The Michael Flynn Interview | Weight of the State

[00:08] Hans Mahncke: General Flynn, it's such an honor being here, and thanks for having us.

[00:11] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: I appreciate it. The great Hans Mahncke, right? And Swiftboating America, it's an unbelievable book. Everybody needs to read it.

[00:21] Hans Mahncke: Thank you. We just started a new project, the Counterlawfare Institute, and you are probably the most relevant person to talk to in that respect. Not only because the term lawfare has a military background, but also because, of course, perhaps other than President Trump, you are the most prominent lawfare victim. And I kind of wanted to start with that. You pulled yourself up by your bootstraps. Humble beginnings, went through the military, had a stellar career. You ended up as the head of military intelligence. That's the military equivalent of the CIA. And that in and of itself would have been just an absolutely fantastic career. Then, of course, you did it all again. You became the national security advisor under President Trump. And I guess that was sort of the pinnacle of it all. January 20th, 2017, you probably thought you got four, eight years ahead of you to clean up DC, and then four days later, January 24th, this guy, this rogue FBI agent, Peter Strzok, walks into your office. Take me back to that day.

[01:35] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: Wow. So, leading up to that point, the transition from one president to another is a very, it's a very challenging time anyway, with a lot of changes, especially from one political, ideology administration to another. In this case, and from one, in this case, it wasn't a normal, establishment candidate in President Donald J. Trump. So that period was intense. We had a lot of outreach. We had, I was talking to every nation on the planet, my counterparts, so either a minister level or, certainly the national security advisors of every country, and then those countries that weren't quite designed like our country, it would be ambassador level. But, so that I think that context needs to be part of this answer. So we had, this is a couple of days into the administration. The day we had that I had this very famous meeting with Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, who was the other FBI agent who still remains to be, seen or heard from the day prior, I had organized an FBI team to come into the White House to brief this new White House team on the foreign threat to a new administration, the foreign collection threat to a new administration. And it's very real. We also had them get briefed on the use of classified information and the types of classified information that a new administration would deal with. Because the like, 95% of the people that came in with the Trump administration, did not ever have any clearances. They had no idea how to use classified information. And when you look around some of the rooms at that time, most of the people were, like, in their late 20s, early 30s, because they were, they were young people who were, energetic, and they were going to come in as assistants and aides and things like that. So they had no idea about the wherewithal of what the threats were. And not only protecting and using classified information, but also protecting themselves from foreign collection adversaries who were going to immediately go after them. I had set that kind of a briefing up with the White House team, to include the chief of staff, at that time, which was Reince Priebus. So it was the White House inner circle that was going to be working directly with the President of the United States on a daily basis. That was the day prior. So here's the FBI sending in two of their best, because it's the White House, on this subject of classified and foreign collection. So then the next day I get a call from Andy McCabe, and he says, " Hey, I got a couple guys I need to have stop by. They're just going to ask you a few questions." I'm like, " Sure, great." I was in the throes of the British prime minister's coming in the next day. We've got, four or five other, presidents or prime ministers that are lined up over the next series of days to include the Israelis, which was, Netanyahu was the following week. But we had three or four major events at the White House that very first week. Come on in. I do not have that much time.

[05:22] Hans Mahncke: Did you think it was connected with the briefing the day before?

[05:25] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: I did not, but now I do. So now I, it's like, now as I look back, and as I've looked back, and as I've given this a lot of thought, I think what they were doing, at the time, because they had already had the infamous 5 January meeting at the White House. So you're asking me about the 24th of January, right? The 23rd, which I believe was a Sunday, which is, which I, it was a Sunday. We were in the White House getting those briefings I just mentioned, and they had already had the discussion about, nope, we're going to drag Flynn back into an investigation. They had that meeting on the 5th of January in the Oval Office with President Obama. So I think it was all tied together. It's basically we have to figure out ways to get at Flynn to get at Trump. Because their ultimate goal was was to get Trump out of the White House as fast as they could, maybe in the first 30 days, maybe in the first 90 days. And I actually believe sitting here today that they felt that they could beat Trump up so badly that he would just say, " Hell with this. I'm going to step down." And I don't think that they clearly understood who Donald Trump was. But, so to that day So I'm like, " Okay, come on in you know, no problem." I had I'm, I'm juggling, like, 15 things. I'm in the I'm still in phone calls with multiple leaders around the world. We're, we're dealing with you know, we're dealing with an upcoming, decision about Iran. So this is this all matters, right? Because it, because it's not like, I'm not, like, just what's happening to me that day. I'm already projecting out, 100-day plan that we had already talked about. All the different things that you would, you would expect someone at that level to have, to have going on right? You don't just come into the White House and think, " Well, what am I going to do today?"you have a you have a very clear plan ahead of you. So it was like, " Okay, I don't have that much time. Come on in." They showed up. I was, in the middle of different things at my desk, and I had just come back from different meetings inside the Oval Office and with the chief. And so I step back into my office and they, these two guys show up, and they, my the current, the secretary that I had at that time says, " Hey, these two guys are here." I said, " No problem." They come in. We sat, like, literally, I'm like, " Okay, sit down. Let's go." And, so they went through a couple of questions about some stuff, and I answered them. And as we know to this day now, that they didn't, they had no They didn't believe that I lied to them. So I'm in kind of a in their parlance, in their in their words, I'm in this, I'm in I'm being investigated without knowing it. I'm thinking I'm having a conversation about some sanctions stuff or some whatever that was going on with the Russians that the FBI needed to know about because I had conversations. So I it never occurred to me that I was the target of an investigation, ever.

[08:43] Hans Mahncke: Now, on the 23rd, and this is so important, you mention it was a Sunday. These guys, we found out many years later, had a lot of emails going back and forth. They were working extra hard on the Sunday, trying to figure out what to do with you. And there were basically two options. Do we tell him we're here to talk about his phone calls and just Do we tell him we are here to talk about his phone calls and let him know that he is being investigated, and simply find out what it is all about? Or do we get him to lie? Those aren't my words. It's their words. Those were his. And they did not tell you they were there to investigate anything, so And they didn't show you any transcripts or anything.

[09:19] Hans Mahncke: In fact, we never saw those transcripts until four years later. So they obviously decided they're going to go with option B. Yep. And I think one of the most grating aspects of your entire story, I find, is this idea that you lied. Because we're not talking about something where it's a he said, she said, and so on and so forth. We have the evidence. We have the document. We have the transcript. So you were accused by the Mueller people of talking to the Russian ambassador about sanctions. And you told Strzok that you hadn't talked about sanctions. Four years later, when we finally got the transcript, lo and behold, you didn't talk about sanctions. So they made it all up. But one of the And that's just objective.

[10:05] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: That's factual. That information was based on my second legal team's efforts to drag the truth out of the Department of Justice.

[10:20] Hans Mahncke: What's so pernicious about it is that the important people know the difference between sanctions and expulsions. Obviously, you knew. There's a contemporaneous interview you gave at the time where you actually explain, "I talked about expulsions, not sanctions." Those are totally different things. Also, the Mueller charging documents, when they say you talked about sanctions, include the Obama document.

[10:48] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: The Obama document.

[10:49] Hans Mahncke: You go back to that document and it is about sanctions, not expulsions. But of course the media and everyone else threw everything into the same pot and said, "Oh, it's all the same thing." But it wasn't. It never was. So that's probably the biggest injustice in all of this. We're not even talking about whether we believe you or not. You don't have to believe you. Just look at the document. Why did the initial lawyers never ask for the transcript? Did you ever find out?

[11:16] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: They were part of the problem. So they were working, and it was clear and, in the deal that was cut between, the first lawyers I had and, the Mueller team, the Mueller prosecution team. So they actually cut a deal, and there were some behind the scenes things that I was never aware of. So when I look at when I look at the lawfare cuts a couple of different ways. It's not just Mueller and the Mueller team and the egregious behavior of the Mueller team. It's not, it's not the undermining of President Obama, former President Obama, of trying to undermine and conspire and, commit treason against a duly elected president, but it's also the entire apparatus in Washington, DC because the lawfare can also be They can also be very close to you. So in my case, I learned that the lawyers that I was using, which was out of Covington & Burling, which was the name of the law firm, that they were part of that lawfare really against me. They were not working on my behalf. They were working on their behalf to benefit them. And I, it's You know, when you're, when you're wrapped into And you're not somebody with like, millions and millions of dollars that you can, you can go get rid of lawyers at you know, helter-skelter. It's a very difficult place to be, and it took me a while to get rid of them. But once I, once I saw that And I, and I'm not going to sit here with you today, Hans, and tell you that I understood lawfare then. I don't think anybody did. I don't think anybody realized what lawfare meant. But now we do, and we see it. It's not just from directed by one side. It's directed by the circle or the swamp in Washington, DC, and people that are trying to undermine, in this case, a president who was elected by the people of this country. Because even the law firm that I was using, which I was recommended they were so against President Trump. Even my own lawyers were, but I, and I had to fight through that too. And at a and then, of you know, eventually, I got rid of them and, I don't know if we're going to talk about, how I came about, getting Sidney Powell because she was, she was one among very small couple of lawyers that I was looking to move to.

[13:57] Hans Mahncke: No, we should. But it's sort of it's, it's a good moment perhaps to just pause- and just think. If those Covington lawyers had just done what any lawyer should have done, which is, " You are accusing my client of lying about sanctions."of lying about sanctions." Right. " You know this because you taped the conversation. Let us see it."

[14:17] Hans Mahncke: This whole thing could have been resolved in two minutes if that happened.

[14:20] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: Here's the other thing too, like the 302, the infamous 302 documentation that that the FBI is supposed to you know, produce five days after it's, after the interview because it's supposed to be fresh on their memories because it's not, it's not a recorded interview, right? So it's their own personal notes, which we have seen the personal notes now, right? So, that came out in May. So we knew then that they, they didn't think I was lying. It was a good interview. But, If my lawyers had demanded- a what's called exculpatory information- which is good or bad, right? Good for your case or bad for your case. If they had demanded all of it, to include the transcripts, then I'd have never, I would have never become a target of the Mueller investigation. That would have, that would have gone away back in the probably the midsummer of 2017.

[15:22] Hans Mahncke: And the reason why I wanted to pause there is because it's sort of interesting that you would have never become this tragic hero. There would have never been this redemption. There would have never been Sidney Powell and all these other things that happened in your life. So as tragic as it was, you met a lot of good people, along the because of that. Just this one little thing.

[15:42] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: This is where you just don't know where, what path, God is going to put you on sometimes and, not that I would ever, not that I would ever want anybody else to go through this, but, what it has done is it is, And I guess through my experience and what happened to me, because there's There is no other person who has been persecuted more than I have, other than Donald J. Trump. Correct. No one. Correct. And so there's lawfare cases out there, and there's people that have had difficult times. I've become close to people like Tina Peters, who spent years in prison. You can talk about the J6 but this started for Over 10 years ago, and it hasn't ended. And the lawfare continues. I said recently, very publicly, that if Trump gets a subpoena, I get a subpoena, and I've just received two more. So the lawfare continues because somewhere, at some level, there's a person or there's a group of people that say, " We can never allow Mike Flynn to get back into a position of authority because we are concerned that Mike Flynn knows,"you know, like they say, "where the bodies are buried,"which is a euphemism for knowing how to get after this problem that we have.

[17:11] Hans Mahncke: Well, you were certainly the by far and away, the most experienced intelligence person in that administration. And that is what they were running against in the administration- Right in terms of the lawfare. So you'd have been the one person figure it out. And I, by the way, I agree with you. I founded the Counterlawfare Institute, but if you'd have asked me in 2016, '17 about lawfare, I wouldn'really even have known- what that is. Plus, I would have never guessed that they, within the FBI that we all thought of like, so well, there were all these rogue agents- Right who would do what they did do. Now, before we get to Sidney Powell, some people will say, "Well, he pleaded guilty." I'm sure you've heard people say that.

[17:56] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: Sure. People say, "Well, he pleaded guilty, and he needed a pardon."

[18:00] Hans Mahncke: That one too. But we'll get to that one too because that there's a th- that story's also sort of twisted. But I think the first one is really kind of it was the I find it so visceral. It's so, it's so sad in a way because of what was done to you. But what it takes for someone to plead guilty they didn't do it. What was it that made you plead guilty? Let me let you answer. Your son, finances, all of that.

[18:24] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: The at the time, when my lawyers came back in and said, " You know, we recommend this,"right? And I'm like, " Why?" I mean, literally my And it was my wife and I sitting in a room. We're like, " Why? Why do you want us to do that? It, there's, there's nothing here. We haven't, we haven't even begun this, right?"" Well, this is what they're going to do. They're going to go after your son." And see, at the time, and it's, and it's still the case, we, our son had been through a whole series of mental health issues over his lifetime. Just a but, a lot of what a lot of people deal with and many people deal with in their families. And so when they told me that I was like, " You know, this,"you know, because we had talked about it. And I said that " They know this, so this is what they're You see what they're doing, right?"" Yeah, this is what they're going to do." And I'm like, " I mean, is there's no other recourse?" And then we got into these discussions with my lawyers about- you know, can we get the you know, can we get the charge reduced? Can it be I asked, " Can I get the Petraeus effect?" Okay? Because Dave Petraeus, former CIA director and former four-star general, committed massive felonies, with the abuse of classified information. Never mind, never mind the relationship but the abuse of classified information on unclassified systems. So I said, " Can I get the Petraeus effect?" Which he was given a misdemeanor and was allowed to walk away, and he's, he's doing fine these days, right? So no, they're not going to allow you to have that because they need you to go after Trump, okay? And I'm like, " This is just not going to happen." I said, " There's nothing there." Said, " If there was something there, you guys would already know You know those snakes that I had as lawyers who are who come from a big law firm? They asked me one day, and my wife would confirm this. They asked me one day, " If you had something on Trump, we could really use that." These bastards, right? So and I said, " I don't have anything on Trump. There's nothing there. There's nothing there. This guy is, he's a tough New Yorker, but he's, he's not what the media is portraying him to be." So that moment, this is all part of a conversation that we're having, but the principal issue was my son. And that's when I said, out of the room, and my wife and I sat there and said, " We just can't. We can't allow this." And so, we called them back in. We said, " Get rid of all this bullshit about FARA,"right? Because they were going to try to make FARA because of some speech I gave that nobody ever listened to. And if you ever listened to the goddamn speech, then you'd know exactly what I said. But they tried to add FARA in there because FARA makes you look like you're a spy, okay? So we were able to get that and it was just going to be this one count of you know, whatever it is, 1001, lying to the FBI. For a 302 that I never really saw, it was a draft, okay? To this day, to this day, Hans, I've never seen the 302. Somebody has it. I've never seen the I mean, I've now seen the notes that the FBI agents gave. But I should have seen all that. Our lawyers, as we were talking about earlier, they were part of this lawfare effort. Because when you're sitting there with the your lawyers, you're like, you believe these guys from the you know, the big white shoe firms in Washington, they're, they're there to protect you. And at and at by that point in time, and I had to do this in my, in my, my lawsuit against the Department of Justice, I had to show how much money I had I had paid out over time. After I gave them the invoices for just the first year, for just the first year, the Department of Justice said, " We don't need any more. We got it. We see." And because that was, that was north of two and a half million dollars by that time. So it, but it was, it was really less the money side of it than it was our son. And when we said that you know, we took, my wife and I, we sat there and we said, " Look, we just can't let him go through this because it might kill him That and I'm being literal. So that was it, and we said, " Okay, we'll, we'll do this." And, they We brought our lawyers back in. We said, " We'll do this." They, they said, " You're " They're going to give you this, whatever it was, K1 or some legal rule where you're going to probably just do probation or something like that which also turned out to be total bullshit.

[22:57] Hans Mahncke: What is not appreciated, aside from everything you have just said about the personal pressure put on you, including your son and your finances, is that it was a whole ecosystem. You in terms of your son, finances, and so on is that it's a whole ecosystem. It involves the media as well. So one of the underreported stories of that December 2017, is that there was a reporter called Brian Ross- who put out a fake story about you exactly during that time, as if to sort of increase the pressure- Right and have some bad, bad media about, contacting Russian officials prior to President Trump being elected- and so on. Totally fake story. Now, it turns out that same reporter, Brian Ross, also, was involved in framing another one of these victims, lawfare victims of Russiagate, a guy called Sergei Millian. We don't have to talk about- Sure his story right now, but it is remarkable, is it not, that the same reporter shows up in these different places. Showing up in these different places. And I always thought it was very peculiar that would put out that story exactly at the time that you know, had the screws being turned on you by the by- the Mueller people.

[24:07] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: And it's interesting for your audience, about a year prior to all this, right? So when I left the military, right? We're, we're here, and this is a timeline behind us of at the tail end of my career all the way, and I think it goes out to 2024 here. This was a timeline that we built to for to support a film and to support a book and all. But, at the very end of my military career, I was at the I was at the headquarters of the FBI in their conference center, packed house- Standing on a stage with James Comey, and I have it, I might even have it here in one of these walls, James Comey presenting me, the you know, retired Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn, former director of DIA, who had worked very closely with the FBI for well north of probably two decades, being presented the FBI's highest medal that can be given to a non-FBI person, right? Nice little director's medal, big old plaque. So here they are a year, a little over a year plus later, and I'm under massive investigation for spying for Russia. These guys knew. That's how, devious and deviant the FBI is, and I use that in the current sense because not much has changed. The leadership, okay. Wray, okay. They're going after crimes, okay, fine. But the cultural change in the FBI, I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it, and I have plenty of people inside the FBI and retired that I know to this day that still say, " Yeah, boy, man, we thought there was going to be much more change." So, here I am getting the highest award you can receive from the FBI, and then these SOBs, James Comey, who stood in the White House on the 5th of January with other members of the national security team, listening to the President of the United States, Obama at the time, basically say, " We're going to keep this thing open and we're going to go after them." And he kept Comey after that meeting, and he told him specifically about me I mean, this is not all made-up fairy tale stuff, Hans, as you well know. This is all stuff that we know factually happened. And so But here we are in 20- summer of 2026, and nobody's been held accountable. There's been nothing done. We have a You know, I'm, I'm going on and on about things here, but we have a grand jury, okay, down in Fort Pierce, Florida. We'll see what the results of that is. It's, it's, it's way too late in my perspective. Joe diGenova, who's running it, I know very well. I know his wife Victoria very well. They were actually lawyers who I went and spoke to ask them if they would consider being my lawyers before I chose Sidney Powell. And because of the circumstances that they were involved in at the time, they were not as readily available. So I end And they, and I had been introduced to Sidney, and so I ended up going with Sidney, thank God, because I wouldn't be able to sit here with you today, as you describe being this tragic hero, right? I'd probably be in I maybe I wouldn't be in prison because maybe Trump after his first administration would've let me go,? But that but I would've been in I would have gone to prison had I had not changed horses The And part of that in

[28:15] Hans Mahncke: A very weird kind of way is, of course, the cycling through judges. The process was slowed, and this is again Washington. Apart from all these other problems, lawfare, the deep state, and so on, there is just this incestuousness because everyone knows each other.

[28:35] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: So let's talk about the judges, because this is super important.

[28:37] Hans Mahncke: Well, the first judge was friends with Peter Strzok.

[28:40] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: Backyard friends, like cookout friends.

[28:43] Hans Mahncke: And he didn't tell anyone about it. And so right before your sentencing it came out, "Oh, well, I guess he can't do it." But in a way, that bought you time. And then they cycled through other judges, and you ended up with this guy called Emmet Sullivan, who we thought was good. Turned out not to be.

[29:01] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: He's the hero in Sidney Powell's book Licensed to Lie.

[29:06] Hans Mahncke: But in a way, at least that bought you a bit of time to end up with Sidney Powell.

[29:12] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: I had chosen, I had chosen Sidney much later, right? So you're right. So this period of time that you're talking about, the first judge that I pled to turns out to be a backyard cookout buddy of Peter Strzok. He they actually talk about that in in their text messages, right? So a short time after that hearing where I pled guilty, he then has to recuse himself. He should have never taken the job. He should have never taken it. Or when he examined it, he should have said immediately, " Hey, I have to recuse myself,"which would have initially shown a little bit of glimmer into the into this incestuous relationship between elements of the Department of Justice and the judiciary. Which is another, I don't know if we'll dig, get into the Judge Sullivan, the former, attorney general of under Barack Obama. He was Eric Holder. Eric Holder's relationship with Judge Sullivan when Eric Holder was the US attorney general for the Washington the District of Washington. Very close relationship, very close personal relationship between those two. Eric Holder happens to be, a principal partner of the law firm that I had. So there's this, again, this incestuousness. So Sullivan comes on board, and we're thinking, okay, he's the he's the exculpatory guy. He's the guy that's going to demand all exculpatory information. And he kind of said it, but every, he never followed through on it. He never, he never followed through on it. And then, we went over now I'm a cooperating witness. So I went 19, 19 different times to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. Brandon Van Grack was the principal prosecutor, that against me for 19 different interviews to try to get me to lie. So 19 I mean, and these interviews weren't like, five minutes. They were like three hours at a pop. So I mean, I don't joke when I say I go into Washington, D.C. With like post-traumatic stress because I go in there thinking, these bastards, for the longest, for the better part of three years, better part of the first Trump administration, they had me under the under the lights to try to get me to lie. And there were many times, speaking of lawfare, there was many times, or the idea of countering it, where I would have a I would be in an argumentative role with them during a during an interview, and they would, they would say, " We're going to stop." They would leave the room. They would call my lawyers outside, and they'd have some lawyer-to-lawyer conversation. My lawyers would come back into the room, right? Into their, where Mueller was operating from. They'd come back into the room, and they'd tell me, " Hey, they really need you to kind of you know, be honest." I said, " I'm being honest." You know? Like, my lawyers are now trying to coach me into doing something or saying something that's not true, right? And because these guys, they might pull your plea deal. They pull your plea deal, you could, they could give you the five years. It's all the bullshit. And so I want people to understand that it's, it's not just them, okay? It's the system. Lawfare is a system, and if they don't like the guy, in this case, they don't, they did not like the guy in the White House, then that system is going to coalesce together, and it's intelligence. It's media. It's the it's the you know, it's the K Street legal, minions. It's the judiciary, elements of the judiciary. So Sullivan is the is the judge now, and we're thinking, " Okay, maybe, maybe things will go my way,"right? Because between the time that Sullivan took over that case, and I, and then I had to go in front of him and plead guilty again to reiterate basically what I had told to I think it was Contreras or whatever was the name of the previous judge. But, You know, I thought that over time he was going to you know, give us, force the Department of Justice to give us the information that they had, right? And what was happening was people like yourself, other, sound, solid, investigators were digging information out, right? And more and more evidence is coming out. Evidence is coming out, but everybody's like, " Oh my God, what, why?" You know, and I would go back to my, to my lawyers when a piece of evidence would come out in the in the media, or they would, text messages as an example, and I would go, "wha I mean, are you are you giving this to these guys? Like, why aren't you demanding, to find out what's going on here?"

[34:10] Hans Mahncke: I was a law professor at the time, and, obviously the entire kind of academic, community, universities and so on totally failed. Because other than everyone else we already talked about, media, and activist groups and so on and so forth, deep state actors and all that- it's the role of the academics to look at this stuff and say, " No, this isn't right." Right. But that never happened. In fact, they were cheerleading it. It was, that was sort of I guess, my I was wearing that hat, and I was looking at it, but I was looking at it honestly. I was saying, " Well, this doesn't fit. This doesn't work." And you're right. There were bits and pieces coming out, and each bit always pointed in the same direction. So then, in May 2020, we had the holy grail come out, which was the transcript. Which proved it beyond a doubt. Anyone can just look at it. You did not talk about sanctions. It's not in there. You talked about expulsion, something completely different, which you admitted. There's there's nothing, as you said, at the outset,? You were talking to these people. It was part of your job to talk to these people. So you must have thought then, " Wow, this is all over now." Did you?

[35:24] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: At 100%, and, from the beginning, and to be very precise about expulsions and sanctions, I'm not going to get into the definitions of those, but what I was accused of was lying to those two agents about not speaking about sanctions, and I said, I didn't talk about sanctions. I talked about expulsions. So the what the legal system did, the FBI and the Department of Justice, they said, " We're going to make it so. We're going to take your notes. Don't worry about your notes. We're never going to show them to Flynn. We're never going to show them to his lawyers." My lawyers never asked for them, and, or if they did, they never got them. " We're just not going to show them to him,"which is exculpatory information. " We're going to we're going to charge him with lying to you two guys that he in fact did talk about sanctions and he lied to you that he didn't." That was the whole crux of it. So it's not the explanation of what an expulsion is or what an sanction is, it's the fact that they said that I lied to those FBI agents about sanctions, about not talking about sanctions when, and in fact, I didn't, and I told them that. And their notes prove that out, and of course the actual transcript of the of the phone conversation between me and the Russian ambassador shows it. So that's such a legal technical nuance. Nobody gets that.

[36:50] Hans Mahncke: In the media, it was all thrown together. "Well, it's the same thing." Well, it's not the same thing.

[36:58] Hans Mahncke: But even if we were to say, well, something got, tangled up, mixed up, whatever, then you go to the charging documents- the Mueller ones. Well, they cite the Obama order that you allegedly, Right well, that concerns the sanctions, which you Right allegedly lied about. Well, if you then go to that order, it is just the sanctions. It's not something that'Right muddled up or thrown together, whatever. It is a very clean thing. Sanctions, that's it. It's a separate, completely separate issue. So then, of course, Emmet Sullivan was like, " Hold on. No, we're not going to dismiss this case." So DOJ says we need to dismiss. Sidney Powell obviously says you need to dismiss. The document says you need to dismiss.

[37:38] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: And an appeals court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in a mandate, also said, " This is done, Judge Sullivan. This is done." This is done." But he started his own investigation.

[37:54] Hans Mahncke: He did He put on the hat of a prosecutor. And that just completely surreal sort activities that went-

[38:00] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: And we couldn't, Hans, figure out if there was ever any other time in U.S. history where that occurred.

[38:14] Hans Mahncke: So those six months while Sullivan was trying everything possible to get you, were those months actually the worst? Because you already thought this was over.

[38:20] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: By far. Actually, it was eight months, because when you look, when you think about May, from the time in May when the when the case was dismissed, basically for egregious government misconduct, it went until actually after the pardon that Trump gave me. So he gave me a pardon, but it took another 30 days for the judge to write almost a 30-page document, scathing document about me. So to put on public record essentially how bad of a guy I was, on public record in a federal court. After all of the evidence had been presented, the Department of Justice had dismissed the case, he dragged it for another eight months, and that so that eight months came at a financial cost, it came at a family cost, because when the case was dismissed, I was with Sidney, physically with her that day, and we just so happened to be at Judicial Watch when we found out about it. And Sidney and I were walking up the stairs, and she was telling me, " Hey, that we might get some good news today. I don't know." And then breaking on CNN, of course, before we even were told, was Flynn's case is going to be dismissed. So we, my family and I, for the next, like, couple of days, we're, like, celebrating. We're, we're all celebrating. We're like, " Thank God this is over,"you know? This madness is over. And then all of a sudden, Sidney call, comes in and she tells me, " Hey, Sullivan is going to hire this guy out of some former judge out of New York. He's hiring him to be a lawyer, to prose- to basically he's going to start prosecuting you." And I'm like, " How does that happen in the US justice system? He's supposed to just He's got no other authority with that case." But he, he took it for another eight months. So the hell that we went through from essentially the time that I left the White House in early 2017 till the dismissal, we had to go through It was like, it was like leaving hell, but there was a long path to get out the door. And, because I knew I really didn't need a pardon, right? Because I had already denied, I had already turned down, most people don't know, I had already turned down a pardon, request that Trump called us up and said in April of 2020, he called up and said, him, not some lawyers, him, and he said, " Do you want a pardon?" And, because I, because he had already seen a lot of the stuff, right? And I said, " No, we're going to beat this case." And we did.

[41:00] Hans Mahncke: And you did. But for Emmet Sullivan. But for that judge. And I think people need to realize that it continued afterwards, it continued afterwards when they tried to get your pension. You fought for many years to get some kind of compensation, which you eventually Right for all the legal fees and so on. And as you mentioned earlier, it still continues with subpoenas and all that. People need to realize every time that happens, that's like $10,000 just gone right there. Easily.

[41:31] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: No, if you have to retain a lawyer, if you get a subpoena, you call up your lawyers, you're, you're, you're trying to get away from paying lawyers on a monthly basis. I've had a I For a guy that like, had an amazing military career and worked with lawyers and had, as the head of DIA, we have a law firm at DIA. We had like 32 lawyers. We have a regular law firm. It was run by a retired flag run by a retired, admiral actually. And so I mean, so it's like I've dealt with lawyers. I didn't ever thought that I would be in a position like this. And I always say, a little bit tongue in cheek that when they were investigating me in the early, in you know, in the in 2016 into 2017, and when they dropped the case on like the you know, the whatever, the second or third of January of 2017, they couldn't even find an unpaid parking ticket. I'm just not that kind of guy. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I'm an Eagle Scout, but I, but I've, I've you know, I led a life of somebody who was always like taught, " Hey, you have to do the right thing,"right? So if I, if I parked in a no parking zone, if I drove too fast, pay the damn ticket and be done with it. But I didn't even have an unpaid parking ticket. And so these guys are trying to make me out to be this treasonous spy, and they've done a damn good job with frankly half the country.

[43:02] Hans Mahncke: The perniciousness of lawfare is that usually, looking back anywhere in human history, when you have a scandal and someone blows it out of all proportion, at least there is a kernel of truth. Someone did something wrong. But you never did anything wrong. In fact, all of Russiagate, beyond you, is completely made up. And I get asked this all the time: "Is that really true?" Yes, it's really true. There was nothing there. Nothing whatsoever. They just made it up out of thin air.

[43:35] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: And because I know you and I have had conversations prior to this, but simple ones. But I, believe that the United States of America, the people of the United States of America, and I believe this in my soul, that if, if we don't see accountability by those that committed at least Russiagate, right? Nevermind all the other, impeachment-gate and all the other gates, right? But if we don't see accountability And I mean, severe, accountability for those that committed this treason, this undermining of a duly elected president, constitutional principles of the United States of America, and then all those that were affected by it. If we don't see accountability, I'm afraid what people in this country will do. Because if there's anything that we do, we do this from the very beginning of life, we teach our children to be accountable for their actions, right? If we don't, if we don't teach the nation that these people that committed treason, which is essentially what they did Now, we can call it conspiracy. The legal, the legal, minds will figure something out. But at a certain point in time, if this is not, if these people are not held accountable, I'm afraid that we are going to lose this country much faster than we already are. And one president, one president has an opportunity, can do it, can make the you know, can begin the stages of recovery, if you will. But if it doesn't start soon And I think we're already, I think we're already past that line where we're, we're running out of time. This president is running out of time.

[45:36] Hans Mahncke: No, there is not much time left. And, in terms of accountability, it's always so difficult to charge anyone with things that are older than five years. That's just the thing. Now, you often hear people say, " Well, there's exceptions, and you can carve out this and that." Yes, you can do that but you really don't want to be in that position. You want to charge them within the five years. And again and again, Russiagate, but also the whole Ukraine thing and COVID, somehow the five years always were allowed to expire. So I guess I'm not particularly optimistic. That said, we started the Counterlawfare Institute because we at least want to Document these things- step one. And then secondly, push back on intellectually and otherwise. There's never been an intellectual effort to push back. You fought essentially on your own. Sidney Powell on her own. Molly McCann- some others as well. But basically a small group. Small team. But every other- Paul Manafort, and, everyone else who was affected by this, they all had to fight on their own. There was never this kind of big effort to bring this all kind of under one umbrella, whereas the other side- the lawfare industrial complex, they always work like Yeah.

[46:51] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: Well, the and the and the challenge is, and this is the challenge for the Counterlawfare Institute and what you're, endeavoring to do, and the people that watch this and that and that continue to move along with you, people have to know that what we're up against is we're up against, you're up against the United States intelligence community because the progressivism, the liberalism, the socialism that has, that has taken over, large swaths of the US government. So the US intelligence community, principally the CIA, but there's others, and elements within NSA. It's why, that's why Tulsi Gabbard had to fire the deputy director of the NSA you know, over a year ago. Her name was Noble. So CIA, NSA, those two main organizations are part of the lawfare effort against those of us who challenge the establishment, challenge the system. You've got, of course, the corporate media. I don't call it the mainstream media anymore because I think mainstream is, like, people like yourself and others that are out there. But corporate media, the world of corporate media, New York City principally, they are part of the lawfare team, okay? Because of the progressivism, liberalism, socialism components that they all, aspire to now. Certainly, you have inside of the executive branch of the government, you have a deeply embedded bureaucracy that is also, that also fits those desc- those descriptors that I just said. Then you have elements of the judiciary. Is it the entire judiciary? No. But are, but are there a number of judges? A number of judges. Federal judges, maybe state judges too, county judges, but certainly we've seen federal judges who have tried to undermine and assume, as though they have the same authorities as the President of the United States even though they're not elected, right? They take on these things, and then they end up getting beat in the You know, you have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and they get beat. So we, so we see the US intelligence community, other elements of the executive branch. You have elements of the corporate media. You have elements of the judiciary. And then you have what I would call the establishment. So these are five pieces of the lawfare that a guy like me faced. And the and the establishment is the is the It's not just the the Democratic Party, or the Democratic Socialist Party now, or members of Congress. It was both sides. It was both sides. You know, may he rest in peace, but Lindsey Graham was no friend of mine during Russiagate. Secretary Marco Rubio, no friend of mine during Russiagate. The things that they said about me were unbelievable. Yet they never, they only met me briefly during briefings, right? Or, but they would like, they would just jump on the bandwagon that you know, Flynn did these things, right? And so it's not just the Democrats. It's not just the left of the aisle inside the House of Representatives or the US Senate It's also the right. It's the establishment that says, " We can't " At that time, Hans, " We can't have a guy like Donald J. Trump in charge of this country. We can't have him take over, a major party in this country,"right? They Because they had their little, game that they played prior to the 2016 election where they, the right tried to undermine President Trump to get him to quit, get him to step down so Mike Pence and Paul Ryan could come in before the 2016 election. So that's another And I've told that story at different occasions, but that body of lawfare, so your, your charge, your charter is to have to stand up to that. So, for you, and for anybody that's out there that's watching, we've have to support these efforts because it's like you're never going to outspend them, but you can outsmart them, and you can, you can, you can coalesce with other like-minded people like me, and like others, who are now in a position where we're, like, saying, " Okay,"like a lot of Americans, we recognize that this lawfare exists. It is a form of warfare. It has weapons systems. I just mentioned five. It has tools. It has the legal system that they manipulate, so that's one of the major tools, and then it has a big voice, and it has financing, and the financing for them comes from it comes from overseas. It comes from taxpayers who don't know that they're paying for these things. So in order for us to counter this, it's like, it's like the movie, the movie about, Sparta, where the 300 are standing at the gates of Thermopylae, and they're fighting the hordes from coming in from Persia, right? Here we are today talking about you know, war against Iran. So there, there is a tough-mindedness that we need to have in this world of counter lawfare because whatever Trump does, and wherever he ends up, he's only here for a very short period of time. This lawfare has been going on for a long time, and you could even, for those that remember the days of Iran-Contra affair, certainly the scandals against Bill Clinton. So Washington, D.C. Has been playing this very ugly game, but what they did When Trump came in they decided we're going to go after everybody. We're going to make it about, we're going to make it about you, the American people. That's why the setup of January 6th, and I say that was very real form of lawfare. That was a tool that they used all of the all of the weapons systems that I mentioned, right? They then had the tool of a of a of a rally that they knew was going to occur. In fact, they promoted it, and they promoted it inside the White House as well. When you think deeply about warfare Which is something that I have, an expert level of knowledge in. When you think deeply about it, their master strategy, their masterful plan, which was discussed in the summer of 2020 to get to January 6th of 2021. These are people that think about this, because if they don't have If this option doesn't play out lawfare-wise, then they do this option.

[53:34] Hans Mahncke: There's a lot of examples of that. Let's start off with February of 2016. All of this began with an email within the Clinton campaign- where they discussed a Swift Boat project against Trump. Now, people sometimes ask me, that's not a good name because that is associated with John Kerry, and we're not supposed to feel, sympathy for John Kerry or whatever. But of course, none of that matters. What matters is that- the Clinton people called it Swift Boat. Of course, they're friends with John Kerry. So they wanted to do something bad to Donald Trump. But unlike John Kerry, who we don't, I don't, I wasn't on that Swift Boat. I don't know what happened there. But there's different stories. But on the Trump side, there are no different stories. There was no Russia collusion. There was no nothing. They just made it up. They made the whole thing up. Made the whole thing up. So then February 2016, we start off with the project. Then they get their own people to write these stories about Trump and the pee tape and all that kind of stuff. Then they want to give it a veneer of credibility by passing it on to this guy Steele and say, " Well, why don't you write up our stories and put your name on them?"" And then every And then you pass them on to the FBI." Then you get dragged in. And as you said, the whole thing is a big plan that works, that worked out over many months and years. And as you also said, sometimes when things don't go right, like very shortly after Mueller started, it was, it was a dead end. There was just nothing there. Lawfare activists, not the Mueller people, lawfare activists in 2017 put out these papers, very detailed blueprints of how to go after President Trump for obstruction of justice. Manuals. And then those manuals were taken by the Mueller people, and in fact, the second Mueller report is literally a rewritten version of what the lawfare activists did. Another underappreciated fact, when Mueller had his, train wreck testimony- In Congress on July 24th, 2019. And it was such a disaster. It was. When did the Ukraine impeachment hoax start?

[55:39] Hans Mahncke: The next morning. July 25th. They always have something in reserve. There's always a new plan. There's always something, tabletop exercises, COVID, January 6th, Trump.

[55:51] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: And they always have their protected minions inside, in this case inside the administration, who were ready to testify against President Trump on anything that they wanted, right? The Ciaramella, as an example, as a as an example of somebody, or Vindman was another one. They always have these people ready, standing by. If, if something doesn't happen here, we're going to move this.

[56:13] Hans Mahncke: People within Team Trump, like Fiona Hill. I have no idea how she got on. Or Sondland, the ambassador. I'm saying all this to illustrate your point that this is an all-hands-on-deck effort. They are very well organized, very well funded, and coming from all sides.

[56:34] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: You kind of you have to you know I think it's People look at these things and all these conversations that have been had for the last 10 years, and you go, " What, what is it that they're trying to do? Why are they doing this? Do they hate Trump?" Why they're doing it is because they see the United States of America moving in a completely different ideological direction. So when we say the when we use the word coup, that there's a coup undergo- we're, we are undergoing a long coup, right? Which is a takeover, essentially a coup d'état is a takeover of one system, of one party to another or one, of a nation by one group, to another group. So people just in the in the United States of America, they can't fathom that. They, especially back, way back when. They just, " Oh, no way could this should never happen in America. They would never do this. The my colleagues on the left, my colleagues on the right." All that is all bullshit, and people need to understand that that it's not just about lawfare because the lawfare is the is like the army. So if you look at like, okay, we have a group of people that say, " We are going to we're going to start take We're going to start fundamentally transforming America. We're going to start fundamentally taking this country over systematically through what's called basically, cultural Marxism." Okay? Because that's kind of the If you really want to put a phrase on the on what we have been facing, it's the march on the institutions. So people can't, in this country couldn't fathom that. I've spoken to so many for so many years now that were like, " I just can't believe we are here with " You know, and they still to this day, if they turn on some of the corporate media, even the cable like a Fox or a CNN or ABC or CBS, they, they still, that body of people, they still like go, " Ah, no, this is just politics as usual." It is not. It is a fundamental direction, redirection of the United States of America to something that we were not created to be, and that's So why? It's because there is a body of people that want this country to be something other than it was designed to be. And they have, they have the intent, they have the resources, they have the leadership, they have control of big swaths of our government, as we've already talked about all of the weapons systems. And so that so when we say lawfare- Right? Because it's not warfare, it's a it's a function of it's a type of warfare. But when we say lawfare, they made the decision to use our own system of government against us, right? Versus just coming in and, and taking over the capital and taking over the radio or the media. Like, if you go in and you do a coup in a country, which I've been part of planning and part of you know, you go in you take over the seat of power, literally, physically. You take over the communications, you take over the ability for them to to get information out and to get informa- You basically take over the apparatus of government and then you throw the old guy out or you, or you know, you put a bullet through his head. That's, that's sort of the that's, that's what you would read about or see in the movies, right? So in America, it, they knew that it was going to take much longer. It's going to take much longer. You couldn't just go in and take over the seat of power and now, poof, you're in charge. So there was a very conscious decision, and it's, and it's been going on for a long time. And now it's come to it's come to where we are today. More and more people in the United States now see it for what it is because there's, there's very visible signs of mayors who have won major city elections. So lawfare is a very real form of warfare, and to counter that we If, if we are going to use our system of government, okay, if we're going to use our rule of law, we're going to use our constitutional processes, we're going to we're going to seek out people within the system who are honest, whether it's judges or the Department of Justice. And of course, the highest level of judge in this country, of judging, our laws is the US Supreme Court, which we've already been told by elements of the progressive movement in this country, as soon as they get back in charge, they're going to change, they're going to change that dynamic. So that's, that's warfare actually at its finest, and it's, like, very thoughtful. It's, it's, it's in a place where we are, we are past the You know, we've sort of passed the fulcrum of sort of where we have been too slow to come to the to grips with trying to how do we how do we combat this, right? And I think that the Counterlawfare Institute, is a great, beginning for something that is going to be, a huge element, that is going to be part of us being able to fight back. But people need to understand that you can't do that alone. You, and your team, which you know, is probably small right now, you're going to have to like, you're going to have to radically prioritize what you counter, right? Because there's so many things out there. The one thing that I have seen, and I've, and I've had been handed to me, documentation I've had people come to me over a decade with the way they have been attacked by lawfare, but they don't have, they don't have the they weren't the National Security Advisor to the United States of America. They're, they're not a general, right? They're, they're just somebody, some Jane or Joe out in America who has the Department of Justice or some local, lawfare happening to them because the of the of the progressivism that's marching forward in the United States of America. So they don't have anybody to turn to so they turn to a guy like me and they go, " Hey, can you help me?" So I point them in the direction of lawyers or I you know, in some cases I have sent it to people like Ed Martin, who you've had on your show, because it's, it's, it's legitimately something that should be considered for like a you know, a pardon or whatever. But not everything can be, not everything can get to the President of the United States. And the sad thing, sad thing is that there's hundreds of these examples out there across America, and it has to stop, and part of it is because of you could say, we have corruption. So you have people that are willing to take money to make a decision about something. Okay, that's just pure corruption. But then you have this, undermining of our ideological beginnings, which is a as a constitutional republic, right? So you have this progressivism, this march on the institutions that started, decades ago, and here we are. And so in order to counter lawfare, you have to understand warfare. You have to have the resources. You can't go to war without logistics, right? You can't go to war with just a you know, some infantry and some rifles. That'll only last for about 24 hours, right? You've have to have the logistics. You have to have the sustainability. You've have to have the planning. You've have to have the strategic, direction and dialogue and discussion, and you've have to have the backing of people like the American people, the president needs the backing of the American people for a war that he might take us into,? If you don't have the backing of some number of Americans who are, throwing, their hard-earned nickels and dimes at you periodically, which I would, I would recommend that they do. Because I know, I know, you, I have seen what you have said, how hard you fight, how smart you are, and the and the things that you are willing to put your name on the line against. That's, that's like a general who says, " I'm ready to go to war, and I'm going to go stand on the hilltop where all the bullets are shooting,"right? And say, " Follow me." Right? That to me, is we need it. And then understand that the enemy has a vote, okay? So the enemy has a vote. And for anybody that's ever studied warfare and people that watch this that know me, that is a very famous phrase in the military, that the enemy has a vote. So you have a plan, you have a nice little Counterlawfare Institute plan, and the enemy's going to know what that plan is because you're going to have to be public about it, your mission statement or whatever, your, the things that you take on. And they're going to be looking at it and going, " Okay, fight them here, fight them here. Put, push back here."because you're not going to You're, you're never going to outspend them, so you have to outsmart them. And so I'm, I'm preaching to you about the direction that you know, what you're trying to do. But, because I, for me I don't, because I'm just I've never been a vindictive person,? I,. So after everything that I went through, what they took my family through, what they took my What they were willing to take my son through knowing that he had mental health issues. What they were willing to do to him to destroy him, to cause him to possibly kill himself possibly. He, that's how, that's how painful of an experience my family and I went through. They didn't care. They don't care. So it's like an enemy. An enemy doesn't care. Enemy's not going to use, the Geneva Convention to fight you fairly. The enemy's going to use, unmanned drones that are autonomous, and they're just going to launch them at you, and they don't care what it blows up. They don't care if it kills babies or it blows up a ship. It doesn't matter to them,? And we are supposed to be a nation that follows rules, right? And follows laws. And we're supposed to be benevolent and better than all that. So I'm going on and on here, Hans, but I want people to know that we are in a war. The war that we are currently in is called lawfare, not warfare, okay? So that's a that's a strategic descriptor. Down below that are armies, and weapon systems, and strategies, and logistics, and sustainment, all of the things that an army needs to be able to fight, right? And everything that I've just described, they have in droves, they have in spades, they have in such abundance, and that when we look at our side, we are, unorganized. We're not We're not well coordinated. So I applaud the fact that you're starting this effort To fight this, and I think that you're going to get extraordinary support. And I do think that you're going to need, you're going to need teammates out there, that are going to have to like, we would say in combat, you task organize for combat, right? Like, you get, the Army will grab the Air Force and then, and then some Marine elements, so it's a task organization. You bring things together. You might need some Because you're working in a foreign country, you might need some indigenous forces, so you bring them into your task organization, right? So that task organization makes you stronger. So I think that's where, the Counterlawfare Institute is going to have to start. As you think about going forward, you're going to have to look at task organizing. But a task organization, a task force is temporary because you may need a task force to fight the Russiagate thing. But when it, when it's all over and you win, you don't need that task force anymore. It's temporary in nature. So you go and you grab You go on to the next fight, right? And you're, like I said, you're going to be juggling priorities, so.

[1:09:35] Hans Mahncke: We are just at the beginning.

[1:09:37] Hans Mahncke: But as you say, there is no George Soros. There is no anyone. There is just us and the very generous people out there who pitch in. But there are a couple of things that always give me optimism. The first is that we have truth on our side. Your entire story for the past ten years is about the truth. That was the one constant, the truth of what happened. And I think that ultimately the truth will prevail. But of course, I'm not naive about everything you described, the extent of the problem, and perhaps worst of all, you mentioned the Supreme Court a few times. You just need something to flip there, and we're not going to have such a good outcome.

[1:10:29] Hans Mahncke: It just hangs on that in the final analysis.

[1:10:34] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: It seems to. Just as a as a lesson in civics, it does seem to hang on Like, we always worry about if the left gets control again, they're going to add to the Supreme Court, they're going to change the makeup, they're going to do all these different things. But we have to remember that and I'll use the birthright citizenship, example, or actually the 1973, Roe v. Wade example is another good example of an unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court, because both of them are. One we've, we realized. It took us 40 years to correct it. But when a when a president wins, and then he also has the majority in Congress to be able to pass laws, right? Then pass the laws. Because if you look at Kavanaugh's dissent, Kavanaugh's dissent, talking about lawfare, so Kavanaugh's dissent in the in the birthright citizenship case, he actually is throwing a bone to Congress to say, " Congress, you have a role here. You guys can pass the law, but, don't, don't just rely on us. We're only one branch." So even though we say, " Well " You know, everybody goes, " Oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court." Well, you've got two houses, even though they both hate Trump, okay? So whether you want to show it or not, but none of those people in Congress, with maybe the exception of you know, this many on a hand, actually think the world of Trump. The rest of them hate him, okay? In the GOP. They don't want Trump. They want, they want MAGA to die. So you know, that you have the House and you have the Senate, and he had it actually during his first administration, and they couldn't hardly pass anything. Everything is by edict or executive order. And so that's not the way our system of government was designed to be. If the president wins and he's able to bring in with him, a legislative body to produce laws, produce the damn laws. Don't let, don't let everything get caught up in lawfare, because it will. Because the progressives, they know that they can't Their laws are not something that they, that you know, that we aspire to and most Americans aspire to have. They want things that restrict our rights.

[1:12:50] Hans Mahncke: Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to rely on them. General Flynn, thank you so much. General Flynn, thank you so much.

[1:12:56] Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn: I appreciate it. Thank you, Hans. Great seeing you.