Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you DID forget. I asked you if you forgot. You could have just said "yes".You know that's not the claim.Ah, so you don't actually have a link to support your bogus claim. Rather, you used piss por logic to deduce it from the fact that mullahs have lied and cheated. Glad we got that cleared up.Like your sources told you the mullahs never cheat or lie?
Ah, so you don't actually have a link to support your bogus claim.
You need a link to the mullahs cheating and lying?
You're not claiming the mullahs never lie or cheat?
What? There was no crime in the first place so he could not have been a suspect. The FBI had NO RIGHT to NOT tell him he was a suspect in a crime which, of course, did not exist. They had NO RIGHT to NOT read him his Miranda rights, they had NO RIGHT to NOT encourage him to have a lawyer. Frankly, they had no grounds to question him at all especially when you consider that the dossier was fake and the whole Russia gate investigation was fake.No he wasn’t under investigation... but he was a material witness and possible suspect... so of course the FBI had a right to question himI never said Flynn’s call was a crime. Now you’re putting words in my mouth because you don’t have a solid argument to stand behind... that’s pretty weak ToddOf course it’s material. How is it not? Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia” Flynn lied to Pence who in turn spread that lie to us all... there were in fact contacts with Russia. Trump and Flynn spread the lie that there wasn’t. But no big deal right? Talk about the swampLies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal. Flynn should have been honest and transparent. He wasn’t. He lied to the public, got fired. He lied to the FBI, got arrested. But you keep defending him.... just try and find a more convincing argument.Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!What a patriot... lying to the FBI to throw them off the sent of the legitimate business he was conducting. That sounds like Brilliant logic. Are you nuts?!Yeah intentionally lied when it was found out later that he didn't have too. He found out one thing though, and that is when dealing with a set up in which was hoping to find a bigger fish, him lying to throw off his assasins didn't do him any good in the long run, so yes it wasn't a good move for him, but thank God it all came out in the wash that the FBI went rogue.No, you can stop right there. He did not make a mistake. He intentionally lied. Please read up before commenting again.The fact he could not recall exactly what he saidAsking the Russians to do anything was not a crime, Flynn was in the transition team and did nothing more than any other transition team did with any other President. The FBI was on a fishing expedition. They knew what was in the call, did not tell Flynn, made it seem like a casual meeting, told him he did not need a lawyer and never gave him his Miranda rights. You seem to always leave out the details I guess because you are voluntarily ignorant of the facts. Flynn was not given the same rights as a common criminal. Also the FBI threatened to jail his son if he didn't go belly up. But I get it, you're perfectly OK with any malfeasance or sedition as long as the man (Trump) whom you hate so much, is is taken out by any means, including a Coup.Wait... you think he was arrested for not remembering exactly what was discussed in the two conversations?! Because the questions were about pretty significant things like asking Russians to temper their response to obama sanctions. It was the purpose of the call and Flynn denied making that request. That’s not forgetting details. That’s lying. If he was fuzzy about any details he could have easily said “I do not recall” but he didn’t say that. He lied and denied. When people lie to cops they break the law and they are going to get pressed harder to see what else they might be lying about. That’s how it worksHe 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.
Also you haven't addressed the fact that Comey sent agents into the White House without following protocol and bragged about it. But, I know, dirty Comey is your hero....
I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.
they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it.
Lies about a non-crime that aren't part of a legitimate criminal investigation aren't material.
Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t.
If the call contained criminal acts, he should have been charged with those crimes. He wasn't.
Lies about conversations with Russians when Russians were interfering with our election is a big deal.
Unless the conversations involved election interference, not material.
Of course it’s material. How is it not?
Flynn wasn't being investigated for a crime committed during the campaign, was he?
Nothing in the phone call was criminal, was it?
So how is a misremembrance or an out right lie about the call material?
Trump had been saying for weeks “no contacts with Russia”
Trump's statement doesn't make Flynn's call a crime.
Trump's claim was probably about the campaign, which
was long over at the time of the call, right?
there were in fact contacts with Russia.
Yup. Perfectly legal contacts.
I never said Flynn’s call was a crime.
So he wasn't under criminal investigation for the call or for anything before the call.
That's why his lies during questioning about the call were not material.
FAKE Russia investigation is what I posted. We can see that the FBI was trying to set up Flynn and anyone they could based on a FAKE dossier. Actually the TDS propagana "has hit its saturation" with YOU. Your posts are all Democrat propaganda TDS talking points.False Russia investigation? Haha, yes the propaganda has hit its saturation point with youFlynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?I’m less interested in propaganda from either side and more interested in the simple reality of this case. Flynn lied about a pretty damn serious situation. I know it’s been pounded into your head that it was all a snowflake hoax so lying about it was no big deal but again that’s just propaganda at workLooks like you should watch the video I've already posted here. You asking questions from a place of ignorance.Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!
I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.
And the video is the product of big time progressive leftists, so blather about "right wing talking points"
isn't helpful or pertinent.
Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.
Here is some more reality for you:
"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."
"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."
Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.
are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!
Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!
Coyote Just LISTEN to this bragging bastard traitor ENTERTAINING TDSers like you about AMBUSHING Gen Flynn.,. He's just a HERO to them... NEEDS the credit at that point for GETTING a special counsel to investigate NOTHING that the FBI had on Russia Russia Russia...
This interview was shortly after he was fired and going out on "The Resistance Tour" to whip up the dittohead resisters about Russia..
Boils my blood at the level of ABUSE OF POWER that's here... Not the "abuse of power" you IMAGINED existed in the 1st weeks of the Trump Admin...
Watch IT -- and tell me this is funny or APPROPRIATE now that America KNOWS the FBI had NOTHING ON RUSSIA about Flynn and THEY knew this also...
I asked (begged, actually) this troll more than several times to watch a video to educate himself and he refuses and prefers the agitprop, political memes and urban myths the DNC and media feeds him that he's comfortable with.FAKE Russia investigation is what I posted. We can see that the FBI was trying to set up Flynn and anyone they could based on a FAKE dossier. Actually the TDS propagana "has hit its saturation" with YOU. Your posts are all Democrat propaganda TDS talking points.
You are not imitating a suppository so much as a turd.I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.
You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.
People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
mediabiasfactcheck.com
mediabiasfactcheck.com
it is a good read and more of the COMPLETE story."The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed. "Conspiracy to persecute the president? I call balony on that. Flynn lied. He did not have to. If anything, the conspiracy was by Trump & Co on the American people With their inherent disrespect for the rule of law.
People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.www.lawfareblog.com
So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him.
Worth a read.
FBI closed Flynn case in early 2017, but Peter Strzok ordered it to stay open: Court documents
The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed.www.washingtontimes.com
Also 'worth a read'
yet to many, when you present additional facts that reduce the impact of the ones they've chosen to believe; then you're literally ripping away a security blanket and it will get emotionally ugly.
The coupe? Good grief. There was no coupe.Conspiracy to persecute the president? I call balony on that. Flynn lied. He did not have to. If anything, the conspiracy was by Trump & Co on the American people With their inherent disrespect for the rule of law.
ALL of this double cross on Flynn happened in the VERY FIRST DAYS of the Trump Admin.. The coup had NO "violations of the Rule of Law" to cite to JUSTIFY their traitorous actions NOR the SEVERE prosecutorial abuses of Gen Flynn.. OR the lying about him to Congress by Sally Yates..
IN FACT -- The LEGAL and appropriate Intel project at the FBI had concluded there WAS NO information that Flynn was "working was Russia" or compromised by Russia just THE DAY BEFORE Peter Strzok and Comey launched that ambush at the WH just FOUR DAYS into the Trump Admin -- to try and TRAP Flynn into a process crime.. BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING about "Russia" to pursue ANY legitimate investigation on..
It came out last week in papers PRIED by Flynn's new lawyer from the FBI -- that Strzok was advised FBI Intel was SHUTTING DOWN their investigation of Flynn -- And Strzok told them "NO -- hold it open" -- presumably because they NEEDED that excuse to get a Special council approved... He also told them "You CANT shut it down because the 7th floor is active on this"... Meaning the Cabal of Comey, McCabe, Weismann and Pete Strzok's lover lawyer for the 7th floor where the "top brass" work...
You are not imitating a suppository so much as a turd.I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.
You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.
Comey: "I Sent" FBI Agents Into WH, Wouldn't Have Gotten Away With It In A "More Organized Administration"
Newly released files from the FBI show bureau officials implemented a "meticulously planned-out scheme" to frame former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy. "What we are seeing is a meticulously planned-out scheme to try to get a 33-year...www.realclearpolitics.com
If you can watch this and look at James Comey cracking jokes about setting up Gen. Flynn in a perjury trap,
taking advantage of his trust in the FBI, and not feel revulsion and disgust for that piece of crap then you are every bit the turd I alluded to.
Nothing makes a case when you refuse to look at it and educate yourself.I recommend a laxative to unclog your malfunctioning executive functions. One and a half minutes of that asshat Comey does not a case make,
You might apply that same advice to yourself. What a novel idea eh?Nothing makes a case when you refuse to look at it and educate yourself.I recommend a laxative to unclog your malfunctioning executive functions. One and a half minutes of that asshat Comey does not a case make,
You have all the intellectual honesty and integrity of a slug trail on the sidewalk.
I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.
Yet which of us continues to demonize the other side while never holding herself accountable to the same standard?People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
Anyone can write ANYTHING.
And go if you are going on about sources instead check your own.
Mission Statement - www.independentsentinel.com ....usually right-of-center, for a Conservative, Libertarian, Republican audience.
Independent Sentinel – Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
- Overall, we rate the Independent Sentinel Right Biased based on story selection and opinions that always favors the right. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to the occasional use of sources that have failed fact checks in the past.
it is a good read and more of the COMPLETE story."The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed. "Conspiracy to persecute the president? I call balony on that. Flynn lied. He did not have to. If anything, the conspiracy was by Trump & Co on the American people With their inherent disrespect for the rule of law.
People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.
So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him.
Worth a read.
FBI closed Flynn case in early 2017, but Peter Strzok ordered it to stay open: Court documents
The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed.
Also 'worth a read'
yet to many, when you present additional facts that reduce the impact of the ones they've chosen to believe; then you're literally ripping away a security blanket and it will get emotionally ugly.
Oh? One discusses applicable law. Not politics. The other gives a one sided version of what they think, based on partisan politics.
Try that to someone she likes suddenly its bad.People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
I might...if I was as ethically corrupt and dishonest as you. But that doesn't seem possible.You might apply that same advice to yourself. What a novel idea eh?
Yeah anyone can write anything, you just proved that.People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
Anyone can write ANYTHING.
And go if you are going on about sources instead check your own.
Mission Statement - www.independentsentinel.com ....usually right-of-center, for a Conservative, Libertarian, Republican audience.
Independent Sentinel – Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
- Overall, we rate the Independent Sentinel Right Biased based on story selection and opinions that always favors the right. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to the occasional use of sources that have failed fact checks in the past.
LEAST BIASEDLawfare Blog – Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
- Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact checkers.
it is a good read and more of the COMPLETE story."The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed. "Conspiracy to persecute the president? I call balony on that. Flynn lied. He did not have to. If anything, the conspiracy was by Trump & Co on the American people With their inherent disrespect for the rule of law.
People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.
So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him.
Worth a read.
FBI closed Flynn case in early 2017, but Peter Strzok ordered it to stay open: Court documents
The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed.
Also 'worth a read'
yet to many, when you present additional facts that reduce the impact of the ones they've chosen to believe; then you're literally ripping away a security blanket and it will get emotionally ugly.
Oh? One discusses applicable law. Not politics. The other gives a one sided version of what they think, based on partisan politics.
Coyote Just LISTEN to this bragging bastard traitor ENTERTAINING TDSers like you about AMBUSHING Gen Flynn.,. He's just a HERO to them... NEEDS the credit at that point for GETTING a special counsel to investigate NOTHING that the FBI had on Russia Russia Russia...
This interview was shortly after he was fired and going out on "The Resistance Tour" to whip up the dittohead resisters about Russia..
Boils my blood at the level of ABUSE OF POWER that's here... Not the "abuse of power" you IMAGINED existed in the 1st weeks of the Trump Admin...
Watch IT -- and tell me this is funny or APPROPRIATE now that America KNOWS the FBI had NOTHING ON RUSSIA about Flynn and THEY knew this also...
I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.
You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.
Try applying that to yourself.Try that to someone she likes suddenly its bad.People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
Root of our biggest issues these days is putting requirements on others we'd never put on ourselves.
Lawfare Group is a radical group of leftist lawyers in Washington, D.C.People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
ANYONE can write POLITICAL analysis for Lawfare... There WAS "an ambush".. Comey PUBLICLY BRAGGED about ambushing the brand new Admin just 4 days after inauguration.. Was PROUD of the fact that McCabe told Flynn "he didn't need a lawyer" when he set up the meeting.. Meeting was NOT CLEARED by WH counsel as it USUALLY would be.. And when Comey BRAGGED about ambushing Flynn in those 1st days -- the audience laughed..
Are you interested enough to WATCH the video? Or are ya off googling the NEXT response that matches your "unformed opinion"??
Anyone can write ANYTHING.
And go if you are going on about sources instead check your own.
Mission Statement - www.independentsentinel.com ....usually right-of-center, for a Conservative, Libertarian, Republican audience.
Independent Sentinel – Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
- Overall, we rate the Independent Sentinel Right Biased based on story selection and opinions that always favors the right. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to the occasional use of sources that have failed fact checks in the past.
LEAST BIASEDLawfare Blog – Bias and Credibility
LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
- Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact checkers.
it is a good read and more of the COMPLETE story."The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed. "Conspiracy to persecute the president? I call balony on that. Flynn lied. He did not have to. If anything, the conspiracy was by Trump & Co on the American people With their inherent disrespect for the rule of law.
People are making a big deal out something that may not mean what they think.
Flynn Redux: What Those FBI Documents Really Show
A lot of people seem to be expecting Michael Flynn's sudden vindication. They should take a deep breath.
So far, however, nothing has emerged that remotely clears Flynn; nothing has emerged that would require Sullivan to allow him to withdraw his plea; and nothing has emerged that would justify the Justice Department’s backing off of the case—or prosecuting it aggressively if Flynn were somehow allowed out of the very generous deal Special Counsel Robert Mueller cut him.
Worth a read.
FBI closed Flynn case in early 2017, but Peter Strzok ordered it to stay open: Court documents
The FBI had closed its investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017, but now-disgraced anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok reopened it the same day, new court documents unsealed Thursday revealed.
Also 'worth a read'
yet to many, when you present additional facts that reduce the impact of the ones they've chosen to believe; then you're literally ripping away a security blanket and it will get emotionally ugly.
Oh? One discusses applicable law. Not politics. The other gives a one sided version of what they think, based on partisan politics.
