Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[beagle9]

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

That makes bo sense

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

If you could just shut the media's mouth, and stop the leaks, the case may have stood, but the get Trump threats by the media in their gotcha now bullcrap (revealing methods and traps), just keeps backfiring and backfiring. Any day now.. rotflmbo.

The media have always been dishonest turfs. It’s not that hard to stay out of that vortex. Either way, our leaders should rise above, not stoop down to their level or in Trumps case... go below. It’s an embarrassment

Really? One would not know you thought the media was dishonest because your posts parrot what they say about Trump. The fact that Trump holds then to account IS rising above their distortions and lies.

if the media says the same stuff that im sayIng then that stuff is accurate. The media is mixed bag of accurate, hyperbolic and dishonest reporting.

The leftist shit 'bag' media says the same things you do. The same shit bag media that follows liars like Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and any other TDS politician and that parrots them. You parrot THOSE bags of shit.

I don’t parrot shit, I call it like I see it... I can’t help it if trump and his puppets call everything a lie.

No one called 'everything a lie' that is an irresponsible blanket statement. The same kind of statement the lamestream media makes and you're here squawking out the same shit.

Yes I agree not everything is anything. So why are you wasting time trying to say I’m parroting lies from the media? How about you just stick the the things I say and refute what you can if you can

I have already refuted what you posted. You keep parroting the same media talking points. There was a concerted effort to get rid of Flynn. The FBI did not use protocol when interviewing Flynn, they told him he did not need a lawyer, they pretended it was just a chat, did not offer his Miranda rights and memos have surfaced they were trying to get him to lie about information they already had. Also Obama was in on it. Now, you say none of that is a big deal but given everything that the Democrats have tried, it fits right in with with their conspiracy to unseat Trump. You had a US Representative (Adam Schiff) reading what he purported to be a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call and outright lying about what was said. You had Shumer and Pelosi declaring that Trump was 'unfit'......Also Obama fired Flynn for coming down hard on radical Muslims. What was he doing wanting to be 'in the loop' in the FBI's 'Razor' scheme? Flynn did noting wrong and was representing the new administration and to powerful Democrats that was enough to set him up. The FBI had no cause to investigate him they just wanted him out of the way.

Dude you lie in your first sentence. They told him he could bring a lawyer. That’s a fact, stop acting like they tricked him, stop lying! Flynn said in court that the FBI did not trap him and he knew the consequences of lying. Jesus Christ. Stop spreading fake shit! Flynn lied by choice not by force. He has a history of it. The FBI tried and leverage that lie to get as much info as they could. You may think they pushed to hard... that’s fine, we can have that debate. But come back to fucking earth.

No, you're lying, "Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one." You did not tell the whole truth you just spewed half-assed propaganda with no regard at all to the facts at the time.

"In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place. His contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate” and the interview “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the department said. "

"Flynn in his filing claimed that “I never would have pled guilty” if his first set of lawyers had told him that FBI agents wrote that he had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception” in a report they prepared after questioning him about the nature of his conversations with then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak."

"Instead, Flynn said that “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed.”

You are dead wrong, the facts do not support what you claim. Flynn committed no crime in talking to Kysliak. Exculpatory evidence was withheld at his trial. It was a set up pure and simple. Those in the FBI should be held responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

Ok let’s get very specific here. The agents said they offered him council but said it would slow things down. That’s is the absolute truth isn’t it? Is anything in that statement a lie?

Why did they discourage him from having council by saying the interview would go quicker? The only reason for that is to try to set up a trap. Why did they not afford him the same consideration as anyone else? Why was exculpatory evidence withheld at the trial? Do you just follow like a sheep to slaughter as long as your TDS is satisfied? What was the crime they were investigating?

It’s not a trap! That’s a buzz word you keep using. Flynn knew his rights, he knew he could have a lawyer and he knew lying was a crime.... he did it anyways, nobody forced him. Of course the cops would rather there not be an attorney present, and of course they would like to exposed a lie or admission to used against Flynn. That’s what cops do during investigations. Do you have any clue how law enforcement works?

That’s what cops do during investigations.

Why were the cops investigating that phone call?

Because it could have been a violation of the Logan Act.

They should have charged him, they had the transcript.
Zero need for an interview.

They chose to interview him. Nothing wrong with that.

And no good reason for it either.

Sure there was. To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

He's the incoming NSA.

So? Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government. He did so anyway. The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government.

It's perfectly legal for members of an incoming administration to contact foreign governments.

The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

They investigated.
A week after the call they found no derogatory info and were going to drop the case.

Oh? Who authorized Flynn to discuss Obama's sanctions with Russia?

He needed authorization? LOL!

According to the law, yes.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.​

I guess they should have charged him then.

They had the transcripts. Why didn't they?

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that. So they went to question him about it. Perfectly legit.

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that.

Intent? Either he violated the Logan Act or he didn't.

Perfectly legit.

Not if the intent was to investigate election interference.

Intent is required.

Investigating connections to Russians was legit.

No illegitimate connections in the Flynn calls.
Nothing election related.

Russian connection related. Legit.

you are just willfully ignoring the news last few days huh?

there is nothing to russia. never has been.

the question is - will there ever come a time you admit that or will you forever torture yourself into having to believe you are right and the world is against you?

I suppose I can easily dismiss your nonsense to your ignorance, but there really was an investigation into Russian interference starting in 2016. And the FBI was looking into several Impeached Trump associates who had connections with Russia and/or Russians. Flynn being one of them.

Ok, and there was no Russian threat, so the FBI was being directed to get Trump through all these avenues that turned out to be bullcrap, but they were doing it all for who ?? The Russians were just being used in the situation, so was it the hopes that somehow the American electorate would swallow it all hook, line, and sinker in hopes to destroy Trump prior to or quickly after his election ? I think so.

 

[Doc7505]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

Fraudulantly changed? No evidence to support that. I don't see how what the "believed" or did not believe would change the the actual facts.

According to the judge in the case:
“[T]he Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents’ notes.” Sullivan went on: “Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

~~~~~~
If there was no fraud or criminal intent involved. why did Peter Strzok change the original FD 302's and then claimed they were lost?

Did Feds Commit Felony By Altering 302s In The Michael Flynn Case?

townhall.com

Strzok SIGNIFICANTLY altered Flynn 302s, Barr's on it!

The Epoch Times reports that Peter Strzok, who looks and acts like a KGB agent, made major edits to the early draft of the 302 (notes of the Michael Flynn interview). The former head of counterintelligence operations “significantly” changed the report according to newly released tests. Flynn...

www.independentsentinel.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

 

[Coyote]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

Fraudulantly changed? No evidence to support that. I don't see how what the "believed" or did not believe would change the the actual facts.

According to the judge in the case:
“[T]he Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents’ notes.” Sullivan went on: “Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

~~~~~~
If there was no fraud or criminal intent involved. why did Peter Strzok change the original FD 302's and then claimed they were lost?

Did Feds Commit Felony By Altering 302s In The Michael Flynn Case?

townhall.com

Strzok SIGNIFICANTLY altered Flynn 302s, Barr's on it!

The Epoch Times reports that Peter Strzok, who looks and acts like a KGB agent, made major edits to the early draft of the 302 (notes of the Michael Flynn interview). The former head of counterintelligence operations “significantly” changed the report according to newly released tests. Flynn...

www.independentsentinel.com

You mean the draft versions of the 302s?

The judge didn't think there was fraud or criminal intent:

“Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

Fraudulantly changed? No evidence to support that. I don't see how what the "believed" or did not believe would change the the actual facts.

According to the judge in the case:
“[T]he Court agrees with the government that there were no material changes in the interview reports, and that those reports track the interviewing FBI agents’ notes.” Sullivan went on: “Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are ‘consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.’”

~~~~~~
If there was no fraud or criminal intent involved. why did Peter Strzok change the original FD 302's and then claimed they were lost?

Did Feds Commit Felony By Altering 302s In The Michael Flynn Case?

townhall.com

Strzok SIGNIFICANTLY altered Flynn 302s, Barr's on it!

The Epoch Times reports that Peter Strzok, who looks and acts like a KGB agent, made major edits to the early draft of the 302 (notes of the Michael Flynn interview). The former head of counterintelligence operations “significantly” changed the report according to newly released tests. Flynn...

www.independentsentinel.com

You mean the draft 302's? The judge already through those claims out.

 

[Faun]

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

That makes bo sense

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

If you could just shut the media's mouth, and stop the leaks, the case may have stood, but the get Trump threats by the media in their gotcha now bullcrap (revealing methods and traps), just keeps backfiring and backfiring. Any day now.. rotflmbo.

The media have always been dishonest turfs. It’s not that hard to stay out of that vortex. Either way, our leaders should rise above, not stoop down to their level or in Trumps case... go below. It’s an embarrassment

Really? One would not know you thought the media was dishonest because your posts parrot what they say about Trump. The fact that Trump holds then to account IS rising above their distortions and lies.

if the media says the same stuff that im sayIng then that stuff is accurate. The media is mixed bag of accurate, hyperbolic and dishonest reporting.

The leftist shit 'bag' media says the same things you do. The same shit bag media that follows liars like Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and any other TDS politician and that parrots them. You parrot THOSE bags of shit.

I don’t parrot shit, I call it like I see it... I can’t help it if trump and his puppets call everything a lie.

No one called 'everything a lie' that is an irresponsible blanket statement. The same kind of statement the lamestream media makes and you're here squawking out the same shit.

Yes I agree not everything is anything. So why are you wasting time trying to say I’m parroting lies from the media? How about you just stick the the things I say and refute what you can if you can

I have already refuted what you posted. You keep parroting the same media talking points. There was a concerted effort to get rid of Flynn. The FBI did not use protocol when interviewing Flynn, they told him he did not need a lawyer, they pretended it was just a chat, did not offer his Miranda rights and memos have surfaced they were trying to get him to lie about information they already had. Also Obama was in on it. Now, you say none of that is a big deal but given everything that the Democrats have tried, it fits right in with with their conspiracy to unseat Trump. You had a US Representative (Adam Schiff) reading what he purported to be a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call and outright lying about what was said. You had Shumer and Pelosi declaring that Trump was 'unfit'......Also Obama fired Flynn for coming down hard on radical Muslims. What was he doing wanting to be 'in the loop' in the FBI's 'Razor' scheme? Flynn did noting wrong and was representing the new administration and to powerful Democrats that was enough to set him up. The FBI had no cause to investigate him they just wanted him out of the way.

Dude you lie in your first sentence. They told him he could bring a lawyer. That’s a fact, stop acting like they tricked him, stop lying! Flynn said in court that the FBI did not trap him and he knew the consequences of lying. Jesus Christ. Stop spreading fake shit! Flynn lied by choice not by force. He has a history of it. The FBI tried and leverage that lie to get as much info as they could. You may think they pushed to hard... that’s fine, we can have that debate. But come back to fucking earth.

No, you're lying, "Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one." You did not tell the whole truth you just spewed half-assed propaganda with no regard at all to the facts at the time.

"In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place. His contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate” and the interview “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the department said. "

"Flynn in his filing claimed that “I never would have pled guilty” if his first set of lawyers had told him that FBI agents wrote that he had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception” in a report they prepared after questioning him about the nature of his conversations with then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak."

"Instead, Flynn said that “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed.”

You are dead wrong, the facts do not support what you claim. Flynn committed no crime in talking to Kysliak. Exculpatory evidence was withheld at his trial. It was a set up pure and simple. Those in the FBI should be held responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

Ok let’s get very specific here. The agents said they offered him council but said it would slow things down. That’s is the absolute truth isn’t it? Is anything in that statement a lie?

Why did they discourage him from having council by saying the interview would go quicker? The only reason for that is to try to set up a trap. Why did they not afford him the same consideration as anyone else? Why was exculpatory evidence withheld at the trial? Do you just follow like a sheep to slaughter as long as your TDS is satisfied? What was the crime they were investigating?

It’s not a trap! That’s a buzz word you keep using. Flynn knew his rights, he knew he could have a lawyer and he knew lying was a crime.... he did it anyways, nobody forced him. Of course the cops would rather there not be an attorney present, and of course they would like to exposed a lie or admission to used against Flynn. That’s what cops do during investigations. Do you have any clue how law enforcement works?

That’s what cops do during investigations.

Why were the cops investigating that phone call?

Because it could have been a violation of the Logan Act.

They should have charged him, they had the transcript.
Zero need for an interview.

They chose to interview him. Nothing wrong with that.

And no good reason for it either.

Sure there was. To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

He's the incoming NSA.

So? Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government. He did so anyway. The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government.

It's perfectly legal for members of an incoming administration to contact foreign governments.

The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

They investigated.
A week after the call they found no derogatory info and were going to drop the case.

Oh? Who authorized Flynn to discuss Obama's sanctions with Russia?

He needed authorization? LOL!

According to the law, yes.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.​

I guess they should have charged him then.

They had the transcripts. Why didn't they?

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that. So they went to question him about it. Perfectly legit.

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that.

Intent? Either he violated the Logan Act or he didn't.

Perfectly legit.

Not if the intent was to investigate election interference.

Intent is required.

Investigating connections to Russians was legit.

No illegitimate connections in the Flynn calls.
Nothing election related.

Russian connection related. Legit.

you are just willfully ignoring the news last few days huh?

there is nothing to russia. never has been.

the question is - will there ever come a time you admit that or will you forever torture yourself into having to believe you are right and the world is against you?

I suppose I can easily dismiss your nonsense to your ignorance, but there really was an investigation into Russian interference starting in 2016. And the FBI was looking into several Impeached Trump associates who had connections with Russia and/or Russians. Flynn being one of them.

Ok, and there was no Russian threat, so the FBI was being directed to get Trump through all these avenues that turned out to be bullcrap, but they were doing it all for who ?? The Russians were just being used in the situation, so was it the hopes that somehow the American electorate would swallow it all hook, line, and sinker in hopes to destroy Trump prior to or quickly after his election ? I think so.

The FBI didn't publicly tie Russian hacking to Impeached Trump before the election. Whoops, there goes your bullshit about how they were trying to "sway the electorate."

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

 

[Leo123]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

Thanks for that. Next, the TDSers will accuse you of 'flooding the zone' and insist on YOU cherry-picking isolated points so they can argue and obfuscate esoteric shit that they can somehow spin into 'Orange Man Bad'......

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

 

[beagle9]

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

That makes bo sense

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

If you could just shut the media's mouth, and stop the leaks, the case may have stood, but the get Trump threats by the media in their gotcha now bullcrap (revealing methods and traps), just keeps backfiring and backfiring. Any day now.. rotflmbo.

The media have always been dishonest turfs. It’s not that hard to stay out of that vortex. Either way, our leaders should rise above, not stoop down to their level or in Trumps case... go below. It’s an embarrassment

Really? One would not know you thought the media was dishonest because your posts parrot what they say about Trump. The fact that Trump holds then to account IS rising above their distortions and lies.

if the media says the same stuff that im sayIng then that stuff is accurate. The media is mixed bag of accurate, hyperbolic and dishonest reporting.

The leftist shit 'bag' media says the same things you do. The same shit bag media that follows liars like Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and any other TDS politician and that parrots them. You parrot THOSE bags of shit.

I don’t parrot shit, I call it like I see it... I can’t help it if trump and his puppets call everything a lie.

No one called 'everything a lie' that is an irresponsible blanket statement. The same kind of statement the lamestream media makes and you're here squawking out the same shit.

Yes I agree not everything is anything. So why are you wasting time trying to say I’m parroting lies from the media? How about you just stick the the things I say and refute what you can if you can

I have already refuted what you posted. You keep parroting the same media talking points. There was a concerted effort to get rid of Flynn. The FBI did not use protocol when interviewing Flynn, they told him he did not need a lawyer, they pretended it was just a chat, did not offer his Miranda rights and memos have surfaced they were trying to get him to lie about information they already had. Also Obama was in on it. Now, you say none of that is a big deal but given everything that the Democrats have tried, it fits right in with with their conspiracy to unseat Trump. You had a US Representative (Adam Schiff) reading what he purported to be a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call and outright lying about what was said. You had Shumer and Pelosi declaring that Trump was 'unfit'......Also Obama fired Flynn for coming down hard on radical Muslims. What was he doing wanting to be 'in the loop' in the FBI's 'Razor' scheme? Flynn did noting wrong and was representing the new administration and to powerful Democrats that was enough to set him up. The FBI had no cause to investigate him they just wanted him out of the way.

Dude you lie in your first sentence. They told him he could bring a lawyer. That’s a fact, stop acting like they tricked him, stop lying! Flynn said in court that the FBI did not trap him and he knew the consequences of lying. Jesus Christ. Stop spreading fake shit! Flynn lied by choice not by force. He has a history of it. The FBI tried and leverage that lie to get as much info as they could. You may think they pushed to hard... that’s fine, we can have that debate. But come back to fucking earth.

No, you're lying, "Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one." You did not tell the whole truth you just spewed half-assed propaganda with no regard at all to the facts at the time.

"In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place. His contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate” and the interview “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the department said. "

"Flynn in his filing claimed that “I never would have pled guilty” if his first set of lawyers had told him that FBI agents wrote that he had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception” in a report they prepared after questioning him about the nature of his conversations with then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak."

"Instead, Flynn said that “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed.”

You are dead wrong, the facts do not support what you claim. Flynn committed no crime in talking to Kysliak. Exculpatory evidence was withheld at his trial. It was a set up pure and simple. Those in the FBI should be held responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

Ok let’s get very specific here. The agents said they offered him council but said it would slow things down. That’s is the absolute truth isn’t it? Is anything in that statement a lie?

Why did they discourage him from having council by saying the interview would go quicker? The only reason for that is to try to set up a trap. Why did they not afford him the same consideration as anyone else? Why was exculpatory evidence withheld at the trial? Do you just follow like a sheep to slaughter as long as your TDS is satisfied? What was the crime they were investigating?

It’s not a trap! That’s a buzz word you keep using. Flynn knew his rights, he knew he could have a lawyer and he knew lying was a crime.... he did it anyways, nobody forced him. Of course the cops would rather there not be an attorney present, and of course they would like to exposed a lie or admission to used against Flynn. That’s what cops do during investigations. Do you have any clue how law enforcement works?

That’s what cops do during investigations.

Why were the cops investigating that phone call?

Because it could have been a violation of the Logan Act.

They should have charged him, they had the transcript.
Zero need for an interview.

They chose to interview him. Nothing wrong with that.

And no good reason for it either.

Sure there was. To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

He's the incoming NSA.

So? Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government. He did so anyway. The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government.

It's perfectly legal for members of an incoming administration to contact foreign governments.

The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

They investigated.
A week after the call they found no derogatory info and were going to drop the case.

Oh? Who authorized Flynn to discuss Obama's sanctions with Russia?

He needed authorization? LOL!

According to the law, yes.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.​

I guess they should have charged him then.

They had the transcripts. Why didn't they?

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that. So they went to question him about it. Perfectly legit.

They needed to be able to prove intent. The phone call alone didn't provide that.

Intent? Either he violated the Logan Act or he didn't.

Perfectly legit.

Not if the intent was to investigate election interference.

Intent is required.

Investigating connections to Russians was legit.

No illegitimate connections in the Flynn calls.
Nothing election related.

Russian connection related. Legit.

you are just willfully ignoring the news last few days huh?

there is nothing to russia. never has been.

the question is - will there ever come a time you admit that or will you forever torture yourself into having to believe you are right and the world is against you?

I suppose I can easily dismiss your nonsense to your ignorance, but there really was an investigation into Russian interference starting in 2016. And the FBI was looking into several Impeached Trump associates who had connections with Russia and/or Russians. Flynn being one of them.

Ok, and there was no Russian threat, so the FBI was being directed to get Trump through all these avenues that turned out to be bullcrap, but they were doing it all for who ?? The Russians were just being used in the situation, so was it the hopes that somehow the American electorate would swallow it all hook, line, and sinker in hopes to destroy Trump prior to or quickly after his election ? I think so.

The FBI didn't publicly tie Russian hacking to Impeached Trump before the election. Whoops, there goes your bullshit about how they were trying to "sway the electorate."

Not the FBI, but who was using them or swaying them is the question needing answered. Who got it all going ???

 

[beagle9]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

The judge is an activist hack that needs impeached, recalled or benched.

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

The judge is an activist hack that needs impeached, recalled or benched.

... and you base that on ... ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

Thanks for that. Next, the TDSers will accuse you of 'flooding the zone' and insist on YOU cherry-picking isolated points so they can argue and obfuscate esoteric shit that they can somehow spin into 'Orange Man Bad'......

And we have Today's Winner. Johnny, what has he won? Yes, Monty, he's won and all expense paid trip to TDS Land to pin the Horns on the next lucky Demon. Brought to you by the Makers of The Party of the Rump. Yes, when you need corruption at the top, don't settle for anything less than the Party of the Rump

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

 

[westwall]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Ummmmm, dumbass. The FBI already had a full transcript.

Are you just stupid, or can you not understand basic facts because your politics crowds out your brain?

 

[MisterBeale]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Ummmmm, dumbass. The FBI already had a full transcript.

Are you just stupid, or can you not understand basic facts because your politics crowds out your brain?

And to dumbshits, that means they could get more information from Flynn himself.

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

 

[MisterBeale]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie