Breaking News:Flynn Case Being Dropped

[colfax_m]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.

he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.

weak.

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ssuming he was getting anything, of course.

A fair assumption for the "great deal breaker"...err, "maker", who views everything as transactional.

 

[beautress]

I bet Trump puts Flynn back in at NSA...that would turn Obama white....

so Trump fired him because Flynn got caught, lying to the vice president ABOUT his talks with the Russian operative about the Obama sanctions for election interference, Ambassador Kislyak, then Pence passed that lie on to we the people on the Sunday talk shows....

But now, that's all A-OK.... lying to the vice president is now hunky dorey and Flynn being a liar does not matter and he's gonna be put in charge of our National Security?

Really? That seems just plain wrong, and scummy, and crooked.....

Nope...Trump fired him because Pence told him that Flynn lied to him....but the FBI told Pence that Flynn lied and that was a lie.....get it?....look at the clowns your support?....you should be ashamed of yourself....

Flynn did Lie to Pence. Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference. We have Kislyak on tape reporting back to the Kremlin, that he spoke to Flynn about the sanctions.

Stop lying, it's unbecoming.

" Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference."

So Obama met with the FBI agents to get rid of President Trump several days after the inauguration, and that was not treason? Silly girl.

No. And that is just completely nuts..... conspiracy created out of thin air.....Beautress.... with no thought, reason, or facts behind it.

Omerta is a hard conspiracy to prove, Care4all, but it's what the Democrats are doing with all their secrecy held back from the American people. Here is one of my reasons for realizing Obama is out of line with the Constitution, but it may not phase you because you are so steeped in Trump bad and Obama good. Even so, you think I have no proof of my belief that Obama was seditious. Here's just one tip of the iceberg: Why Did Obama Tell The FBI To Hide Its Activities From Trump?

Here's something for you to think over--that Mr. Comey was in contact with and continued on with "operation Hurricane," initiated by Obama and the details show it was unconstitutional. Obama was kept quite informed long before Comey was fired by President Trump in May, 2017, and the facts showed Comey's and Obama's discussions continued. You are living in a world created by monsters with the hope they will "socialize" America in spite of everything President Trump has done to conduct himself within the parameters of the United States Constitution.

In contrast, former President Barack Obama has remained in close contact with his "team" of Democrats who, no matter how hard they tried, could not bring their hopes of finding that needle in the haystack they could doom President Trump's executive powers. And they had conspiratorial assistance from Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, whose every breath was spent doing all the damage she could to the people's choice of having President Trump and not Hillary Clinton occupying the Oval Office. Hillary can never run again for paying for the Steel Dossier to bring about a lie her War Room dreamed up with "pee and prostitutes" lies. And you support these Class A Criminals and their deeds of salacious sedition against the innocent man that President Trump is. They even had their minions build a website that alleges President Trump has lied umpteen thousand times, which in and of itself is one of the largest hoodwinks committed in American history.

I want you to know that Socialism was the choice of names for both the Bolsheviks of Russia who created a large Communist country as well as the Socialists of Hitler who never had the opportunity of using the Communist title, since they have been competitors for power with Russia that goes back for at least a thousand years, as noted by the number of times countries in between the two have been either under Germany or under Russia, who ever won the latest war to control the people of Poland and its Slovakian neighbors. Poland has taken the brunt of the two fighting each other for power more than any other country I know of. It's history. What is a lesser discussed part of history was the total number of innocent people killed by Russia and Germany for the last thousand years they've been using the Slovakian countries of Europe to beat each other up with. We know millions died at the hands of Russia who were citizens of Russia or its satellites like the Ukraine. We know millions died at the hands of Germany's Nazis, following Wilhelm's killings of WWI and before. Another communist country is China. Their Mao Tse-Tung did away with people in China, so many in certain areas that it amounts to genocide. I shudder to think when I review links to Stalin's murder of Russian citizens and Mao's mass murders of all Chinese in areas that merely displeased him.

I don't want socialism in America. It leads to one place and one place only: genocide of dissenters.

 

[iceberg]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.

he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.

weak.

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

maybe. but you've told me to do that before too.

was it defense, or deflection at the time? where i get my own "angst" is when people tell me not to do something then turn around and do it. coyote should know this about me by now as i'm sure she's as tired of hearing it as i am tired of her trump rampage 24x7.

where we tend to go wrong is we can't talk about these anymore, we must either attack or defend; neither of which, to me, is really "talking". it's the same old shit with a different thread title.

now i'll be honest and say 90% of the time i just ignore you cause you usually have the same gruff attitude. but for all i know, i come across no better or even worse to you or others. but i do try to take that feedback when i come across in a way i really don't want to. but yea, there are times i know i'm being an ass, i just don't care for those people. i've reached my limit and know they will never change.

then you come along and usually, no. you don't. then you go do something like this and i see what i would call being reasonable and it changes my perspective. we all tend to argue from our vantage point and perspective. but i do wish we could talk more, get angry and scream a whole lot less. i can only do that for myself and just tune out the rage-noise i suppose. when push comes to shove you do tend to, it would seem, back up and explain why. not sure more can really be asked. we may never agree on many things, but if we can pull out of nosedive bullheaded arguments, maybe discussion is more possible.

and i have to admit your question is valid - why is THIS one improper other than it suits a direction at the time. is it? never really dug that much into unmasking so i am not qualified to know. your own article yesterday showed it happens a lot. questions from me then become what were the situations and why were they different; who signed off and why?

so all i can do is sit back and hope people that know and understand this can explain it in a manner that i can perhaps understand.

 

[bripat9643]

I bet Trump puts Flynn back in at NSA...that would turn Obama white....

so Trump fired him because Flynn got caught, lying to the vice president ABOUT his talks with the Russian operative about the Obama sanctions for election interference, Ambassador Kislyak, then Pence passed that lie on to we the people on the Sunday talk shows....

But now, that's all A-OK.... lying to the vice president is now hunky dorey and Flynn being a liar does not matter and he's gonna be put in charge of our National Security?

Really? That seems just plain wrong, and scummy, and crooked.....

Nope...Trump fired him because Pence told him that Flynn lied to him....but the FBI told Pence that Flynn lied and that was a lie.....get it?....look at the clowns your support?....you should be ashamed of yourself....

Flynn did Lie to Pence. Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference. We have Kislyak on tape reporting back to the Kremlin, that he spoke to Flynn about the sanctions.

Stop lying, it's unbecoming.

That wasn’t against the law. Maybe Flynn didn’t think pence should know, maybe he doesn’t like pence. Who cares .. it wasn’t against the law.

BUT lying to the FBI in an ongoing investigation, is against the law.

Shoot, McCabe only lacked candor with the IG,not even a lie, and Trump had him fired, stripped of his retirement, and urged his minions to shout LOCK HIM UP..... just FOR Mccabe lacking candor about leaking to the press that the Clinton foundation investigation was still ongoing, of which he was legally authorized to approve the leak.....

there's the law: when Trump hates someone,

and the law: for Trump's friends.....

equal justice, under the law, FOR NONE.....

"Lacked candor" means he lied, dingbat.

 

[depotoo]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.

he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.

weak.

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

maybe. but you've told me to do that before too.

was it defense, or deflection at the time? where i get my own "angst" is when people tell me not to do something then turn around and do it. coyote should know this about me by now as i'm sure she's as tired of hearing it as i am tired of her trump rampage 24x7.

where we tend to go wrong is we can't talk about these anymore, we must either attack or defend; neither of which, to me, is really "talking". it's the same old shit with a different thread title.

now i'll be honest and say 90% of the time i just ignore you cause you usually have the same gruff attitude. but for all i know, i come across no better or even worse to you or others. but i do try to take that feedback when i come across in a way i really don't want to. but yea, there are times i know i'm being an ass, i just don't care for those people. i've reached my limit and know they will never change.

then you come along and usually, no. you don't. then you go do something like this and i see what i would call being reasonable and it changes my perspective. we all tend to argue from our vantage point and perspective. but i do wish we could talk more, get angry and scream a whole lot less. i can only do that for myself and just tune out the rage-noise i suppose. when push comes to shove you do tend to, it would seem, back up and explain why. not sure more can really be asked. we may never agree on many things, but if we can pull out of nosedive bullheaded arguments, maybe discussion is more possible.

and i have to admit your question is valid - why is THIS one improper other than it suits a direction at the time. is it? never really dug that much into unmasking so i am not qualified to know. your own article yesterday showed it happens a lot. questions from me then become what were the situations and why were they different; who signed off and why?

so all i can do is sit back and hope people that know and understand this can explain it in a manner that i can perhaps understand.

A good article on it

Whatever happened to the ‘unmaskings’ probe?

What happened to the scandal in which Obama officials used foreign-surveillance authorities to spy on Americans?

thehill.com

 

[bripat9643]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

I did. It wasn’t. The biggest difference is the right wing victim complex. It’s different because it’s my tribe.

It's different because it's different. You need a compelling reason to unmask someone, like a grave threat to national security or an investigation into an actual crime. Neither applied in the case of Flynn. Furthermore, why would politicians like Biden have a valid reason for unmasking someone? Why would Samantha Power as for 300 people to be unmasked? What possible justification could there be for the ambassador to the United Nations to unmask any American?

There is clearly something fishy going on here.

 

[bripat9643]

All that's left is to screw the bad guys who pulled this travesty of justice as hard as they screwed Flynn.

Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

They are requesting it be dropped. It still needs to be adjudicated.

What the hell needs to be "adjudicated?" The DOJ has the authority to drop a case.

Derp....
He's plead guilty in federal court. He's convicted of a federal felony, dope.

He withdrew his guilty plea, so they were back to square one.

Derp....
He's already convicted, dope. He was awaiting sentencing.

No, he's not convicted. The DOJ dropped the charges. Don't you know what that means?

Gawd your a dope.
He was convicted and awaiting sentencing, dope. He plead guilty. The judge will need to vacate the conviction. If he is so inclined.

He withdrew his plea, moron. What part of that don't you understand? There is no conviction to vacate.

LOL...
Once he plead guilty and the judge signed off, he was convicted, dope. The only reason he's not behind bars is his cooperation agreement that is holding up his sentencing.

Do you imagine any convict can simply say the wish to change their plea and get out of their conviction?
Idiot

Hmmmm, no. he withdrew his plea, jackass. How many times do you have to be told?

LOL...
One must be convicted before they can be sentenced.
A convict can not simply withdraw their plea and go free, dope.

They can when exculpatory evedince is found. Moron.

LOL...
Let us know when that happens.

It happened last week. You ignoring it didn’t make it go away.

LOL...

You saying it is in no way makes it so.

The documents provided recently say you’re full of shit.

He plead guilty and is convicted. Those documents don't change that.

He plead guilty to protect his son.

So?
Why is that important?

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

That means he took a fall for his son. who has a new born son . Guess you don't have children

I do. They just don't commit federal felonies that I have to cover for.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

He didn’t commit a felony. They admitted it in the original 302 which went missing until Durham finally got hold of it.

Says who?

~~~~~~

Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped A Bombshell

The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning.

thefederalist.com

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they've...

news.yahoo.com

Neither of those links say anything about Flynn's son, dope.

View attachment 333976

None of that changes the fact that Flynn lied, was fired from the admin for doing so, was charged and pleaded guilty. Twice.

the FBI interviewers said Flynn did not lie.

the FBI interviewers said Flynn did not lie.

They did not say that at all, dope.
They said he showed no physical signs of being untruthful.

And what exactly does "no physical signs of being untruthful." mean derp head?
IF YOU AREN'T THE DOPE WHY IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DROPPING THE CHRGES AND THE fbi IN TROUBLE?

no physical signs of lying I believe can be things like this:
No stuttering, no eye blinking, no sweaty palms, no touching of your mouth, head, throat, or face, no fidgeting..... etc

You believed in the Schiff Sham
You believed in the Mueller Report,
You believed in the Steele Dossier
You believed in RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
You believed in the illegal phone call
You believed in "we must believe the woman"
YOU AIN'T BEEN RIGHT

yes, I do believe, he committed the impeachment accusations, just like Lamar Alexander....and everyone else....

Yes, I still believe the Mueller report... you should read it.

Yes, I still believe parts of the Steele dossier....

Yes, absolutely, I do believe the Russians interfered in our election process, and I do believe, without any doubt, that Trump and team accepted that Russian help, with opened arms.

Yes, there is no doubt that President Trump was trying to get the Ukrainian president involved in his personal POLITICAL goal of harming Joe Biden.

I have NEVER believed that all women should be believed.... I believe they should be heard, then we can each decided on their truthfulness or not.

Thanks for self idientifying as being terminally gullible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

 

[Rambunctious]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Ever heard of coercion?....

 

[colfax_m]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.

he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.

weak.

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

maybe. but you've told me to do that before too.

was it defense, or deflection at the time? where i get my own "angst" is when people tell me not to do something then turn around and do it. coyote should know this about me by now as i'm sure she's as tired of hearing it as i am tired of her trump rampage 24x7.

where we tend to go wrong is we can't talk about these anymore, we must either attack or defend; neither of which, to me, is really "talking". it's the same old shit with a different thread title.

now i'll be honest and say 90% of the time i just ignore you cause you usually have the same gruff attitude. but for all i know, i come across no better or even worse to you or others. but i do try to take that feedback when i come across in a way i really don't want to. but yea, there are times i know i'm being an ass, i just don't care for those people. i've reached my limit and know they will never change.

then you come along and usually, no. you don't. then you go do something like this and i see what i would call being reasonable and it changes my perspective. we all tend to argue from our vantage point and perspective. but i do wish we could talk more, get angry and scream a whole lot less. i can only do that for myself and just tune out the rage-noise i suppose. when push comes to shove you do tend to, it would seem, back up and explain why. not sure more can really be asked. we may never agree on many things, but if we can pull out of nosedive bullheaded arguments, maybe discussion is more possible.

and i have to admit your question is valid - why is THIS one improper other than it suits a direction at the time. is it? never really dug that much into unmasking so i am not qualified to know. your own article yesterday showed it happens a lot. questions from me then become what were the situations and why were they different; who signed off and why?

so all i can do is sit back and hope people that know and understand this can explain it in a manner that i can perhaps understand.

This was a very reasonable post, and I think at heart you're a very reasonable person, but tribalism and bunker mentality is affecting all of us and it really messes with our ability to have a discussion.

It happens to me too, and I have good days and bad days. More bad days it seems these days.

Asking someone why they think something is not an attack. It does prompt a defense, so maybe that's why it feels like an attack, but it's not. I come from an academic background, a place where if you say something, if you make an assertion, you damn well better be prepared to say why. I just wish we could have these conversations without being confrontational. I don't react to people just because they have a different opinion, but because they may not be basing that opinion on facts, at least not facts that they can annunciate.

One of my takeaways from this is that because of "Obamagate" or whatever we are calling it, has demonstrated that the practices of the intelligence agencies are not working well. They're broken. This is a story that's actually been on repeat for years, more or less, so it's less than surprising. The FISA court is a mess. The IG report demonstrated in March that it's not a problem limited to Carter Page. It's widespread and needs bipartisan attention. It is my belief that it has gotten substantially worse in the post 9-11 world. It was neglected by Obama's administration and for that they deserve criticism. What I don't think is justified is saying that this is evidence of political bias. The problems in the FISA court cut across politics and speak to fundamental process problems. It's not evidence that anyone was out to get Trump, but underlies that this was (very wrongly) business as usual. There was an IG report that didn't get as much splash from March.

Justice Department IG Finds Widespread Problems With FBI's FISA Applications

Investigators haven't been submitting sufficient evidence along with their applications to conduct surveillance in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations, a report shows.

www.npr.org

Applying this to the Flynn case, I don't know if it's really all that related. The FISA warrant is directed against Kislyak. The ambassador of Russia is so obviously going to be justifiably subject to a FISA warrant, it's silly to even consider that he wouldn't. He's a foreign officer of a foreign government. Everyone knows that. The question as to whether Flynn could be unmasked, I think is also pretty obvious. It matters to the intelligence gathering if Kislyak is talking to the incoming NSA, someone that has or will soon have authority and influence with the Trump administration. If Kislyak was talking with some average joe schmo, the relevance of their conversation would be minimal. The Obama administration was trying to understand what Russia's response was going to be to the sanctions. It's a relevant question because if there was not a public response, should they expect a clandestine response? Either way, the Russian response to sanctions is clearly a relevant foreign intelligence matter. I find no reason to be upset that Flynn was unmasked. I would be surprised if the Trump administration would do anything different in their shoes.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Stay sane!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Ever heard of coercion?....

Duress

 

[iceberg]

And this

Lead prosecutor in Flynn case abruptly resigns

As new exculpatory evidence is unsealed, the case against Flynn has reemerged as a matter of national interest

justthenews.com

In a single sentence filing to the court, Van Grack informed federal Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case.

/——-/ Breaking:
Top Obama administration officials purportedly requested to "unmask" the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition period, according to a list of names from that controversial process made public on Wednesday.
List of officials who sought to 'unmask' Flynn released: Biden, Comey, Obama chief of staff among them

Unmasking is NOT illegal.

What does ‘unmasking’ someone in an intel report mean?

In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

Surveillance of Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. revealed he had interacted with an unnamed American who may have been undercutting efforts to pressure Vladimir Putin’s government.

Using a common process known as “unmasking,” they asked intelligence agencies to reveal the American’s name. It was Michael Flynn, an adviser to President-elect Donald Trump.

There is nothing illegal about unmasking and the declassified document states that proper procedures were followed. While Trump casts unmasking as sinister, his administration has used the process more frequently than Obama’s.

Q&A: What does 'unmasking' someone in an intel report mean?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2016, Obama administration officials received intelligence reports that were concerning, but incomplete.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

where? where has the trump admin use this tactic?

N.S.A. ‘Unmaskings’ of U.S. Identities Soared Last Year, Report Says (Published 2019)

An agency official attributed the change, disclosed in a new report about surveillance, to reports about American victims of foreign hackers.

www.nytimes.com

Intelligence officials asked the National Security Agency to unmask the identities of Americans in surveillance-based intelligence reports 16,721 times last year — a significant rise from a year earlier, a new report revealed on Tuesday.

Uh oh.

Reason's for unmasking are not equal. Each are specific and purposed. Most are normal protocol, but what happened in the Trump situation was something all together different. It's known now, and the documents tell it.

How was it all together different?

Go do your homework.

You made the claim, apparently you aren't able to defend it. Weak.

he defends it fine; you just have zero give in your views. you see it one way and one way only and then simply try to bully those who disagree.

weak.

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

maybe. but you've told me to do that before too.

was it defense, or deflection at the time? where i get my own "angst" is when people tell me not to do something then turn around and do it. coyote should know this about me by now as i'm sure she's as tired of hearing it as i am tired of her trump rampage 24x7.

where we tend to go wrong is we can't talk about these anymore, we must either attack or defend; neither of which, to me, is really "talking". it's the same old shit with a different thread title.

now i'll be honest and say 90% of the time i just ignore you cause you usually have the same gruff attitude. but for all i know, i come across no better or even worse to you or others. but i do try to take that feedback when i come across in a way i really don't want to. but yea, there are times i know i'm being an ass, i just don't care for those people. i've reached my limit and know they will never change.

then you come along and usually, no. you don't. then you go do something like this and i see what i would call being reasonable and it changes my perspective. we all tend to argue from our vantage point and perspective. but i do wish we could talk more, get angry and scream a whole lot less. i can only do that for myself and just tune out the rage-noise i suppose. when push comes to shove you do tend to, it would seem, back up and explain why. not sure more can really be asked. we may never agree on many things, but if we can pull out of nosedive bullheaded arguments, maybe discussion is more possible.

and i have to admit your question is valid - why is THIS one improper other than it suits a direction at the time. is it? never really dug that much into unmasking so i am not qualified to know. your own article yesterday showed it happens a lot. questions from me then become what were the situations and why were they different; who signed off and why?

so all i can do is sit back and hope people that know and understand this can explain it in a manner that i can perhaps understand.

This was a very reasonable post, and I think at heart you're a very reasonable person, but tribalism and bunker mentality is affecting all of us and it really messes with our ability to have a discussion.

It happens to me too, and I have good days and bad days. More bad days it seems these days.

Asking someone why they think something is not an attack. It does prompt a defense, so maybe that's why it feels like an attack, but it's not. I come from an academic background, a place where if you say something, if you make an assertion, you damn well better be prepared to say why. I just wish we could have these conversations without being confrontational. I don't react to people just because they have a different opinion, but because they may not be basing that opinion on facts, at least not facts that they can annunciate.

One of my takeaways from this is that because of "Obamagate" or whatever we are calling it, has demonstrated that the practices of the intelligence agencies are not working well. They're broken. This is a story that's actually been on repeat for years, more or less, so it's less than surprising. The FISA court is a mess. The IG report demonstrated in March that it's not a problem limited to Carter Page. It's widespread and needs bipartisan attention. It is my belief that it has gotten substantially worse in the post 9-11 world. It was neglected by Obama's administration and for that they deserve criticism. What I don't think is justified is saying that this is evidence of political bias. The problems in the FISA court cut across politics and speak to fundamental process problems. It's not evidence that anyone was out to get Trump, but underlies that this was (very wrongly) business as usual. There was an IG report that didn't get as much splash from March.

Justice Department IG Finds Widespread Problems With FBI's FISA Applications

Investigators haven't been submitting sufficient evidence along with their applications to conduct surveillance in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations, a report shows.

www.npr.org

Applying this to the Flynn case, I don't know if it's really all that related. The FISA warrant is directed against Kislyak. The ambassador of Russia is so obviously going to be justifiably subject to a FISA warrant, it's silly to even consider that he wouldn't. He's a foreign officer of a foreign government. Everyone knows that. The question as to whether Flynn could be unmasked, I think is also pretty obvious. It matters to the intelligence gathering if Kislyak is talking to the incoming NSA, someone that has or will soon have authority and influence with the Trump administration. If Kislyak was talking with some average joe schmo, the relevance of their conversation would be minimal. The Obama administration was trying to understand what Russia's response was going to be to the sanctions. It's a relevant question because if there was not a public response, should they expect a clandestine response? Either way, the Russian response to sanctions is clearly a relevant foreign intelligence matter. I find no reason to be upset that Flynn was unmasked. I would be surprised if the Trump administration would do anything different in their shoes.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Stay sane!

i can go along with it being broken as far back as 9/11. and yes, we do tend to shell up and get that bunker mentality. i do believe strozk and others on the left were in this mode when they did all the illegal things they did.

but they are still illegal. the simple fact it's been slowly degrading over time doesn't soften up what they did and the manner in which they did it; to me. but i do believe being in this mindset we make people who are NOT evil, evil for no other purpose than that is our collective mentality.

i have no doubt strozk and others THOUGHT they were being patriotic and stopping evil, saving the country and the like. but in the end they worked to oust a duly elected president over what i feel is a bullshit story that had no merit.

i believe the story was concocted to give them a reason to go after trump. these tactics have been well established by the left in that they will take any nugget of info and maximize the value way beyond anything that resembled reasonable. they did it to dr thomas and again to kavanaugh. they demand you take their cries for justice seriously while turning a deaf ear to the same instances of "their side" doing it.

bunker mentality as you call it. good term.

but how do we get people out of this US vs THEM attitude? some people are so emotionally invested anything short of total vindication for their feelings is absolute failure of everything. we pushed ourselves to where extreme words don't carry the value they used to.

the other day coyote was calling flynn treasonous. just a tad extreme for a man of his background and service. to me anyway. but again she's far from alone. you don't like what obama or the left does, they're communist when in truth, they're just progressing in the same direction they always have. a whole lot more extreme *to me* these days, but their call.

this entire mentality has broken down social barriers we no longer value. if i disagree with someone on a point, i suddenly support everything they hate. where did the great lost art of conversation go, exactly? disagreeing should be a starting point of discussion, not the beginning of a screamfest.

but that is where we are. we put up our walls and filters and when someone "types" something and we "hear" it according to how we feel, we hardly if ever stop to say "is how i am taking this how they intended" and they're off and running. lord knows i can do this far too often.

i think we can all agree we're treading water in a sewer all around us. the problem is, how do we get back out and ever find a way to stop the screaming and start the listening?

along the way, conversations like this can happen to show you "the other person" has more to offer than what we've seen in a forum also.

no answers; just a long winded reply that didn't cuss anyone out.

have a good weekend, man. maybe we can find our own way to get through to each other w/o the preconceived notions we're here to attack what the other cares about.

 

[beagle9]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Ever heard of coercion?....

Ever heard of coercion?....

Sure. It just isn't contextual in this case.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

No. You aren't being honest.
The underlying cause was Flynn's inability to be truthful with investigators.

 

[beagle9]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

No. You aren't being honest.
The underlying cause was Flynn's inability to be truthful with investigators.

Technicalities aren't what we are talking about here, and yes anyone can be railroaded on a technicality, but it's far greater a situation than that now, and that's why you all keep focusing on the technicality aspects of the thing (he lied), instead of the lead up to it all, and you are ignoring the players involved, their agenda's involved, and their stakes in it all. Yes high stakes is what it was, now the Trump cards are being thrown down. You might as well fold.

Never play high stakes poker with a bad hand, and that's what has transpired in the game between the old administration and the new one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

No. You aren't being honest.
The underlying cause was Flynn's inability to be truthful with investigators.

Technicalities aren't what we are talking about here, and yes anyone can be railroaded on a technicality, but it's far greater a situation than that now, and that's why you all keep focusing on the technicality aspects of the thing (he lied), instead of the lead up to it all, and you are ignoring the players involved, their agenda's involved, and their stakes in it all. Yes high stakes is what it was, now the Trump cards are being thrown down. You might as well fold.

Never play high stakes poker with a bad hand, and that's what has transpired in the game between the old administration and the new one.

that's why you all keep focusing on the technicality aspects of the thing (he lied),

Of course I do. That's what his case is about. It's not a technicality. It's what he pleaded guilty to, fool.

 

[beautress]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

Nope, because you aren't being honest about the underlying cause of it all, and how it got to the part in which involved the Democrats turning on Flynn like a bunch of rabid dogs, and how he was set up.

No. You aren't being honest.
The underlying cause was Flynn's inability to be truthful with investigators.

Yes, i was being honest and always have been.

You are blaming the wrong player, and you need to know why you're placing the blame on the wrong player:

How General Flynn was coerced into lie by the FBI:

 

[MarathonMike]

under Trump, we are sicker, poorer, and more divided than ever before.

but there is hope for america, and that hope is...JOE!

Instead of blasting you, I'll just wait a couple days until you are back on the Trump train and bashing Biden.