Anonymous intelligence officials claim that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's denial to The FBI in an interview last month that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador is a lie and contradicts the contents of intercepted communications they have collected.
The Washington Post then gleefully suggests once again, this potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy.
As we detailed two days ago, if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge", even though some have questioned how an illegally obtained transcript of his phone conversation could be admissable as evidence in a court of law.
But that was followed last night by The FBI confirming they will not be pursuing a case against Flynn who they said he was "cooperative and truthful."
And President Trump called Flynn a "fine person" and said he did nothing wrong today...
And so, clearly, upset intelligence officials - having not got there full pound of flesh from Flynn's resignation, or perhaps now having Trump on the record as saying he did no wrong - decided to dredge back up the allegations that some Washington Post sources have been told Flynn denied sanctions discussions to The FBI and other (or the same) Washington Post sources claim the actual intercepted transcripts how he did discuss sanctions.
Senior Justice and intelligence officials who have reviewed the phone call thought Flynn’s statements to Kislyak were inappropriate, if not illegal, because he suggested that the Kremlin could expect a reprieve from the sanctions.
At the same time, officials knew that seeking to build a case against Flynn for violating an obscure 1799 statute known as the Logan Act — which bars private citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes — would be legally and political daunting.
Any decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the Justice Department. Some officials said bringing a case could prove difficult in part because Flynn may attempt to parse the definition of sanctions.
A spokesman for Flynn said he had no response. The FBI declined to comment.
The bottom line appears to be that yet another 'leak' has occurred (from the FBI interview) and soft-coup-creating intelligence officials want to ensure (with the help of The Washington Post) that this story stays front and center.
We note that given the FBI has already 'cleared' Flynn, the only possible path for escalation from here by the deep state, is to leak the actual recorded calls to the press, thus "proving" Flynn lied.
Finally, and as we said two days ago when this story first surfaced, it is oddly convenient that the FBI had no problem letting Hillary Clinton off the hook despite numerous documented attempts to hide the truth, while it increasingly appears that Flynn may not be so lucky.