The Real Trouble with Taking Down Mike Flynn

March 5, 2017  
Categories: Op-Eds

The Real Trouble with Taking Down Mike Flynn

(Titanic Passengers Cheering…the Iceberg?)

Chris Hernandez

I get it. General Mike Flynn was kind of a far-right wingnut. He tweeted a stupid “fake news” story about Hillary Clinton sex slaves. He lied to Vice President Pence when he said he’d never spoken to the Russians about sanctions. He deserved to be fired. No argument with any of those points.

HOWEVER…there’s a bad, bad problem with the way Flynn was taken down.

Here’s what happened in a nutshell: after the election, former National Security Advisor Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions President Obama had imposed on Russia for its reported interference in our election. Flynn denied ever speaking about the sanctions. Then anonymous sources in the intelligence community revealed to the Washington Post that Flynn’s phone conversations with the ambassador had been recorded, and Flynn did indeed talk about the sanctions. No transcripts of the conversations were released, just the accusation that sanctions had been discussed. These discussions may have violated the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating on behalf of the government. When questioned, Flynn changed his answer and said he had discussed the sanctions. He was fired, not because the Trump administration said he had done anything illegal, but because he had lied to his superiors about it. His dismissal led to much cheering in the democratic party and elsewhere.

From my position as a retired intelligence soldier, I see four major issues with Flynn’s dismissal. First, leaking classified information is a crime. Second, whoever recorded General Flynn probably broke the law. Third, the possible Logan Act violation is way overblown. But the fourth issue is biggest, and I’ll address it shortly.


This should go without saying, but any intel we collect by intercepting electronic communication is classified. An intercepted and recorded telephone call would be Secret or Top Secret. Intentionally leaking Secret or Top Secret intelligence is a crime. Period.


A common justification for recording Flynn’s phone conversation is, “They were spying on the Russian ambassador, not Flynn.” My answer as a former intel guy is, “Who cares?”

A little-known fact about the intel community is that we are specifically prohibited from collecting on “US Persons,” which are American citizens, corporations and organizations, plus legal resident aliens, unless we receive specific permission and follow very strict legal procedures. Intelligence Oversight laws governing intelligence collection apply whether I meant to collect on an American citizen or not; if, for example, I was collecting intel on a Taliban leader in Afghanistan and discovered he was actually an American, I’d have to stop and report it up the chain. Intel agencies way higher than I ever was would evaluate the intelligence I had already collected, ask for authorization to collect on the American, and follow strict guidelines and procedures to ensure they weren’t violating the American’s civil rights.

“Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes;” Intel oversight laws are designed to prevent the intel community from violating the rights of American citizens, and there’s a damn good reason those laws exist.

So spying on General Flynn was a crime if it was done intentionally and without specific legal permission. It could also have been a crime if it was unintentionally collected, but not subsequently put through the proper procedures to ensure it could still be used. And without question, releasing intelligence collected on an American citizen to the press in order to cause political damage is not a “lawful governmental purpose.”


But, many will say, the REAL problem is that Flynn violated THE LOGAN ACT by negotiating with a foreign government as a private citizen, and that justifies breaking the law to expose him. The Logan Act was passed because a private citizen really pissed off the federal government by negotiating with France…in 1798. The law was passed in 1799. In the intervening 218 years, not a single person has been prosecuted for violating this law.

If Flynn did actually negotiate with the Russian ambassador about sanctions, he violated the Logan Act. That would be a felony. But we don’t even know if he really negotiated anything; transcripts of the conversations between Flynn and the ambassador haven’t been released, and it’s possible that Flynn discussed the sanctions without “negotiating.” The fact that just enough information was released to raise the specter of a Logan Act violation, without enough evidence to actually show a violation, leads me to believe the leak was just a trick to create inflammatory, Yellow Journalism headlines.

So unnamed sources in the intel community may have been committed a crime by spying on General Flynn, and definitely committed a crime by leaking classified information, in order to expose an act that doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all.



As incredible as this might sound, government intelligence agencies have historically used their power to collect intelligence on their own citizens. We’re all aware of Nazi Germany’s routine spying on the German public, and the Soviet Union’s vast network of informants who would report forbidden speech or opinions to the communist government. We know North Korea spies so much on its people that they live in a state of perpetual terror. But many Americans don’t know that American intelligence agencies have also abused their power for political purposes. Or, I should say, many Americans are probably aware but don’t care as long as it’s only their opponents being targeted.

In the mid-70s, the CIA and FBI were embroiled in multiple scandals when the extent of their spying on Americans for political purposes was revealed. The COINTEL (Counter Intelligence) Program, also known as COINTELPRO, targeted communists, Vietnam War protesters, civil rights organizations and Native American protest groups, and involved repeated violations of citizens’ freedom of speech and association. Far worse violations appear to have been committed, including intentionally false accusations by the FBI which led to illegal police raids which killed leaders of the Black Panthers (whatever you think about the original Black Panthers, they definitely had one hell of a legitimate grievance to protest).

The FBI also targeted “agitators” like Martin Luther King Jr. In addition to being a civil rights icon, MLK Jr. apparently had a pretty wild sex life which the FBI used to blackmail him. Some of his activities were recorded with hidden microphones in hotel rooms, and the FBI then sent MLK Jr. an anonymous letter with the recordings. The letter urged King to commit suicide, and gave him a time frame in which to do it.

Investigations into the FBI and CIA revealed that every president from FDR to Nixon used the intel community to spy on political opponents. Those abuses are why Intelligence Oversight law was created.

Whichever side of the political aisle you’re on, you really shouldn’t want the government spying on Americans and releasing damaging information to the public. We don’t want the vast spying capability of the US government turned toward Americans whose only “threat” is a difference of political opinion. And I can’t understand for a second why anyone would rail against the Patriot Act or NSA collection of metadata while laughing about the way Flynn was brought down.

The cheering about leaked intelligence, which may have been illegally collected in the first place, to take down a political opponent, is shortsighted at best and incredibly stupid at worst. The balance of power always shifts in America; Flynn and the Trump administration are the targets right now. But eventually we’ll have a democrat administration, with disgruntled conservatives holding key positions in the intelligence community, and those conservatives will have the power to abuse their positions to attack people they don’t like. Those celebrating Flynn’s takedown won’t like seeing their people brought down by classified leaks of what amounts to rumor and innuendo.


So you don’t like President Trump? Me neither. You want his administration taken down? Either find actual evidence of wrongdoing, or vote him out. But don’t dance in the streets because your government used its power to disgrace an American citizen you don’t like. Celebrating your government for abusing its power to spy on us is like cheering for the iceberg from the deck of the Titanic because you don’t like the First Mate. Someday that abuse will be turned around on you, and when it does you probably won’t find much to cheer about.

(Note: Everything discussed above is open source information, most of it dug up on the internet during a break in stage routines at Nancy’s Squat’n’Gobble.)


Breach-Bang CLEAR!

Comms Plan

Primary: Subscribe to our newsletter here or get the RSS feed.

Alternate: Join us on Facebook here or check us out on Instagram here.

Contingency: Exercise your inner perv with us on Tumblr here, follow us on Twitter here or connect on Google + here.

Emergency: Activate firefly, deploy green (or brown) star cluster, get your wank sock out of your ruck and stand by ’til we come get you.

breachbangclear.com_site_images_Chris_Hernandez_Author_BreachBangClear4Chris Hernandez (Mad Duo Chris), seen here on patrol in Afghanistan, may just be the crustiest member of the eeeee-LITE writin’ team here at Breach-Bang-ClearHe is a veteran of both the Marine Corps and the Army National Guard who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also a veteran police officer of two decades who spent a long (and eye-opening) deployment as part of a UN police mission in Kosovo. He is the author of White Flags & Dropped Rifles – the Real Truth About Working With the French Army and The Military Within the Military as well as the modern military fiction novels Line in the Valley, Proof of Our Resolve and Safe From the War. When he isn’t groaning about a change in the weather and snacking on Osteo Bi-Flex he writes on his own blog. You can find his author page here on Tactical 16.

Get banged on the regular, sign up for the newsletter!

Chris Hernandez

Chris Hernandez

About the Author

Chris Hernandez may just be the crustiest member of the eeeee-LITE writin' team here at Breach-Bang-Clear. He is a veteran of both the Marine Corps and the Army National Guard who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also a veteran police officer of two decades who spent a long (and eye-opening) deployment as part of a UN police mission in Kosovo. He is the author of White Flags & Dropped Rifles - the Real Truth About Working With the French Army and The Military Within the Military as well as the modern military fiction novels Line in the Valley, Proof of Our Resolve and Safe From the War. When he isn't groaning about a change in the weather and snacking on Osteo Bi-Flex he writes on his own blog. You can find his author page here on Tactical 16.


  1. michmike

    I guess it comes down to the fact that he lied when he said he did not speak with them and if he had not then someone would not have felt the need to disclose the fact he lied. Did someone use classified info, yes but they did it to show that he lied just like Sessions did and trump does on a daily basis. the difference is when the shit is thrown against the wall it does not seem to stick (yet) for Teflon donnie but it did with Flynn and so it should have. Look, I hate trump with my entire being and I was no fan of Hillary but it would have been the same if it was a dem in office in the sense that I would have backed our knowing this info and the fact that whomever lied. The point about the collection of data is moot as well know that shit is being collected about us as we speak so lets not pretend that they went out of their way to collect intel on Flynn with the intent of discrediting him. No he just happened to have had attention drawn to himself so someone then said um wait i know he was lying and people should know so when questioned again he magically remembered it then “oh yea shit, it slipped my mind as we drank hard the night before I was questioned and I was so hung over – fuck sorry”.

    That would have made more sense and yes it is our right to know if the administration is lying as to if it matters with many people, I suspect not and this does not even address the larger privacy issues but that is a different and longer conversation.

  2. strych9

    This article makes some very good points. I would also point out the the exact nature of the discussion that occurred DOES matter. In fact, it matters a whole hell of a lot.

    If Flynn was asked about sanctions and said something to the effect of “It would be grossly inappropriate for me to discuss that at this time, you’ll have to wait until Trump is inaugurated and I’m sworn in before we can talk about that”, then YES, he did “discuss” sanctions in a roundabout way but did so in a way in which he did absolutely nothing wrong.

    Further, we get into context. If asked if he had a discussion the phrasing the questions about that discussion have a lot to do with the answer one might give. “Did you discuss specifics of sanctions against Russia with the Russian Ambassador or discuss how a Trump administration might view such things?” is actually a completely different question than “Did you discuss sanctions AT ALL with the Ambassador?”.

    The first question can be potentially be answered with an emphatic “No.” while the latter could not be. However, if the latter question was phrased as “Did you discuss US sanctions against the Russian Federation when you talked to the Ambassador?” then you would open up the question of context in relation to the rest of the conversation and the interpretation Flynn made of the question. If he assumed, incorrectly as that assumption may be, that the question was about specifics rather than generalities he could have honestly said “No.” because he didn’t really understand exactly what was being asked.

    Look, I know some people will see this as splitting hairs but it’s not. Carefully worded questions are often used to trap people in politics and legal proceedings, and in this case we don’t have the first clue what this guy actually said. There’s a wide gulf between “talking to someone” and speaking out of school. You could, knowingly or not, talk to a bank robber about the weather or sports, that doesn’t mean you’re planning the next heist and if you met a bank robber at the local watering hole, discussed the recent ball game and got arrested for it and accused of aiding in a prior heist or planning the next one you’d be completely fucking outraged about it and you’d be outraged for a good goddamn reason. That’s some flat out Stasi shit right there.

    This is a lot like dealing with a computer. A computer does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do. People who guard their answers are the same way. They answer the question you ask not the one to which you wish to get an answer. Cagey people have to be asked multiple questions to cover all the potential bases before you can even think to accuse them of lying. I can’t lie to you about something you actually failed to ask.

    Ultimately, no matter how you cut it, and no matter your opinion of the man, Flynn had to go because of POLITICS. Whether he technically lied to his superiors or not is irrelevant. What he actually said to the Russians is equally irrelevant. He failed to act like Caesar’s wife (above suspicion) and therefore was a liability and he had to go. He was in a position where scuttlebutt could do the work of truth, a dangerous position if there ever was one. However, as the article points out, that’s a sword that cuts both ways and those happy to see Flynn depart the administration would do well to remember that anonymous, and potentially untrue, allegations like this might just take down someone they actually like. Your guy didn’t actually do anything wrong and this anonymous accusation is made of whole cloth? Too fucking bad, Pandora’s Box is now open and your boy is screwed.

    This isn’t a road we want to be travelling and I’m very sad to see that we are.

  3. Tony

    Oooh! The Pentagon Papers! That’s another good one.

  4. Tony

    Oh, and another thing. If Michael Flynn was working for a Democrat, say Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton or anyone else, you and everyone else on the right would be flipping the f%^& out right now.

  5. Tony

    Hilarious. You might want to take a look at Watergate as a historical example as well. Or My Lai. Or about a thousand other examples where a law was broken to serve a greater good.

    The higher purpose that was served is that Michael Flynn was speaking to the Russian government. The same government that has been fighting a war against us without our giving a shit and is seeking to dominate and destroy our interests in the world while pretending that they want to help us fight an idea of “terrorism”.

    And then he lied about it. Everything else is crap.

Submit a Comment

Buy Me a Coffee at

Popular Articles

PSA Uppers, Lowers, Optics and More! 4th of July.
Celebrate July. Buy more, save more. Up to 30% off. Forloh.
Lone Wolf DAWN. Parts for Sig Sauer P365 30% off. back Breach-Bang-Clear

Find what’s in stock, and where, and compare prices. 

⚠️ Some hyperlinks in this article may contain affiliate links. If you use them to make a purchase, we will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. It’s just one way to Back the Bang. #backthebang 

Get Patched In

Wretched Minion Patch