew Flynn lied to me about Russian contacts when he was fired

Vice President Mike Pence told CBS News' Margaret Brennan Thursday that he knew former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to him about his contacts with the Russians when Flynn was fired in February. Brennan spoke with Pence during the vice president's surprise trip to Afghanistan.

So, sometime in January 2017 the VP himself read the 3 transcripts of the December 29th, 2016 calls b/t General Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Just an fyi about the fact pattern involved that General Flynn admitted to regarding the Russian gov't - and that does not include his confessed lying about lobbying on behalf of the Turkish Govt in late 2016 (of which his two associates at the Flynn Intel Group were charged, but General Flynn was spared that felony charge due to his plea bargain). IMO is the epitome of 'swamp behavior' for someone acting as the National Security Advisor for the US President:

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...admits-to-lying-about-turkish-lobbying-038734

Flynn admits to lying about Turkish lobbying
By THEODORIC MEYER 12/01/2017

..Just a few facts to consider about General Flynn's pattern of behavior, and that is why the DoJ’s motion this week to suddenly dismiss the charges due to lack of predication is so bizarre. Not one single US career attorney in the DoJ signed that motion - only a interim political appointee. I don’t think history will be kind to that motion and Attorney General Barr for allowing it.

What I don't understand is why a man who dedicated 33 years of his life in the US Army and rose to the rank of General - would upon (albeit somewhat forced) retirement from the military - start lobbying on behalf of an authoritarian foreign gov't (Turkey) and also try to appease one of our primary geopolitical adversaries (Russia). It really baffles me, and I can only guess that some element of greed and a thirst for power clouded his judgement, which led to a pattern of documented lying that he confessed to in court filings, and thus ultimately led to his downfall. Its a tragic story.

 

[Capona]

The DOJ wanted to take Flynn down in any way they could because they knew he would clean house and destroy their power base. Plus he knows where all the bodies are buried associated with the Obama administration. Yeah, the Teflon Potus that never even gets his name mentioned in any of this. He was as corrupt as any Illinois / Chicago politician. But the man is untouchable because he was our first half white president. That never gets mentioned either.

So they set Flynn up and was ready to take his son down as leverage. That would be blackmail by any standards if it was the common criminal conducting themselves this way.
But it was the fBI and CIA so let’s call it leverage. How low can these guys go? Maybe they could tie him up and have the team pull a train on his wife. While I’m on the soapbox, redacting documents to hide FBI techniques should be made illegal now that we know their the criminals. Uncover it all, let the puss ooze out.

These guys make the mob look like choirboys. At least the mob had a code.
They should all hang for treason and make an example of all of them to set things right.
Enough is enough.

 

[rickgman]

Everything else aside, the dismissal of charges gets down to whether the investigation should have continued and whether the subsequent interview (which was really an interrogation) should have even occurred. The FBI agents who performed the initial investigation found no reason to continue the investigation since it was a dry hole. However, FBI leadership continued to keep the case open and initiated the interview. For what reason? Some individuals from the DOJ contend that there was enough information already available to meet the predicition standard. Sorry, I simply don't buy it. None of the incidents noted were even close to constituting a crime and it is ridiculous to try and draw the conclusion that together they would lead one to reasonably believe that a federal crime or threat to national security might occur. Heck, Bill Clinton took way more money from Russian concerns for speaking engagements in Russia. Talking with a foreign official doesn't mean you are going to commit a crime in their behalf. If that was the case, the number of goverment officials that are at risk would be huge. The fact of the matter was that based on recently released notes, the FBI was looking to entrap Flynn in order to charge him or at least cause his firing. Why was that? If they truly had reason to believe he was a security threat, they just would have monitored his conversations with Russian officials and caught him in the act. I think we all know why they wanted to put him in a bind - to neutralize him and potentially cause him to turn against Trump. I don't care what former DOJ officials said about the validity of continuing the investigation. It is simply poor excuses for misconduct. I sure don't bother listening to progressive apologists. Flynn was caught up in an attempt to discredit the POTUS for political purposes. I (and every other citizen) should find this disgusting.

 

[boomerpusher]

The only way to reach the rank of general is to become a political animal and get Congress approval. Merit has long since fallen by the way side. Didn't know Flynn, never served with him but as far as I could determine, he was one of the few good guys. That alone would make him a target.

 

[oldflyboy]

Nope. The historical record is different. Bob Woodward (whom I suspect some still hate for bringing to daylight President Nixon's myriad of crimes), noted the following in his book, Fear.



By Bob Woodward’s reporting, VP Pence actually read the three transcripts in the situation room with McGahn and Priebus weeks earlier.

A quick google search regarding 'Pence Flynn Lied' produced some hits, including this one:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i-knew-flynn-lied-to-me-about-russian-contacts-when-he-was-fired/

Pence: I knew Flynn lied to me about Russian contacts when he was fired



So, the VP himself read the 3 transcripts of the December 29th, 2016 calls b/t General Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Just an fyi about the fact pattern involved that General Flynn admitted to regarding the Russian gov't - and that does not include his confessed lying about lobbying on behalf of the Turkish Govt in late 2016, which IMO is the epitome of swappy behavior for someone acting as the National Security Advisor for the US President:

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...admits-to-lying-about-turkish-lobbying-038734



..Just a few facts to consider about General Flynn's pattern of behavior, and that is why the DoJ’s motion this week to suddenly dismiss the charges due to lack of predication is so bizarre. Not one single US career attorney in the DoJ signed that motion - only a interim political appointee. I don’t think history will be kind to that motion and Attorney General Barr for allowing it.

What I don't understand is why a man who dedicated 33 years of his life in the US Army and rose to the rank of General - would upon (albeit somewhat forced) retirement from the military - start lobbying on behalf of an authoritarian foreign gov't (Turkey) and also try to appease one of our primary geopolitical adversaries (Russia). It really baffles me, and I can only guess that some element of greed and a thirst for power clouded his judgement, which led to a pattern of documented lying that he confessed to in court filings, and thus ultimately led to his downfall. Its a tragic story.

Brings up a lot of questions/concerns.
But it boils down to the same old situation. How many liberal bureaucrats have leaked classified information to the press....thus the world....with not so much as a surprised look from DC?
The message is clear. 'We can, you can't'. According to our laws, NO ONE can.
We have a one way railroad within our Department of Justice.

 

[Random Guy]

As noted previously, I prefer discussions of the M1A/M14 rifle on this forum, but I will mention one other thing that has not gotten as much attention, but I think was the other item that led to FBI's interest in his activities and to his downfall: Clandestine lobbying on behalf of the Turkish gov't, and the implications to his role as National Security Advisor and possibly security clearance concerns.

What others might not realize is that Flynn's plea deal with the Special Counsel likely shielded him from further legal jeopardy regarding some very swampy activity. His two primary associates in his consulting company were charged with illegally lobbying for the Republic of Turkey, but Flynn got off, even though it was his op-ed that he wrote and had published on the Nov 2016 election day, which was the main deliverable for the Turkish gov't (the article earned him I think $530k, if I recall correctly).

ON EDIT: Here's the essay that Mike Flynn published on November 8, 2016 - covertly on behalf of the Republic of Turkey: https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...lly-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ance-shelved-by-white-house-was-in-draft-form

Michael Flynn associates charged over illegal lobbying for Turkey

Associates of onetime national security adviser Michael Flynn are being charged with illegally lobbying for the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, a U.S.-based Turkish cleric who has been a frequent public target of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Federal prosecutors with the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia on Monday unsealed charges against Bijan Kian, who worked as a partner at the now-defunct Flynn Intel Group, for working as an unregistered foreign agent. Kian, also known by Bijan Rafiekian, has been charged alongside Kamil Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish national and associate of Flynn who is currently believed to be in Istanbul.

...

The covert lobbying effort, branded the "Truth Campaign" and later "Operation Confidence," involved Kian and others lobbying an unnamed member of Congress, a congressional staffer and a state government in fall 2016, according to prosecutors. The filing also mentions Flynn's op-ed as part of the project.

"Company A" is said to have earned $600,000 for their work. Alptekin’s company also allegedly received tens of thousands of dollars in kickbacks.

In March 2017, Flynn retroactively disclosed to the Justice Department that his firm's work for Inovo may have benefited the Turkish government. But prosecutors allege that Kian and Alptekin lied to attorney's for the Flynn Intel Group about the involvement of Turkish officials in the project in order to conceal it from the Justice Department.

...I won't go into great detail here, but I will summarize by saying that anyone who holds or seeks a high-level security clearance (TS/SCI as required for the national security advisor) can not engage in activities on behalf of foreign nations that can create the appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to loyalty to the US and it’s national security decision-making processes. This is especially true for the National Security Advisor, Director of National Intelligence, Director of the FBI, Director of the CIA and thousands of other highly sensitive roles. Making a public speech or two in foreign countries for a small honorarium is one thing - but having hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into your 'consulting' company for clandestine lobbying efforts on behalf of a foreign gov't is not tolerated. It will definitely hold up one's security clearance (and may get it revoked).

General Flynn retired from the military in 2014. He probably never thought he would re-join the federal gov't, and his now defunct company, the Flynn Intel Group had some foreign clients circa 2016, with Turkey being one of them - but it was a purposely hidden relationship with a Dutch company as the intermediary. When he suddenly and likely unexpectedly found himself the appointed National Security Advisor to the new Trump administration, he didn't disclose his lobbying efforts for Turkey. Why? It would be problematic.

I read an article or perhaps in Bob Woodward’s book, Fear, that Sally Yates (DoJ) privately met with White House counsel Don McGhan to brief him that there were "some concerns" about Mike Flynn as Trump's national security advisor. It was not clear if these "concerns" as discussed b/t these two attorneys was limited to the undisclosed Russian interactions, or I wonder if the clandestine lobbying effort for Turkey was suspected or known by the DoJ/FBI as well? If it was known, and Flynn did not disclose that activity, that likely got him in trouble from a vetting perspective. My guess is McGahn may have learned about this issue, which may have contributed to Trump subsequently firing Flynn, compounded by his lying about the Russian contacts.

So, while it is acceptable for a private citizen with-out a high-level security clearance like Paul Manafort to engage in his unsavory swamp creature activities while extracting millions of consulting dollars from the Ukrainian political class - it is simply not acceptable for the National Security Advisor to a US president to engage in similar activity with respect to foreign investments and foreign lobbying efforts. Whether or not the 'Turkish issue' contributed to the FBI's interest in interviewing Flynn is unclear, but I get the impression there were "some concerns" from those who might have been somewhat aware of his foreign lobbying activity, if only obliquely at the time. Again, I think its a sad story of a warrior who upon retiring from the military immediately entered the swampy world of a DC consultant/lobbyist, and made some errors of judgement... (To my knowledge, John Bolton never made any remotely similar mistakes in judgement over the past few decades...)

Morale of the story? Carefully vet the national security advisor before making a hiring decision.

 

[Bob4064]

Remember when Flynn spoke at a Trump rally before all this began ?
He opened up with..."Lock her up....Lock her up...Lock her up !!!!
I bet Kankles and her minions were stirred up.

 

[Tom Paine]

As noted previously, I prefer discussions of the M1A/M14 rifle on this forum, but I will mention one other thing that has not gotten as much attention, but I think was the other item that led to FBI's interest in his activities and to his downfall: Clandestine lobbying on behalf of the Turkish gov't, and the implications to his role as National Security Advisor and possibly security clearance concerns.

What others might not realize that is that Flynn's plea deal likely sheilded him from further legal jeopardy regarding some very swampy activity. His two primary associates in his consulting company were charged with illegally lobbying for the Republic of Turkey, but Flynn got off, even though it was op-ed that he wrote and had published the day before the Nov 2016 election that was the main deliverable for the Turkish gov't (the article earned him I think $530k, if I recall correctly).

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ance-shelved-by-white-house-was-in-draft-form

Michael Flynn associates charged over illegal lobbying for Turkey



...



...I won't go into great detail here, but I will summarize by saying that anyone who holds or seeks a high-level security clearance (TS/SCI as required for the National Security Advisor) can not engage in activities on behalf of foreign nations that can create the appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to loyalty to the US and it’s national security decision-making processes. This is especially true for the National Security Advisor, Director of National Intelligence, Director of the FBI, Director of the CIA and thousands of other highly sensitive roles. Making a public speech or two in foreign countries is one thing for a small honorarium, but having hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into your 'consulting' company for clandestine lobbying efforts on behalf of a foreign gov't is not tolerated. It will definitely hold up one's security clearance.

General Flynn retired from the military in 2014. He probably never thought he would re-join the federal gov't, and his now defunct company, the Flynn Intel Group had some foreign clients circa 2016, with Turkey being one of them - but it was a purposely hidden relationship with a Dutch company as the intermediary. When he suddenly and likely unexpectedly found himself the appointed National Security Advisor to the new Trump administration, he didn't disclose his lobbying efforts for Turkey. Why? It would be problematic.

I read an article or perhaps in Bob Woodward’s book, Fear, that Sally Yates (DoJ) privately met with White House counsel Don MaGhan to brief him that there were "some concerns" about Mike Flynn as Trump's national security advisor. It was not clear what these "concerns" where as discussed b/t these two attorneys. Aside from the Russian interactions, I wonder if the clandestine lobbying effort for Turkey was known by the DoJ/FBI. If it was known, and he did not disclose that activity, that likely got him in trouble from a vetting perspective, and my guess is McGahn knew about this, which may have contributed to Trump subsequently firing Flynn, compounded by the lying about the Russian contacts.

So, while is a acceptable for a private citizen with-out a high-level security clearance like Paul Manafort to engage in his unsavory swamp creature activities while extracting millions of consulting dollars from the Ukrainian political class - it is simply not acceptable for the National Security Advisor to a US president to engage in similar activity with respect to foreign investments and foreign lobbying efforts. Whether or not the 'Turkish issue' contributed to the FBI's interest in interviewing Flynn is unclear, but I get the impression there were "some concerns" from those who might have been somewhat aware of his foreign lobbying activity, if only obliquely at the time. Again, I think its a sad story of warrior who upon retiring from the military immediately entered the swampy world of a DC consultant/lobbyist, and made some errors of judgement... (To my knowledge, John Bolton never made any remotely similar mistakes in judgement over the past few decades...)

Morale of the story? Carefully vet the national security advisor before making a hiring decision.

Exactly. Thank You.

 

[WaM14gunner]

All of the above may be true. But I keep coming back to one inescapable fact. Were it not for the fact that Hillary lost, Trump won, and that Obama was unhappy about it and so began a completely bogus campaign against Trump and all of his associates for the sole purpose of making him pay for winning an election that he was supposed to lose, and all orchestrated by one untouchable person, Obama.
Anyone who thinks he didn't control this whole debacle is naïve in the extreme. Mistakes were made by lots of innocent people here and some are in jail because of it. I say innocent meaning of any of the contrived crimes of collusion with Russia, which by the way is not a crime. They got rolled up in the whole mess for unrelated crimes.
None of the associates in jail or headed there had anything to do with the original charge of collusion.
So to me whether Flynn did anything unsavory or unusual in his lobbying efforts is moot since it became a non issue because Comey and the boys were ONLY interested in Flynn for what they thought they could do to him to get to Trump, plain and simple. They had no interest in Flynns activities, it was Trump they wanted.
And those a holes put this country thru Hell to get it done. In the end they failed, but the damage was widespread and some of it irreparable.