'Divorced from the facts': DOJ shoots down claims Strzok and the FBI trapped Flynn

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  73 comments

'Divorced from the facts': DOJ shoots down claims Strzok and the FBI trapped Flynn
“The interviewing agents repeatedly sought to prompt the defendant to provide a truthful response,” wrote U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who detailed the interaction in the filing.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


T he Justice Department shot down claims by former Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn’s lawyers that former FBI agent Peter Strzok and others at the bureau “set up” their client in a court filing.


Flynn’s attorneys alleged in a filing last week their client was  trapped  by Obama administration holdovers such as former FBI Director  James Comey  and former FBI Deputy Director  Andrew McCabe  in an effort to hobble newly elected President Trump, that Strzok and the other agent “ambushed” Flynn, and that Strzok and former FBI lawyer  Lisa Page  manipulated the FBI interview notes so they could claim Flynn had lied when he hadn’t.

"Each contention is divorced from the facts," federal prosecutors said in a 46-page filing Friday.

The dispute, which has long simmered in pro-Trump circles, centers around an interview of Flynn by  Strzok  and an unnamed FBI investigator  at the White House  during the chaotic first days of the Trump administration in which Flynn allegedly  misrepresented  conversations he’d had with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russian sanctions and a vote at the United Nations. Flynn  pleaded guilty  later that year to lying to investigators during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and had cooperated with the government until June, when he  fired the legal team  who cut his  plea deal.  Flynn's new attorneys include conservative former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, who  said  the DOJ "extorted" Flynn's plea.

“The interviewing agents repeatedly sought to prompt the defendant to provide a truthful response,” wrote U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who detailed the interaction in the filing.

“Such conduct demonstrates that the agents were not in search of a crime, but the truth about what had happened and why — which the defendant failed to provide,” she wrote. “Had they wanted to ‘trap’ the defendant into a false statement charge, they would not have prompted him repeatedly to correct his statements.”

Flynn’s lawyers had pointed to what they believed were discrepancies between the notes by the two FBI agents, drafts of the 302, and the final 302 itself, alleging the documents had been “manipulated.”

The DOJ also dismissed concerns about alleged discrepancies between drafts of the interview notes, calling the changes "largely grammatical and stylistic."

“The interviewing agents’ handwritten notes, interview report, drafts of the interview report, and statements are consistent and clear that the defendant made multiple false statements to the agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017,” Liu wrote.

Flynn's lawyers argued the 2017 interview was improper because “the FBI knew that its questions had nothing to do with ‘Russian interference’ in the election.”

But the DOJ countered that, at the time, the FBI was running a  counterintelligence investigation  at the time into  any connections  between the Kremlin and Trump’s campaign.

“The defendant’s conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry,” Liu wrote. “The defendant’s false statements inhibited the FBI’s ability to obtain that critical information, raised questions about why the defendant would lie to the FBI about such communications, and fundamentally influenced the FBI’s investigative activity going forward.”

Flynn’s legal team also claimed that the government had sought to edit out Strzok’s remark that Flynn had “a very ‘sure’ demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception” during his interview. But the DOJ argued there was no evidence that the government concealed this evidence and claimed that Flynn not seeming to lie didn’t mean he hadn’t, especially since he had apparently misled others about the same topic.

“There is ample public evidence that the defendant also convincingly lied to other government officials about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador,” the DOJ said.

“The defendant made the same false statements to the Vice President, White House Chief of Staff, and White House Press Secretary, each of whom repeated the defendant’s false statements on national television.”

Trump said he  asked for Flynn’s resignation  in February 2017 because Flynn hadn’t been honest with the vice president about his discussions with Kislyak.

Powell told the  Washington Examiner  on Friday that “the prosecutors dwell in an imaginary alternative universe” and that “nothing excuses their conduct in this case — and apparently there indeed was an earlier 302.”

“Stay tuned for our reply,” Powell added.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Flynn's lawyer is a conspiracy nut and a bamboozler. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
Flynn's lawyer is a conspiracy nut and a bamboozler. 

Bet you'd love having him defend you on something though. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Does one really find this "News Worthy", when it comes to a lawyer defending a client ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    2 weeks ago
Bet you'd love having him defend you on something though.

It's a woman. Glad to see you are up to speed on this topic. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
It's a woman

That's a great rebuttal. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    2 weeks ago

Does one really find this "News Worthy", when it comes to a lawyer defending a client ?

Does one comment on an article that one labels as, "not newsworthy", for any reason at all? 

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.4  JBB  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Only if "one" is drowning in that river in Egypt...

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Does one comment on an article that one labels as, "not newsworthy", for any reason at all? 

Whaaaat ?

[Trolling]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  JBB @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Only if "one" is drowning in that river in Egypt...

I'm a liking the Mississippi River myself !

Are you always Anti-American Travel ?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    2 weeks ago

It's newsworthy when the DoJ produces the evidence and publishes it own findings to the court and the public.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.8  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

And then a judge decides who was honest, weird that the DOJ didn’t deny that the 302’s changed, they admit they did, now the reason why is the question, and the FBI’s credibility is shit now thanks to Comey and company.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
The DOJ also dismissed concerns about alleged discrepancies between drafts of the interview notes, calling the changes "largely grammatical and stylistic." “The interviewing agents’ handwritten notes, interview report, drafts of the interview report, and statements are consistent and clear that the defendant made multiple false statements to the agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017,” Liu wrote. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/divorced-from-the-facts-doj-shoots-down-claims-strzok-and-the-fbi-trapped-flynn

And then a judge decides who was honest

Maybe the Judge will rule Mr. Flynn incompetent for pleading guilty originally...

and the FBI’s credibility is shit now thanks to Comey and company

more opinion?  Color me shocked. /s

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.10  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
more opinion?  Color me shocked. /s

He said as he posted an opinion piece from the DOJ as somehow factual.

Color me shocked, /s

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.11  JBB  replied to  loki12 @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

An opinion from Trump's Justice Department!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.12  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

Everything you've told us since you've been here regarding the Russia hoax has been debunked. Why should we believe you now?

Inquiring minds want to know?

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.13  loki12  replied to  JBB @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

Glad to see you have become a big advocate for the honesty of trumps DOJ, Of course the Lawyer who called them lying dogs was also a member of the DOJ,  THAT"S WHY ITS AN OPINION!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.14  loki12  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

He has come to the conclusion that the trump DOJ is now completely trustworthy......Obviously.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.15  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  loki12 @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

Stranger things have happened. I once saw a frog try to mate with a duck.

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.16  lib50  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
Everything you've told us since you've been here regarding the Russia hoax has been debunked.

No, it hasn't.  Have you read the report?   The report clearly lays out team Trumps connections with Russia.  Since most republicans in congress haven't read it, I'd be surprised if any conservatives here have.  Parroting Trump's 'hoax'  bs does nothing to prove your point.  Since his sycophants can't tell or don't care when Trump lies, we can't expect them to know the truth when it hits them upside the head.  (Consequence of supporting a pathological liar)

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.17  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  lib50 @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

Hold on let me fact check that comment.

320

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  JBB @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Only if "one" is drowning in that river in Egypt...

Truth..

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
And then a judge decides who was honest, weird that the DOJ didn’t deny that the 302’s changed, they admit they did, now the reason why is the question, and the FBI’s credibility is shit now thanks to Comey and company.

Did you miss this part of the seed:

“The interviewing agents’ handwritten notes, interview report, drafts of the interview report, and statements are consistent and clear that the defendant made multiple false statements to the agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017,” Liu wrote.

The Judge is privy to every one of those documents and since Liu is an officer of the court, he would be putting his ass in a sling if he misrepresented those documents. 

I can't figure out why you and your fellow travelers defend Flynn when he is obviously guilty and he's sworn to that fact. Oh and then there is the fact that the Feds will let him off with a slap on the wrist. IMHO, they should nail him. 

Seriously, all Flynn has to do is withdraw his guilty plea. When he does that the wolves will be loose and we'll see what his 'star' legal team can do for him then. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.20  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

No! Aren’t we no longer allowed to engage? Until Perrie clarifies please try to avoid getting yourself a 2 point penalty.

but to answer your opinion, on what I might have missed, that is Lui’s OPINION! I don’t have time to tutor you on the meaning of opinions.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.21  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
No! Aren’t we no longer allowed to engage? Until Perrie clarifies please try to avoid getting yourself a 2 point penalty.

If I were not allowed to reply to your comments, there would not be a reply tab for me to click. 

but to answer your opinion, on what I might have missed, that is Lui’s OPINION! I don’t have time to tutor you on the meaning of opinions.

I'm pretty fucking sure that the whole point of courts is a judgement and that means the opinion of a Judge is integral. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.22  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Again you show your ignorance on another subject, the reply tab is still active here too, I have flagged you and asked Perrie for clarification. No go away until she clarified because I’m not explaining to you that the judge can only base his opinion on the evidence presented and not on altered reports when the originals were changed and not presented. 

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/48543/pro-trump-nsc-official-testifies-there-was-quid-pro-quo#cm1193401

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.23  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
Again you show your ignorance on another subject, the reply tab is still active here too, I have flagged you and asked Perrie for clarification.

Speaking of ignorance, if YOU were not allowed to reply to ME, there would be no reply tab there either. 

Oh and BTFW, since my first reply to you was 12 hours ago and remains in the thread, I assume that it passed muster. 

No go away until she clarified because I’m not explaining to you that the judge can only base his opinion on the evidence presented and not on altered reports when the originals were changed and not presented. 

So YOU want to post your comments but demand that I don't post mine. WTF!

BTFW, what lead you to the unfounded conclusion that Judge Lui hasn't been able to review the interviewing agents’ handwritten notes, interview report AND drafts of the interview report?

Have you read the briefs? How about the filings and hearing transcripts? Did you read where Flynn admitted in open court that he lied to the FBI multiple times? How about where he swore to the Judge that the FBI did NOT entrap him? 

Come on loki, share your vast knowledge of the fine details of Flynn's case. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.24  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
Judge Lui

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ........................................

Once again you prove yourself ignorant of even the most basic facts.   Seriously you can't be this fucking uninformed?    Can't stop laughing..... Judge Lui................ And yes my uninformed little friend the judge only gets to see the evidence presented, not what the prosecution doesn't present. that's why cases are overturned for failure to disclose evidence.   Can you be this ignorant of how the justice system works? 

Here is a tutoring lesson so you don't look so ignorant of the facts and players in the future.  Your welcome

Lui......Not the judge but the prosecutor for the case.  the one who has withheld the original 302's 

Emmett Stone.......... this is the judge...... you know the one who only sees the evidence presented at the trial.  he                                      doesn't get to wander around the FBI's files and evidence room.

Powell............Defense attorney who filed motion to compel the prosecution to turn over the evidence.

Not that I have helped you to figure out what it is you are trying to talk about, please feel free to try to formulate an intelligent response this time...........I'm rooting for you.  Take your time....try to at least get the palyers right with the information above.  Links for you to study and become better informed before replying. 

Sidney Powell, the Dallas lawyer 

Washington U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan 

Washington U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-30/flynn-s-lawyers-prosecutors-spar-over-readiness-for-sentencing

Still can't stop laughing, your entire post is bullshit and you don't even have a clue what you are talking about. 

BETRAYUS??????????  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........................

Come on loki, share your vast knowledge of the fine details of Flynn's case. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA>>>>>>>>>>>>Arrogant and stupid is no way to go through life son..... you are too fucking stupid to know who the players are. Pick one, I'm betting on arrogant because the stupid is obviously deeply ingrained.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
Still can't stop laughing, your entire post is bullshit and you don't even have a clue what you are talking about. 

Yet through all your laughing, you still can't support your claim that the Judge hasn't been presented that evidence. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.26  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    one week ago

I don’t have too! Everyone with 3 digits in their IQ knows that the judge doesn’t get special evidence not presented in court, that’s why the defense presents motions to the court compelling the prosecutor and not the judge to present it, you are still wrong and have preceded into pathetic. Take the loss like your pathetic betrayus claim and move.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.26    one week ago
I don’t have too! Everyone with 3 digits in their IQ knows that the judge doesn’t get special evidence not presented in court,

First of all, I'd venture to say that MOST people here have a 3 digit IQ. I won't vouch for EVERYONE though. 

Secondly, in cases where sensitive and classified information is involved, like Flynn's, Judges regularly take documents that have NOT been presented as evidence in open court into consideration for their rulings. Evidence can be filed under seal or can be viewed 'in camera'. 

Hope those facts don't strain those 3 digits. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.28  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.27    one week ago

No they don’t, quit digging, have you ever heard facts not in evidence? FFS just quit!

were in the fuck would they get the fact? You obviously are that ignorant of the judicial system, anybody who thinks their smarter than Alan Dershowitz obviously has a serious case of Dunning Kruger. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.29  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.27    one week ago

[deleted] if they take docs in open court, they are in evidence. Please don’t tell me you are a lawyer [deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.30  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.27    one week ago

And facts under seal has no baring in this case, you didn’t even know who the judge was! And nothing can be introduced that the defense can’t see.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.28    one week ago
No they don’t, quit digging, have you ever heard facts not in evidence? FFS just quit!

The ARE in evidence, they are just under seal and not available to the public. Here's a source even YOU will accept. 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/06/michael-flynn-fires-lawyers- doj-files-documents-under-seal/

 
 
 
 
loki12
1.1.33  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    one week ago

Not the public, the defense attorney, again you failed!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.34  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    one week ago

Oops you failed again! The original 302’s not the altered ones, another swing and a miss by delay!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.35  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.33    one week ago

Oh so you are under the delusion that defense attorneys can't review documents under seal. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.36  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.35    one week ago

[Deleted] If she could see them she wouldn’t have filed the motion!

another swing and a miss! Try harder

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.37  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.35    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.38  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.35    one week ago

Here is what the article is about, you are wrong again, they aren’t in evidence and judge Lui............hahahahahahahahahaha 

hasn’t seen them either. Your ignorance of the case has caused you to fail again.

Flynn’s lawyers had pointed to what they believed were discrepancies between the notes by the two FBI agents, drafts of the 302, and the final 302 itself, alleging the documents had been “manipulated.”

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.39  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.38    one week ago

So it's your hilarious posit that the documents aren't in evidence but Flynn's lawyers allege that they had been manipulated? 

READ THAT VERY SLOWLY. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.40  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.39    one week ago

Dullay, she wouldn't file a motion demanding they produce originals if they were in evidence. read that slowly. or have someone explain it too you. I'm now finished with you, you can have the last word. 

“The government continues to hide evidence of the original 302 [the interview notes], other exculpatory texts, and other forms of information completely,” Powell wrote.

She worked for the DOJ, and has sued them and won for their malfeasance in other cases, someone probably leaked that they lied.  and the attorney Lui not the Judge Lui that only a moron who knew nothing about the case would fuck up,  even admits they were changed,it's in the article that you never read and know nothing about but still continue to argue over showing how woefully ignorant you are on the subject it's right fucking here.............

The DOJ also dismissed concerns about alleged discrepancies between drafts of the interview notes, calling the changes "largely grammatical and stylistic."

Have someone explain what changes means.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.41  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.40    one week ago

Word. jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    2 weeks ago
'Divorced From The Facts': DOJ Shoots Down Claims Strzok And The FBI Trapped Flynn

Give it a few hours and the right will claim that Barr is a RINO, liar, liberal, Muslim, etc... 

Flynn lied to the FBI under oath. It's a crime. 

Fox fake news was claiming a couple of months ago that Flynn was caught in a "perjury trap". Easy way to avoid those traps? Tell the truth.

Obama fired Flynn because he said he couldn't trust Flynn. Obama also cautioned trump to not hire Flynn for the same reason. But trump, not one to take advice from....anyone, hired Flynn anyway... Didn't seem to work out too well. 

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    2 weeks ago

Reality has bit the damn gop's lying behinds, again...

Trump & Co came under the US Intelligence Services radar when they highly inappropriately reached out to known agents of Russia State Intelligence Services over 100 times seeking information on Democrats, offering to sell insider information, influence and access and still angling to build Trump Towers in Moscow.

Any honest inquiry will determine this is true, again...

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1  MUVA  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago

Complete horse shit every word and you have nerve to ever talk about someone else lying.

 
 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @3.1    2 weeks ago

👍👏

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

That doesn't have anything to do with what I responded to. 

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.4  JBB  replied to  MUVA @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

Yes it does...

 
 
 
 
lib50
3.1.6  lib50  replied to  MUVA @3.1    2 weeks ago

Read the damn reports before you call it horse shit.  It lays out all of the connections between Trump's people and Russia.  And protecting a pathological liar makes it hard to know the truth when its right in front of someone.  They start believing those 'alternative facts' (aka lies).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @3    2 weeks ago

That's nutso.  What Clinton fanzine do you get this silliness from?

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    2 weeks ago

I guess some of us haven't read the Mueller report they tried to railroad Trump and didn't even come up with that level on BS.

 
 
 
 
JBB
3.2.3  JBB  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Get back to us when you have citations...

Do your own research on a subject, once!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Wow! You need to read and understand your own source

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

I'm to the point of disbelief in how stupid some these world's smartest people are their CNN brainwashing is complete.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.6  MUVA  replied to  JBB @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

No  

 
 
 
 
 
lib50
3.2.9  lib50  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Sounds like you didn't if you are trying to say it didn't lay out connections between Trump's team and Russia. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.10  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

They didn't read the report.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.11  lib50  replied to  MUVA @3.2.10    2 weeks ago

Here is some more, Mueller interview notes.  Trump will do ANYTHING to get dirt on opponents, he did in the last election and is doing it now.  From foreign sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/politics/mueller-investigation-notes-trump-stolen-emails/index.html

A retelling of events from former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates , who served alongside campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is the fullest detail revealed by the Justice Department yet on discussions within the Trump campaign as it pursued damaging information about its Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. The documents were stolen by the Russians, the American intelligence community has found.
"[Rick] Gates recalled a time on the campaign aircraft when candidate Trump said, 'get the emails.' [Michael] Flynn said he could use his intelligence sources to obtain the emails," investigators wrote in a summary of Gates' April 2018 interview with Mueller's team. Flynn was a foreign policy adviser on the campaign and became Trump's first national security adviser.
"Flynn had the most Russia contacts of anyone on the campaign and was in the best position to ask for the emails if they were out there," the investigators also wrote about Gates' interview.
Gates described in an interview with Mueller investigators last year how several close advisers to Trump, Trump's family members and Trump himself considered how to get the stolen documents and pushed the effort, according to investigators' summary.
"Gates said Donald Trump Jr. would ask where the emails were in family meetings. Michael Flynn, [Jared] Kushner, [Paul] Manafort, [Redacted] [Corey] Lewandowski, Jeff Sessions, and Sam Clovis expressed interest in obtaining the emails as well. Gates said the priority focuses of the Trump campaign opposition research team were Clinton's emails and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Flynn, [Redacted] [Jeff] Sessions, Kushner, and [Donald] Trump Jr. were all focused on opposition topics," Gates told investigators, according to the interview summary.

Here is a link to the released notes:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/politics/mueller-investigation-notes/index.html

 
 
 
loki12
3.2.12  loki12  replied to  lib50 @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

Yep! you’ve got him this time, not like those 50 other times. 

Dead horse by 10 lengths!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

Do you read your sources? You certainly don’t understand them if you think they provide evidence of the falsehoods you posted above.

 No wonder you keep changing them, because they don’t support the nonsense you posted above. Read what you wrote above and then read your links. They don’t matchup.

Please stop gaslighting the forum with falsehoods.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.2.14  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

What has Carter Page been charged with again? Jack shit of nothing. In case you hadn't heard. Carter Page was well known by the FBI and CIA and had worked with both in the past. 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-carter-page-russia-spy-trump-0214-story.html

But that misses a broader and more important point. It's a scandal that the public has known for more than a year that the FBI suspected Page of being a foreign agent in the first place. He has yet to be charged with a crime, but his reputation is in tatters because an element of the bureau's investigation into Russia's influence over the 2016 election has been publicly reported.

This started when Yahoo's Michael Isikoff broke the first big story on Page's meetings in Moscow with Putin aides in September 2016, allegedly to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Russia. Isikoff was tipped off by Steele, who was commissioned through an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to dig up dirt on Trump's ties to Russia on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In a podcast this week, Isikoff confirmed that Steele told him he had "taken this information to the FBI and the bureau is very interested."

Last April, The Washington Post reported that, based on information from "law enforcement and other U.S. officials," the FBI had obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant on Page in the summer of 2016. As the Post reported at the time, the existence of the warrant was "the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents."

That was an important piece of news that any journalist would publish. But the officials who leaked and confirmed it violated the public's trust in two important ways.

To start, this disclosure politicized the ongoing investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election. In a hearing on the Trump campaign's contacts with the Kremlin, nine days after the Post's story appeared, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee made Page's trip to Moscow and other alleged contacts with Russian officials a key part of his opening remarks.

Second, the disclosure of the warrant placed a cloud of suspicion over a U.S. citizen without due process. The standard for obtaining a FISA surveillance warrant is much lower than, for instance, charging an American citizen as a foreign agent. There is good reason for this. Counterintelligence investigations are usually aimed at secretly monitoring the activities of foreign spies, not building public cases against U.S. citizens. When the details of such probes are selectively disclosed, the reputational damage is immense. Unlike someone facing charges, the subject can't even really mount a defense.

In an interview Thursday, Page told me, "It's been the most challenging thing that I've ever dealt with in my life." And one can see why. Since Yahoo's first big story on his meetings in Moscow, Page has publicly proclaimed his innocence. No charges have been brought against him. And yet the fact that the FBI has taken an interest in him has made it nearly impossible for him to clear his name.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carter-page-says-he-consulted-state-fbi-and-cia-for-years

Former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page said he was a source for several agencies in the U.S. government for years before he became the subject of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Working as an American consultant with Russia expertise, he told Fox News that over the years he spoke with the State Department, FBI, and the CIA.

"I was asked various questions, not only by State, FBI, et cetera, but also CIA," he said on "Sunday Morning Futures." "I had a long-standing relationship with the CIA going back decades essentially, and I was always very transparent, open."

oon after he left the Trump campaign, Page became the subject of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants beginning in October 2016, which relied on British ex-spy Christopher Steele's dossier packed with unverified claims about President Trump's ties to Russia. Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was itself being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm. The fact that the dossier had Democratic funding was not revealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Page was also a subject of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Although Mueller determined Russia meddled in election affairs, he did not accuse Page of coordinating with Russian agents and did not establish criminal conspiracy between the campaign and the Kremlin.

Anyone that thought that Carter Page was a spy deserves to be fired and have their pensions revoked. Page was nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the FBI to spy on Trump.

So educate yourself first. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.15  MrFrost  replied to  loki12 @3.2.12    2 weeks ago
Yep! you’ve got him this time, not like those 50 other times. 

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

Carter Page blah fucking blah

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  lib50 @3.2.11    one week ago

Attempted collusion in plain sight. 

 
 
 
sixpick
5  sixpick    one week ago

Yep, when the Democrats have the ball, they own the court.  The referees take a break and have a cup of tea.  The Democrats can do no wrong and can not be charged with fouls, but when the Republicans have the ball, everything changes.  The referees trip em right before they make the score and give em a foul for falling on the floor.  Yep, it's good to be a Democrat. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  sixpick @5    one week ago

Point? 

He LIED. He admitted that he KNEW that LYING to the FBI was a CRIME. WTF!

 
 
 
loki12
6  loki12    one week ago

Here is what the article is about, you are wrong again, they aren’t in evidence and judge Lui............hahahahahahahahahaha 

hasn’t seen them either. Your ignorance of the case has caused you to fail again.

Flynn’s lawyers had pointed to what they believed were discrepancies between the notes by the two FBI agents, drafts of the 302, and the final 302 itself, alleging the documents had been “manipulated.”

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Telo
Kathleen
FLYNAVY1


30 visitors