THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
General Mike Flynn sat down with my friends over at The Western Journal today for an hour-long interview.
And as you can imagine, it was excellent!
They covered a ton of ground, including that infamous December 18 meeting in the Oval Office with Flynn, Powell, Byrne and a couple others.
Most important takeaway?
Gen. Flynn is not quitting.
Sidney Powell is not quitting.
Even as we stand here on February 16, they are not giving up and they believe truth is on their side.
And truth will be revealed?
If you’d like to watch the interview, you can see it exclusively over at The Western Journal.
Here is a portion of the transcript:
Flynn: Well, I would tell you that, first of all, regarding the pardon and regarding the entire Mueller investigation, if there’s one thing that I have personally witnessed and the American public has witnessed throughout the last four years, was incredible levels of corruption inside of our Department of Justice and the FBI and other elements within our U.S. government. I certainly faced that up close and personal. And I really, from a real positive note, I really want to say thank you to the American public for sticking by my side and my family’s side throughout the entire persecution that we faced, which was clearly unprecedented.
It was as corrupt as you can imagine. It was without merit, without any kind of reason. And yet they attacked me, as one FBI agent said in his own affidavit, or what we now know as a 302, it was all about getting Flynn to get Trump. So they were after not just me. They were after the [then-]President of United States, Donald J. Trump. They were after the presidency of this country and they were after, basically, to do what we currently see, which is to fundamentally change the United States of America.
Going forward since the pardon, what I got myself involved in was to support Sidney Powell, Miss Sidney Powell, who has a great effort, it’s called Defending the Republic. And that effort, now, post the [Jan.] 20 inauguration of our current President [Joe] Biden, is now to continue these legal battles, one of which, of hers, is still sitting on the Supreme Court. And I believe, if I don’t have the date wrong, I think it’s Feb. 27, where the Supreme Court is going to review that, along with two other cases. Hers is out of Michigan, and the other case is Pennsylvania, and the third case is Georgia. These are legal battles that we are waging on behalf of the American people. Sidney works for the American people. Her client is the American people. And I am using every resource that I have — technical, strategic, legal — and my own network of people that I know to help us out to really discover the truth. If the truth is that we find that there was no problems, there was no election fraud, as everybody believes there is or there was, then fine. Then we’ll move on. But as we all know and seen throughout the last almost three months now, we’ve seen incredible levels of election fraud, both foreign interference and homegrown, what I call homegrown, through this mail-in ballot nonsense and a lot of unconstitutional actions by various states.
So at the end of the day, we, the people and through the good offices of Sidney Powell and her team, her small team, we will continue to fight this legal battle to discover the truth. And that’s really all it’s about. It’s not Democratic. It’s not Republican. It is all about the truth. So that’s what we believe we will discover in the end and we will continue to fight for the American people to do that.
Sciascia: Now, I’m sure our audience super, super appreciates that update. I want to kind of get back, and you’ve been super gracious to give us so much time — but I want to kind of get at where the ball got rolling for this interview: Some pretty major reporting from Axios with your name on it, but no comment from you. And so, we want to kind of get your take.
We’ve heard from Axios, the end of their, kind of, “Off the rails” series is what they were calling it, that — I’m glad you brought up the Sidney Powell legal challenges. They essentially reported that, on Dec. 18, there was an Oval Office meeting where yourself, Miss Powell, [Overstock CEO Patrick] Byrne and [former Trump administration official Emily] Newman essentially went into the Oval Office and there was reportedly a major dispute, pretty heated argument, cursing and some serious back-and-forth over this election fraud case and all these legal challenges — and essentially that the case was brought up to the president by Powell and yourself that he should use every method at his disposal to discover if there was election fraud, and potentially rerun this election.
So, we just want to give you an opportunity to confirm or deny that report, that meeting. Did it happen? Did it go as reported? And can you give it, kind of, from your angle and your perspective?
Flynn: What I would just tell you about, I believe, that article that you’re referring to and the series, I guess — I hadn’t read the whole series. I really didn’t even read the article, because I’m not a big fan of fake news. But I read that article specifically because I know you wanted to talk about it, and I won’t get into all the details. I certainly won’t share, necessarily, all the conversations that we had with the President of the United States. I think those are protected and, in his office, he can personally speak to those who he feels like he should.
There was really two purposes of that meeting and why we went into that meeting. The first purpose was to explain to the president the executive order that he signed in the summer of 2018. And it really goes back to an executive order that [former President] Barack Obama signed in 2015 and then, again, President Trump and his staff, they updated that executive order in 2019 and then they updated it again in 2020 based on foreign interference in our various elections, and especially in the 2018 timeframe. The 2018 executive order actually came out of the 2016 election, with all of the noise about Russia, election interference. So the president, in that 2018 executive order and then subsequent 2019 and 2020, which it was updated. Now, we know that there were reports and there were both Senate Intelligence Committee reports, there were U.S. Intelligence Committee community assessments that stated that there were foreign interference, or foreign countries, interfering in our election processes.
You fast forward to Oct. 30 and Nov. 3 — which was the date of the presidential election — both the FBI and [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] — which is essentially the Homeland Security Cyber Security Agency — they both reported Iranian interference in our election process, to include on the day of the election. Those were FBI and CIA advisory alerts that were published within the U.S. government and they were published for the public. And so, there’s no doubt that there were foreign interference and foreign influence in our election dating back many, many years — all the way back into the Obama administration.
So, that was really the main purpose, was to ensure that the president understood what that executive order stated and that, then, the subtext of that was to recommend to him that he appoint a special White House counsel — a special White House counsel, because that’s very important to understand — to investigate election fraud. And then to also take a look at five counties within the United States, and those counties are counties that’s in the news today — Maricopa County, for example, or Fulton County, and that’s out in Arizona. Fulton County, down in Georgia, other counties in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin — and look at, examine the machines that are in those counties and just investigate those machines, much as what was done up in Antrim County, Michigan.
And those are really the two purposes: examine the executive order and, through that executive order, appoint Sidney Powell as special White House counsel to investigate election fraud and, also, take a hard look at five counties worth of these machines, whether they were Dominion or ES&S. — doesn’t matter what machines they were — but to examine them in the way that we were able to do a forensic examination of the machines up in Antrim County, Michigan. And that was it. That was the extent of the purpose of really why we went in there. And while we were in that meeting, we had incredible pushback from three lawyers that were inside the White House. I think the ones mentioned in the article, although I didn’t see any direct quotes from him, he might have said a few things in there. [White House senior adviser Eric] Herschmann was one. I think the other was [White House counsel Pat] Cipollone. And I forget the other lawyer that was in the room.
But I would just say that I thought that, from the president’s perspective, he was gracious. He offered us a good deal of time to be able to explain to him what we were trying to do, what we thought could be done in about a seven-to-ten day period of time. And as one of the members of our team explained, the president probably had about a three-foot putt, instead of a 20-foot putt out of the sand trap to be able to get to the bottom of election fraud in about 10 days or less. So, that was it.
Was there some heated exchanges? Sure, there were some heated exchanges because what we discovered and what we were told and what the president clearly understood, recognized and stated at times was the lack of support that he was getting out of his own team. And we basically said, “Well, look, you know, that’s fine. However they want to operate.” I did stand up at one point in time, and I think it’s stated pretty clearly in Patrick Byrne’s articles that he’s written out of what’s called Deep Capture. I stated I was really quiet during most of the meeting in the Oval Office. I finally stood up and I turned around and I said, “Do any of you guys believe that the president actually won?” And none of them answered that question. Not one. And the president made a comment — and I’ll keep that comment between the group that was in there — and it would be interesting to see if any of those gentlemen that stood there as his lawyers would repeat what he said. I don’t think that they would actually say that to that particular journalist that did that article, because it was directed at them.
So anyway, the number of people in the meeting and when the meeting occurred and how the meeting occurred was not totally true. The timing of the meeting was not totally true in that article. So, I would say as I look at that article — and, again, I read it right before coming on here with you, Andrew — I would say about 75 percent of that article is incorrect. What was correct was the people that attended, certainly from our team. And then, the various interactions were totally, totally false and they came from a person who — or from people, I guess — that didn’t want to really go on the record to be able to say exactly — and not only who was in attendance, but who was in attendance in the Oval Office — the fact that the president then invited us, because of his desire to go upstairs and get into a more relaxed atmosphere, to what they call the Yellow Oval upstairs. He invited all of us to attend, and we went upstairs and did that. And we spent another, probably, two more hours upstairs on the president’s time. And that was really gracious of him to do that.
So in the end, what was reported in that article was an attempt to really change a narrative, to make it sound like there was really no election fraud — which we know there was — and also, basically, you know, call out or accuse those of us that did attend. I mean, they called me all kinds of names in that article and describes me in certain ways, and described Sidney in certain ways, and also describes Patrick Byrne in certain ways. I would say at one point in time where they do — the other individual who is with us and there was a former White House liaison, a superb lawyer, and the way that she was disparaged by one of those lawyers who worked in the White House at that time, disparaged upstairs in the Yellow Oval, was a disgrace. It was condescending and the president, I think, good enough for him — And I won’t say what he said, but he certainly he took it as an affront to the way somebody in his White House, at one time at least, was being accused and treated while we were having this meeting to try to figure out what was the best approach to be able to solve this problem of election fraud and get to the truth.
Sciascia: Now, I think there’s no question — having looked at all the establishment media reports on, essentially, what’s gone on in the last four years, there’s no question that you have absolutely been mistreated in the media. What I really want to get at here is, in that meeting, the one thing that I really want to ensure, sort of, a confirmation or denial on is were there attempts to say that — if you guys were correct and that election fraud was as robust as you say it was, was there a conversation about military capabilities being taken? I know on Newsmax you said, quote, “military capabilities” could be taken. You’ve mentioned rerunning the election and, in that same interview, said that “martial law has been instituted 64 times.” That sounds to me like, at least, a possibility that you guys have put on the table. Was that discussed?
Flynn: No, not in that in that meeting with the president. And that — during that interview with Newsmax, that was really just a laundry list, a menu, of options that the president had at his disposal. I mean, that’s all that I was addressing. In the meeting itself, we talked about securing the machines in those various counties. And I think we talked about five counties. In fact, it was specifically five counties, and it was discussed as to which counties, and where, and how long it would take, and what resources you could use. You could use homeland security. In fact, you would want to do it through Homeland Security. But there’s some of the best resources that we have, clearly, to be able to do an investigation, a forensic investigation of the machines, clearly comes out of our military, particularly our National Guard. So how you do it is really up to the way, if the president had actually decided to examine those.
I will tell you that the outcome of that meeting, the president did decide and, as it was stated in there, that the president had no authority to do anything. It was eventually conceded to by his own lawyers — after they said he did not have the authority to do anything — it was conceded to later on in the evening and during the meeting that, “Yes, in fact, Mr. President, you do have the authority to do everything that these guys want you to do.” So, in order to be able to appoint Sidney Powell as a special White House counsel to investigate election fraud, he had full authority to do that in order to secure various voting machines. Didn’t matter whether, whatever they were called in these in these various counties, he had the authority to do that. They also stated that — and then there was the discussion about clearances. The clearances were really for Sidney Powell, as to be able to operate in and out of the White House. There was no other discussion about clearances for anybody else. That’s total nonsense. And that was — that’s one of those fake news lines. So, what resources to use? Principally, it would be the Department of Homeland Security working with the Department of Defense, as we normally do with interagency operations, to be able to examine — a rapid fashion, properly — the types of forensic audit that was really required. And obviously, that would be working with the states, the proper offices within the states, to be able to do that. But we’re really only talking about a total of five counties.
If you remember, and you probably don’t because you’re so young, Andrew, but many of the people that did that remember back to the year 2000 and the Bush-Gore election. It was one county down in Florida — and I believe it was, if I’m not mistaken, like Boynton Beach or was one of the counties down there, maybe south of Palm County, but it was one county and that was in the year 2000 — and there was a challenge to the presidential election. And we spent, I think it was 36 or 37 days, you know, looking through pieces of paper to discover the outcome, the truthful outcome, of the election at that time — 30, almost 37 or 38 days. And that was one county. And it actually did go to the Supreme Court. And when the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, instead of just this past Supreme Court, this past election hearings and such, where they said, “No, we’re not going to look at the evidence, we’re just going to say that there’s no merit. There’s no — the plaintiff isn’t right,” or I forget the exact reasoning from the U.S. Supreme Court. It was basically no standing. And so they didn’t look at the evidence.
But that’s 2000. They looked at the evidence and what they said was not who was going to be the the the president, but the Supreme Court said, “Well, you need to do these [elections] following constitutional things. You need to take these following constitutional steps,” back in 2000 and it took 38 days to get to that point. When they did go back to that county in Florida, it overturned the election and George Bush became the president instead of Al Gore. So here we are, with many, many more counties, thousands of counties now in play — and we were only looking to do five counties, we are looking to do five counties in five states and, frankly, we had already plenty of evidence from one county and one state. So, we just wanted to take about seven to 10 days, review the bidding, look for the truth.
And we were fully open to having the entire thing — in fact, one of the points of discussion was to have the entire thing videotaped and livestreamed for the American public and, frankly, the rest of the world to see how we come to the truth — and I still believe that that needs to be the case, and I do believe that, if we don’t do that and if we don’t do this — if we don’t take these steps, the American public will never trust our election system. And that’s a shame. That should not happen. It’s not what I was in the military to do. My time in the military was really all about protecting, defending and protecting our rights as American citizens and as we were sent overseas primarily to do, and by our civilian leaders. And I think that — I know that many in our history, in our nation’s history, millions of people, you know, gave their their life in defense of the freedoms that we all enjoy. And one of those freedoms is the freedom to go vote for whoever we choose to vote for in a free, fair and transparent system. And we clearly don’t have that.
So, if we can do anything at this stage going forward, it’s that we will continue this fight. And really what it will be about is protecting our election system and reforming our election system — and also fighting for those people who want to run for local, state and federal offices, who are willing to stand up and fight for this country through the use of our constitutional means and to not quiver or waver in the face of these ugly, distorted, fake media attacks that we constantly are bombarded by.
And honestly, you know, after Twitter started to censor people — after they shut down the major social media arm of Parler, after they’ve attacked many of us on YouTube, Facebook and some of these other social media outlets — the American people are now moving and they’re moving rapidly to discover the truth. And there’s other platforms — I have found CloutHub, I am an ambassador for CloutHub and I love CloutHub because it gives me an opportunity to continue to get my messages out to people who think that I have something to say. And I appreciate the fact of the thousands, the tens of thousands of people that continue to follow me and trust me for the views that I provide. And I think that that’s the direction that we want to go.
We are about finding the truth. That’s what this is. That’s what this whole thing is about. And anybody that says there was no election fraud, all you have to do is go around to just the states that are in question and look at how many dead voters each of those states actually have. I mean, it’s incredible. You’re talking about thousands and thousands of people, quote-unquote “dead people,” who voted in this last election. And I can tell you that I’ve buried U.S. soldiers who fought and died for this country and they would not appreciate the fact that one, even one, dead person was allowed to vote. And that’s a shame for this country that we have even one. And I remember not too many weeks back a United States senator joking about that.
And I will tell you now, that those members of Congress that have distorted what we know to be the truth — in the upcoming elections — and these are Republicans primarily. In the upcoming elections, they’re going to find themselves primaried, and many of the American people that they think will supported them in the past — many of those people are not going to support them in the future.
Sciascia: Now, I think there are certainly a ton of honest questions being leveled about this election in the American consciousness. You touched on a couple major topics that we’re going to get into from social media and Big Tech tyranny to the Republican infighting that’s going on right now. The last thing I want to touch on with, kind of, that Axios interview — and as we push into the surveillance state and kind of the ongoing impeachment, as it’s going to start, this trial, today in the Senate — I mean, what I want to ask is, you know, the Democrats have a habit of getting a handle on the narrative and the establishment media undoubtedly help them out. What I’m seeing from you today and what I’m hearing from you today is undoubtedly a far more level presentation than they have given you credit for. But from Jan. 6 to this impeachment, the narrative is undoubtedly that, you know, there was some major “coup” that was being staged by the president and by the folks in your camp. And from what I’m hearing from you today, I don’t see that. But I certainly understand how they have drawn from some of the rhetoric, this major narrative. And they’ve taken it and run with it. If you could go back with things like that Newsmax interview and some of the “laundry list” items that you listed for what the president could do, would you change that rhetoric or do you stand by it?
Flynn: No, I wouldn’t change it at all. I stand by it. I mean, the President of United States — and we look at the history of our country, all presidents going back to George Washington, you know, we face what I call these crucible moments in history and time — and so, each president has many, many options that they can choose to be able to, basically, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And each of us, each of us takes an oath, and we understand that and, certainly, the president’s oath is different than all other oaths of office. And it’s rightly so.
So, no. I don’t. I don’t. I’m not going to sit here and say, “Oh, I don’t — I shouldn’t have said this or that.” No, not at all.
The president has many, many options. We represented — we being Sidney Powell’s team — we represented the American people. And we felt that there was a narrative that was being pushed, even like the business about in that article it talks about the tension between Rudy Giuliani and Sydney. There’s always tension between — especially in these in legal fights that we were pursuing. But I will tell you, we worked very, very closely with this team. And throughout — I mean, throughout — there was a decision made that, obviously, Rudy was the president’s lawyer, Sidney Powell was the people’s lawyer and that’s really what it came down to. And we felt and we had spoken to Rudy about it, and he was there in the second half of the meeting with us and he agreed. And so, the president of the United States — doesn’t matter which president it is, you know — they all have a whole range of options to consider and to, at least, get from their staffs — if not their staffs, then others — some analysis of what those options mean, what they should be. But I’ll leave it at what I said earlier about what we went in to see the president about.
And what our overall purpose was at, really, the 60,000-foot level, Andrew, is really to get to the truth.
I don’t care if it’s Democrat or Republican. I mean, I have always said I grew up as a Democrat. Hell, I reasoned when President Trump talked to me about being vice president back in the summer of 2016, he said — well, he said to me that I probably picking a Democrat to be vice president, probably not the right thing to do. So we had a good laugh at that. So I would just say that, at the end of the day, what we have to do and the narrative that we need to have — and this is sort of a shot across the bow at what everybody now calls the mainstream media, what we’ve called the mainstream media for a long time — and I think Mark Levin probably does the best analysis of all of this. And that’s really that these large networks who are generally left-leaning, in some cases extremely left-leaning, who put out all of these news articles — particularly articles that are sourced by anonymous people, and sometimes the sourcing comes from another journalist and they collude with each other. And I’ve seen that happen. And it really didn’t start on Jan. 6.
Where it really started — it started when Donald Trump was chosen to by the Republican Party to be the Republican candidate for the president of the United States of America back in 2016. I mean, his presidency was under attack prior to him even winning the damn election on Nov. 8 in 2016, certainly during his campaign. But that’s to be, you know — that’s noted. That usually happens during campaigns.
But then when he was elected and then became the president, I mean, I lived the persecution. I lived the lies, the innuendos, the false narratives, as well as he and his family. And I put that out of my own statement after my case was dismissed. And then I was persecuted by the judiciary for another six months — a persecution that should have never happened to me and certainly should never happen to any American citizen. And that persecution resulted in what was, really, what is referred to as a pardon of innocence by the President of the United States, because the persecution wasn’t going to end, because the person in question wasn’t going to make a decision until the outcome of a presidential election.
Think about that, Andrew. And to your listeners, that’s pretty scary thought. My thing about this country, my sort of, what’s in my DNA, what’s in my culture and what I believe is to fight for this country. For whatever reason, I have always believed from the time I was a child, I always wanted to serve this country. I served this country. I continue to serve this country, certainly in uniform. And then when I stepped into the political fray, if you will, and I will continue to serve this country in, sort of, new ways. And that’s really to help get to the truth of what we do see as election fraud from this last election, both at, certainly, a state level and federal level.
I mean, I think some of your viewers and listeners ought to go to this congressional seat up in New York District 22. I think the lady’s name is [Claudia] Tenney. I believe I have her name right. And the lawyers that are going against her — so, she’s won now, after all the canvassing. The lawyers that are going against her, that are defending, really, the false narrative, they’re now saying that the machines did it, OK? They’re now saying the machines — that it’s — OK, now, that it’s after Jan. 6 and [the Jan.] 20 inauguration.
We’ve got lawyers that we were fighting against us saying the machines didn’t do it and, now, they’re saying the machines did it.
And good enough for that young lady up in that District 22 in the state of New York. Good for her for continuing to fight, you know. I’m proud of her. I don’t know her, but I’m proud that she stood up toe-to-toe and she continued to get to the truth. And so, now, she will serve the district in New York, District 22. And I’m glad and I think the American public will find somebody in her that is a fighter.
She’s a great example of what we’re all trying to do, which is to get to the truth.
If you’d like to watch the interview, you can see it exclusively over at The Western Journal.