The Secrets Flynn Was Desperate to Conceal

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  119 comments

By:   David Frum (The Atlantic)

The Secrets Flynn Was Desperate to Conceal
We don’t know the why because of the limits of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, some imposed from above, and some imposed upon himself. The inquiry, for example, seems not to have delved into Trump’s business dealings, despite their potential relevance. We don’t fully know the how because so many witnesses lied, destroyed evidence, or suffered memory lapses. Did the Trump campaign share polling information with the Russians? Who in the Trump campaign communicated with...

Leave a comment to auto-join group Down With Trump

Down With Trump

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




At the beginning of the Trump presidency, many congressional Republicans still upheld the traditional view: Putin should not be trusted, and the integrity of U.S. elections should be safeguarded. Three years of partisan battle have changed Trump’s party. In 2019, Trump attempted to extort the government of Ukraine to fabricate dirt against his likely Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Republicans not only failed to remove the president from office, but many defended his actions as right and proper. Senate Republicans have refused to vote to harden U.S. elections against Russian manipulation, even after Mueller’s  testimony  that the Russian espionage tactics of 2016 were already being repeated in 2019.

Many of those same Republicans are now acclaiming the decision to drop charges against Flynn as vindication. But vindication is precisely what this is not. Flynn’s release by Barr does not prove that Flynn was innocent of wrongdoing. Being released by Barr does not convert Flynn’s lies into truth. Flynn’s release by Barr only  strengthens  the suspicion that back in December 2016, Flynn acted with Trump’s approval. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that Flynn and Kislyak were furthering a corrupt arrangement between Trump and Putin. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that the corrupt arrangement continues to this day.

=============================================================================

Russian intelligence services intervened in the 2016 U.S. election to help elect Donald Trump. They intervened in ways that were illegal, and they intervened in ways that were clandestine. In the context of an election decided by 80,000 votes in three states, they intervened in ways that probably were decisive. Altogether, the Russian action to elect Donald Trump in 2016 ranks among the most successful intelligence operations in world history.

President Trump and his supporters dismiss these facts as “the Russia hoax,” but facts they are—facts beyond rational doubt.

Yet despite three years of investigation, much of the Trump-Russia story remains mysterious. We don’t know   why   the Russians intervened so aggressively, and we don’t fully know   how .

We don’t know the   why   because of the limits of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, some imposed from above, and some imposed upon himself. The inquiry, for example, seems not to have delved into Trump’s business dealings, despite their potential relevance.

We don’t fully know the   how   because so many witnesses lied, destroyed evidence, or suffered memory lapses. Did the Trump campaign share polling information with the Russians? Who in the Trump campaign communicated with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, when, and how? Mueller's investigation ultimately failed to find the evidence to answer those questions.



Among those who lied and suffered memory lapses was Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

There have been so many Trump scandals since 2016—so much defiance of law and Congress—that it’s easy to lose sight of what exactly Flynn did. There’s so much noise and fog that it’s hard to remember why his actions were important.

During the 2016 election, the Obama administration declined to hold Russia to account for its intervention. That’s a story in itself. On December 29, 2016, however, the Obama administration did at last announce   punitive sanctions   on Russia.

The imminence of these sanctions triggered a flurry of communications between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, reached out to Flynn on December 28. Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, but on December 29, he   spoke   multiple times with Kislyak.

On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not respond to the sanctions. That same day, Trump   tweeted   his thanks: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!” Another round of calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

What exactly happened here? At first, Trump’s team denied that anything untoward had occurred. On January 15, 2017, Vice President–elect Mike Pence appeared on CBS’s   Face the Nation   to assure the country that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed the Obama sanctions. “He had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place,” Pence said, referring to a December 25, 2016, accident that had killed 92 people. “It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Pence’s statement was not true. Flynn lied to the FBI about the calls. Back in 2017, Pence   insisted   that Flynn had lied to him too.

Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully   resisted   the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.

And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit.



Flynn’s lies protected Trump and the Trump administration. Flynn himself has paid a price over the past three years. But in the end, the lies protected him as well. The Justice Department has dropped the case. Flynn will not be sentenced for lying to the FBI, a crime to which he pleaded guilty. He will now become a conservative celebrity, a Trump surrogate on television and the campaign trail. The way is open for him to enjoy fame and recover wealth.

As when the Mueller report was released in spring 2019, Attorney General William Barr has taken it on himself to keep Trump’s secrets buried as deep as he can, for as long as he can. On the day that the Flynn case was dropped, Trump spoke by telephone to Putin. He   told reporters   that he and Putin had agreed that the investigation of Russian interference was a“hoax”—and that he and Putin had undertaken to work together more closely from here on. “I wouldn’t be surprised,” Trump said to the reporters, “if you see a lot of things happen over the next number of weeks.” The way is now open for Russia and Putin to act again to help reelect Trump, as they acted to elect him in the first place.

At the beginning of the Trump presidency, many congressional Republicans still upheld the traditional view: Putin should not be trusted, and the integrity of U.S. elections should be safeguarded. Three years of partisan battle have changed Trump’s party. In 2019, Trump attempted to extort the government of Ukraine to fabricate dirt against his likely Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Republicans not only failed to remove the president from office, but many defended his actions as right and proper. Senate Republicans have refused to vote to harden U.S. elections against Russian manipulation, even after Mueller’s   testimony   that the Russian espionage tactics of 2016 were already being repeated in 2019.

Many of those same Republicans are now acclaiming the decision to drop charges against Flynn as vindication. But vindication is precisely what this is not. Flynn’s release by Barr does not prove that Flynn was innocent of wrongdoing. Being released by Barr does not convert Flynn’s lies into truth. Flynn’s release by Barr only   strengthens   the suspicion that back in December 2016, Flynn acted with Trump’s approval. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that Flynn and Kislyak were furthering a corrupt arrangement between Trump and Putin. Flynn’s release by Barr only strengthens the suspicion that the corrupt arrangement continues to this day.

Flynn beat the rap. But the rap itself resounds louder than ever.



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Bamboozling season is here. You see the revisionist history claiming now that Trump was victimized in 2016, when he and his campaign were the ones meeting with Russians, contacting Assange, asking Russia for dirt on Hillary, lying about Trump's business interest in Russia, and asking Russia to hack Hillary's computers. 

This revisionism from the right is bamboozling and gaslighting. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

You can't provide any kind of credible proof that the Russians actually and really "meddled" with our election. Were you thinking of attempting to influence? Just about all governments do that.

You have no idea what was said between Flynn and the Russian guy.  It has been shown by the evidence, or the lack thereof, that nothing "material" was discussed.

Aren't you attempting to resurrect the totally refuted conspiracy theory about something called Trump-Russian collusion.

You can't support anything you say with real proof and facts. I would say that the leftist supporters are attempting to revise history,  bamboozle, gaslight, and distract.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago

Go try to bamboozle someone else. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 months ago

You'll do.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago

Schiff droned on and on for years about "evidence in plain sight" and, to date, still hasn't  provided this "evidence" to anyone.The same goes for Nadler and Pelosi.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    2 months ago

"bamboozling" can be seen as trolling

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.4    2 months ago

And the time is running out for the guilty as hell Dems, as the Barr-Durham investigations continue to uncover left wing deceivery

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago

The Russia Hoax is hard to kill.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    2 months ago

You can't simply drive a stake through it's heart!  Something tells me more facts are coming!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.5    2 months ago

Opinion and refuting is not trolling.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.9    2 months ago
Go try to bamboozle someone else. 

That is John commenting to you

You'll do.

That's your reply back to John. Sounds like you intend to troll him. Just sayin'

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.9    2 months ago
Opinion and refuting is not trolling.

Oh....don't kid yourself ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

The "Trump supporter haters" use that scam here ….. all the time.... and it WORKS ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.10    2 months ago

It sounds that way, upon reflection, but I am only emulating him with such a response.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago
You can't provide any kind of credible proof that the Russians actually and really "meddled" with our election. Were you thinking of attempting to influence?

You seem to be grasping a bit with the English language.  Russia did "meddle", by attempting to "influence" the election.  There is no specific evidence that their "meddling" succeeded in "influencing" the election, but "meddle" they did. 

The fact that Russian disinformation is being repeated, to this day and even here on NT, would imply that they did succeed to a greater or lesser degree.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 months ago
You can't provide any kind of credible proof that the Russians actually and really "meddled" with our election.

"The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014
and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local
level."

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

" On Thursday, the heads of the national security agencies  said  that Russia was still trying to influence and disrupt the midterm elections in the United States."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/16/us/elections/russian-interference-statements-comments.html

"U.S. intelligence agencies got it right when they concluded Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, ultimately, with the goal of helping then-candidate Donald Trump, according to a just-released report by U.S. lawmakers. 

The report Tuesday, by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, is the fourth volume to be published as a result of the committee’s investigation into Russia and focused on the assessment made by the top U.S. intelligence agencies following the 2016 vote."

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/no-hoax-bipartisan-probe-says-us-intelligence-made-right-call-russian-election

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Popped Pustule Putin

I really am amazed that so many Trump supporters can continue to feign ignorance acting as if Russia didn't meddle and it's all just "fake news" even though we have mountains of evidence and even an admission straight out of the despot in questions mouth. Continuing to claim it didn't happen or that it's all a "hoax" only goes to prove what a complete moron that person is, it doesn't actually refute all the incontrovertible evidence.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.14    2 months ago

Convenient omission?

"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" a reporter asked at the joint press conference Putin and Trump held after their one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Speaking through a translator, Putin answered, "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Putin did not address the second part of the question."

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-wanted-trump-to-win-2016-election-2018-7

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.16  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.15    2 months ago

Senate intel report based on the information given to them by Clapper and Brennan, you have to be a fucking moron to believe that is true. It's now being reported that they wanted Hillary to win because she was a known entity and easy to manipulate, But the retards are still following the Brennan bullshit.  Who under oath said NO evidence of collusion. And lied on TV to the ignorant sheep who still bleat it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.15    2 months ago
Putin did not address the second part of the question

That was the opinion of the article author, not a fact. Putin said what he said in reply to the question, trying to claim he didn't understand the question or only replied to half of it is pure conjecture.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.18  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.17    2 months ago

Unbelievable. Now they are going to deny Russia tried to influence elections.

Talk about putting head in sand.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.17    2 months ago

A couple more of your fave sources.....................................

If you listen to the English translation that was broadcast during the press conference, the Russian leader said, “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” This rendering of Putin’s remarks leaves open the possibility that he’s stating “Yes, I did” in reference not just to wanting Donald Trump to win the 2016 presidential race, but also to ordering Russian officials to help Trump win, even though Putin repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election and collusion with the Trump campaign throughout the rest of the news conference. But I’ve heard from a number of Russian speakers who point out that Putin’s actual comments in Russian concerning who he wanted to win the election are much less ambiguous than the way they were translated. He seems to have not used the phrase Yes, I did once, let alone twice. Instead, in Russian, Putin roughly said , “Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the normalization of Russian–American relations.” In other words, he was apparently answering the first part of Mason’s question but not the second about whether he directed help Trump’s way. It’s unclear if that’s because Putin didn’t hear the second half of the question, it wasn’t translated into Russian accurately, or he simply chose to ignore it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-election-translation/565481/

"Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.
Putin was asked whether he directed any of his officials to help Trump’s presidential campaign, but Putin appeared to sidestep that part of the question.
 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.19    2 months ago
leaves open the possibility

Hey, if that's what you want to hang your hat on then go ahead. I know what he was asked and I know what he answered, only Trump apologists would try and make excuses or claim there is a "possibility" he didn't mean what he said.

I also noticed that you completely ignored the bi-partisan senate report i linked where they concluded:

"The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014
and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local
level."

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

So even without Putin's open admission, the evidence is still unassailable that Russia did IN FACT meddle in the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Claiming Putin's own words don't prove anything is much like the "locker room talk" excuse for dirty Donald's admission he doesn't wait for consent and grabs women by the pussy because he thinks he's a star. You can twist and spin, dismiss and downplay all you want, but anyone with more than half a brain knows exactly what he said and doesn't for a second think it was all just innocent "locker room talk" as if that's any excuse for those despicable sexist comments no matter where they happen to come spilling out of some sick misogynists mouth.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.20    2 months ago
Hey, if that's what you want to hang your hat on then go ahead. I know what he was asked and I know what he answered, only Trump apologists would try and make excuses or claim there is a "possibility" he didn't mean what he said

You speak Russian? Neat.

"The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014
and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure' at the state and local
level."

That wasn't the question now was it. Here's a refresher.................

"did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

NOT whether some Russians "did something". Everyone knows they attempted to. 

Claiming Putin's own words don't prove anything is much like the "locker room talk" excuse for dirty Donald's admission he doesn't wait for consent and grabs women by the pussy because he thinks he's a star. You can twist and spin, dismiss and downplay all you want, but anyone with more than half a brain knows exactly what he said and doesn't for a second think it was all just innocent "locker room talk" as if that's any excuse for those despicable sexist comments no matter where they happen to come spilling out of some sick misogynists mouth.

"Deflector shields up Mr. Spock"

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.21    2 months ago
That wasn't the question now was it.

"did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

"The Russian government directed extensive activity"

How is that not the question? Did Putin aka "The Russian Government", direct election meddling? Yes, yes they did and Putin admitted to it. I see no reason for why you would continue being so obtuse and refusing to see the very clear answer right in front of everyone's face. Trying to push it off to some generic "some Russians did something" is beyond dishonest and you know it. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which Trump apologists will twist and contort facts and reason into such unrecognizable knots, present them as straight logic and then claim they won the argument.

Occam's razor:  "the simplest solution is most likely the right one"

Russia did hack political parties emails as well as at least 22 States voter databases. They chose to release only one political parties emails illegally in the middle of the 2016 campaign with the specific intent of sabotaging one candidate in preference of Donald Trump. These are all facts. The only thing we don't have is the smoking gun, the tape or video of dirty Donald speaking with Putin agreeing to lifting sanctions in return for the election meddling. As far as we know, the Russians made numerous contacts with the Trump campaign offering aide and did of course want something in return, we just don't have evidence of criminal conspiracy. If you're okay with that, then fine, go be happy with your candidate that both you and the Russian mobster government picked, but don't bother trying to act as if the Russian government was so innocent and didn't really illicitly work that hard to get Trump elected. At best Trump and his toadies knowingly welcomed the election meddling but had no direct connection with it's implementation and had no set re-payment of the favor, Trump would just "owe" Putin one for the friendly (albeit illegal) assist.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.23  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    2 months ago
You seem to be grasping a bit with the English language.  Russia did "meddle", by attempting to "influence" the election

In a new twist in SpyGate, Barack Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, suppressed intelligence that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election, according to information being declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell.

Is this what you're talking about?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.15    2 months ago
Putin did not address the second part of the question."

 If this is not the quote, WHY is it quotation marks ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.23    2 months ago
In a new twist in SpyGate, Barack Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, suppressed intelligence that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election, according to information being declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.26  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.25    2 months ago

Here Oz, do some reading you may learn something about how you have been duped for the last 4 years.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/14/transcripts_clinton_aides_joined_post-election_bid_to_re-push_anti-trump_dossier_123616.html

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.27  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.26    2 months ago
Here Oz, do some reading you may learn something about how you have been duped for the last 4 years.

Real Clear Investigations?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

16245844521_ec440a4649_b.jpg

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.28  Heartland American  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.27    2 months ago

And yet they refer to Real Clear polling averages all the time.  Real clear has all kinds of topic interests from markets to investigation to defense, science, education and their editorial Area is divided evenly between liberal and conservative contributors.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.29  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.27    2 months ago

Oz, are you denial? Do you think this didn't happen?

Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta testified that he met on Feb. 10, 2017, with Daniel Jones, a former aide to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Glenn Simpson and his partner Peter Fritsch of Fusion GPS. In separate testimony, Clinton’s senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan revealed he also participated in the meeting. The Clinton campaign had funneled money through a law firm, Perkins Coie, to pay Fusion to compile the now-discredited dossier which was a prime driver of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories – and FBI investigations -- that have shadowed his administration

TDS is alive and well.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Frum's article is based on a conversation he admits that he knows nothing about?

I can assure Frum and everyone else that if Flynn committed treason Peter Strzok would have charged him on the spot!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 months ago

Vic, too many Trump personnel had memory lapses, lost cell phones, refused to co-operate or otherwise stonewalled Mueller to definitively say it was proven beyond doubt that there was no collusion. 

What is interesting to me is that we KNOW Trump tried to collude with Ukraine, so it only follows that he would have been willing to collude with Russia. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 months ago

one does not have to fit the letter of the law to have exited out the guilty ones jaw, cause treason to True Americans, has been on display since Trump's run for office began.

His, and only his interests, Trump ALL others, but asz you witness the paths as which he has taken and took, it is WILLFULLY IGNORANT to attempt to state Trump IS NOT A LYING THIEVING & DECEIVING

TREASONOUS      CROOK !
 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago

You say we KNOW. So....provide proof that there was any kind of collusion. I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago
Vic, too many Trump personnel had memory lapses, lost cell phones, refused to co-operate or otherwise stonewalled Mueller to definitively say it was proven beyond doubt that there was no collusion. 

Oh is that what it was?  And the 3 year Mueller investigation, the one year counter intelligence investigation and a multitude of leaks and bombshells couldn't get to what only Fushion GPS and Christopher Steele knew? That's truly baffling!


What is interesting to me is that we KNOW Trump tried to collude with Ukraine, so it only follows that he would have been willing to collude with Russia. 

Such reasoning!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.2    2 months ago

You can spout such WILLFULLY IGNORANT stuff all day long, but it means nothing if you cannot support your allegations.

I would say in all honesty that many actions of the previous administration and its useful idiots amounted to treason.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.2    2 months ago

The "Book" !

WTF ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago
lost cell phones,

Maybe instead of losing them, they should have just taken hammers to the phones?

Worked before.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Geee……..Jr you've done it again posted an article with "0" facts about anything.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    2 months ago

"Yet despite three years of investigation, much of the Trump-Russia story remains mysterious "

But jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif ……. Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, ALL Democrats, The Left, Liberals, etc..... had ….. "ALL THE EVIDENCE" and "THE ANSWERS" that were needed, according to ….. THEM ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

WTF Happened ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @2    2 months ago

Part of the mystery is why the FBI originally declared that Flynn was telling the truth!

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago
Part of the mystery is why the FBI originally declared that Flynn was telling the truth!

"As the World Turns" ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

I liked "Port Charles" myself. Seemed more "Real" compared to what's going on these days ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago
Part of the mystery is why the FBI originally declared that Flynn was telling the truth!

Did Flynn lie when he plead guilty to lying?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago

The judge has asked another judge, a retired judge I believe, to look into whether or not there is a basis for charging Flynn with perjury for his statements about his guilt or innocence at his trial. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 months ago

The acting Judge doesn't know ?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 months ago
The judge has asked another judge, a retired judge I believe, to look into whether or not there is a basis for charging Flynn with perjury for his statements about his guilt or innocence at his trial.

You're of course speaking of the judge who has apparently hired another retired judge who coincidentally wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post I believe that noted that Flynn could be charged with perjury for now changing his guilty plea.

Yeah, no bias there now is there JR.

Oh, per several talking heads, the DC Circuit Courts of Appeal have noted in several decisions that recanting a guilty plea is in fact legal and NOT considered perjury.   It's apparently all part of that 'innocent until proved guilty' thingie, and an admission of guilt is NOT//NOT in fact having been found guilty.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.5    2 months ago
Oh, per several talking heads, the DC Circuit Courts of Appeal have noted in several decisions that recanting a guilty plea is in fact legal and NOT considered perjury.

But if he lied about admitting to lying in court, shouldn't that be another charge against him?  Or are you okay with him lying in court?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.6    2 months ago
But if he lied about admitting to lying in court

Here's a hint.  Admitting something while being coerced to do so is not illegal. The coercion is illegal.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 months ago

Talk about a slippery slope. Take a look at the innocence project. Lots of false confessions to crimes the Defendants were later found innocent of due to DNA testing.

Are you saying Lock them up? 

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.9  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.7    2 months ago

Ok, so who are you going to charge for coercion? Is coercion by the FBI even a crime that can be prosecuted?

Do you have specific people in mind you would like to charge with a crime?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.9    2 months ago

I'd start with those within and conducting the interrogation.

"We were also pleased to see the conclusion of the IG that “the vast majority of FBI agents in the military zones understood that existing FBI policies prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics continued to apply in the military zones and that they should not engage in conduct overseas that would not be permitted under FBI policy in the United States.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/coercive-interrogation-techniques-do-they-work-are-they-reliable-and-what-did-the-fbi-know-about-them

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.11  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.10    2 months ago

Could you actually prove they coerced to get Flynn? Who do you think any counsel would believe?

A man that admitted he lied to several people including the vice president or the FBI doing their job...

Is it the intention of some that they think they are going to go through all personnel involved with this case and take them to trial?

Also amazing to me that some are cheering on top government officials getting away with things that us lowly peons would not be able to.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago
Part of the mystery is why the FBI originally declared that Flynn was telling the truth!

The real mystery is why you would believe such right wing fiction. That is not what the FBI said at all.

The facts show the case was valid, the lies were material, and the FBI did their jobs properly. The current corrupt Barr run Justice departments decision to throw out the case is beyond flawed.

Barr's argument is essentially claiming that the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent. The logic of the department’s position in the Flynn case is that the person who maliciously reported you to the FBI could not be prosecuted for making a false statement, because at the time the statements were made, those statements “were not ‘material’ to any viable counterintelligence investigation ... initiated by the FBI. This is of course, a totally ridiculous and not legally sound reasoning coming from Trump sycophants.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/trump-michael-flynn.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/bill-priestap-michael-flynn.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/10/long-list-people-who-thought-flynns-lies-were-material/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/secrets-flynn-lied-conceal/611377/

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.11    2 months ago

JFC Have you read or seen any of the article with texts, notes, emails? You may want to look at those for a while before you jump someone's shit Captain Contrary.

Also amazing to me that some are cheering on top government officials getting away with things that us lowly peons would not be able to.

You mean the FBI, certainly.........................................

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.14  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.13    2 months ago

So now the intention is to prosecute people because they may have sent an email some did not approve of?

Omg someone sent a derogatory text. Throw them in jail....

Do you honestly think that if one went back and checked all texts and emails from FBI personnel that they would never find anything that was derogatory against Obama or Bush?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    2 months ago

They were plotting ..............stop being obtuse FFS

The only jury duty I have had to serve on was a case of a tweenage punk threatening another kid with bodily harm to him and family members if he didn't turn over his X-Box. He was found guilty of coercion and theft of the game console based on that.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.16  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.15    2 months ago

The only ones being obtuse are the people that think there was some massive conspiracy.

So there was this massive conspiracy to take down donald that included the FBI and other parts of government and they somehow failed miserably. So now there should be trials and punishment for this supposed attempt at a 'coup'.

You all don't even understand how ridiculous this sounds.

As far as your jury thing, I don't see why a tween would be going through a trial. That should have been handled by juvenile court.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.17  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.16    2 months ago
You all don't even understand how ridiculous this sounds.

Hilarious coming from a russia conspiracy promoter.   The only hard evidence that anybody worked with Russia was the Steele dossier, But trump works for Putin. Do you have any understanding how little credibility you have making the above statement? 

Every Biden administration official when under oath said there was NO evidence of collusion with Russia, and yet the left has been buying their lies for 3 years, talk about a group of gullible sheep.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.18  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.17    2 months ago

Have you followed my comments for the past four years? Do you know what I personally have said?

Contrary to your beliefs it was concluded that donald and his team may not have conspired with the Russians yet gladly would accept any help.

The only one not credible is donald and his 'Obamagate' conspiracy that you all seem to jump in line for, when it only sounds like his birther conspiracies.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.19  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    2 months ago
Contrary to your beliefs it was concluded that donald and his team DID NOTconspire with the Russians,

yet gladly would accept any help. This is only the opinion of low functioning unamerican shitheads like Brennan and Clapper and their sycophants. They are projecting what they would do because Trump didn't! as they testified under oath!

The only one not credible is donald and his 'Obamagate' conspiracy that you all seem to jump in line for, when it only sounds like his birther conspiracies.

So you are saying the FBI and Clapper and Brennan didn't lie and target Flynn and Page?  And they didn't leak info to the Washington post? a felony?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.20  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.19    2 months ago

Projecting? Seems to be what the donald fan club is doing.

Even the IG report does not back up those claims.

Going after Flynn still does not jump to the conclusion that it was a massive scheme to get donald.

No matter how it is spun, Flynn lied.

Page is a fruitcake that should have been looked at.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.21  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.20    2 months ago
Flynn lied.

Not according to the FBI who interviewed him.

        Page is a fruitcake that should have been looked at.

Sigh........

One abuse was especially outrageous: As the FBI pressed for the Page FISA warrants, it overlooked an August 2016 CIA message that Page had been an occasional “ operational contact ” for the agency. That’s not the same as a vetted agent, but it should have made FBI officials wonder whether their assumptions about Page’s possible disloyalty and double-dealing were justified.

The CIA told the bureau that Page had been approved as a contact from 2008 to 2013 and that he had “candidly described his contact” with a Russian intelligence officer the bureau feared had recruited him. The FBI ignored this and other exculpatory information.

Worse still, a mid-level FBI official in the office of general counsel, after checking with the CIA in June 2017 about the agency’s past relationship with Page, inaccurately told a colleague that the CIA “confirmed explicitly he was never a source” and then inserted in a CIA email that Page was “not a source.”

The FBI official apparently lied because he wanted to avoid a “terrible footnote” in the latest FISA renewal, admitting the embarrassing fact that the bureau had overlooked the CIA’s relationship with Page in previous filings, according to Horowitz’s narrative. The official   has been fired   and is   under criminal investigation .

AD

Why didn’t the CIA speak up, as Page was being pilloried in public leaks? That’s another good question.

Some Republicans have seen a deep-state conspiracy in these actions. But to me, the Horowitz report suggests the opposite. The intelligence community was so sloppy and disorganized — and so disoriented by the Trump investigation — that it couldn’t coordinate simple tasks, let alone organize a plot.

The bureau failed in its simple duty to “make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing,” as one FBI official put it to Horowitz. This is a tale of dazed, incompetent bureaucrats covering their backsides, not a coup.

Fixing America’s problems should begin at the top, with an impartial Senate trial assessing Trump’s alleged abuses of power. But especially at this disruptive, partisan moment, reforms are needed at every level. The FBI badly abused its power in Crossfire Hurricane, and as Director Christopher A. Wray said last month, it needs “ thoughtful, meaningful remedial action .” On that, surely, Republicans and Democrats can agree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/while-were-talking-about-abuse-of-power-lets-look-at-the-fbi/2020/01/23/b6dfda80-3e25-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html   

Now you won't be so wrong about page, HE WAS AN AGENT USED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,  On second thought you may be right, everything about that incompetent jackass Obama should be questioned.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.16    2 months ago
So there was this massive conspiracy to take down donald that included the FBI and other parts of government and they somehow failed miserably. So now there should be trials and punishment for this supposed attempt at a 'coup'.

This evidence just came out. And yes, to not acknowledge that is obtuse and arguing for the sake of arguing. In other word, your MO

You all don't even understand how ridiculous this sounds.

Only to some who are scared shitless and never Trumpers

As far as your jury thing, I don't see why a tween would be going through a trial. That should have been handled by juvenile court.

Cuz he wasn't a juvenile. Perhaps the tween wasn't used "artfully" The person was coming up on his 20th birthday. Is that better?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.23  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.21    2 months ago

Have you seen any interview with him? Yes Page is a fruitcake. Odd that you think a so called informant could not ever have double dealings. Page was wrapped up in Russia.

Even your opinion piece does not say there was some 'coup' against donald.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.24  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.22    2 months ago

What evidence just came out? What is this smoking gun?

My MO? Funny how several of you all know my every move and thought.

And it is ridiculous to think Obama is going to be dragged in front of some committee hearing let alone go to jail for treason.

Believe me, no one is scared shitless.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.25  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.24    2 months ago
What evidence just came out? What is this smoking gun?

All of the aforementioned evidence as pointed out above. The notes, the texts, the emails 

My MO? Funny how several of you all know my every move and thought.

All "we" have to go by is your posting history. It speaks volumes.

And it is ridiculous to think Obama is going to be dragged in front of some committee hearing let alone go to jail for treason.

I didn't mention Treason or Mr. Obama. SMFH

Believe me, no one is scared shitless.

We shall see. And now, you can have that last word you are so fond of.jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.26  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.23    2 months ago
Yes Page is a fruitcake.

A Naval officer and successful investment banker worth millions. and you........

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.27  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.23    2 months ago
Even your opinion piece does not say there was some 'coup' against donald.

Who claimed there was, what has been claimed is that the Obama administration lied about collusion, especially the liars Clapper and Brennan, and Comey has no integrity or honor, and the people who still believe their lies have to be the dumbest people on earth. THEY SAID NO COLLUSION WHEN UNDER OATH!!!!!!

Did you see where the dumbass Ukraine bitch Yovanovitch lied under oath about Ukraine and Burisma?  Nobody in the Obama admin has any honor, from Rapey Joe on down.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.28  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.25    2 months ago

Notes, texts and emails does not a crime make.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.29  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.27    2 months ago

Who claimed there was? donald himself. Take it up with him.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.30  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.28    2 months ago

No, but leaking NSA transcripts to the Washington Post does, the unmasked Flynn and then gave the info out, that is a felony. OBAMA admin did that. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.31  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.29    2 months ago
donald himself.

So now you believe what trump says? You flip flop more than Romney, or Biden.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.28    2 months ago
Notes, texts and emails does not a crime make.

Then why do they always go after things like that as well as cell phone records and even the cell phones themselves as well as computers?

Go post a threat against a public, governmental figure on  Facebook and let us know how that works for ya.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.33  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.30    2 months ago

Were you not cheering for the unmasking of the donald whistle blower?

I have read the BF seed about this and what the Obama administration did was not illegal.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.34  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.31    2 months ago

Wow, that is what you get out of my comments? Seems to me like you just try to throw arbitrary things out there just to get a rise out of people.

There is a name for that.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.35  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.34    2 months ago
There is a name for that.

[deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.36  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.33    2 months ago
Were you not cheering for the unmasking of the donald whistle blower?

No, any other bullshit to post?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.37  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.32    2 months ago

Then why did the senate just reauthorize FISA for two more years. It was so bad and messed up that they had to keep it going.

They even have an addendum in there that they can continually monitor people if they change phone carriers.

Look, I am no fan of what the FBI can or cannot do and it is a sad day when I have to go out and defend them.

Point remains, Flynn did lie even to the vice president.

If you want me to get on board then point to abuses against us regular peons and I will jump on the bandwagon. Not to help high up government officials where we would not be afforded the same.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.38  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.36    2 months ago

So the right wing did not have glee in trying to unmask him? Some even reporting his supposed name.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.39  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.35    2 months ago

Nice, so have no actual point to make so attack.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.40  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.33    2 months ago

Sigh, one more time.....Unmasking is not illegal, leaking it to the press was a felony. can you understand the difference?

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.41  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.38    2 months ago
So the right wing did not have glee in trying to unmask him?

I'll take something nobody said for 1000 Alex, try to show some intellectual integrity and comment on what i say and not some nebulous BS about the right.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.42  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.40    2 months ago

So if unmasking is not illegal then why are people complaining about it?

If you think leaking to the press will get people prosecuted then I think most of congress would be in trouble.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.43  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.41    2 months ago

Did I say you specifically? I said the right wing. Denying that is just that. Denying.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.44  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.39    2 months ago

I posted my points. That you don't, can't or won't understand them is on you. Not me.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.45  loki12  replied to  Ender @2.1.43    2 months ago
Did I say you specifically?
Can you not even remember what you posted 10 minutes ago?
here is a reminder,
Were you not cheering for the unmasking of the donald whistle blower?
Who am i supposed to think you is?
And you wrote this?
"Seems to me like you just try to throw arbitrary things out there just to get a rise out of people.

There is a name for that."

Looks like Jim was right.  

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.46  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.44    2 months ago

What is to understand? I don't think texts are a prosecutable offence.

Maybe departmental disciplinary action.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.47  Ender  replied to  loki12 @2.1.45    2 months ago

Yes I thought you were part of it. You said no so I took your word for it. Maybe shouldn't have yet I was giving benefit of doubt.

Twist that all you want. Does not diminish anything I have said.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.48  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.46    2 months ago
I don't think texts are a prosecutable offence.

Tell that to Anthony Weiner..................It's not the texts per se. It's evidence.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.49  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.48    2 months ago

That will happen when one sexts or sends nude pics to a minor.

And again, not evidence of a crime, just evidence that some people did not like donald. Oh the horror.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.50  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @2.1.49    2 months ago

You haven't been following this very much have you. Rhetorical. It's evidence of the progression of what happened to Flynn. 

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.51  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.50    2 months ago

Oh I have followed it and see a big nothing burger, with the exception of Barr dismissing it.

I am just curious as to why the right wing has taken this up as a cause du jour.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.52  Ronin2  replied to  loki12 @2.1.26    2 months ago

You forgot CIA informant and active source.

That is a big one. If only the FBI would have taken the short amount of time to do research (which is their fucking job!); then Page would have been off their hit list- and Steele's Dossier would have been in the garbage where it belonged!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago

You really can't dodge the bullet - Flynn never should have been under investigation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.54  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.7    2 months ago
Admitting something while being coerced to do so is not illegal. The coercion is illegal.

You have to prove coercion.  There has been no attempt to do so.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.55  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.53    2 months ago

02-flynn-plot-la-600-600x429.jpg

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    2 months ago
We don’t fully know the how because so many witnesses lied, destroyed evidence, or suffered memory lapses.

Damn JR.   And here I thought this was the usual Trump hit piece tirade.  When I saw the above sentence I KNEW you were speaking of the Democrats and their vitriolic hatred of Donald Trump as personified by the shifty Schiff transcript reading and the oh so many Democrats that "saw evidence" of everything they promoted, well, except the truth that is.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4  igknorantzrulz    2 months ago

Yea, what a HOAX.

Trump defenders should be TOTALLY embarrassed , and either too ignorant, or proud, to ADMIT, 

Trump and so many he brought forth, had to take the Fifth,

cause they ARE GUILTY AS SHIT !

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4    2 months ago

Yep, the hole Trump thingy is pack of "ignorant" lies and bamboozalry perpa-

trated by a bunch of left wingery  bamboozlers.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    2 months ago

Wilful IGNORANCE, will take you Further from Grace

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4    2 months ago
Yea, what a HOAX.

Glad to see you finally admit that it WAS a hoax. Even your golden boy Mueller couldn't find any collusion, and he was LOOKING for it.

rump defenders should be TOTALLY embarrassed , and either too ignorant, or proud, to ADMIT, 

Funny, I support the President and I am not at all embarrassed to admit that there was NO COLLUSION--despite hearing that bullshit for 3+ years and being promised that Mueller would really get Trump!

Still waiting for your proof of collusion.

Trump and so many he brought forth, had to take the Fifth,
cause they ARE GUILTY AS SHIT 

That is fucking asinine. People take the 5th for many reasons. Remember when Lerner took the 5th? Bet you weren't whining about how guilty she was!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    2 months ago
Glad to see you finally admit that it WAS a hoax. Even your golden boy Mueller couldn't find any collusion, and he was LOOKING for it.

Don't forget that Bobbie had virtually free reign to look EVERYWHERE and still come up empty.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.3  gooseisgone  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4    2 months ago
Yea, what a HOAX.

Why don't you lay out the Russian collusion, because no one else can, maybe you know something the rest of the world doesn't.  Make sure you include those 57 transcripts of all those people that said they saw "nothing" with regard to Russia and Trump.  They must have all been lying, like those no good bastards from Crowdstrike that said the DNC server wasn't hacked by the Russians. but you go ahead and tell us all about the Russians and Trump. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

Flynn asked the Russians not to escalate sanctions against the US and tried to stick up for Isreal, an ally.

There was nothing wrong with the conversations and that's been conceeded by everyone. The FBI has always known the contents of the conversation. 

The Trump adminstration, of course, then went on to levy harsher sanctions then Obama did. 

Are you now supporting Russian sanctions of the US? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    2 months ago
Flynn asked the Russians not to escalate sanctions against the US and tried to stick up for Isreal, an ally.

Ever here of the Logan's Act?  So you are not stating that Flynn violated federal law?

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1    2 months ago

I thought Flynn was Trumps "National Security Adviser".

That's not an Authorized Position ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1    2 months ago

Laughable crap. No one has even been prosecuted under the Logan Act in 168 years, and the only other case was 217 years ago.

Surely you can come up with something--anything--better than that!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.1    2 months ago
I thought Flynn was Trumps "National Security Adviser". That's not an Authorized Position ?

Not during Trump's campaign.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.3    2 months ago
Not during Trump's campaign.

Weird !

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-prosecution-a-timeline-of-trumps-ex-national-security-advisers-case

Jan. 24, 2017
Flynn, who at the time was national security adviser to Trump, was approached by a pair of FBI agents for an interview at the White House. They wanted to discuss his communications with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak regarding sanctions in December 2016 , which unbeknownst to Flynn had been picked up in wiretapped discussions. This interview would later form the basis for a false-statement charge and guilty plea.

Trump was Elected as President of the united States  on November 8, 2016

I guess Flynn really was his National Security Advisor December 2016

Again ...... Weird !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    2 months ago
Laughable crap. No one has even been prosecuted under the Logan Act in 168 years, and the only other case was 217 years ago.

So you are agreeing that he is guilty of violating the Logan Act, your only defense is that no one else has been charged recently.  That is a very very pitiful defense.

No one has been charged with treason for over 50 years, should we just ignore the next person to commit it in that case?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.5    2 months ago

Besides being unconstitutional (which is why no one is ever charged with violating it) it would not apply to members of a Presidential transition team.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.5    2 months ago
o you are agreeing that he is guilty of violating the Logan Act, your only defense is that no one else has been charged recently.  

Ah, your usual tactic of claiming people say stuff they don't. Intellectually dishonest and lazy as hell.

Come back when you can at least be honest on what I write.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    2 months ago
Come back when you can at least be honest on what I write.

Then he's not coming back?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    2 months ago
Besides being unconstitutional (which is why no one is ever charged with violating it) it would not apply to members of a Presidential transition team.

It was during the campaign, before the election.  Another failed spin.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    2 months ago
Ah, your usual tactic of claiming people say stuff they don't. Intellectually dishonest and lazy as hell.

Nah, I leave that to you, when you usually cut and run away.

Come back when you can at least be honest on what I write.

I am back, however you never returned to those other comment threads.

 
 
 
Thomas
6  Thomas    2 months ago

In my opinion, Barr has discredited himself right from the beginning of his tenure as AG by misleading the country about the Mueller report. (Deleted) patted him on the head.

The Flynn thing is being held up by (Deleted) and his campaign as proof that Don't Run Joe is dirty, because the Campaign says (incorrectly) that they unmasked "political enemies" (their words, not mine). Too bad for those making this claim that the identities of the people who were unmasked were not known to them prior to unmasking, and were showing up in intelligence reports by unidentifiable aliases. That is why they had them unmasked. So they could find out who it was that was talking with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.... 

You must not listen! You will be told the truth from on high! Just make something up in the meantime.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Good Dog Barr has been gnawing on the dried up bones of the Obama admin trying to find anything that can make it appear that they were to blame for (Deleted)'s campaign actions. As has been (Deleted)'s standard Method of Operations from the beginning of his career, not just his political career, but his entire career: When proven to be wrong, just lie and say that you were proved right, no matter the evidence or findings to the contrary that come to light. Fog of battle will provide enough cover for even the most bald faced of lies, and once uttered by (Deleted), they echo and reverberate like hell hounds' howls from the mouths of of the sycophantic minions.

Welcome to the Department of Truth. You are unsure what "Truth" is? Don't worry, you will be told, and you won't even need the memory hole, save the one that exists in our collective heads.

And you thought the group think would be imposed from the left..... (Insert maniacal cackle hear)

Awake now! Rise and go forth! Do battle with the verifiable. Cast doubt on what has been proven. Stumble mumble and pontificate grumble to confuse and obscure the fact that (Deleted) lies and instructs his followers to do the same. 

Who knows what you may be given as a reward? You might even get an "Attaboy".

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
7  Transyferous Rex    2 months ago
Russian intelligence services intervened in the 2016 U.S. election to help elect Donald Trump. They intervened in ways that were illegal, and they intervened in ways that were clandestine. In the context of an election decided by 80,000 votes in three states, they intervened in ways that probably were decisive. Altogether, the Russian action to elect Donald Trump in 2016 ranks among the most successful intelligence operations in world history. President Trump and his supporters dismiss these facts as “the Russia hoax,” but facts they are—facts beyond rational doubt.

Maybe Russia did interfere. What were the results of the interference? I don't want any outside influence, but to point the finger solely at Russia ignores the much more simple reason for the Clinton loss, which is that she just wasn't a good enough candidate. 

I understand that there are some who refuse to believe that. Likely, many of the same that believe Biden is the best horse the democrats could have promoted. Maybe he is, if it assumed he has the best shot at beating Trump. I don't know. But he can't be the best democrat for the position. Candidly, I have a hard time believing he is, and I have a hard time believing that so many democrat voters believe he is. 

 
 
 
devangelical
8  devangelical    2 months ago

a general with top security clearance, intelligence advisor to the president elect, also operating as an unregistered agent for a rogue foreign government. no concerns or conflicts for trumpsters in that geo-political scenario. an illegal act, guilty as charged.

and why has AG barr fought so hard to keep the unredacted version of the mueller investigation out of public view?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327
Old Hermit
Texan1211
Just Jim NC TttH
loki12
JohnRussell
CB


38 visitors