Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 30,712
- 23,619
He never said he had not been talking to the Russians. He was accused of making false statements about the content of the calls. The fact he could not recall exactly what he said and the FBI already had transcripts and were on a fishing expedition should not have been grounds to indict him in any way, shape or form. Flynn was only doing what every other transition team person has done. In addition, Comey broke protocol in sending agents into the White House and admitted doing so on national TV because he said he could get away with it. Also, the FBI falsely told Flynn that their questioning was really no big deal (after all they did not use protocols) and encouraged him NOT to have a lawyer present. They didn't even read him his Miranda rights. The whole thing was a dirty set-up in order to get Flynn and ultimately get to Trump.Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?
I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.
Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......
This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.
Last edited: