Justice Department settles lawsuit from Trump ally Michael Flynn for $1.2 million, AP source says
The seal of the Dept of Justice is shown on the podium, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has settled for roughly $1.2 million a lawsuit from Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump who pleaded guilty during the Republican’s first term to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a top Russian diplomat and was later pardoned.
Court papers filed Wednesday do not reveal the settlement amount, but a person familiar with the matter, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to disclose nonpublic information, confirmed the total as about $1.2 million.
The settlement resolves a 2023 lawsuit in which Flynn sought at least $50 million and asserted that the criminal case against him amounted to a malicious prosecution. It also represents a stark turnabout in position for a Justice Department that during the Biden administration had pressed a judge to dismiss Flynn’s complaint. Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former personal lawyer for the president, has openly criticized the Russia investigation in which Flynn was charged and the Justice Department in the last year has opened investigations into former officials who participated in that inquiry.
The Justice Department cast the settlement as an “important step in redressing” what it says was a “historic injustice” of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump for much of his first term.
Related Stories
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia-Trump campaign ties, dies
Justice Department publishes missing Epstein files involving uncorroborated claim about Trump
New subpoenas issued in inquiry on response to 2016 Russian election interference, AP sources say
“This Department of Justice will continue to pursue accountability at all levels for this wrongdoing. Such weaponization of the federal government must never be allowed to happen again,” a spokesperson said.
In a separate statement, Flynn said: “Nothing can fully compensate for the hell that my family and I have endured over these many years — the relentless attacks, the destruction of reputations, the financial ruin, and the profound personal toll inflicted upon us all. No amount of money or formal resolution can erase the pain caused by a prosecution that should never have been brought.”
The settlement is the latest turn in the long-running legal saga involving Flynn, one of six Trump associates charged as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. That investigation found Russia interfered in the election on Trump’s behalf and that the Trump campaign eagerly welcomed the help, but it ultimately found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who vigorously campaigned at Trump’s side, served for weeks as his first national security adviser before being pushed out of his position. He remained a Trump ally even after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller’s team. He was pardoned in the final weeks of the president’s first term.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI when he said he had not discussed with the Russian envoy, Sergey Kislyak, sanctions that the outgoing Obama administration had just imposed on Russia for election interference. During that conversation, Flynn advised that Russia be “even-keeled” in response to the punitive measures, and assured him “we can have a better conversation” about relations between the countries after Trump became president.
The conversation alarmed the FBI, which at the time was investigating whether the Trump campaign and Russia had coordinated to sway the election. In addition, White House officials were stating publicly that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed sanctions, which the FBI knew was untrue.
Flynn was ousted from his position in February 2017 after news broke that Obama administration officials had warned the White House that Flynn had indeed discussed sanctions with Kislyak and was vulnerable to blackmail. He pleaded guilty months later to a false statement charge.
But Flynn later sought to withdraw his guilty plea, saying federal prosecutors had acted in “bad faith” and broken their end of the bargain when they sought prison time for him.
The Justice Department in 2020 moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the FBI had no basis to interview Flynn about Kislyak and that any statements he made during the interview were not material to the FBI’s broader counterintelligence probe.
Flynn was pardoned by Trump in November 2020, ending the court case and the legal wrangling.
In his lawsuit, Flynn maintained his innocence and said he was targeted by the “virulently anti-Trump leadership” of the FBI’s Russia investigation. He contended that investigators pursued him despite knowing there was no evidence of a crime and coerced his guilty plea.
“He was falsely branded as a traitor to his country, lost at least tens of millions of dollars of business opportunities and future lifetime earning potential, was maliciously prosecuted and spent substantial monies in his own defense,” says the lawsuit, adding that Flynn will continue to suffer “mental and emotional pain.”
Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory in Foreign Aid Fight 🇺🇸
x
Pause
Unmute
Remaining Time -9:45
Picture-in-PictureFullscreen
Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory in Foreign Aid Fight ⚖️🇺🇸
In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a major victory for former President Donald Trump in a dispute over foreign aid policy—marking a decision that could reshape how executive power is exercised in international assistance programs.
⚖️ A High-Stakes Legal Battle
The case centered on the authority of the executive branch to control, redirect, or limit foreign aid funds approved by Congress. At the heart of the dispute was a broader constitutional question: how much discretion does a president have when it comes to implementing foreign policy through financial assistance?
Trump’s legal team argued that the president must retain flexibility in foreign aid decisions to respond to rapidly changing global conditions and protect U.S. interests. Opponents, however, maintained that Congress holds the power of the purse, and that executive actions should not override legislative intent.
🏛️ The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with Trump’s position, reinforcing the idea that the executive branch has significant authority in managing foreign aid distribution, particularly when tied to national security and diplomatic strategy.
The ruling suggests that presidents may have broader discretion than previously interpreted, especially in situations where foreign aid is closely linked to geopolitical priorities.
🌍 Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
This decision could have far-reaching consequences, including:
Expanding presidential control over foreign assistance programs
Allowing faster responses to international crises without lengthy congressional processes
Potentially shifting the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress
Supporters of the ruling argue it strengthens the president’s ability to conduct effective foreign policy. Critics warn it could reduce oversight and weaken checks and balances.
🗣️ Reactions Across the Political Spectrum
The ruling has sparked strong reactions from both sides of the political aisle.
Supporters view it as a necessary affirmation of executive authority in global affairs
Critics express concern about the precedent it sets for future administrations
Legal analysts note that the decision may influence not only current policy debates but also future cases involving presidential powers.
🔍 What Comes Next?
While the ruling resolves this particular dispute, it raises new questions about how foreign aid decisions will be handled moving forward. Congress may seek to clarify or reinforce its role through legislation, while future administrations could test the limits of this expanded authority.
🧭 The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a major moment in the ongoing debate over presidential power, particularly in the realm of foreign policy and aid.
As the implications unfold, one thing is clear:
The balance between executive flexibility and congressional oversight is entering a new phase.
👇 What’s your take—should presidents have more control over foreign aid, or should Congress maintain tighter oversight?
Tom Homan Says Those Who Don’t Leave Will Be Found and Removed
BORDER CZAR TOM HOMAN SAYS ILLEGALS WHO DON'T LEAVE “WILL BE HUNTED DOWN”! DO YOU SUPPORT TOM HOMAN?
A strong statement from former border official Tom Homan is sparking intense debate across the country. In recent remarks, Homan emphasized a hardline approach to immigration enforcement, saying that individuals who remain in the country unlawfully and refuse to comply with removal orders would face serious consequences.
According to Homan, the issue comes down to what he calls “common sense enforcement.” He argues that laws must be upheld consistently, and that failing to enforce immigration rules undermines the system as a whole.
His comments reflect a broader perspective shared by many who believe stricter enforcement is necessary to maintain order and national security.
However, not everyone agrees with this approach. Critics say that such language is too aggressive and raises concerns about how enforcement policies could affect communities and families.
Advocacy groups continue to call for more balanced solutions, including immigration reform, clearer pathways, and humanitarian considerations.
The debate highlights a larger national conversation—how to balance border security with compassion, law enforcement with fairness, and policy with real human impact.
As opinions remain deeply divided, one question continues to trend online:
👉 Do you support Tom Homan’s stance on immigration enforcement, or do you believe a different approach is needed?
Former President George W. Bus h recent
Former President George W. Bush grimaced as the ball bounced, and millions laughed. They didn’t know the truth. They didn’t see the scar, the fusion, the quiet agony under the stadium lights. His daughter finally broke the silence, hinting at the cost of that single throw, the hidden surgery, the pride, the pai
When George W. Bush walked to the mound for the World Series opener, most viewers saw only a former president reliving a famous ritual. What they missed was the stiffness in his stride, the guarded way he moved his shoulders, the subtle calculation of a man testing the limits of a surgically repaired back. Months earlier, he had undergone fusion surgery on his lower spine, the kind of operation that changes the way you stand, sit, and sleep—let alone throw from a major-league mound.
Jenna Bush Hager’s defense of her father was less about excuses and more about context: the courage it takes to step into a stadium after being rebuilt with screws and rods. His spokesperson confirmed the surgery but emphasized his nature—he doesn’t complain, he just shows up. One awkward, bouncing pitch became something else entirely: not a failure, but proof that recovery doesn’t erase the will to stand in the spotlight, pain and all.
Former President George W. Bush grimaced as the ball bounced, and millions laughed. They didn’t know the truth. They didn’t see the scar, the fusion, the quiet agony under the stadium lights. His daughter finally broke the silence, hinting at the cost of that single throw, the hidden surgery, the pride, the pai
When George W. Bush walked to the mound for the World Series opener, most viewers saw only a former president reliving a famous ritual. What they missed was the stiffness in his stride, the guarded way he moved his shoulders, the subtle calculation of a man testing the limits of a surgically repaired back. Months earlier, he had undergone fusion surgery on his lower spine, the kind of operation that changes the way you stand, sit, and sleep—let alone throw from a major-league mound.
Jenna Bush Hager’s defense of her father was less about excuses and more about context: the courage it takes to step into a stadium after being rebuilt with screws and rods. His spokesperson confirmed the surgery but emphasized his nature—he doesn’t complain, he just shows up. One awkward, bouncing pitch became something else entirely: not a failure, but proof that recovery doesn’t erase the will to stand in the spotlight, pain and all.
“Age Isn’t a Punchline”: David Muir’s Calm Response to a Public Insult Turns an Awkward Moment Into a Viral Lesson on Confidence- thuytram
A tense public exchange quickly transformed into one of the most widely discussed moments online after a sarcastic remark directed at veteran journalist David Muir unexpectedly backfired, turning what appeared to be an attempted insult into a powerful statement about experience, professionalism, and resilience.
The moment reportedly began when a speaker identified in viral posts as Erika Kirk addressed Muir with a dismissive comment referencing his age, a line that instantly drew murmurs from the audience and created an uncomfortable pause inside the auditorium.
According to descriptions circulating online, Kirk delivered the remark with visible confidence, apparently expecting laughter or applause from parts of the crowd as she attempted to frame the comment as a sharp rhetorical jab.
For several seconds, Muir said nothing.
Observers noted that instead of reacting emotionally, the longtime broadcast journalist leaned back slightly in his chair and watched the moment unfold with the composed demeanor of someone accustomed to high-pressure public environments.
The quiet pause stretched longer than many in the room expected, creating a sense of suspense as the audience waited to see whether the respected news anchor would respond at all.
Muir has spent decades covering major global events, anchoring broadcasts that often involve complicated political developments, humanitarian crises, and intense public scrutiny.
That experience appeared to shape his reaction, as he allowed the initial shock of the remark to dissipate before addressing the audience directly.
When he finally stood, those present described the atmosphere as shifting instantly from awkwardness to anticipation.
With the microphone in hand, Muir faced the crowd calmly and began speaking in a measured tone that contrasted sharply with the sarcastic remark that had prompted the moment.
Rather than responding with anger or retaliation, he chose to address the subject directly, turning the comment about age into a broader reflection on experience and professional commitment.
“I’m proud of every one of my fifty-two years,” he said, according to accounts shared by attendees and viewers who later discussed the moment online.
The statement, delivered without hesitation or defensiveness, immediately reframed the conversation.
What had been intended as a belittling remark suddenly became the starting point for a discussion about the value of experience and perseverance in public life.
Muir continued by emphasizing that every year of his career represented lessons learned while reporting on events that shaped communities and nations around the world.
For him, age was not a weakness but evidence of the long journey required to build credibility in journalism.
Audience members later said the room fell silent during his remarks, as the tone of the exchange shifted from confrontation to reflection.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/Erika-Kirk908-120325-13dafeecb75e422593a7db016e001512.jpg)
Instead of escalating the conflict, Muir’s response appeared to disarm it entirely.
He explained that the years referenced in the comment represented time spent witnessing history firsthand, covering stories that mattered, and striving to inform audiences with accuracy and integrity.
The message resonated strongly with many in attendance because it highlighted a fundamental reality about professional life: experience accumulates through persistence and dedication rather than instant recognition.
For journalists especially, credibility is often built slowly through years of reporting, verifying information, and maintaining public trust during moments when accurate news is most needed.
Muir’s calm response therefore carried meaning beyond the immediate exchange, touching on broader themes about professionalism and respect in public discourse.
Applause reportedly began quietly before spreading through the room as audience members reacted to the unexpected direction the moment had taken.
Instead of a heated confrontation, the exchange concluded with a reminder that dignity and composure can sometimes speak louder than any quick retort.
Within hours, summaries of the moment began circulating across social media platforms, where users debated the significance of the exchange and praised Muir’s restrained response.
Some commentators described it as a masterclass in handling public criticism, pointing out that responding calmly often carries more impact than matching an opponent’s aggression.
Others argued that the moment illustrated a larger cultural issue regarding how age and experience are sometimes treated in modern public conversation.
In an era that frequently celebrates youth and rapid success, the idea that longevity in a profession represents strength rather than weakness resonated strongly with many viewers.
Supporters of Muir highlighted his long career in broadcast journalism, which has included reporting from disaster zones, political conventions, and international conflicts.
Those experiences, they argued, demonstrate the kind of resilience and dedication that cannot be replicated quickly or easily.
Critics of the viral framing, however, cautioned that stories circulating online often amplify dramatic moments while overlooking the broader context of the event in which they occurred.
They noted that public exchanges can appear more confrontational when condensed into short narratives designed for viral sharing.
Even so, the widespread reaction to Muir’s response revealed how strongly audiences respond to moments that highlight professionalism and personal dignity.
Rather than focusing solely on the original insult, many viewers found themselves discussing the broader message about confidence and self-respect.
Media analysts say such moments resonate because they offer a rare example of public disagreement resolving through composure rather than escalation.
In an environment where confrontations often become louder and more polarized, a calm reply can stand out precisely because it defies expectations.
Muir’s words also served as a reminder that the meaning of age changes depending on perspective.
To some, a number may appear as a convenient punchline.
To others, it represents decades of perseverance, growth, and accumulated wisdom.
By reframing the remark in that way, Muir shifted the conversation away from personal criticism and toward a broader reflection on professional values.
The audience reaction suggested that many people recognized the significance of that shift.
Moments earlier, the room had been filled with tension and uncertainty.
After his remarks, the atmosphere reportedly felt very different — calmer, more reflective, and even appreciative.
In the days following the exchange, the story continued circulating online as users shared excerpts and commentary praising the response as an example of confidence under pressure.
Some viewers described it as a reminder that insults often reveal more about the person delivering them than about the individual being targeted.
Others simply appreciated the way the moment turned an attempted humiliation into an affirmation of self-respect.
Regardless of how the exchange is ultimately remembered, it highlights an enduring truth about public life.
The most powerful responses are not always the loudest or the fastest.
Sometimes they arrive quietly, delivered with patience and clarity by someone who understands exactly who they are and what their journey has meant.
May you like
In that sense, the moment served as more than a clever comeback.
It became a brief but memorable lesson in resilience, professionalism, and the quiet confidence that comes from years spent doing meaningful work.
