RT cited an array ofexperts assaying that the resignation ofthe US President's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn could be caused bythe deep differences betweenmembers ofthe American establishment.
On Monday, the White House announced that Michael Flynn had resigned fromthe post ofUS President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser and that retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellog had been appointed totake his place.
In his resignation letter, Flynn said that he had not provided the White House withfull information abouthis contacts withRussian Ambassador tothe United States Sergey Kislyak.
Flynn's phone communications withKislyak prior toTrump's inauguration onJanuary 20 have raised questions aboutwhether the adviser broke a law forbidding private US citizens fromengaging indiplomatic disputes withforeign nations.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="745"]
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn sits in the front row before the start of the President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe joint new conference in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, Friday, Feb. 10, 2017.[/caption]Former Pentagon official Michael Maloof said that accusations that Flynn allegedly violated this law hold no water.
"The matter is that we do not know exactly what Flynn discussed withKislyak duringa telephone conversation. They want toaccuse Flynn ofbreaking the so-called Logan Act of1799, which has never been applied inthe judicial practice. This is madness!" Maloof was quoted byRT assaying.
Russian political analyst Viktor Olevich, forhis part, told RT that certain members ofthe American establishment wanted tobenefit fromthe scandal aroundFlynn.
"The scandal was advantageous tothose inthe US establishment and the US legislature, who tried toforce the Trump Administration toadhere tothe foreign policy that is beneficial tothe American political establishment, and not todrastically alter the current relations betweenWashington and Moscow", Olevich told RT.
He added that "this resignation shows some weakness ofthe new US Administration" and that "in this case, Trump and his team were not willing touse political leverage todefend their position."
Olevich was echoed byPavel Podlesny fromthe Moscow-based Institute forUS and Canadian Studies, who said Flynn's resignation is the result ofinternal conflicts withinthe new US Administration.
"The Trump Administration includes a whole array ofpeople withdifferent views who have never met before. So there may be some mutual friction and disagreements caused byany plausible pretext," he said.
Podlesny added that the 1799 Logan Act was used inorder todrive another wedge betweenthe United States and Russia and complicate the work ofthe new US Administration.
"Yes, Flynn called the Russian Ambassador inWashington, butthese were not formal negotiations. This was a pretext toremove the man who called forthe improvement ofWashington's relations withRussia," he pointed out.
Michael Maloof, forhis part, said that the resignation ofMichael Flynn is an unfortunate development, and something that can be called a victory forthe Democrats.
"This is a victory of [the US] mainstream media and the Democrats. They dislike the current Administration so they will do their best toprove its unreliability. This is just the beginning," he said.
He recalled that fromthe very beginning, the US elite wereopposed toFlynn's nomination and the fact that Flynn appeared onRT asa political analyst only added fuel tothe fire.
Meanwhile, the US political journalism website Washington Free Beacon has reported that members ofthe former US Administration allegedly conducted "a secret, months-long campaign" todiscredit Michael Flynn.
The Washington Free Beacon referred to "multiple sources inand outof the White House who described a behind-the-scenes effort bythese officials toplant a series ofdamaging stories aboutFlynn inthe national media."
"The operation primarily focused ondiscrediting Flynn, an opponent ofthe Iran nuclear deal, inorder tohandicap the Trump Administration's efforts todisclose secret details ofthe nuclear deal withIran that had been long hidden bythe Obama administration," the Washington Free Beacon said.
The website, inparticular, quoted one senior White House official assaying that leaks targeting Flynn were "not the result ofa series ofrandom events."
The Washington Free Beacon also cited a congressional adviser assaying that "the Obama Administration knew that Flynn was going torelease the secret documents aroundthe Iran deal, which would blow uptheir myth that it was a good deal that rolled back Iran," and that "in December the Obama NSC started going towork withtheir favorite reporters, selectively leaking damaging and incomplete information aboutFlynn."
