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

[Meister]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

You're the biggest fruitcake on this site. The fact you are a moderator

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied. Sorry man, you can’t spin beyond that

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied.

How much of his statement in court was coerced?

Don't know how things work in federal court?

Let me help.

In a federal court if you plead guilty, you have to "mea culpa". Which means you have profess with your mouth, loudly and clearly, that you understand the charge you are pleading guilty to, that you are doing so without any reservations or coercions, and exactly what crime you know that committed, and are pleading guilty to.

That leaves you no wiggle room to back out of it later, or claim ignorance, or coercion.

Oops.

And because the plea has been entered, there is no longer any speedy trial right. The judge can suspend sentencing indefinitely. You know, until after the election, and if things dont go your way, there won't be any pals left in the White House that can pardon him, and no fixer in the DOJ to make anymore suggestions to the court. In fact, a new DOJ, could bring even more charges after he is sentenced to prison on the current guilty plea.

No the fruitcake award goes to you, Skrewed, hands down...I couldn't even carry your water

 

[Slade3200]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

 

[Meister]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

 

[Meister]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

You're the biggest fruitcake on this site. The fact you are a moderator

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied. Sorry man, you can’t spin beyond that

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied.

How much of his statement in court was coerced?

Don't know how things work in federal court?

Let me help.

In a federal court if you plead guilty, you have to "mea culpa". Which means you have profess with your mouth, loudly and clearly, that you understand the charge you are pleading guilty to, that you are doing so without any reservations or coercions, and exactly what crime you know that committed, and are pleading guilty to.

That leaves you no wiggle room to back out of it later, or claim ignorance, or coercion.

Oops.

And because the plea has been entered, there is no longer any speedy trial right. The judge can suspend sentencing indefinitely. You know, until after the election, and if things dont go your way, there won't be any pals left in the White House that can pardon him, and no fixer in the DOJ to make anymore suggestions to the court. In fact, a new DOJ, could bring even more charges after he is sentenced to prison on the current guilty plea.

You're just all butthurt that justice was finally served properly. Not like that sham the FBI was trying to pull off.
They were sure counting on the old hag to win so she could have buried all that crap where it would have never been unearthed.

 

[Slade3200]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

 

[Slade3200]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

You're the biggest fruitcake on this site. The fact you are a moderator

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied. Sorry man, you can’t spin beyond that

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied.

How much of his statement in court was coerced?

Don't know how things work in federal court?

Let me help.

In a federal court if you plead guilty, you have to "mea culpa". Which means you have profess with your mouth, loudly and clearly, that you understand the charge you are pleading guilty to, that you are doing so without any reservations or coercions, and exactly what crime you know that committed, and are pleading guilty to.

That leaves you no wiggle room to back out of it later, or claim ignorance, or coercion.

Oops.

And because the plea has been entered, there is no longer any speedy trial right. The judge can suspend sentencing indefinitely. You know, until after the election, and if things dont go your way, there won't be any pals left in the White House that can pardon him, and no fixer in the DOJ to make anymore suggestions to the court. In fact, a new DOJ, could bring even more charges after he is sentenced to prison on the current guilty plea.

You're just all butthurt that justice was finally served properly. Not like that sham the FBI was trying to pull off.
They were sure counting on the old hag to win so she could have buried all that crap where it would have never been unearthed.

You’ve lost your ability to credibility act like you care about law and order. Flynn admitted to lying. You want him exonerated on technicalities and poor excuses. You lose

 

[Meister]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

Denial. On Oct. 18, 2016, President Obama made a comment that rivals his “ISIS is the jayvee team” remark in terms of its wrongheadedness. He declared that “no serious person” would suggest America’s elections could be rigged. “There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” said Obama.
Suspicious timing. Russia’s election interference certainly was not new on election day. Yet only after Trump was elected (instead of Hillary Clinton) did President Obama assign his intel officials to issue a public report about Russia’s scheme. And only then did he pursue punishment, including sanctions and expulsion of some Russian diplomats from the United States.

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

Politics so distracted Obama intel officials that they lost sight of the very danger they now claim threatens our democracy.

thehill.com

Obama's biggest mistake was not going public with the Russian interference

 

[beagle9]

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

But it's OK when they do it.

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

Flynn’s attorneys accused the FBI deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, of pushing their client into not having counsel present during his interview with bureau officials.

www.politico.com

Former FBI Director James Comey says Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, was told he could have an attorney present during a meeting with bureau officials last year, but Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one.

“I believe the deputy director volunteered to him that you are welcome to have somebody present from the White House Counsel’s Office,” Comey told lawmakers on Monday, according to a transcript released Tuesday. “And I think he said, in substance, there’d be no need for that.”



Flynn's choice. Just like he made a CHOICE to lie. He would not have needed a lawyer if he hadn't lied...

It was a coerced choice. Misremembering is not a lie.

Correct... misremembering can be an honest mistake. That’s not what happened here. If a NSA forgets that he asked a foreign government to not react to sanctions then he is either lying or mentally retarded. I won’t rule out the later but since he said he lied in court I don’t think there is much to debate here. Y’all just sound desperate to cover for a liar

No not desperate to cover for a liar, because that's not the issue here. The issue is how did they pressure the man into making statement's in which they wanted without setting him up, and then why did they set him up ?? The reason was to add to the Domino affect in which was being conducted by the swamp creatures in order to (in their hopes) get Trump.

Of course the left wants to cover that up, and are desperate to do so.

 

[Meister]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

You're the biggest fruitcake on this site. The fact you are a moderator

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied. Sorry man, you can’t spin beyond that

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied.

How much of his statement in court was coerced?

Don't know how things work in federal court?

Let me help.

In a federal court if you plead guilty, you have to "mea culpa". Which means you have profess with your mouth, loudly and clearly, that you understand the charge you are pleading guilty to, that you are doing so without any reservations or coercions, and exactly what crime you know that committed, and are pleading guilty to.

That leaves you no wiggle room to back out of it later, or claim ignorance, or coercion.

Oops.

And because the plea has been entered, there is no longer any speedy trial right. The judge can suspend sentencing indefinitely. You know, until after the election, and if things dont go your way, there won't be any pals left in the White House that can pardon him, and no fixer in the DOJ to make anymore suggestions to the court. In fact, a new DOJ, could bring even more charges after he is sentenced to prison on the current guilty plea.

You're just all butthurt that justice was finally served properly. Not like that sham the FBI was trying to pull off.
They were sure counting on the old hag to win so she could have buried all that crap where it would have never been unearthed.

You’ve lost your ability to credibility act like you care about law and order. Flynn admitted to lying. You want him exonerated on technicalities and poor excuses. You lose

You and I have been over time after time.
You just want to debate half of the truth, and I want to debate the entire truth.
Context is everything. You should be embarrassed for keep bringing up your half truths as facts, dude.

 

[beagle9]

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Betrayal is a deplorable thing, and it is highly prevalent these days.

 

[beagle9]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

Denial. On Oct. 18, 2016, President Obama made a comment that rivals his “ISIS is the jayvee team” remark in terms of its wrongheadedness. He declared that “no serious person” would suggest America’s elections could be rigged. “There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” said Obama.
Suspicious timing. Russia’s election interference certainly was not new on election day. Yet only after Trump was elected (instead of Hillary Clinton) did President Obama assign his intel officials to issue a public report about Russia’s scheme. And only then did he pursue punishment, including sanctions and expulsion of some Russian diplomats from the United States.

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

Politics so distracted Obama intel officials that they lost sight of the very danger they now claim threatens our democracy.

thehill.com

Obama's biggest mistake was not going public with the Russian interference

Can't attempt to use it to set someone up if go public with it, so was he using it to set someone (Hillary's political opponent), up at a later date, even though the raw connections weren't there ?? Otherwise the Russians were doing what they always do (interfering), but was that looked at in someway as a way (to apply it), in order to change an election outcome ??

 

[beagle9]

Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government

No, it's just the Obama machine is no longer in power to sweep their dirt under the rug into the dark.
Read the title of the thread.

Perhaps we don't have a Banana Republic in America.....yet.

not yet. but i have a feeling this is drawing battle lines. you won't see ANYONE on the left admit the FBI was wrong - it will all be Barr is corrupt.

all they can do.

All they ever do.

 

[Slade3200]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

Denial. On Oct. 18, 2016, President Obama made a comment that rivals his “ISIS is the jayvee team” remark in terms of its wrongheadedness. He declared that “no serious person” would suggest America’s elections could be rigged. “There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” said Obama.
Suspicious timing. Russia’s election interference certainly was not new on election day. Yet only after Trump was elected (instead of Hillary Clinton) did President Obama assign his intel officials to issue a public report about Russia’s scheme. And only then did he pursue punishment, including sanctions and expulsion of some Russian diplomats from the United States.

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

Politics so distracted Obama intel officials that they lost sight of the very danger they now claim threatens our democracy.

thehill.com

Obama's biggest mistake was not going public with the Russian interference

Are you serious with the JV and rigged points you just made?! I want to make sure you’re serious before I take you to school. It ok to admit you just trolling, because if you are seriously going to stand behind this arguments as good points then you are truly a talking point parroting idiot

 

[beagle9]

Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government

Just goes to show the depth of corruption this administration has created.

No it doesn't Coyote.
Justice was served today.

No, I totally disagree with that. Barr has stepped in/over his lawyers too many times for me to believe that. Flynn lied, there is no doubt, the judge has been clear on that as well.

Justice would have been served IN A COURT - cleared by a court. But Barr has shown himself to be a political creature from the start when he misportrayed the Mueller report, refused to release it, etc. Too many things. This is the real swamp.

I'm not quite sure how a prosecutor can drop charges on an adjudicated case?

He pled guilty twice...but one of the prosecutors quit the case shortly before this was announced. I can see why.

Flynn's already a convicted felon. He didn't appeal. His guilty plea was not withdrawn. I still don't understand what effect dropping the charges on the case has anything to do with this at this point?

And Trump is still impeached Trump in your world, yet "ONLY IN YOUR WORLD".

The rest of the country has since moved on..........Rotflmbo, will you ever recognize justice, law, and order ?

 

[beagle9]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

You're the biggest fruitcake on this site. The fact you are a moderator

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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

thats not what he was told you’re making that up.

See my former post with a link:

"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."


“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."

Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.

And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.

The FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.

Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crime

McCabe and Storzk pretended they were welcoming Flynn as new National Security guy. As such, Flynn would have known about the coup so they had to set him up to lie. They pretended to have a casual conversation and when Flynn made misstatements in that casual conversation they sprung on him.

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied. Sorry man, you can’t spin beyond that

Yet they offered him the invite to bring council and he said in court that he was not tricked and that he lied.

How much of his statement in court was coerced?

Don't know how things work in federal court?

Let me help.

In a federal court if you plead guilty, you have to "mea culpa". Which means you have profess with your mouth, loudly and clearly, that you understand the charge you are pleading guilty to, that you are doing so without any reservations or coercions, and exactly what crime you know that committed, and are pleading guilty to.

That leaves you no wiggle room to back out of it later, or claim ignorance, or coercion.

Oops.

And because the plea has been entered, there is no longer any speedy trial right. The judge can suspend sentencing indefinitely. You know, until after the election, and if things dont go your way, there won't be any pals left in the White House that can pardon him, and no fixer in the DOJ to make anymore suggestions to the court. In fact, a new DOJ, could bring even more charges after he is sentenced to prison on the current guilty plea.

This would be true if the person pleading guilty wasn't under duress from a prosecution that used corrupt tactics in order to gain such statements in a case.

That changes everything.

 

[Coyote]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

Denial. On Oct. 18, 2016, President Obama made a comment that rivals his “ISIS is the jayvee team” remark in terms of its wrongheadedness. He declared that “no serious person” would suggest America’s elections could be rigged. “There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” said Obama.
Suspicious timing. Russia’s election interference certainly was not new on election day. Yet only after Trump was elected (instead of Hillary Clinton) did President Obama assign his intel officials to issue a public report about Russia’s scheme. And only then did he pursue punishment, including sanctions and expulsion of some Russian diplomats from the United States.

10 factors making Russia election interference the most enduring scandal of the Obama era

Politics so distracted Obama intel officials that they lost sight of the very danger they now claim threatens our democracy.

thehill.com

Obama's biggest mistake was not going public with the Russian interference

Or not suspicious timing?

I think the Obama Administration had a real Catch-22 on it's hands. If it did this prior the election, it risked being accused of interfering in that election. Think about it. The intelligence consensus is Putin wanted Trump to win. If that became a full investigation prior the election - what would have been the effect? How could it NOT be seen as interference by the president - abusing his power? I think the only way to handle it is to let it be handled by the incoming administration afterwards.

But, you echo some of Obama's own administration critics, that he should have gone public before.

I don't know which would be the better.

 

[Coyote]

Wow, Barr just dropped the case. Talk about the dirty dirty swamp. How embarrassing for our government

Just goes to show the depth of corruption this administration has created.

No it doesn't Coyote.
Justice was served today.

No, I totally disagree with that. Barr has stepped in/over his lawyers too many times for me to believe that. Flynn lied, there is no doubt, the judge has been clear on that as well.

Justice would have been served IN A COURT - cleared by a court. But Barr has shown himself to be a political creature from the start when he misportrayed the Mueller report, refused to release it, etc. Too many things. This is the real swamp.

I'm not quite sure how a prosecutor can drop charges on an adjudicated case?

He pled guilty twice...but one of the prosecutors quit the case shortly before this was announced. I can see why.

Flynn's already a convicted felon. He didn't appeal. His guilty plea was not withdrawn. I still don't understand what effect dropping the charges on the case has anything to do with this at this point?

And Trump is still impeached Trump in your world, yet "ONLY IN YOUR WORLD".

The rest of the country has since moved on..........Rotflmbo, will you ever recognize justice, law, and order ?

No dear. He is forever impeached, in the real world. He can join Clinton and whats-his-name in a very exclusive club.

 

[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.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

Very well said. You win

Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.

But it's OK when they do it.

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

Flynn’s attorneys accused the FBI deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, of pushing their client into not having counsel present during his interview with bureau officials.

www.politico.com

Former FBI Director James Comey says Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, was told he could have an attorney present during a meeting with bureau officials last year, but Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one.

“I believe the deputy director volunteered to him that you are welcome to have somebody present from the White House Counsel’s Office,” Comey told lawmakers on Monday, according to a transcript released Tuesday. “And I think he said, in substance, there’d be no need for that.”



Flynn's choice. Just like he made a CHOICE to lie. He would not have needed a lawyer if he hadn't lied...

It was a coerced choice. Misremembering is not a lie.

Correct... misremembering can be an honest mistake. That’s not what happened here. If a NSA forgets that he asked a foreign government to not react to sanctions then he is either lying or mentally retarded. I won’t rule out the later but since he said he lied in court I don’t think there is much to debate here. Y’all just sound desperate to cover for a liar

No not desperate to cover for a liar, because that's not the issue here. The issue is how did they pressure the man into making statement's in which they wanted without setting him up, and then why did they set him up ?? The reason was to add to the Domino affect in which was being conducted by the swamp creatures in order to (in their hopes) get Trump.

Of course the left wants to cover that up, and are desperate to do so.

They didn't need to pressure him. They didn't need to set him up. He plead guilty TWICE, he openly stated he wasn't set up. And he LIED. The judge saw all the documentation.

 

[Coyote]

You make a lot of ASSumptions about liberals none of which are right unless you dig into conspiracy theory propaganda.

What's funny is that you would support foreign countries attempting to interfere in our elections.

What's sad is you would make this preposterous charge in order to prop up your absurd claims.
Desperate people make desperate claims.

What preposterous charge? That Russia was actively trying to interfere in elections, not only in the US but among our allies?

Russian interference was an excuse to try to get rid of Trump.

Russian interference was A reality that was uncovered by all of our intel agencies including Trumps guys.

Russian interference was A reality

Is there anything worse than a weaponized meme?

minimize it all you want but Trumps own intel directors have confirmed it and spoken out to its seriousness

Obama should have handled that, don't you think, I mean, he was aware of of it in 2016.
Trump didn't take office until after the election.

Sure... he tried to work with McConnell to make moves in a bipartisan way that wouldn’t be perceived as him trying to mess with the election. McConnell refused.

What moves? Couldn't have been much...he was president at the time remember?
Obama just didn't want to rock the boat. If he had done something about it covertly, and swept it
under the rug like so much else in his administration, I would have given him Kudos for doing so.

If Obama would have taken any aggressive action that made headlines you all would still be ranting that he abused his power to try and influence the election. Hell, you’re pushing that narrative anyways! Pathetic.

and if you dont know what Obama tried to do with McConnell about Russian interference then you haven’t been paying attention. Go do your homework now.

Exactly. It was a very dicey situation.

 

[Coyote]

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

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

But the federal judge in Washington overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, forcefully rejected most of the defense’s claims in a 92-page ruling in December.


Corruption.

Yeah, BEFORE the criminal activity of the FBI was exposed.

You need to catch up to the current timeline.

What laws did they break?