New Evidence Unveils McCabe's Deception in Flynn Case

One of the least understood aspects of Russiagate is the reality that General Michael Flynn not only did not lie—he, in fact, told the truth plainly and unequivocally. That this remains obscure even now is striking, given how straightforward the underlying facts have always been. But after years of coordinated media smears, followed by equally determined efforts to muddy the waters, confusion has largely prevailed.

Fortunately, new evidence has emerged—evidence that not only further vindicates Flynn but definitively proves he was deliberately set up. Even more remarkable, the source of this confirmation is none other than former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe himself.

As we reported previously, the much-hyped release of the Russiagate binder proved underwhelming in terms of major revelations. However, it did succeed in tying off several important loose ends—and Flynn’s case is one of them. Included in the release were McCabe’s contemporaneous notes, which, although much of their content merely reinforced existing knowledge, contained one striking detail that leaves no room for ambiguity. It confirms, beyond any doubt, that Flynn’s set-up was intentional. The detail in question centers on a single phrase: “U.S. sanctions.”

This is not a casual or interchangeable phrase. “U.S. sanctions” is a precise legal term of art—a distinction that is crucial here, as we will explain in a moment.

Those familiar with the case will recall that Flynn was accused of improperly discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador and then allegedly lying to the FBI about it. Even if one were to ignore the obvious point that an incoming National Security Advisor has every right—indeed, every responsibility—to engage with foreign diplomats, the factual basis for the accusation was false from the outset.

Flynn did speak to the Russian ambassador—but not about sanctions. He spoke about expulsions.

Expulsions refer to the act of kicking diplomats out of your own country. And indeed, in late December 2016, President Obama expelled a number of Russian diplomats. Around the same time, Obama also imposed sanctions on several Russian entities under Executive Order 13757. Sanctions, by contrast, involve measures like asset freezes, restrictions on financial transactions, and bans on U.S. persons or companies engaging with the sanctioned entities. In the White House’s announcement of the measures, the expulsions and the sanctions are discussed separately; the expulsions are even introduced as an additional measure, marked by the word “also.”

In their conversation, Flynn and the ambassador, briefly touched upon the topic of the Russian diplomats whom Obama had kicked out and Flynn very gently suggested that the two sides should not escalate the situation, signaling that a new administration would soon be in place and that matters could be addressed more constructively. This exchange concerned expulsions—not sanctions.

This distinction was—and is—critical, both legally and diplomatically.

In 2020, after a long battle by Flynn’s second lawyer, Sidney Powell, the Department of Justice finally released the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador. They confirmed unequivocally that Flynn spoke about expulsions. That disclosure should have ended the matter. Yet many in the media persisted in blurring the lines, either out of ignorance or, more often, willful bad faith. Although rarely stated outright, the media quietly recast expulsions as a subset of some broad, catch-all concept of sanctions—treating it as an umbrella term for any action taken against Russia, rather than recognizing it as what it is, a distinct and specific legal category. This sleight of hand allowed them to preserve the fiction that Flynn had lied. The theory was almost never argued openly. Instead, it lingered as an unspoken assumption, propping up a fake narrative that had already collapsed under scrutiny.

Even today, many otherwise sympathetic commentators fail to grasp the importance of this distinction. Flynn’s defenders have had to wage an uphill communications battle for years against the conflation.

Yet Flynn himself was crystal clear from the beginning. In an interview with the Daily Caller—before he was unjustifiably fired over false claims of lying, which he had demonstrably not done—Flynn made it unambiguously clear that he had done nothing wrong and that his conversation with the ambassador had concerned expulsions, not sanctions: “It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out.” Flynn, a seasoned intelligence and national security professional, understood exactly what he was saying. His distinction between the two terms was deliberate, precise, and legally significant.

And so we come to McCabe.

McCabe’s newly released notes from a February 10, 2017 meeting with Vice President Mike Pence—written a few days before Flynn was fired—show that McCabe explicitly framed the accusation against Flynn as lying about “U.S. sanctions.” This detail is critical. McCabe knew what he was saying. He knew that “U.S. sanctions” had a specific legal and diplomatic meaning, distinct from expulsions. He knew, in other words, that Flynn had not lied—and yet he moved forward anyway. Mueller’s team would later falsely charge Flynn with exactly that, i.e. lying about “U.S. sanctions.”

McCabe Notes of February 10, 2017

The latest revelation leaves no room for alternative interpretations. McCabe understood that Flynn had told the truth—and he chose to lie about it.

Yet, predictably, McCabe was never held to account. The primary reason for this failure lies with Jessie Liu, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia at the time, who not only declined to prosecute McCabe for false statements but also shielded the Carter Page FISA leakers and smothered numerous other Russiagate scandals. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the Senate today is fighting over the confirmation of her would-be successor, Ed Martin, a nominee who, unlike Liu, is willing to uphold the law without fear or favor.)

Sadly, the statute of limitations has run out. McCabe will not be criminally charged.

But the historical record is now undeniable. Thanks to the release of these documents, we have conclusive proof that Andrew McCabe was a central architect of the political and legal attack on General Flynn. He didn’t conflate sanctions with expulsions—he fabricated a story about something specific: U.S. sanctions. McCabe knew Flynn had not lied, yet he pressed forward with the pursuit anyway.

Flynn’s integrity was never compromised. It was the rule of law itself that was sold out by those who feared him.

At the very least, history can now record the full truth.