Barr Tells Congress Rats To Pound Sand

[AntonToo]

^mental desease or some sort of really stupid joke?

 

[Lesh]

Stop trolling fool

 

[easyt65]

I've done PLENTY of research on it, and only in your right wing conspiracy circle jerk sites, are regurgitating uncorroborated bull crud....

Evidently NOT ENOUGH.

FBI Refuses Records Request For CNN Contacts Before Roger Stone Raid

FBI Rejects Request for Emails with CNN on the Day of Roger Stone Raid

FBI Refuses FOIA Request for Emails to CNN Before Roger Stone Arrest, Gives Nonsensical Excuse

"You’ll probably recall the dramatic arrest of Roger Stone. For some reason the FBI (and Robert Mueller’s team) thought it necessary to act like they were taking down a drug kingpin, complete with SWAT teams and guns drawn. This was all highly unusual given Stone had no passport, was not a flight risk, and then was immediately released on bail anyway.

The indication here is that Mueller wanted to make a show of it. That appearance was reinforced by the magical attendance of a CNN news crew that just happened to know the exact day and time of the arrest.

While CNN made the ridiculous claim that they just got lucky"


Yeah, CNN JUST HAPPENED to have a full camera crew out driving around in Roger Stone's neighborhood when they noticed several FBI 'SWAT' vehicles being driven by heavily armored agents, followed them to Stone's House, and were the only media on-hand as the FBI 'took down' this highly dangerous criminal with such a display of force / power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE FUCKING THING

I never said Mueller DID exonerate him. I asked you to show me where BARR exonerated him. So clearly, the problem is that you don't understand English the instant something is said that isn't what you want to hear, kinda like my Chinese mother-in-law.

This has been another not-at-all-fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trump Derangement mental case who's frothing at the mouth while his eyes roll in opposite directions and screaming, "If you don't want Trump dead, you're a TRUMPSTER!!!! Nothing else exists!!!! Aaaaarrrrgghh!!!"

The problem isn't that I'm a "Trumpster", you 1-digit-IQ shitforbrains. I don't like the guy. The problem is that every time you open your drooling cakehole, you make Trump look rational, intelligent, and classy. So congratulations on being a bigger shitstain than the guy you're obsessed with hating.

1. I was replying in the first half to smoke-a-lib, not you.


2. YOU ARE STILL NOT READING. Mueller didn’t clear Trump on Obstruction BUT BARR DID.

Here it is since you can’t find it:

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

That's not clearing him, moron, any more than it was when Mueller said essentially the same thing (and that IS what Mueller said, and Mueller's report IS the reason Barr said it.)

You're still not thinking. Really need to clear that "We MUST get Trump!!!" obsession you have. They have meds for that.

Wow you are a straight up moron unable to admit when you are 100% wrong, in plain black and white words of Barr’s letter.

Nothing to do with anyone’s “thinking” it’s just facts.

Nothing you say has anything to do with thinking, that's for damned sure.

I guess it saves time when you just decide what "reality" is ahead of time, and then interpret all evidence through that prism. It's not factual, sane, or even remotely intelligent, but I can see those things carry little value for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

If you believe the SC is going to rule in favor of the AG releasing the unredacted Muller report to Congress you are fucking delusional.
They KNOW Shit For Brains would leak the report the NYT within 10 minutes of him getting a copy of the report.
So does everyone in Washington!

You are the one who is delusional. The Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution and that is all. Whether it is leaked is none of their concern.

You are the one who is delusional if you think the Supreme Court can uphold the Constitution without caring about leaked information that violates people's Constitutional rights. Your partisanship is making you rabid.

 

[Lesh]

Nothing you say has anything to do with thinking, that's for damned sure.

I guess it saves time when you just decide what "reality" is ahead of time, and then interpret all evidence through that prism. It's not factual, sane, or even remotely intelligent, but I can see those things carry little value for you.

Hey dumbass...Barr's own words from his first of four stupid press releases
'
"does not exonerate"

I bet you wear sneakers with velcro closures...those shoelaces are tough on "slow" folks

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

"You need to learn about the law and the Constitution. I'm not going to cite either to prove my point, however. I'm just going to chant the words and hope you believe me that that means they agree with me."

Without an actual citation of the "law and Constitution" we "need to learn" to see how right you are . . . you aren't. Call us when you can prove you're correct, rather than just telling us that you can prove it.

77% of people want a lot of stupid shit that's not actually viable in real life. Pretty sure adherence to the law is not decided by popular opinion polls in this country.

You are the one who is ignorant in regards to the Constitution. Again you need to learn from Watergate. A President cannot withhold documents from Congress. It clearly proves that there is something in the report that Trump does not want the public to see what is in the report.

"You are ignorant because you disagree with me, and I'm sure the Constitution agrees because I REALLY WANT IT." Uh huh.

Please show me where the Constitution says that Congress has absolute power over the Executive Branch, and an absolute right to any and all documents, regardless of any and all circumstances, and immunity to the strictures of laws. Because I can show you where you're wrong on every count.

Again, you need to get over thinking that yelling, "Watergate! So THERE!" is a definitive argument.

All this clearly proves is that you decided Trump was guilty of SOMETHING, then decided that anything and everything that happened must be examined in service to the conclusion you wanted, instead of the other way around. If there were something in the report that contradicted Mueller's conclusions that there was no evidence of collusion, and insufficient evidence of obstruction, he wouldn't have made those conclusions. And if those weren't the conclusions he made, then he certainly would not be sitting quietly and letting Barr say they were.

I get that you are never going to let go of "Trump is GUILTY, because I WANT him to be guilty!" but you're going to have to let go of insisting that Mueller is going to make it true for you, if only because you don't want to end up in a rubber room, wearing a wraparound jacket.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What will they do when he ignores it? Take it to the courts? The Law says what it says, and Barr is following it.

The laws do not apply to Congress. They have the duty of oversight of the executive branch and being able to subpoena those documents are a part of that oversight. This is not a active investigation anymore so there is no excuse for not allowing Congress to see them. They have the security clearances so that is not a issue.

You might want to check out the law and what IT says about keeping grand jury proceedings confidential before you breezily assert that "there's no reason". And security clearances are not the issue (not to mention that half of those media whores shouldn't have security clearances, because they can't be trusted to keep jack shit to themselves if they think they can score a headline).

You might learn that there are numerous exceptions to this and Congress has access as part of their oversight. Watergate established the rights that Congress has to subpoena documents from the Executive branch.

I might learn it, but not from your posts full of assertion without evidence. Don't even go there with "Watergate established". No one has suggested that Congress can't subpoena things, but if you really knew anything about the laws that you love to claim would support you if we just go do YOUR homework and look up YOUR evidence to back YOUR assertion for you, you would know that Congress has to be able to show reasonable, lawful cause to subpoena when challenged. Right now, I can't think of a single reason why Congress needs to see the items that would require redaction under the law, which means the AG is not only within his rights to challenge their subpoena, he's also in the moral and ethical right to do so.

There are numerous reasons why Congress should have access to the unredacted report.
1. The report could form the basis of a action of impeachment against Donald Trump.
2. It could be the basis for new legislation preventing a future President from doing what Trump did.
3. When the redacted report is released, the Congress has the right to determine whether the redactions were legal or a attempt to coverup facts that are detrimental to Trump.

There are numerous reasons why Congress has no right to the unredacted report, and also why it shouldn't have access to it.

1) If the report formed any sort of real basis of an impeachment, it would have concluded that there was sufficient evidence for prosecution. It didn't.
2) If Congress wants to legislate something, it can do so whenever it likes, on any basis it likes or no basis at all. I can't even begin to imagine what scenario you've cooked up in your overheated fantasies that would have Congress frantic to legislate based on the sort of information that has to be redacted by law.
3) Please show me where Congress is the body which decides the validity of redactions made under laws applicable to and enforced by the Executive Branch. And don't bother shouting, "Oversight!" at me again, because I will just advise you to look into the "separation of powers" concept.

Maybe it would save everyone a lot of time if you stopped fapping to daydreams of "I'll bet the redactions contain dirt on Trump" and go look up the actual law in play and see what is being redacted and why.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

"We got one decision in our favor 50 years ago, so that means we can have anything we want forever!"

No.

There is an excellent case to be made that this situation is different in multiple respects from that situation, which means that the fate of the overreaching subpoena can and should be decided strictly as a stand-alone case, on its own merits.

The situation is no different. The White House tried to withhold damaging information from a lawful Congressional investigation. Barr may attempt to use redaction to hide damaging information from the Congress. That is why they have a right to see the unredacted report to make that determination.

The situation is very different. Already explained why. Try going back and reading it, rather than just skipping the whole thread to shout, "I'm right because I want to be! This is the only reality I will accept EVER!" over and over. You aren't worthy of a repetition.

If there was "damaging information", you mindless, drooling partisan twat, Mueller's conclusions would have been different, wouldn't they? Uh duuuuhhh. HE saw all the evidence, didn't he? If what you so desperately, pathetically cling to believing existed, it would constitute prosecutable evidence, and he'd have said so. And he didn't. So all this amounts to is a frenzied, insane demand to be allowed to dig for more dirt without regard to piddly things like laws or the rights of the people involved, not that self-absorbed, unhinged leftists have ever given two shits about that stuff, anyway.

There is no scenario in which you do not need some heavy-duty psych meds, industrial-strength therapy, and an actual life. I've seen homeless people ranting about the end being nigh who are more rational than you are at this point.

 

[jc456]

...because, according to you, Mueller and his 19 lawyers will NOT step forward to expose Barr's manipulation and false reporting of his report if Barr releases a false / doctored report.

of course they won't come out on their own, the rules dictate, that they do not....they follow the rules... unless they are subpoenaed by congress, then they will have to tell what's in it.... behind closed doors.

Why are you so wigged out and against the American citizenry on this? Full Transparency, (outside of top secret classified stuff) is a good thing, for everyone...

75%-80% of the public, wants to see the full Mueller report..... that includes BOTH Republicans and Democrats, and those unaffiliated.

Approximately 70% of voters who approve of Trump also want the full report released.

yep, once it is redacted for the legal issues.

 

[jc456]

if Barr continues to distort and cover up for the president,

Barr may get disbarred...

what would be the charge?

 

[jc456]

Obstruction of what? He's following the law, isn't he?

Barr is technically acting within the law. True. He is not however prevented by law from releasing the Report. He is taking advantage of the law (like the weasel lawyer he is) to obstruct the release of that report...just as he said he would in his job application letter to Trump.

A subpoena has just been issued by Congress and refusing to honor that subpoena will put him on the WRONG side of the law

"Technically within the law" is synonymous with "within the law." A number of laws prevent him from releasing the unredacted report. You already know what they are. It's actually Congress who is on the wrong side of the law. Barr can tell Congress to pound sand, and there isn't a thing they can do about it.

Absolutely false.

I'd ask you to cite those laws but you don't know what you're yammering about so that would be pointless

well just post the one that backs your thought.

 

[jc456]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

they have absolutely zero authority over the executive branch. sorry.

 

[jc456]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

there are no laws, amendments or regulations for any of that.

 

[beautress]

My sources say Manafort was convicted of Bank Fraud, not collusion. He worked for 4 administrations as a foreign relations specialist. I would like to see your source because My sources didn't mention any collusion by him. If he did bad things without authorization, then I am not surprised that he received an instant pink slip even if his information was turned down.

Edit I just found your link, thanks. However, this is not showing any collusion:

Paul Manafort: Prosecutors accused Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering.

Your Politifact source: Here's all of the charges from Mueller's Russia probe​

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data during the 2016 presidential campaign with a business associate accused of having ties to Russian intelligence, and prosecutors say he lied to them about it, according to a court filing Tuesday.

Manafort Gave 2016 Polling Data To Russian Tied to Intel Services

While he was not charged with collusion, he was charged with lying about that fact. If true then that would be strong evidence of collusion.

Oh, the irony. Not a person in the room would vote for someone who refused any conversation with the other world powers. Not one of us would, likely. So there was conversation you say with Manafort, a man whose entire career was built on communicating with foreigners--friend and foe alike, who served as needed to help several administrations in this nation to avert bad situations for America? The difference between the two candidates came straight down to this: President Trump did not collude with any enemy of the state nor act on anything his people set before him. On the other hand, evidence has surfaced that Obama and Clinton had a hand in framing President Trump by trying to get the Russians to do as they told them--set him up. Where's a special council on them and their players in the House and Senate?

​

And they're going to American political Hades in the very near future. Because after two years of being in the Democrat-prepped frying pan and surviving it, President Trump is not going to let the primary criminals off the hook even though one is a former United States President, and the other is a former First Lady, Head of the Clinton War Room, Democrat Senator, and Secretary of State who made Executive Office decisions when Obama was too high to.

You have no idea the graft. Right now, Hillary has issued her wish to go after President Trump over the failed, failed, failed, Obama Care Pact that robs working taxpayers to pay bums off the systems whose only work is using their Damn Obama phones to call people and spread hubris everywhere about Republicans who are the workers in this nation, supporters of every right and good cause including equal work for equal pay, monitors of the anti-Semites and free-spending Democrat Congress varmits like Steal-tax-money-and-up-yours-AOC and Propagandist-extraordinaire Nancy Pelosi. And there's some bad news ahead for those who participated in taking down President Trump using Russians and British assistance to do so. Their crime: Conspiracy to commit collusion by any means necessary with foreign and domestic people with an agenda to hurt America or reap our GNP wealth to their coffers for nothing in return. How sicko is that.

In other words, the most important people in YOUR party ganged up and conspired to destroy a sitting American President, calling him what they actually and in fact are: Traitors to the American People, Wannabe destroyers of the United States Constitution, and flat-out criminals.

Good people are sick of all the political dirty tricksters like Propagandist-fuhrer Pelosi, Sheister-in-Chief-power-player Schumer, Hatemonger Brennan, Clapper the Lying Sneak, Obama's Brain Manager-and-Sicko-Mastermind Hillary Clinton, Hillary's in-fact Slave, Barack Obama, Water-carrier Shifty Adam Schiff, Criminal Hate-breeder-and-falsetto-scenario-creator-promotional-specialist Diane Feinstein, Constitution-hatemonger Maxine Waters, serial-Skirt-chaser Joe Biden, on and on and more on. Laws of Mercy.

It's too bad Hillary didn't save any clorine bleach she used to erase her ever-incriminating emails for the rest of us to clean her now stinking butt-cover and paranoia that someone will trace her criminal activities all the way back to her wielding an AK-47 at Yale University.

In fact, Hillary is so certain nobody will guess she and Obama colluded with the Russian government to procure dirt on President Trump, she dissed President Trump for "collusion" when she spoke at Yale's last graduation ceremony. Now, information is surfacing that she's neck deep in using a conspiracy to commit collusion with British and Russian spies, using the FBI to engage in Deep State carryings-on. Here's her crowing shame, projecting DNC dirty tricks to be Trumps. Projecting is that habit of blaming your adversary for your own doings. It's bad like this:

Hillary, so sure nobody will guess she colluded, she tried to
shame President Trump at Yale last year by showing off a Russian hat.
It's the apex of arrogance committed by Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
She may have to get used to replace herself in Manafort's cell.​

 

[beautress]

How Hillary Colluded. She sold out America to giving to Putin and the Russians massive amount of America's uranium for $145 million to the Clinton foundation.

So thirty pieces of silver for Hillary pursuing personal wealth by selling out American people is now $145 million dollars to a hostile Putin and his plans for Russian dominance of the world. She's the creep that brought "It takes a village to raise a child" baloney (communism) to the free country, the United States of America.

Why are we paying for this?

Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation Enrichment

​

 

[Care4all]

No Jim, that's a right wing LIE.
He confessed and plead guilty, because he DID LIE to the FBI about talking with the Russian Ambassador about removing sanctions....

Robert Mueller releases memo summarizing interview with Michael Flynn - CNNPolitics

Whether the FBI decided Flynn was lying at that moment has become a touch point in President Donald Trump's recent attacks on the Mueller investigation. Trump has latched on to whether Mueller pursued Flynn on a criminal charge at odds with the FBI's initial findings. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok's participation in the Flynn interview -- and the fact that Flynn was not warned he could be prosecuted for lying and had no lawyer in the room with him when he met with the FBI at the White House -- has also cast political shadows on the case.
Trump has alleged the FBI determined that day that Flynn hadn't lied. Yet the memo from January 24, 2017, that was released Monday night does not say the FBI agents made any determinations at that time. The memo only outlines what Flynn said in a straightforward manner.
The subsequent criminal complaint, filed by Mueller's office in December 2017, outlined how Flynn's retelling of the conversations was wrong.​

Even Strojk said he did not believe that Flynn intended to lie that day as he recounted, without preparation, a 12 month old conversation.

But he has been ruined for it anyway because of political partisanship.

Jim, that pig don't fly... no one in the world knew more than Gen Flynn, that lying to the FBI is a crime...

he tried to pull off that Trump talk bull crap in court and the judge nearly sent him to prison for 10 more years.... I kid you not...

and one of the reasons he has not been sent yet, is because the judge, after he tried to play his Trump talk crybaby move and chewed him up and spit him out, she showed mercy on him, and said he needed to think about finding a way to cooperate with the special counsel MORE than he did already.... or he could be sentenced right then.... he came out of his lawyer conference with his tail between legs begging for more time before she sentenced him, for him to cooperate more and profusely apologized for his lawyers trying to pull that bull shit, that he didn't know he should not have lied to the FBI and blamed his lawyers for trying that angle, more or less....

the transcripts of the court hearing is out there on the net, available for you to read....

As far as the FBI interview... they DID NOT SAY he DID NOT LIE, what the FBI reported, was that he showed no PHYSICAL SIGNS of lying.... rapid eye movements, blinks, sweating type stuff.... that simply could mean he was a pathological liar... at ease with lying.... because they HAVE THE RECORDINGS of the Russian Ambassador Operative's calls... including all of Flynn's calls to him...

Flynn lied thru his teeth Jim...

AND the FBI interview/transcript with him is also out on the net, the FBI gave him multiple chances to correct his lies...YES, they did....

 

[Care4all]

^mental desease or some sort of really stupid joke?

RUSSIAN AGENT? they probably have a copy???

Come to think of it...damn! Where's Russia and their hackers, and wikileaks, when you really need them? j/k

#MuellerReport

 

[Care4all]

if Barr continues to distort and cover up for the president,

Barr may get disbarred...

what would be the charge?

i just liked the line, because it rhymed!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim, that pig don't fly... no one in the world knew more than Gen Flynn, that lying to the FBI is a crime...

he tried to pull off that Trump talk bull crap in court and the judge nearly sent him to prison for 10 more years.... I kid you not...

and one of the reasons he has not been sent yet, is because the judge, after he tried to play his Trump talk crybaby move and chewed him up and spit him out, she showed mercy on him, and said he needed to think about finding a way to cooperate with the special counsel MORE than he did already.... or he could be sentenced right then.... he came out of his lawyer conference with his tail between legs begging for more time before she sentenced him, for him to cooperate more and profusely apologized for his lawyers trying to pull that bull shit, that he didn't know he should not have lied to the FBI and blamed his lawyers for trying that angle, more or less....

the transcripts of the court hearing is out there on the net, available for you to read....

As far as the FBI interview... they DID NOT SAY he DID NOT LIE, what the FBI reported, was that he showed no PHYSICAL SIGNS of lying.... rapid eye movements, blinks, sweating type stuff.... that simply could mean he was a pathological liar... at ease with lying.... because they HAVE THE RECORDINGS of the Russian Ambassador Operative's calls... including all of Flynn's calls to him...

Flynn lied thru his teeth Jim...

AND the FBI interview/transcript with him is also out on the net, the FBI gave him multiple chances to correct his lies...YES, they did....

You guys keep telling yourselves that but lying to the FBI is not always a crime. It is if you are in an official interview for the purposes of an investigation. There is no crime in a woman lying to the FBI about her age in some informal 'no big deal' conversation. It's not as if the FBI agents have some law that mandates everyone tell FBI agents the truth at all times no matter when or where.

And Flynn was in charge of some classified information, which discussions with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions etc, would be classified material. So Flynn actually had a legal obligation to lie about anything they had no justifiable cause to hear or read. To get Flynn to tell them the classified stuff, they had to tell them that they had a need to know as part of an official investigation AND THEY DID NOT DO THAT. They are also obligated to tell that person that IN THAT SETTING any lie to them would be a crime and, again, they failed to do so.

Mueller releases key documents of FBI interview with Michael Flynn

The documents – some of which are heavily redacted – were released in response to U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordering prosecutors to hand over the government's files related to the FBI’s questioning of Flynn by Friday afternoon. The order came after Flynn's legal team said in a filing that the FBI discouraged Flynn from bringing a lawyer to the interview and agents never advised him false statements in that setting could constitute a crime. The newly released documents confirm those claims.

The documents include then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s notes after talking with Flynn to arrange his interview with the FBI. It also includes a so-called "302" report documenting what Flynn told anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and one other agent during their conversation at the White House. That July 2017 report, though, specifically came from an interview with Strzok in which the Flynn encounter was discussed -- and not the original Flynn interview. It was unclear why no "302" report from the interview itself was included.

The 302 report stated that Strzok and the other agent “both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”​

Now you can keep pretending that a major officer for an administration that handled classified information should always spill their guts if an FBI agent ever asks them a question, but that assertion is plainly ludicrous on its face.

I deal with classified information as part of my job, and for me to give someone a false statement regarding that information is not illegal or morally a lie as these people do not have a justified reason to know that classified information. Flynn's deceptions were justified as he did not know he was being asked as part of a criminal investigation. Period. He did not lie to the FBI in the context of his job to protect classified information, and Trump is right to say Flynn did not lie to the FBI. Flynn got fired for lying to the VP Pence.

More strangeness about that interview is here.

As to the FBI doing shit like that, they do it all the time. The Richard Jewel case is one of the most outrageous cases of FBI deception to entrap a person.

American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell

Within minutes, Don Johnson and Diader Rosario knocked on Jewell's door. They exuded sincerity, Jewell recalled. "They told me they wanted me to come with them to headquarters to help them make a training film to be used at Quantico," he said. Johnson played to Jewell's pride. Despite the reporters in the parking lot and the call from Anthony Davis, Jewell had no doubt that they were telling the truth. He drove the short distance to F.B.I. headquarters in Buckhead in his own truck, but he noticed that four cars were following him. "The press is on us," Jewell told Johnson when they arrived. "No, those are our guys," Johnson told him. This tactic would continue through the next 88 days and be severely criticized: Why would you have an armada of surveillance vehicles stacked up on a suspected bomber?

It was then that Jewell started to wonder why he was at the F.B.I., but he followed Johnson and Rosario inside. ...

As Jewell sat in a small office, he wondered why the cameraman recording the interview was staring at him so intently. After an hour, Johnson was called out of the room. When he returned, he said to Jewell, "Let's pretend that none of this happened. You are going to come in and start over, and by the way, we want you to fill out this waiver of rights."

"At that moment a million things were going through my head," Jewell told me. "You don't give anyone a waiver of rights unless they are being investigated. I said, 'I need to contact my attorney,' and then all of a sudden it was an instant change. 'What do you need to contact your attorney for? You didn't do anything. We thought you were a hero. Is there something you want to tell us about?'" Jewell grew increasingly apprehensive and later recalled thinking, These guys think I did this.

When the agents took a break, Jewell asked to use the phone. "I called Watson four times. I called his brother. I told his parents that I had to get hold of Watson—it was urgent. I was, like, 'I have to speak to him right now.' What was going on was that Washington was on the phone with Atlanta. The people in Washington were giving them questions." Jewell said he knew this because the videotapes in the cameras were two hours long and "Johnson and Rosario would leave every 30 minutes, like they had to speak on the phone." The O.P.R. report, however, would assert that no one at headquarters knew about the videotaping or the training-film ruse. Lying to get a statement out of a suspect is, in fact, not illegal, but clearly Johnson and Rosario were not making decisions on their own. Even the procedure of having a fleet of cars follow a suspect was an intimidation tactic used by the F.B.I. Later, according to Jewell, Johnson and Rosario would both tell him privately that they believed he was innocent, but that the investigation was being run by the "highest levels in Washington."​

So Jewel had saved a whole bunch of lives and the FBI treated him like Ossama binLaden and tried to entrap him.

So lets not pretend the FBI would not deceive Flynn here; that is their MO.