Flashback: WaPo reported in JANUARY that FBI found “nothing illicit” after listening to Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador

The reasons why Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s first national security advisor, lied to FBI agents who interviewed him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into alleged Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia is, thus far, a mystery.

But one thing was made clear more than 10 months ago: No one at the FBI believed that Flynn had done anything wrong as it pertained to his contacts with Russian government officials as part of Trump transition team.

On Jan. 23, just a few days after Trump was inaugurated, The Washington Post reported that FBI agents reviewed intercepts of communications between Flynn and Russia’s Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak the previous month but found nothing improper, illegal or illicit about the conversations. 

Nothing.

As the Post noted:

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

Remember, this story appeared just as the “Russian collusion” narrative was swinging into full gear, compliments of the vanquished Hillary Clinton, former Obama administration officials, and the Left-wing Democratic Party. The purpose of the narrative was to ‘explain’ how it was that a ‘carnival barker reality TV host’ could possibly have managed to beat ‘the smartest women and most qualified presidential candidate ever’ (well, except Obama, of course).

You see, the Left was claiming that Trump couldn’t win on his own, not with that nativist, white nationalist platform of “America first” and “Make America Great Again.” He had to have had help, and the only ones capable of lending that kind of assistance was Mother Russia.

Except that in the months since no one has brought forth any proof that is true. And despite the fact that Mueller managed to get a guilty plea out of Flynn for lying to federal agents, he isn’t any closer to proving the “collusion” narrative.

In addition to the Post’s revelations that Flynn didn’t do or say anything wrong or incriminating, the paper also reported this:

Although Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were listened to, Flynn himself is not the active target of an investigation, U.S. officials said. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that U.S. counterintelligence agents had investigated the communications between Flynn and Kislyak.

So how does someone go from not being an “active target of an investigation” to being an “active target” of a special counsel investigation, if it’s already been learned that he didn’t do anything or say anything wrong?

There are other questions about all of this as well that still defy explanation. For instance, we know why U.S. intelligence officials were spying on Kislyak; he’s a foreign diplomat of a competitor nation and we spy on all diplomats from competitor (and even non-competitor) nations. They spy on our diplomats, too. (Related: Trump: Dems ‘made up’ Russian interference claim.)

But the thing is, Mueller, as special counsel, had access to the transcripts and/or audio recordings of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian diplomat; why, then, would he still go after him?

What’s more, Flynn had to know he would be monitored when he spoke to Kislyak; after all, Flynn is a former three-star Army general who ran Obama’s Defense Intelligence Agency for three years and had top intelligence clearance. He knew the Russian would be monitored, and thus, he would be monitored. He would never put himself in harm’s way by doing, offering, or saying something illegal in that situation.

Between the Post’s previous reporting and the fact that Flynn would never have allowed himself to get into a legal jackpot involving violations of nationals security statutes, his lying to FBI agents becomes all the more strange. Time will tell what’s really going on.

But we do know this: Flynn as part of the “Russian collusion” narrative is bogus, as the Post told us months ago. And in fact, as The New York Times reported a week before last year’s election — when everyone thought Hillary Clinton would become the next president-elect — that no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia existed.

Still think this Mueller investigation is really about ‘collusion?’

J.D. Heyes is editor of The National Sentinel and a senior writer for Natural News and News Target.

Sources include:

WashingtonPost.com

NationalSecurity.news