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

[colfax_m]

It’s called ENTRAPMENT.

THESE STUPID FUCKS AT THE FBI WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO MEMORIALIZE THEIR INTENT TO ENTRAP FYLNN.

Liberals who might not get this. Let’s pretend it was Bush’s FBI who did the EXACT SAME THING TO SUSAN RICE.

Now you think it’s bad, right?

Don’t advocate for the FBI setting up entrapment for Flynn just because Orange Man Bad. That would make you an asshole.

How is it entrapment? How did the FBI induce Flynn to lie?

Did they go in looking for 5he truth or to get him to lie?

The answer to this pop quiz is on comes note.

They straight up say in the memo they want to catch him in a lie so he can be prosecuted or fired.

That’s called ENTRAPMENT....AND ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL.

No, that’s not called entrapment. Entrapment means inducing someone to do something illegal that they wouldn’t have otherwise done.

They asked Flynn a question that they thought he was going to lie about. They thought he was going to lie because he had been telling everyone else the same lie. That’s not entrapment.

Did we or did we not already talk to flynn and those agents said nothing to see here?

Exit 302s

Hey we found the 302s!!!

You are screaming LIAR LIAR at the top of your lungs but no one is looking away from "get him to lie" but you.

It did Not SAY "see if he lies" cause "get him to lie" is pretty specific.

Im trying to understand what you’re writing here. I don’t know exactly what you mean about “those agents said nothing to see here”. I’m only aware of one interview with Flynn and the FBI.

I think you’re referring to the fact that the FBI couldn’t locate a draft of the 302 from his interview. I don’t know why anyone would get all worked up that a draft document couldn’t be located. The actual filed and official 302 has always been available as far as I’m aware.

Answer me this. How did they get him to lie?

House Intel report: McCabe said agents who interviewed Flynn ‘didn’t think he was lying’

thehill.com

"The unredacted portion of the report, written by Republicans on the panel, details testimony from former FBI Director James Comey and his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe. The report says McCabe, in particular, testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying.""

Home | Sara A. Carter

Taking Back The Story

saraacarter.com

"The most significant evidence against the FBI validated in Powell’s brief was the circumstances surrounding Flynn’s first interview with the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017 and the manipulation of the interview report, known as a 302, from that interview. The interview was conducted by now fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, whose texts messages later revealed he was vehemently anti-Trump and current FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who has never spoken publicly on the matter. In December, 2017 this reporter revealed that it was Strzok who had interviewed Flynn and that the interview itself was a set-up.

Powell noted that “on February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to ‘senior intelligence officials’—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.”

Then, according to documents, “overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302.”"

so first interview they felt he wasn't lying. now his interview transcript gets altered (this FBI has a habit of that don't they) and they can go back. how did these inconsistencies suddenly appear? why would they go back "off the cuff" - let's reference comeys note, shall we?

GET HIM TO LIE SO WE CAN DO WHAT??????

so your assertion of flynn just lying for no reason does not hold water.

i've highlighted FIRST INTERVIEW for yo and hope that if we can both agree that if there was only ONE interview there would have never have been a need for this off the cuff meeting comey is bragging about when he says he went and process and in the end, violated rights.

so ok - what did the world do wrong here so you can still be right?

There's a lot of bullshit to sift through here.

I suggest you ACTUALLY read the entirety of the Hill piece. It's misleading. The two agents who interviewed Flynn stated they saw no physical characteristics that Flynn was lying. In that, he wasn't sweating or looking to the side or any of the other things one would normally associated with lying. Does that mean he wasn't lying? Of course not. Because when the look at all the evidence, it was quite convincing that Flynn indeed was lying. If the FBI was interviewing someone who looked them dead in the eye and said the sky was green, that would still be a lie regardless if they were sweating or whatever.

This is one of those zombie lies that won't die from this case. The agents never concluded he wasn't lying. They said that he didn't look like he was lying but definitely was.

I see that you highlighted "first interview", but the interview in question, the only one where Flynn got himself into legal trouble is the first interview that took place on Jan 24th and the exact interview that the clip from the Comey interview is referencing.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of respect for Sara Carter. She claims to be an investigative reporter but her reporting here is full of holes and uncritically repeats bogus claims by Sydney Powell. The entirety of the filing by Powell was demolished by Judge Sullivan in a ruling issued in December 2019. I searched Carter's website, it doesn't appear that this was newsworth to her.

You can read the ruling here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/michael-flynns-sentencing-set-for-jan-28-after-judge-rejects-his-attacks-on-the-fbi-justice-department/2019/12/16/269ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

The most significant allegation is that the 302 was altered substantively. This is not the case when one take a deep dive into the issue. The "alteration" was inserting that Flynn denied calling Russia to ask them to vote a particular way in the security council on an issue. Thing is, the notes from the interview make it clear that this is exactly what Flynn was claiming. Flynn states he called a bunch of countries to get a sense of their vote and specifically denies requesting any specific vote. The agents had politely reminded Flynn of his conversations with the Russian ambassador. And since the FBI had recordings of these conversations, are we really to believe that they didn't ask him about it?

Anyway, that's really just ONE of Flynn's lies, and given that lie is consistent with his other lies, which are substantiated in the notes from the interview, it really is a stretch to consider this exculpatory in any meaningful way.

What I'm most annoyed about is this sort of asymetric warfare, to borrow a phrase. See, anyone can spend 5 minutes and throw up a copy/paste from some garbage report. And since the "investigative reporter" doesn't do any investigating, the counter argument is not presented, then I have to go do it. And so I spend an hour or so reading through a 96 page ruling from Sullivan, and read the chickenscratch notes from an FBI agent, etc, to disprove this point.

So by the time I get around to it, yall have moved onto another false report. It's just frustrating, that's all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He didn't lie

The guilty plea on multiple counts of obstruction says otherwise.

Come on libtard...you know you have heard of dirty cops and corrupt FBI agents and unjust legal action....you just thinks its okay because its a Trump guy....can't you see how dangerous that acceptance of this action against Flynn is?....for the future of our nation?.....

Hey, if you can make the case that something dirty was done here then let's have it, because I don't see it from the documents or from the ridiculous straw grasping arguments rightwingers here are making.

What I see is cops appropriately going after Flynn for possible violations of Logan Act, compromising himself and our national security with his lies, and a clear pattern of obstructing investigations.

What I see is cops appropriately going after Flynn for possible violations of Logan Act,

That must be why they were ready to drop the investigation in early January 2017,
because of the clear violations of the Logan Act.
With the transcript of his call in hand. And no mention of the Logan Act in the plea deal.

 

[iceberg]

It’s called ENTRAPMENT.

THESE STUPID FUCKS AT THE FBI WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO MEMORIALIZE THEIR INTENT TO ENTRAP FYLNN.

Liberals who might not get this. Let’s pretend it was Bush’s FBI who did the EXACT SAME THING TO SUSAN RICE.

Now you think it’s bad, right?

Don’t advocate for the FBI setting up entrapment for Flynn just because Orange Man Bad. That would make you an asshole.

How is it entrapment? How did the FBI induce Flynn to lie?

Did they go in looking for 5he truth or to get him to lie?

The answer to this pop quiz is on comes note.

They straight up say in the memo they want to catch him in a lie so he can be prosecuted or fired.

That’s called ENTRAPMENT....AND ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL.

No, that’s not called entrapment. Entrapment means inducing someone to do something illegal that they wouldn’t have otherwise done.

They asked Flynn a question that they thought he was going to lie about. They thought he was going to lie because he had been telling everyone else the same lie. That’s not entrapment.

Did we or did we not already talk to flynn and those agents said nothing to see here?

Exit 302s

Hey we found the 302s!!!

You are screaming LIAR LIAR at the top of your lungs but no one is looking away from "get him to lie" but you.

It did Not SAY "see if he lies" cause "get him to lie" is pretty specific.

Im trying to understand what you’re writing here. I don’t know exactly what you mean about “those agents said nothing to see here”. I’m only aware of one interview with Flynn and the FBI.

I think you’re referring to the fact that the FBI couldn’t locate a draft of the 302 from his interview. I don’t know why anyone would get all worked up that a draft document couldn’t be located. The actual filed and official 302 has always been available as far as I’m aware.

Answer me this. How did they get him to lie?

House Intel report: McCabe said agents who interviewed Flynn ‘didn’t think he was lying’

thehill.com

"The unredacted portion of the report, written by Republicans on the panel, details testimony from former FBI Director James Comey and his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe. The report says McCabe, in particular, testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying.""

Home | Sara A. Carter

Taking Back The Story

saraacarter.com

"The most significant evidence against the FBI validated in Powell’s brief was the circumstances surrounding Flynn’s first interview with the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017 and the manipulation of the interview report, known as a 302, from that interview. The interview was conducted by now fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, whose texts messages later revealed he was vehemently anti-Trump and current FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who has never spoken publicly on the matter. In December, 2017 this reporter revealed that it was Strzok who had interviewed Flynn and that the interview itself was a set-up.

Powell noted that “on February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to ‘senior intelligence officials’—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.”

Then, according to documents, “overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302.”"

so first interview they felt he wasn't lying. now his interview transcript gets altered (this FBI has a habit of that don't they) and they can go back. how did these inconsistencies suddenly appear? why would they go back "off the cuff" - let's reference comeys note, shall we?

GET HIM TO LIE SO WE CAN DO WHAT??????

so your assertion of flynn just lying for no reason does not hold water.

i've highlighted FIRST INTERVIEW for yo and hope that if we can both agree that if there was only ONE interview there would have never have been a need for this off the cuff meeting comey is bragging about when he says he went and process and in the end, violated rights.

so ok - what did the world do wrong here so you can still be right?

There's a lot of bullshit to sift through here.

I suggest you ACTUALLY read the entirety of the Hill piece. It's misleading. The two agents who interviewed Flynn stated they saw no physical characteristics that Flynn was lying. In that, he wasn't sweating or looking to the side or any of the other things one would normally associated with lying. Does that mean he wasn't lying? Of course not. Because when the look at all the evidence, it was quite convincing that Flynn indeed was lying. If the FBI was interviewing someone who looked them dead in the eye and said the sky was green, that would still be a lie regardless if they were sweating or whatever.

This is one of those zombie lies that won't die from this case. The agents never concluded he wasn't lying. They said that he didn't look like he was lying but definitely was.

I see that you highlighted "first interview", but the interview in question, the only one where Flynn got himself into legal trouble is the first interview that took place on Jan 24th and the exact interview that the clip from the Comey interview is referencing.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of respect for Sara Carter. She claims to be an investigative reporter but her reporting here is full of holes and uncritically repeats bogus claims by Sydney Powell. The entirety of the filing by Powell was demolished by Judge Sullivan in a ruling issued in December 2019. I searched Carter's website, it doesn't appear that this was newsworth to her.

You can read the ruling here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/michael-flynns-sentencing-set-for-jan-28-after-judge-rejects-his-attacks-on-the-fbi-justice-department/2019/12/16/269ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

The most significant allegation is that the 302 was altered substantively. This is not the case when one take a deep dive into the issue. The "alteration" was inserting that Flynn denied calling Russia to ask them to vote a particular way in the security council on an issue. Thing is, the notes from the interview make it clear that this is exactly what Flynn was claiming. Flynn states he called a bunch of countries to get a sense of their vote and specifically denies requesting any specific vote. The agents had politely reminded Flynn of his conversations with the Russian ambassador. And since the FBI had recordings of these conversations, are we really to believe that they didn't ask him about it?

Anyway, that's really just ONE of Flynn's lies, and given that lie is consistent with his other lies, which are substantiated in the notes from the interview, it really is a stretch to consider this exculpatory in any meaningful way.

What I'm most annoyed about is this sort of asymetric warfare, to borrow a phrase. See, anyone can spend 5 minutes and throw up a copy/paste from some garbage report. And since the "investigative reporter" doesn't do any investigating, the counter argument is not presented, then I have to go do it. And so I spend an hour or so reading through a 96 page ruling from Sullivan, and read the chickenscratch notes from an FBI agent, etc, to disprove this point.

So by the time I get around to it, yall have moved onto another false report. It's just frustrating, that's all.

Yea so of course your answer is "bullshit". You don't respect what you don't agree with. That is obvious. You allow yourself to read between the lines but no one else.

And you wonder why it's, near impossible to have a conversation or debate with you.
Bye.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

The discussion of which was not a crime.

 

[easyt65]

American Intelligence, Russians indicted for this operation and Republican Senate report on 2016 interference into our election says you are full of shit. No one except crazy rw politico idiots like you are still trying to refute that Russians hacked DNC.

Sorry, but I could not get past your 1st point, or should I say 1st LIE:
1. LINK?

2. The Mueller report made it clear that US intelligence, nor the FBI, could NOT make any definitive conclusions about 'Russian Hacking' of the DNC server because no one in the US Intel Community or FBI ever analyzed those servers.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

I would ask if it made sense to you if - in a matter involving National Security - the President, US Intel Community, FBI, etc... DEFERED THE NVESTIGATION TPO AN OIUTSIDE PRIVATE COMPANY....but then you have proven clear thinking and common sense is not in your skill set.


The FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s “conclusion” to blame Russia for hacking DNC servers, though the private firm never produced a final report and the FBI never asked them to.



When asked why the FBI did not conduct the investigation and instead relied on 3 redacted reports from an outside company paid by the DNC, then FBI Director Comey could not give an answer:

At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain and others were calling Russian “hacking” an “act of war,” the FBI settled for three redacted “draft reports” from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court document shows.

Then FBI Director James Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he chose not to take control of the DNC’s “hacked” computers, and did not dispatch FBI computer experts to inspect them, but has had trouble explaining why.

In his testimony, he conceded that “best practices” would have dictated that forensic experts gain physical access to the computers. Nevertheless, the FBI decided to rely on forensics performed by a firm being paid for by the DNC.

WTF?!

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced

The FBI relied on CrowdStrike's "conclusion" to blame Russia for hacking DNC servers, though the private firm never produced a final report and the FBI never asked them to, as Ray McGovern explains. By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News CrowdStrike, the controversial cybersecurity firm that

consortiumnews.com

BTW:
Crowdstrike's co-founder, Moscow-born Dmitri Alperovitch, is associated with the Clinton Foundation; in 2015, CrowdStrike received $100 million in funding from Google whose chairman, Eric Schmidt, was a generous supporter of Hillary Clinton. CrowdStrike’s president is Shawn Henry, who headed up the FBI’s cybercrimes division during the Obama Administration when Robert Mueller was director.


NO WONDER CROWDSTRIKE WAS THE PRIVATE COMPANY THE DNC CALLED ON TO DO THE FBI'S JOB....

 

[colfax_m]

It’s called ENTRAPMENT.

THESE STUPID FUCKS AT THE FBI WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO MEMORIALIZE THEIR INTENT TO ENTRAP FYLNN.

Liberals who might not get this. Let’s pretend it was Bush’s FBI who did the EXACT SAME THING TO SUSAN RICE.

Now you think it’s bad, right?

Don’t advocate for the FBI setting up entrapment for Flynn just because Orange Man Bad. That would make you an asshole.

How is it entrapment? How did the FBI induce Flynn to lie?

Did they go in looking for 5he truth or to get him to lie?

The answer to this pop quiz is on comes note.

They straight up say in the memo they want to catch him in a lie so he can be prosecuted or fired.

That’s called ENTRAPMENT....AND ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL.

No, that’s not called entrapment. Entrapment means inducing someone to do something illegal that they wouldn’t have otherwise done.

They asked Flynn a question that they thought he was going to lie about. They thought he was going to lie because he had been telling everyone else the same lie. That’s not entrapment.

Did we or did we not already talk to flynn and those agents said nothing to see here?

Exit 302s

Hey we found the 302s!!!

You are screaming LIAR LIAR at the top of your lungs but no one is looking away from "get him to lie" but you.

It did Not SAY "see if he lies" cause "get him to lie" is pretty specific.

Im trying to understand what you’re writing here. I don’t know exactly what you mean about “those agents said nothing to see here”. I’m only aware of one interview with Flynn and the FBI.

I think you’re referring to the fact that the FBI couldn’t locate a draft of the 302 from his interview. I don’t know why anyone would get all worked up that a draft document couldn’t be located. The actual filed and official 302 has always been available as far as I’m aware.

Answer me this. How did they get him to lie?

House Intel report: McCabe said agents who interviewed Flynn ‘didn’t think he was lying’

thehill.com

"The unredacted portion of the report, written by Republicans on the panel, details testimony from former FBI Director James Comey and his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe. The report says McCabe, in particular, testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying.""

Home | Sara A. Carter

Taking Back The Story

saraacarter.com

"The most significant evidence against the FBI validated in Powell’s brief was the circumstances surrounding Flynn’s first interview with the FBI on Jan. 24, 2017 and the manipulation of the interview report, known as a 302, from that interview. The interview was conducted by now fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, whose texts messages later revealed he was vehemently anti-Trump and current FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who has never spoken publicly on the matter. In December, 2017 this reporter revealed that it was Strzok who had interviewed Flynn and that the interview itself was a set-up.

Powell noted that “on February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to ‘senior intelligence officials’—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.”

Then, according to documents, “overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302.”"

so first interview they felt he wasn't lying. now his interview transcript gets altered (this FBI has a habit of that don't they) and they can go back. how did these inconsistencies suddenly appear? why would they go back "off the cuff" - let's reference comeys note, shall we?

GET HIM TO LIE SO WE CAN DO WHAT??????

so your assertion of flynn just lying for no reason does not hold water.

i've highlighted FIRST INTERVIEW for yo and hope that if we can both agree that if there was only ONE interview there would have never have been a need for this off the cuff meeting comey is bragging about when he says he went and process and in the end, violated rights.

so ok - what did the world do wrong here so you can still be right?

There's a lot of bullshit to sift through here.

I suggest you ACTUALLY read the entirety of the Hill piece. It's misleading. The two agents who interviewed Flynn stated they saw no physical characteristics that Flynn was lying. In that, he wasn't sweating or looking to the side or any of the other things one would normally associated with lying. Does that mean he wasn't lying? Of course not. Because when the look at all the evidence, it was quite convincing that Flynn indeed was lying. If the FBI was interviewing someone who looked them dead in the eye and said the sky was green, that would still be a lie regardless if they were sweating or whatever.

This is one of those zombie lies that won't die from this case. The agents never concluded he wasn't lying. They said that he didn't look like he was lying but definitely was.

I see that you highlighted "first interview", but the interview in question, the only one where Flynn got himself into legal trouble is the first interview that took place on Jan 24th and the exact interview that the clip from the Comey interview is referencing.

Anyway, I don't have a lot of respect for Sara Carter. She claims to be an investigative reporter but her reporting here is full of holes and uncritically repeats bogus claims by Sydney Powell. The entirety of the filing by Powell was demolished by Judge Sullivan in a ruling issued in December 2019. I searched Carter's website, it doesn't appear that this was newsworth to her.

You can read the ruling here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/michael-flynns-sentencing-set-for-jan-28-after-judge-rejects-his-attacks-on-the-fbi-justice-department/2019/12/16/269ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html

The most significant allegation is that the 302 was altered substantively. This is not the case when one take a deep dive into the issue. The "alteration" was inserting that Flynn denied calling Russia to ask them to vote a particular way in the security council on an issue. Thing is, the notes from the interview make it clear that this is exactly what Flynn was claiming. Flynn states he called a bunch of countries to get a sense of their vote and specifically denies requesting any specific vote. The agents had politely reminded Flynn of his conversations with the Russian ambassador. And since the FBI had recordings of these conversations, are we really to believe that they didn't ask him about it?

Anyway, that's really just ONE of Flynn's lies, and given that lie is consistent with his other lies, which are substantiated in the notes from the interview, it really is a stretch to consider this exculpatory in any meaningful way.

What I'm most annoyed about is this sort of asymetric warfare, to borrow a phrase. See, anyone can spend 5 minutes and throw up a copy/paste from some garbage report. And since the "investigative reporter" doesn't do any investigating, the counter argument is not presented, then I have to go do it. And so I spend an hour or so reading through a 96 page ruling from Sullivan, and read the chickenscratch notes from an FBI agent, etc, to disprove this point.

So by the time I get around to it, yall have moved onto another false report. It's just frustrating, that's all.

Yea so of course your answer is "bullshit"

And you wonder why it's, near impossible to have a conversation or debate with you.

What a waste of time. I provide a thorough debunking of you and that's the best you can do?

You need to do your homework before posting so that we could at least have a conversation on the facts instead of trying to get you up to speed on basics like when he was interviewed.

Anyway, saying the FBI agents denied he had lied is at best a half truth and definitely misleading. This has been debunked time and time again but it can never die because it is so engrained in the mythos surrounding Flynn.

I can't open your mind and I think you're in way to deep to ever admit that you are wrong.

 

[AntonToo]

2. The Mueller report made it clear that US intelligence, nor the FBI, could NOT make any definitive conclusions about 'Russian Hacking' of the DNC server because no one in the US Intel Community or FBI ever analyzed those servers.

How insane can you fucking get to try to post what you just did after Mueller investigation indicted 12 Russian intelligence operatives for conducting this hacking???

Mueller indicts 12 Russians for DNC hacking as Trump-Putin summit looms

The indictment details the Kremlin's 2016 election meddling days before President Donald Trump is set to meet the Russian leader.

www.politico.com

Of course, Mueller report concluded that Russians hacked DNC, of course you are full of your usual crazy shit.

 

[colfax_m]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

The discussion of which was not a crime.

Then why did Flynn lie about having those conversations?

 

[colfax_m]

2. The Mueller report made it clear that US intelligence, nor the FBI, could NOT make any definitive conclusions about 'Russian Hacking' of the DNC server because no one in the US Intel Community or FBI ever analyzed those servers.

How insane can you fucking get to try to post what you just did after Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence operative for conducting this hacking???

Mueller indicts 12 Russians for DNC hacking as Trump-Putin summit looms

The indictment details the Kremlin's 2016 election meddling days before President Donald Trump is set to meet the Russian leader.

www.politico.com

Of course, Mueller report concluded that Russians hacked DNC, of course you are full of your usual crazy shit.

Directly from the Mueller report:
III. RUSSIAN HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATIONS
Beginning in March 2016, units of the Russian Federation’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) hacked the computers and email accounts of organizations, employees, and volunteers supporting the Clinton Campaign, including the email account of campaign chairman John Podesta. Starting in April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU targeted hundreds of email accounts used by Clinton Campaign employees, advisors, and volunteers. In total, the GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks.109 The GRU later released stolen Clinton Campaign and DNC documents through online personas, “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” and later through the organization WikiLeaks. The release of the documents was designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and undermine the Clinton Campaign.

The report makes it clear they DEFINITELY did make conclusions about Russian hacking.

 

[AntonToo]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

The discussion of which was not a crime.

Don't know how strong the Logan Act case would be, but there was a damn good reason Flynn was lying to FBI. People don't just take risks of going to jail for no reason.

He tried to obstruct the investigation and got caught by the balls - that's on him.

 

[easyt65]

How insane can you fucking get to try to post what you just did after Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence operative for conducting this hacking???

...and how is Mueller's attempt to extradite those Russians to the US and to successfully get them convicted going, snowflake?

Bwuhahahahaha.....Indicting these 12 Russians he knew he had no shot in hell of ever getting here in the states and who would never make it in front of a courtroom was all part of the incredible BS SHOW...and you bought into it... hook, line, and sinker.

 

[DBA]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Yes, they did, he misstated a fact. That's all. You are either willfully ignorant of the case, or simply don't care.

Regardless of your bullshit opinion, Flynn is going to be exonerated because he committed no crime.

The fbi however, did.

No he will be exonerated because Tramp told Barr to exert pressure.

According to you trampers its ok to lie to the FBI and its ok to ignore the house investigations,
and its ok to lie, because tramp does it all the time.
You tramper's are so low.

Can I lie to the FBI. You guys have absolutely no morals.

For the sake of argument, lets say he lied.

Why was Flynn not convicted of anything other than lying? Just wondering, since Flynn has been used by the left as a justification for the Mueller investigation. Was the the entire investigation nothing more than an attempt to get a bunch of process crimes out of Trump associates? Sure does seem that way to the logical mind.

Because he took a guilty plea on straight forward perjury charges instead of a rare Logan Act charge. Prosecutors like to keep their case as clear as possible while getting the just outcome, probably even more so for high profile, politically sensitive cases.

Your assertion that Flynn had ANYTHING to do with justification for investigation, which began in 2016 is pure ignorance. It was a tangent episode to operation Hurricane until Trump pressured Comey to "let Flynn go" and eventually fired him, which resulted in Mueller being assigned.

You are right, it was the witch-hunt previous to the Mueller investigation. It is hard to keep them all straight and in order.

 

[easyt65]

Don't know how strong the Logan Act charges would be, but there was a damn good reason Flynn was risking perjury by lying to FBI.

.....EXCEPT for the fact that the FBI was going to end the investigation of Flynn due to lack of evidence....until Strzok told them not to.....

....AND Except for the fact that the FBI Agents involved in the interview with Flynn stated they did not believe Flynn lied......and it was only STRZOK who proceeded to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI....followed by a guilty plea that was obtained by threatening to target / thrown Flynn's son in jail.

(I laugh hard when you leave those little facts out.... )

 

[AntonToo]

American Intelligence, Russians indicted for this operation and Republican Senate report on 2016 interference into our election says you are full of shit. No one except crazy rw politico idiots like you are still trying to refute that Russians hacked DNC.

Sorry, but I could not get past your 1st point, or should I say 1st LIE:
1. LINK?

Senate Intel report confirms Russia aimed to help Trump in 2016

The report represents a confidence-booster to the country’s intelligence community.

www.politico.com

(U) ...Russia's campaign of hacking the emails of prominent political figures and releasing them through Wikileaks, Gucifer 2.0, and DCLeaks was probably its most effective means of influencing the 2016 election. The Committee has received extensive testimony about these operations, the vulnerabilities that allowed them to occur, and the threat those vulnerabilities pose to the integrity of American democracy.'

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

 

[AntonToo]

Don't know how strong the Logan Act charges would be, but there was a damn good reason Flynn was risking perjury by lying to FBI.

.....EXCEPT for the fact that the FBI was going to end the investigation of Flynn due to lack of evidence....until Strzok told them not to...

Not sure where you get that from, but it doesn't even matter. Strzok didn't make Flynn cover up and repeatedly lie to FBI, did he?

 

[AntonToo]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Yes, they did, he misstated a fact. That's all. You are either willfully ignorant of the case, or simply don't care.

Regardless of your bullshit opinion, Flynn is going to be exonerated because he committed no crime.

The fbi however, did.

No he will be exonerated because Tramp told Barr to exert pressure.

According to you trampers its ok to lie to the FBI and its ok to ignore the house investigations,
and its ok to lie, because tramp does it all the time.
You tramper's are so low.

Can I lie to the FBI. You guys have absolutely no morals.

For the sake of argument, lets say he lied.

Why was Flynn not convicted of anything other than lying? Just wondering, since Flynn has been used by the left as a justification for the Mueller investigation. Was the the entire investigation nothing more than an attempt to get a bunch of process crimes out of Trump associates? Sure does seem that way to the logical mind.

Because he took a guilty plea on straight forward perjury charges instead of a rare Logan Act charge. Prosecutors like to keep their case as clear as possible while getting the just outcome, probably even more so for high profile, politically sensitive cases.

Your assertion that Flynn had ANYTHING to do with justification for investigation, which began in 2016 is pure ignorance. It was a tangent episode to operation Hurricane until Trump pressured Comey to "let Flynn go" and eventually fired him, which resulted in Mueller being assigned.

You are right, it was the witch-hunt previous to the Mueller investigation. It is hard to keep them all straight and in order.

It's not hard at all unless it all becomes garbled up politico conspiracy mess in your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Logan Act is a joke and that's why they didn't nail him on it.

Yes, to a trump supporter being a human shield for a trump proxy. But the FBI still investigates these violations. As they should.

Flynn was set up by the FBI.

Yes, that's what the FBI does with criminals. He was set up to lie, because they knew he would lie. And they were right. He did. Blame the foreign agent doing illegal deals with russians for that. He lied, because he knew what he was doing was not okay.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

The discussion of which was not a crime.

He was part of the fucking transition team and one of Trumps National Security Advisors, of course he is going to talk to Russian Diplomats.

What the heck??

 

[AntonToo]

I challenge you to be able to exactly recall, to the finest detail, a conversation you had weeks ago.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

I would obviously have ZERO problems recalling something so sensitive in nature and I would OBVIOUSLY not be pleading guilty to lying to FBI (on multiple counts no less) if I simply forgot something.

The only reason it is not obvious to you is that like most politico nutters, you have a nasty habit of shutting down your common sense facilities if they lead to inconvenient conclusions.

Nobody asked Flynn for the finest detail. he either discussed with Russians sanctions or he didn't.

The discussion of which was not a crime.

He was part of the fucking transition team and one of Trumps National Security Advisors, of course he is going to talk to Russian Diplomats.

What the heck??

If Trump's transition team (who are still just civilians BTW) talking to Russians about sanctions in the context of possible quid-pro-quo for hacking and disclosure of political opposition emails, of course FBI should investigate.

In your world people just lie to FBI and risk killing their career and going to jail....for no reason? There was damn good reason Flynn was lying his ass off, he obviously thought the truth was worse.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He was part of the fucking transition team and one of Trumps National Security Advisors, of course he is going to talk to Russian Diplomats.

False. It was not legal for them to engage in diplomacy.