Michael Flynn's resignation as National Security Adviser is understandable, but troubling at the same time. He lied about when and how often he spoke with his Russian counterparts in the wake of Obama's ejection of 35 Russian diplomats at the end of December, following the alleged Russian meddling in the election. We know of all of this because the spooks at the NSA or the CIA or one of the other intelligence agencies listened in on the call and leaked the critical details to the Washington Post and the New York Times, two of the liberal media outlets that largely functioned as government mouthpieces during the Obama years, and which receive many of their news scoops concerning the government's doings in general from the three-letter agencies. If Flynn did infuriate Pence and violate President Trump's trust, his resignation is perhaps understandable. It is a big error to be making so early into the Trump administration's tenure. And to be sure, Flynn does have an undisputedly cozy relationship with RT, Russia's flagship news channel, to say nothing of Trump's other associates such as Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman.
However, these events can be traced all the way back to the allegations of Russians meddling in the election, which we have still yet to see any concrete proof of. Supposedly Mike Pence is leading an investigation, but I suspect we won't learn a whole lot that is new or illuminating at its conclusion. The two reports or "unclassified summaries" released by the intelligence agencies were long on innuendo and contained pages upon pages of filler in the form of security recommendations that had nothing to do directly with the events. The 25 page document released on January 6th was a joke. So how did the Russians meddle in the election, since direct vote tampering has been ruled out? The strongest claim put forth by Democrats has been that of "fake news," in and of itself an ill-defined concept. In fact, it's possible that many of the fake news stories leading up to the election that received the most traction were favorable to Hillary Clinton. It is realistically hard to believe that fake news swayed many votes, and indeed the academic research into this since the election has borne out how much of a canard the whole fake news meme was.
Before Trump's surprise win, the allegations of ties to Russia were clear in their intent- they were to get you to doubt Trump's motives, and conjure up the specter of the big bad ex-KGB Putin, every liberal's favorite boogeyman. The continuation of these unsubstantiated allegations and Obama's unusual expulsion of the diplomats after the election served a different purpose: to push Trump and his administration into a corner concerning Russia, and to make it that much harder to normalize relations upon his inauguration. Indeed we may be seeing the effects of that strategy already, as Trump has claimed that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, something Russia is unlikely to budge on.
As Glenn Greenwald correctly notes, ultimately the leaks are justified when someone in a position of high power commits wrongdoing, and the motive behind the Flynn leak is likely vindictive. Anyone who has been paying attention recently understands that there is a substantial establishment contingent in DC consisting of Obama/Clinton loyalists who seek to undermine Trump at every turn, and factions within the intelligence agencies make up a big chunk of this. What's more, there could be foreign spies acting against Trump as well. There are claims that critical and classified information about the Yemen raid was leaked ahead of time to the targets, and just recently the three Awan brothers were fired after it was discovered they had illegally accessed congressional information.
Politicians lie all the time and usually get away with it. James Clapper lied to Congress. Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Dick Cheney lied, and so on. Rarely is there any meaningful backlash, as we are seeing here. Clapper served his full term. So what is different behind the scenes here with what's happening now? Just like with the alleged Russian hacking, the hard proof is missing here. We don't have the transcripts of what Flynn actually said, and it's possible he didn't say anything particularly unreasonable at all, but that won't stop the sycophantic media from cannibalizing him- it's a foregone conclusion at this point. And in an interesting twist, Hillary Clinton has tweeted a reference to Pizzagate following Flynn's fall from grace, quoting Philippe Reines, one of her former aides and political attack dogs. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to admit that this tweet is very odd, especially given that her first major post-election appearance was also to denounce the "fake news" in the wake of the Comet Ping Pong gunman incident. What is the intended message here? Flynn's son tweeted about Pizzagate and the Podesta emails, and it can be assumed that Flynn himself was aware of the content of the emails as well. Is Hillary trying to send a message to the new administration not to tread on this issue or face more of the same backlash?
Flynn was one of the guys who stuck with Trump since the beginning, and we can expect this to happen again, with the obvious targets being Bannon, Miller, Mattis, or anyone else seen as being a Trumpian outsider to the establishment- the ones who want to "drain the swamp." The political witch hunts will continue, justified or not. The big question though is, how much of this will Trump's notoriously frail psyche be able to handle before he reacts and does something undoubtedly stupid? The clock is ticking, and the liberal media who lost their minds after the election are jumping at Trump's coattails and salivating, waiting for the next bone.