Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[ElNono]

And if you’re counsel is representing you in two separate cases and tells you to plead guilty in one case so their firm is not drug through the dirt in the other case?

Then it's still my decision to make that call, or switch representation. Again, having shitty lawyers is not a defense.

Think about the ridiculousness of this argument. They're asking for basically a do-over because now, after being found guilty, he didn't think his lawyers did a good job.

Just about every person ever found guilty would use that defense if it would exist. It doesn't.

[TSA]

Then it's still my decision to make that call, or switch representation. Again, having shitty lawyers is not a defense.

Think about the ridiculousness of this argument. They're asking for basically a do-over because now, after being found guilty, he didn't think his lawyers did a good job.

Just about every person ever found guilty would use that defense if it would exist. It doesn't.

What’s ridiculous is thinking that’s their only defense. You aren’t naive and I’m wondering why you’re going with this angle.

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1256730942804197378

[TSA]

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the Trump–Russia Probe

Michael Flynn was not the objective. He was the obstacle.

Once you grasp that fundamental fact, it becomes easier to understand the latest disclosures the Justice Department made in the Flynn case on Thursday. They are the most important revelations to date about the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

The new disclosures, in conjunction with all we have learned in the last week, answer the all-important why question: Why was Flynn set up?

The answer to the what question has been clear for a long time: The FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn, hoping to lure him into misstatements that the bureau could portray as lies. In the frenzied political climate of the time, that would have been enough to get him removed from his new position as national security adviser (NSA), perhaps even to prosecute him. On that score, the new disclosures, startling as they are to read, just elucidate what was already obvious.

But why did they do it? That has been the baffling question. Oh, there have been plenty of indications that the Obama administration could not abide Flynn. The White House and the intelligence agencies had their reasons, mostly vindictive. But while that may explain their gleefulness over his fall from grace, it has never been a satisfying explanation for the extraordinary measures the FBI took to orchestrate that fall.

Concealing Information ‘as It Relates to Russia’
To understand what happened here, you have to understand what the FBI’s objective was, first formed in collaboration with Obama-administration officials. That includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Flynn’s predecessor, national-security adviser Susan Rice, with whom then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI director James Comey met at the White House on January 5, 2017 — smack in the middle of the chain-of-events that led to Flynn’s ouster. Recall Rice’s CYA memo about the meeting: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia” (emphasis added). Rice wrote those words on January 20, at the very time the FBI was making its plan to push Flynn out.

The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the Trump–Russia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump’s capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump’s campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia’s election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier — the bogus compendium of Trump–Russia collusion allegations — in its report assessing Russia’s meddling in the campaign.

But how could the FBI sustain an investigation targeting the president when the president would have the power to shut the investigation down?

The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation — in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.

That is why Flynn had to go.

President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance. He was not supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize in the campaign. The staff he brought into the government consisted mainly of loyalists. There were some skilled advisers, too, but their experience was not in the national-security realm.

The exception was Flynn. The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played — how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.

Someone as smooth as Director Comey might be able to dissuade President Trump from inquiring too deeply into the Russia investigation. Trump would be satisfied as long as Comey kept assuring him not to worry because the bureau was not investigating him personally — even though it was. The unseasoned Trump staff would also be easy to brush back: Just tell them that the FBI was rigorously independent, and that if the White House poked around too much, Trump staffers would be accused of political meddling. The staff was green enough to be bullied into minding its own business even about the FBI’s counterintelligence mission, in which the bureau is supposed to serve the White House, not the other way around.

But Flynn was different. After 33 years in the Army chain of command, the decorated former combat commander grasped that the FBI, like other executive-branch components, worked for the president. As NSA, Flynn would ensure that Trump ran the intelligence agencies, not be run by them. If Flynn wanted to know what was going on in intelligence investigations, he’d be able to find out — he wouldn’t take Jim Comey’s “no” for an answer. He was loyal to Trump, not to the intelligence establishment or the “policy community.” And he was White House staff, not a cabinet appointee — i.e., he did not have to wait interminably on an iffy Senate confirmation; he would be on the job from the very first moments of the new administration, getting his arms around what the executive branch intelligence apparatus was up to.

Collusion Narrative and the Sanctions Controversy
The eleven pages of documents the Justice Department released on Thursday are a treasure trove for analysts who’ve followed the collusion caper. There will be time to discuss various aspects of them, particularly the matter of how disgraced former agent Peter Strzok managed to keep open the Flynn thread of the Russia investigation (“Crossfire Razor”) after the FBI had seemingly closed it on January 4 — the day before Comey’s Oval Office meeting with Obama & Co. For now, though, let’s focus on that why question.

Upon the new president’s January 20 inauguration, Flynn was the matter of most immediate urgency to the FBI. That was not because the agents were trying to make a case on him. It was because he was already starting his new job as Trump’s NSA.

It was also a frenzied time, with the media and Democrats pushing the collusion narrative, creating an uproar over whether Flynn had discussed anti-Russia sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak. Flynn publicly said the subject did not come up. Vice President Pence publicly backed him. But the FBI had had surveillance coverage on the Russian envoy. The bureau knew the issue of sanctions had been discussed. Though Flynn had said nothing inappropriate on the subject, its mere mention would become a huge political problem.

We do not know for sure what Flynn’s conversation was with Pence. Maybe he misinformed the vice-president. Maybe there was a garble (the difference between didn’t come up and wasn’t discussed inappropriately could easily be confused). Or maybe Pence decided it was politically expedient to back Flynn’s account, regardless of whether it was true. Whatever happened, such political matters would not be the business of the Justice Department and the FBI in most administrations. Can anyone imagine the Obama Justice Department and FBI getting alarmed that the president, National Security Adviser Rice, and Secretary of State Clinton were publicly saying things about the Benghazi attack that the FBI knew to be untrue?

This was the Trump administration, however, so Obama holdover officials, such as Acting AG Yates, would pose as aghast that Pence was publicly echoing Flynn’s misstatement. Even though they knew the misstatement was trivial . . . which explains why the FBI moved to close the Flynn investigation on January 4, after Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak — they plainly knew Flynn was not a Kremlin mole.

More to the point, the newly revealed documents include emails between Strzok and other FBI officials from the weekend before the FBI’s January 24 grilling of Flynn.

Most of the press attention has been about the planning for that grilling — about how brazenly the bureau spoke of trying to get Flynn to lie, about the renegade scheme to orchestrate an interrogation of Flynn without informing the Trump White House, as protocol required. That’s significant, but it misses the bigger picture. The January 21–22 emails show that the FBI did not start out with that perjury-trap plan. They ended up with the perjury-trap plan because there was no practical alternative if the bureau was to achieve its objective — the withholding of information about Russia from the incoming Trump team, in order to keep the Trump–Russia investigation alive.

No Alternative
The perjury trap was set for Flynn out of necessity. If the Justice Department had informed the White House about recordings of Flynn and Kislyak discussing sanctions, and the FBI then asked for permission to interview Flynn, the bureau knew permission was sure to be denied. Flynn would be untouchable, and free to discover the entirety of the Obama administration’s extensive but secret effort to depict Trump and his minions as Russian operatives — an effort the FBI was determined to keep pursuing.

If no way could be found to sideline Flynn (the way Attorney General Jeff Sessions would later be sidelined), then Flynn was going to find out about Crossfire Hurricane. He was going to be a hands-on NSA, so that was a given.

Strzok thus started out the weekend by proposing that Flynn be given a “defensive briefing.” This is when an official is advised that he and his cohorts are the targets of some espionage or criminal operation. Here, it would be the purported Russian infiltration of the Trump campaign and the new administration.

Understand: It is not that the FBI wanted to give Flynn this information; it is that there was no practical alternative. Under the circumstances, the FBI would have to tell Flynn directly. But that raised the question: Could it be done in a way that would scare him off, make him feel vulnerable, marginalize him?

On Saturday, Strzok started out by proposing to Bill Priestap, the bureau’s counterintelligence chief, that Flynn be given “a defensive briefing . . . about CROSS WIND and [redacted].” “Cross Wind” — like “Crossfire Razor” and “Crossfire Typhoon,” another code name in the new documents — appears to have been a subset of the overarching Crossfire Hurricane probe (the latter was depicted as an “umbrella”; underneath it were the “Cross” subsets — such Trump campaign figures as Flynn, Carter Page, and George Papadopoulos).

Strzok conceded he was “not certain” that a defensive briefing was the right approach. Maybe, he suggested, such a briefing could be floated as a “pretext”; it would get them in the door, then they’d use the opportunity to “interview” Flynn — i.e., to hint that he might be in legal jeopardy over his contacts with Kislyak, then pepper him with questions, hoping he’d say something that compromised him. Or maybe they could just give Flynn a defensive briefing in the usual sense — i.e., “put him on notice, and see what he does with that.” The idea would be: share a bit of information, then keep tabs on Flynn to see if he spilled the beans to the suspects. That can be an effective way of proving a conspiracy.

While the emails are heavily redacted, we can glean that the sanctions issue hung heavily. The Justice Department seemed to want to alert Vice President Pence that Flynn had misled him. Playing this out, Strzok speculated about what would happen if DOJ decided that “VPOTUS or anyone else” needed to be told “about the [redacted]” — what’s redacted, I suspect, is a reference to the recorded Flynn–Kislyak discussions. Strzok surmised that if the Trump White House were told, the bureau would lose any chance to interview Flynn. The agents might believe they needed to take an “overt” investigative step, such as a pretextual defensive briefing that enabled them to interrogate Flynn; but if the Trump White House had been alerted, it could “specifically direct us not to.” Trump would probably keep Flynn in place, and the bureau would be powerless to keep the NSA from digging into the Russia probe.

On Sunday morning, having heard Strzok out, an official whose identity is blacked out sent a heavily redacted email to Strzok and Lisa Page (FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s counsel, and Strzok’s paramour). Because of Flynn’s NSA position, the unidentified official acknowledged, standard procedure would call for “tell[ing] him “about Wind and [redacted].” Yet, the official cautioned, “I’d be interested in letting that play out a bit before he tells them and the whole thing goes underground.” Translation: Once we tell Flynn, then Flynn will tell his administration superiors, and that will derail the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Then, in what may be a reference to the recorded communications about sanctions between Flynn and Kislyak, the official conceded, “if we usually tell the WH [White House], then I think we should do what we normally do.” But the dilemma remained: Agents “need[ed] to debrief or interview Razor [Flynn],” but they could be “told not to” if the White House were given prior notice.

As the weekend wound down, FBI officials could not square the circle. Try as they might, they could not figure out a way to brief Flynn about any aspect of Crossfire Hurricane, or to alert the White House about the Flynn–Kislyak sanctions discussion. When game-planned, each proposal along those lines led to the virtual certainty that the bureau would be told not to question Flynn. He would keep his job, and be poised to inquire into the full extent of the Trump–Russia investigation.

Going Rogue
By Monday, January 23, the FBI’s top hierarchy had concluded that the only solution was to go rogue: They would approach Flynn without alerting anyone ahead of time, not even the Justice Department and certainly not the White House. It was the same reasoning they’d used in July 2016, when Comey gave his infamous press conference about the Hillary Clinton emails investigation, in violation of Justice Department guidelines: If you ask permission to do something that is against the rules, you might be told no; but if you just act audaciously, your superiors may not like it, but they’ll have to accept it — otherwise they’ll look like they’re obstructing the FBI.

And since this was going to be their only shot at Flynn, they had to try to make it a kill shot. They’d do a perjury trap. Flynn would be grilled about his conversations with Kislyak that had become such a media-driven controversy. But the bureau would not play the recordings for him. They would not refresh his recollection. They would not ask him to go line-by-line to help them understand the conversation. That is what they would do in a normal investigation, if they were really trying, say, to figure out what Russia was up to. The goal here was not to advance anyone’s understanding.

The goal was to get Flynn to lie. Not to lie so they’d have leverage to threaten a prosecution and thus pressure Flynn to reveal vital evidence he’d been concealing. They wanted him to lie for the sake of lying — so they could get rid of him.

To better the odds that he would agree to talk and make inaccurate statements that could be portrayed as willful falsehoods, the FBI would not tell him the purpose of the interview. Agents would not formally advise him of his rights, as they would in a normal case, even if they were dealing with a real criminal. They would just buzz him with questions about what exactly was said, in conversations that had occurred weeks before, at a time when Flynn was having hundreds of similar conversations. They would press him about what exact words had been uttered, even though they knew the exact words because they had recordings. They would try to put him in fear that they could prove the falsity of his public statements about not discussing sanctions. They would put him in fear that he could be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act (an absurd suggestion, but Flynn is not a lawyer and many commentators were discussing this moribund, constitutionally suspect provision as if it were a real crime). In the hotly partisan collusion climate of the time, they would make Flynn understand he could be framed as a sinister collaborator with Russia.

In sum, the FBI could create a scenario in which (a) Flynn might be subject to prosecution, (b) there could be grounds for terminating him, and (c) he would surely be seen as too conflicted about Russia to be made privy to details of the bureau’s Trump–Russia investigation.

Checkmate
The text messages and notes disclosed in the last week show that not everyone was comfortable with this plan. Bill Priestap, the counterintelligence chief, expressed deep misgivings. The objective of the plan seemed unclear, even improper: Were they trying to advance an investigation in good faith, or just “get [Flynn] to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Why were they not going to refresh Flynn’s recollection with the recording or a transcript, as the FBI would do with similarly situated interviewees? Why did the bureau think it needed to be so “aggressive” with Flynn?

Strzok and Page fretted in text messages on Monday, January 23, that Priestap was not getting the picture. His protests were irking McCabe. By Tuesday morning, a few hours before the January 24 interview, the deputy director was even more frustrated because Priestap had repeated his concerns to Director Comey. If Comey wavered, the plan could be scotched.

The director did not waver. The FBI’s top officials met at headquarters. Comey approved the plan to have Strzok and agent Joe Pientka visit Flynn at his office — no heads-up to others at the White House would be provided. McCabe was to call Flynn to arrange the meeting, assisted by Strzok in thinking through what to tell the NSA. The idea was to put Flynn at ease — make him feel like it would just be a chat between veteran national-security guys, not a criminal investigation; discourage Flynn from getting a lawyer; disabuse him of any thought of involving the White House counsel or chief-of-staff. Just a quick meeting so they could put to rest all this Russia noise in the media. No big deal.

The rest is history.

Acting Attorney General Yates was not given notice that would have triggered an obligation to alert White House counsel Don McGahn. By the time she went to see White House counsel McGahn two days later, she was in a position to say not only that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, putting Vice President Pence in an embarrassing position; she was able to add that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI.

Not immediately perceiving the magnitude of a revelation that the FBI had just interrogated the president’s NSA, in the White House and without getting clearance, McGahn quipped, “How did he do?” Yates has testified that she “explain[ed] to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that General Flynn engaged in was problematic in and of itself” — i.e., the specious Logan Act angle that Flynn had illegally consulted the Russians without notifying the Obama administration. She also fatuously claimed that Flynn could conceivably be subject to Russian blackmail — as if the Russians did not assume the U.S. government had a recording of the Flynn–Kislyak conversation (something they’d have assumed even if it hadn’t already been leaked to the Washington Post). Yates indicated that these problems with Flynn’s credibility and capacity to function as NSA had not been cleared up, despite the FBI’s interview. As McGahn heard Yates out, he was already asking whether she thought Flynn should be fired.

NSA Flynn’s days were numbered. He was frozen out of anything to do with Russia. The collusion chatter went into overdrive. On February 9, the New York Times reported, based on leaks from the usual “current and former American officials,” that Flynn and Kislyak had indeed discussed sanctions. Four days later, the president reluctantly cashiered his chosen national-security adviser, one of few allies he had in a virulently Trump-hostile intelligence community.

With the obstacle out of the way, the objective was achieved: Flynn was gone, and the Trump–Russia investigation continued.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/fbi-set-up-michael-flynn-to-preserve-trump-russia-probe/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1256902805530587136

https://mobile.twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1256904834487386112

https://mobile.twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1256906719810260995

https://mobile.twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1256958936365883392


Pretty impressive op team Clinton was running. I can kind of forgive you stupid fucks for falling for it.

[Spurs Homer]

Lolololol


pizzagate boy is gottta be the #1 sucker in this entire board....


every quasi whack -nut job conspiracy perks his gullible ears and eyes....


EXCEPT ONE:



TRUTH!

[TSA]

Lolololol


pizzagate boy is gottta be the #1 sucker in this entire board....


every quasi whack -nut job conspiracy perks his gullible ears and eyes....


EXCEPT ONE:



TRUTH!
^^^
Fell for and continues to believe in the biggest debunked hoax our country has ever seen :lol

[Spurs Homer]

^^^
Fell for and continues to believe in the biggest debunked hoax our country has ever seen :lol


nah

PIZZAGATE was your thing

[ElNono]

What’s ridiculous is thinking that’s their only defense. You aren’t naive and I’m wondering why you’re going with this angle.

:lol I was merely responding to the argument YOU advanced. This is where this discussion started:


:lol excellent representation

You obviously weren’t aware of Covington fucking up Flynn’s FARA filing

[TSA]

:lol I was merely responding to the argument YOU advanced. This is where this discussion started:

Uhhhh...ok? Is that the only defense his team is bringing?

[ChumpDumper]

Uhhhh...ok? Is that the only defense his team is bringing?They certainly aren't bringing the "Flynn didn't lie to the feds" defense.

[boutons_deux]

why was Flynn on the phone to Russia 5? times the day after the election?

He wasn't to be NSA director for another 2+ months.

[spurraider21]

seriously

flynn could have thwarted this whole thing by simply not lying

[ElNono]

Uhhhh...ok? Is that the only defense his team is bringing?

Did you ask TechnoFog?

Whatever they're bringing is kinda late. This trial is in the sentencing phase. They should bring it up on appeals.

[TSA]

Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey's FBI

By James A. Gagliano
May 4, 2020 - 12:45 PM

The time has come to cease affording the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt. A steady stream of unflattering revelations, beginning with a report by the Justice Department's inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December, has relentlessly pounded the reputation of my former agency. Now, further irrefutable proof emerges that a small cabal of FBI headquarters decision-makers was hellbent on undoing a presidency.

I know it sounds strange to hear me make such an accusation. I’m the guy who long attempted to thread the needle, accounting for honest human frailties, trusting that mistakes should not always be chalked up to malice or sinister intent. Cautious skepticism was a default mindset that served me well across a quarter century as an FBI investigator. That condition failed me here because one thing is clear.

Michael Flynn got railroaded.

Careful examination of fresh facts related to Flynn pleading guilty to Title 18 U.S. Code § 1001 (essentially, lying to a federal agent) provides an eye-popping and clear-cut case of investigative inconsistencies and partisan political bias. At the request of defense attorney Sidney Powell, who is seeking to have the retired lieutenant general’s plea withdrawn, additional evidence related to the Flynn case has recently been released by the prosecution. According to Flynn’s defense team, some uncovered FBI notes illustrate a concerted effort by former FBI Director James Comey's team to set Flynn up.

The notes in question are handwritten and appear to outline the Crossfire Hurricane team’s objectives for the planned interview with Flynn at the White House, just days after the inauguration of President Trump. They are clearly initialed by then-FBI Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap. I know Bill from our overlapping assignments in the FBI’s New York office. He is an experienced, honorable, and well-respected lawman.

But one passage fairly leaped off the page at me:

“What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.”
It almost appears as if Priestap is attempting to memorialize his own opposition to the Flynn ambush. As in, who would ever chronicle that type of stratagem knowing it might one day be considered Brady material or be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request? It defies credulity. But in Priestap’s defense, he was full-on sailing against the wind.

Then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe essentially called the shots in Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI is charged with enforcing federal law. Nowhere in our identified mission and priorities exists a goal to set a perjury trap or, absent evidence of a prosecutable crime, get someone fired. Why even consider this an objective?

To borrow a line from comedian Jeff Foxworthy: If this doesn’t bother you, you might be a party-over-country partisan.

Since the FBI was already in possession of the transcript of Flynn’s telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, what exactly was to be gained by the interview? Nothing except the potential to jam him up and get him removed as national security adviser. It was never going to charge him for violations of the Logan Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Even Robert Mueller’s team could have done so. It passed. These laws are seldom, if ever, enforced. Just ask the lobbyists on K Street.

Even Comey once believed Flynn not to have misrepresented facts to the FBI. The fired former director, who enjoys a cozy relationship with the Washington Post, was awarded “Two Pinocchios” by the paper’s fact-checker after a denial in an interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier, who asked him if he had ever “[told] lawmakers that FBI agents didn’t believe former national security adviser Michael Flynn was lying intentionally to investigators?”

Which leads us back to the ubiquitous Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. After McCabe circumvented established channels, forgoing calls to DOJ or the newly emplaced White House counsel or chief of staff, Flynn became a ripe target. After assuring the new national security adviser that he didn’t need an attorney present, McCabe dispatched two agents to the White House.

During a conversation with MSNBC's Nicole Wallace in 2019, Comey smugly recounted this episode of personally sending Strzok and an FBI supervisory special agent, Joe Pientka, to meet with Flynn. According to Comey, this tactic was “something ... I probably wouldn't have done or gotten away with in a more organized investigation — a more organized administration."

So Strzok (famously fired for his partisan text exchanges with Page), along with the FBI official who overruled case personnel and ordered that the Flynn case remain open after recommendations that it be closed for lack of any evidence, had his opportunity.

What happened next infuriates me.

The Flynn FD-302 interview notes appear to have been manipulated by Strzok and Page. Pientka was apparently the note taker. Consistent with FBI protocols, Strzok, as a party to the interview, can certainly discuss recollections with Pientka prior to the final document being approved by both. But somehow, Page, the DOJ attorney who was not present at the interview and was not an FBI agent, was involved in the edits.

Strzok advises Page, in a newly released batch of text exchanges between the two, that he was “trying to not completely rewrite” the FD-302, “so as to save [redacted] voice.” The redacted name is most likely Pientka. Strzok wants the document to appear to be voiced by the other agent. But only after he and Page can craft the words to make Flynn appear guilty of lying to the FBI.

As retired FBI agent Thomas Baker points out in the Wall Street Journal:

“Worse still, the FD-302 that was eventually provided to the court wasn’t that of the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn. It was instead an FD-302 of an interview of Mr. Strzok, conducted months later, about his recollections of the original interview. Truly bizarre.”
The uncomfortable truth is that the cases focusing on Trump (Crossfire Hurricane) and Hillary Clinton (Midyear Exam) were handled inconsistently. The Clinton investigation (which Obama-era Attorney General Loretta Lynch famously suggested be referred to as a "matter," not an investigation) was not handled aggressively or in keeping with the standards of the apolitical ethos of the FBI.

As former Rep. Trey Gowdy sarcastically described the stark differences between the hyperaggressive tactics employed against Flynn and the ludicrous preconditions that the FBI generously conceded to in order to interview Clinton in 2016:

“She had a medium-sized law firm in the room with her. They gave the questions to her lawyer before they interviewed her, and they most assuredly told her there’s a consequence for lying. None of which they did for Michael Flynn.”
So again, I ask: Why did the same crew of FBI investigators handle these two consequential investigations of political candidates in very different fashions if not for the rather obvious injection of political bias in decision-making?

Many have batted down that suggestion, arguing that Michael Horowitz’s report cleared the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team of partisanship. That is patently false.

Here’s Horowitz in exchange with Sen. Josh Hawley on Dec. 18, 2019:

Hawley: “Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?”

Horowitz: “We did not reach that conclusion.”

Hawley: “Because I could have sworn — in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. That’s not your conclusion?”

Horowitz: “We have been very careful in the connection with the FISAs for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion in part, as we’ve talked about earlier, [because of] the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”
Horowitz was referring to DOJ attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who materially altered an email to misrepresent information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. You will also recall the text message whereby he defiantly exhorted, “Viva la Resistance.” Not much political bias to speak of there, right?

The final nail in the coffin of those who pretend political bias did not influence the FBI’s decisions in 2016 and 2017 is a text exchange between Strzok and Page on Feb. 25, 2016, discussing how to approach the Clinton interview:

Page: “One more thing: She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more DOJ than FBI?”

Strzok: “I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees.”
Compare that to Priestap's quote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or get him to lie, so we can get him fired?”

The contrast is stunning. No plausible explanation exists here other than rank partisan, political bias.

I’ll say it again: Michael Flynn got railroaded.

James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) worked in the FBI for 25 years. He is a law enforcement analyst for CNN and an adjunct assistant professor in homeland security and criminal justice at St. John's University. Gagliano is a member of the board of directors of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/michael-flynn-was-railroaded-by-james-comeys-fbi?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1257436197678391298?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1257436197678391298?s=19:lol another conspiracy theory

[Spurs Homer]

:lol another conspiracy theory


there's a sucker born every minute!

pizzagate-level saps!

[Chris]

:lol another conspiracy theory

you didn't read it :lol

[ChumpDumper]

you didn't read it :lolThe tweet clearly states a conspiracy theory.:lol

[spurraider21]

INSURANCE POLICY

[TSA]

As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support

https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/



:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You’re not worth the time to have to hold your hand and walk you through all of it. You just claimed Flynn had excellent representation without knowing he fired his team of lawyers for the exact opposite of excellent representation, along with a massive conflict of interest. If you want to read up on it more before interjecting out of the blue years after the fact we can discuss further.

:lol Your ignorance is showing.

You remind me of a Bert Russell quote:


“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

[Spurs Homer]

:lol Your ignorance is showing.

You remind me of a Bert Russell quote:


lol


fucking tsa in a pathetic nutshell!

[ElNono]

but BOOM brah!

[Spurs Homer]

On C-SPAN 2-

pos ratcliffe squirming and avoiding answering ANYTHING that might upset the traitor in chief

”will you protect whistleblowers?”

uh- i will follow the law...

”will you go to the WH house or DOJ - to get permission?”

uh- er - i will follow the constitution”


piece of shit


he was one of the assholes trying to doxx the WB

[Spurs Homer]

Warner: “russia cyberattacked to HELP Trump win 2016 election- do you agree with the UNANIMOUS finding of our committee”

Ratfuck: “I have no reason to disagree with that conclusion”


yet ratfuck will run on hannitys show and say the complete opposite since he wont be under oath-

but morons like TSA - STILL do NOT get that the GOP is nothing but actors playing a role when they call it a russia hoax on FAUX news...


tHey just swallow whole the misinformation and propaganda

[Spurs Homer]

Are comey and mccabe in prison yet?

is flynn withdrawing his guilty plea yet?


lol

[TSA]

Schiff’s Secret Transcripts
Why is he sitting on declassified interviews in the collusion probe?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-secret-transcripts-11587769594

Really curious to see what Schiff has been trying to hide this whole time.

DNI to Schiff: The transcripts are ready to release

The interviews were conducted in secret. But by September 2018, with the committee's report long finished and made public, the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public. In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC -- never to be seen again.

Now, in May 2020, they're still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts.

In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. "I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee's unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible," Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, "I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts."

One more thing. In March 2019 -- that was when Democrats were newly in charge of the House and considering impeaching President Trump over the Russia matter -- Schiff requested that the DNI "under no circumstances...share House Intelligence Committee transcripts with the White House, President Trump, or any persons associated with the White House or President." Some Republicans viewed that as a dubious request, since some of the witnesses came from the White House. Nevertheless, Grenell complied. "Pursuant to your guidance, these transcripts have not been shared with the White House," he wrote to Schiff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-exclusive-dni-to-schiff-the-transcripts-are-ready-to-release

[TSA]

Schiff’s Secret Transcripts
Why is he sitting on declassified interviews in the collusion probe?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-secret-transcripts-11587769594

Really curious to see what Schiff has been trying to hide this whole time.

DNI to Schiff: The transcripts are ready to release

The interviews were conducted in secret. But by September 2018, with the committee's report long finished and made public, the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public. In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC -- never to be seen again.

Now, in May 2020, they're still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts.

In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. "I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee's unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible," Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, "I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts."

One more thing. In March 2019 -- that was when Democrats were newly in charge of the House and considering impeaching President Trump over the Russia matter -- Schiff requested that the DNI "under no circumstances...share House Intelligence Committee transcripts with the White House, President Trump, or any persons associated with the White House or President." Some Republicans viewed that as a dubious request, since some of the witnesses came from the White House. Nevertheless, Grenell complied. "Pursuant to your guidance, these transcripts have not been shared with the White House," he wrote to Schiff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-exclusive-dni-to-schiff-the-transcripts-are-ready-to-release

https://twitter.com/CommodoreBTC/status/1258031851106697216

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1257771934260924416

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1257773367723036672

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1257775559607758848

[Spurs Homer]

Hey TSA

simple question for you;

yesterday - Congressman Ratfuck- er Ratcliffe was under oath for his hearing for DNI job...

why do you think- he refused to agree that

1) there is a “deep state cabal” in the Intel Community

and

2) that the Intel Community had “run amok”

why - under oath- did he not jump at the chance to “expose the deep state” or back up your cult leaders claim that the IC had run amok?

do you think he lied under oath- or do you think you are listening to political liars when you defend their outrageous false claims of a deep state?

run away from the questions and post more propaganda per par

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Brian Cates

[Spurs Homer]

:lol Brian Cates

lol

im gonna make two predictions here;
(on the NEWEST of severe pearl clutching drama that TSA is furiously posting about)

#1) schiff will probably release them without too much arm twisting (even though he knows the “cherry-picking” will be epic)

and

#2) trump team wont be too happy about it - and will even BLOCK some of those releases



just watch

[TSA]

Schiff’s Secret Transcripts
Why is he sitting on declassified interviews in the collusion probe?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-secret-transcripts-11587769594

Really curious to see what Schiff has been trying to hide this whole time.

DNI to Schiff: The transcripts are ready to release

The interviews were conducted in secret. But by September 2018, with the committee's report long finished and made public, the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public. In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC -- never to be seen again.

Now, in May 2020, they're still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts.

In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. "I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee's unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible," Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, "I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts."

One more thing. In March 2019 -- that was when Democrats were newly in charge of the House and considering impeaching President Trump over the Russia matter -- Schiff requested that the DNI "under no circumstances...share House Intelligence Committee transcripts with the White House, President Trump, or any persons associated with the White House or President." Some Republicans viewed that as a dubious request, since some of the witnesses came from the White House. Nevertheless, Grenell complied. "Pursuant to your guidance, these transcripts have not been shared with the White House," he wrote to Schiff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-exclusive-dni-to-schiff-the-transcripts-are-ready-to-release

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/976208290987368450

:rollin

[Spurs Homer]

Hey TSA

simple question for you;

yesterday - Congressman Ratfuck- er Ratcliffe was under oath for his hearing for DNI job...

why do you think- he refused to agree that

1) there is a “deep state cabal” in the Intel Community

and

2) that the Intel Community had “run amok”

why - under oath- did he not jump at the chance to “expose the deep state” or back up your cult leaders claim that the IC had run amok?

do you think he lied under oath- or do you think you are listening to political liars when you defend their outrageous false claims of a deep state?

run away from the questions and post more propaganda per par

[Spurs Homer]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-ratcliffe-doesnt-know-deep-state-meaning

[Chris]

When the Sciff hits the fan, release the transcripts.

[TSA]

Sources say Russia probe transcripts affirm officials came up empty on collusion: 'Schiff is in panic mode'

Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday.

This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion.

“Schiff is in panic mode,” a senior administration official told Fox News.

Earlier this week, House Republicans sought over 6,000 pages of transcripts pertaining to interviews conducted by the committee in 2017 and 2018, after the panel in September 2018 voted on a bipartisan basis to approve their public release.

A day later, acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell notified Schiff, D-Calif., that the redaction and declassification process was complete, and that the records were ready for release, putting the ball in Schiff’s court.

However, intelligence officials told Fox News on Wednesday that Schiff has had his subcommittee staff director reaching out to heads of intelligence community agencies asking how Grenell was involved and what role Grenell — a known Trump ally — may have played in the declassification and redaction process.

Fox News is told, however, that the declassification process was completed before Grenell took the helm as acting director this past February.

The process, according to an intelligence community official, took place under both former directors Dan Coates and Joseph Maguire, and was conducted by career intelligence officials. The official also told Fox News that the relevant heads of appropriate agencies were consulted on the declassifications and redactions of all 53 transcripts.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-transcripts-collusion-schiff-panic-mode-sources

[spurraider21]

now lets get some pictures of his big eyes

that'll show em

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BrookeSingman/status/1258217352317075459

[TSA]

now lets get some pictures of his big eyes

that'll show em

When you were in California were you in Schiff’s district and did you vote for him?

[spurraider21]

When you were in California were you in Schiff’s district and did you vote for him?
never lived in his district. for most of my life, lived in what is now CA-30 (brad sherman). voted for sherman every time as far as i can remember.

sherman was my congressman until i moved to northridge in 2017, which placed me in CA-25. in 2018 I voted for Katie Hill who knocked out the republican incumbent.

i moved out of the state in 2019

find a big funny bug-eye picture yet?

[TSA]

never lived in his district. for most of my life, lived in what is now CA-30 (brad sherman). voted for sherman every time as far as i can remember.

sherman was my congressman until i moved to northridge in 2017, which placed me in CA-25. in 2018 I voted for Katie Hill who knocked out the republican incumbent.

i moved out of the state in 2019

find a big funny bug-eye picture yet?

:bobo

[Spurs Homer]

:bobo



pussy


cant man up and answer questions because your bullshit would be exposed

[Chris]

panic mode :tu

[Chris]

TSA and I have been telling you for years, and all you can do is parrot Media.

lol

[ChumpDumper]

TSA and I have been telling you for yearsTelling us what?

What are you saying will happen?

[Spurs Homer]

Telling us what?

What are you saying will happen?


they been telling us that they are pretty fucking gullible and brainwashed

[TSA]

welp

https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258449232509440000

https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1258451997935747073

[Spurs Homer]

Barr corruption - of course - ^

no legit law man will stay and watch Barr use his power to subvert justice.

[TSA]

Barr corruption - of course - ^

no legit law man will stay and watch Barr use his power to subvert justice.

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1258467866745147393

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1258468437367697408

:lmao

[Reck]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1258467866745147393

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1258468437367697408

:lmao

Dont know why you're laughing. The fix is in.

Guy pleaded guilty in front of a judge and jury. Cant take that back.

[TSA]

Did you ask TechnoFog?

Whatever they're bringing is kinda late. This trial is in the sentencing phase. They should bring it up on appeals.

:lol

[TSA]

Dont know why you're laughing. The fix is in.

Guy pleaded guilty in front of a judge and jury. Cant take that back.

Where’s your boy djohn2oo8 :lmao

[TSA]

TSA and I have been telling you for years, and all you can do is parrot Media.

lol

:bobo

[GAustex]

The wind has changed. Where will it take us?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol this is not what Qhris and TSA have been telling us for years.

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1255645641105182722

[Reck]

Where’s your boy djohn2oo8 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14870) :lmao

:lol Already backfiring on you and your daddy Trump.

Thanks for yet another reason to vote in November. :bobo

[TSA]

:lol Already backfiring on you and your daddy Trump.

Thanks for yet another reason to vote in November. :bobo

This is nowhere close to over. Now the real fun begins.

[ChumpDumper]

This is nowhere close to over. Now the real fun begins.You said that three years ago.

[Reck]

This is nowhere close to over. Now the real fun begins.

Mass spree pardons and drop of cases? I mean, I guess at this point, the mask is off so you might as well go ahead and do it.

[spurraider21]

this is the DOJ withdrawing charges, not the court ruling on his grounds to withdraw his guilty plea based on prosecutor misconduct or incompetent attorneys.

the end result is what chris/TSA wanted (Flynn walking free)

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DanLinden/status/1258470939404177408

[Spurminator]

:lol


Where’s your boy djohn2oo8 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14870) :lmao


:bobo


https://mobile.twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1255645641105182722


This is nowhere close to over. Now the real fun begins.

Jesus Christ, TSA, you are such a pathetic loser. No offense. You don't know Michael Flynn but you've spent 3 years of your life running a full-time pro bono PR campaign on his behalf, on a basketball forum of about 30 people. And now you're gloating because, basically, he has powerful friends.

Congrats on your big day, though! :lmao

[TSA]

this is the DOJ withdrawing charges, not the court ruling on his grounds to withdraw his guilty plea based on prosecutor misconduct or incompetent attorneys.

the end result is what chris/TSA wanted (Flynn walking free)

This is the DOJ saying the FBI royally fucked up and had no basis to interview him in the first place. It’s been obvious from the beginning this was just an effort to damage Trump. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, and Yates are all shitting bricks right now.

[TSA]

:cry

[ChumpDumper]

This is the DOJ saying the FBI royally fucked up and had no basis to interview him in the first place. It’s been obvious from the beginning this was just an effort to damage Trump. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, and Yates are all shitting bricks right now.No they aren't.

[Reck]

This is the DOJ saying the FBI royally fucked up and had no basis to interview him in the first place. It’s been obvious from the beginning this was just an effort to damage Trump. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, and Yates are all shitting bricks right now.

Even with that caveat, Flynn still lied.

:cry but they held my son hostage :lmao

[TSA]

Flynn cleared and now we’re on to Durham.

[spurraider21]

This is the DOJ saying the FBI royally fucked up and had no basis to interview him in the first place. It’s been obvious from the beginning this was just an effort to damage Trump. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, and Yates are all shitting bricks right now.
we already knew Barr's opinion on all this before today

[Chris]

:bobo

God Bless :tu

https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1258468161218904065?s=19

feels good bro :lol

[Chris]

Flynn cleared and now we’re on to Durham.

Let us proceed...


:lmao

[Spurs Homer]

Judge Sullivan? still has to rule..

will he ask why prosecutor quit suddenly?

will he go along with Barr's corruption?

are we now Russia?

The Russians knew they had Kompromat on Flynn - they knew what Flynn said to them/Kislyak - and they also knew that Flynn was lying to his own vice president and his own USA Trump administration -

so they had him by the balls and Yates knew it and did her duty and reported it.

The FBI rightfully investigated Flynn for being in cahoots with Russia and lying to the USA govt -

and they caught him lying and Flynn admitted it under oath and even said he was sorry.

Suddenly - corrupt Trump and Barr think this will all just be whitewashed?

Yeah - I think this will all be exposed rightfully - but for now -

yes - we are Russia -

until Barr and Trump are removed and investigated and prosecuted.

[Chris]

Flynn thread is lit ya'll come in and celebrate :lmao

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1258474588515622912?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1258481057554464768?s=19

Lawdy! :lol

[Chris]

but BOOM brah!

nCsVOO_3EUU

[Chris]

Are comey and mccabe in prison yet?

is flynn withdrawing his guilty plea yet?


lol

lol

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1258474588515622912?s=19

LOL you dumbfuck.

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1258474588515622912?s=19:lol Flynn wouldn't have survived Senate confirmation in 2017 much less now.

[spurraider21]

Flynn spoke with Kislyak about sanctions, asked them not to escalate, and then was called back 2 days later and informed that in response to his request, Russia will not retaliate

FBI interviewed him a month later. He denied asking Kislyak/Russia not to escalate (lie) and denied remembering that he was called back 2 days later.

That hasn't changed. There was a motion before the Court alleging prosecutorial misconduct. We now never know if those had merit. Barr has had his hands on this case for a while. He stepped in to change sentencing proposal, and he hand picked outside attorneys to review this, who ultimately gave him the conclusion he wanted.

[Spurminator]

LOL you dumbfuck.

Qhris doesn't know when he's being made fun of.

[Chris]

Yeah, I'm gonna go on a limb and claim he won't be exonerated this week. Happy to own it if I'm wrong.


What do you know about it? You're just pissing in the wind :lol

lol

[spurraider21]

he wasn't exonerated :lol... has the FBI come out and said Flynn was honest with them and didnt lie when interviewed? because those were the charges

[Chris]

LOL you dumbfuck.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/954/323/394.jpg

[Chris]

he wasn't exonerated :lol... has the FBI come out and said Flynn was honest with them and didnt lie when interviewed? because those were the charges

The case against General Flynn to be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE - meaning it can never be brought again. Ever.

[ChumpDumper]

he wasn't exonerated :lol... has the FBI come out and said Flynn was honest with them and didnt lie when interviewed? because those were the chargesWhat I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me.

-- Vice President Mike Pence

[Spurs Homer]

Flynn spoke with Kislyak about sanctions, asked them not to escalate, and then was called back 2 days later and informed that in response to his request, Russia will not retaliate

FBI interviewed him a month later. He denied asking Kislyak/Russia not to escalate (lie) and denied remembering that he was called back 2 days later.

That hasn't changed. There was a motion before the Court alleging prosecutorial misconduct. We now never know if those had merit. Barr has had his hands on this case for a while. He stepped in to change sentencing proposal, and he hand picked outside attorneys to review this, who ultimately gave him the conclusion he wanted.


yes...and...

Russia knew what was discussed.
FBI knew what was discussed.

FBI and the world (and Russia) knew that Pence had been lied to when he publicly stated what Flynn had told him.

Russia knew it could blackmail Flynn.
Sally Yates - knew - and rightfully reported it.

Flynn knew all of the above and did the smart thing - he confessed AFTER being caught lying - and even decided to take America's side and cooperate with the FBI/Mueller probe - instead of taking Russia's side -

but now - he wants a do-over because he has zero integrity - zero allegiance to the USA and is no different than any other felon.

Had the FBI NOT followed thru after knowing what they knew - the MAGATS would be howling that they allowed Russia to compromise OUR Natl Sec Advisor... (in another life)

[TSA]

we already knew Barr's opinion on all this before today

One would assume that when Barr made his opinion known he'd already seen all the documents Van Grack was hiding since it was recently revealed the FBI had already turned over to both Horowitz and Durham the document of the FBI saying to shut down the Flynn investigation.

[Thread]

The case against General Flynn to be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE - meaning it can never be brought again. Ever.

Tell it, Chris. Testify!!!

[TSA]

he wasn't exonerated :lol... has the FBI come out and said Flynn was honest with them and didnt lie when interviewed? because those were the charges

We've never seen the original 302, you know, the one Strzok edited and hoped he could keep it in the same voice, and then sent it to Page to edit further. Flynn and his defense have still never seen the original 302. January 2020 Flynn said he never lied to the FBI and only pleaded guilty after they threatened to go after his son. You still can't rule out that he never lied to the FBI to begin with until the original 302 is produced.

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911506979385346

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911510078980096

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911513069477888

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1258483360957116417?s=19

lmao

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Flynn lied to the VP and two WH officials and admitted to lying to federal investigators twice.

Are there 302s Pence is holding back too?

[Spurs Homer]

Will the conspiracy krew go for another three years defending their "victory"

this is supposedly the result they clamored for - and should need no defending if this is an actual just result.

Im guessing they will still be talking "uncovered notes and 302's and FISA Fuckery for another couple of years..."

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1258487868370149376?s=19

Dan B on the warpath today :lol

[spurraider21]

What I can tell you is I knew that he lied to me.

-- Vice President Mike Pence
to be fair Pence was trying to perjury trap him

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1258486049468284929?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

to be fair Pence was trying to perjury trap himHand picked by Trump to undermine Trump.

[Reck]

He did pleaded guilty. lol glorious

[spurraider21]

We've never seen the original 302, you know, the one Strzok edited and hoped he could keep it in the same voice, and then sent it to Page to edit further. Flynn and his defense have still never seen the original 302. January 2020 Flynn said he never lied to the FBI and only pleaded guilty after they threatened to go after his son. You still can't rule out that he never lied to the FBI to begin with until the original 302 is produced.
so Flynn admitted to the FBI that he had spoken with Kislyak about not escalating against sanctions, and he admitted that he got a call back 2 days later stating that they accepted his request?

if so why would Flynn ever plead guilty?

[Chris]

He did pleaded guilty. lol glorious

classic forum dunce post^

:lol

[TSA]

Flynn spoke with Kislyak about sanctions, asked them not to escalate, and then was called back 2 days later and informed that in response to his request, Russia will not retaliate

FBI interviewed him a month later. He denied asking Kislyak/Russia not to escalate (lie) and denied remembering that he was called back 2 days later.

That hasn't changed. There was a motion before the Court alleging prosecutorial misconduct. We now never know if those had merit. Barr has had his hands on this case for a while. He stepped in to change sentencing proposal, and he hand picked outside attorneys to review this, who ultimately gave him the conclusion he wanted.

Jensen "gave" him the conclusion he wanted or Jensen uncovered exculpatory evidence Van Grack was hiding?

[Reck]

classic forum dunce post^

:lol

Cool.

Did Flynn plead guilty or not?

Bonus question: was it glorious?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol TSA examining dust mites in the carpet and ignoring the elephant sitting on top of him.

Flynn lied to Trump's Vice President, Trump's Chief of Staff and Trump's Press Secretary. He would've lied directly to Trump himself if it came to that. He was an untrustworthy liability and a potential security risk-- absolutely the last things anyone would want in a National Security Adviser.

[TSA]

so Flynn admitted to the FBI that he had spoken with Kislyak about not escalating against sanctions, and he admitted that he got a call back 2 days later stating that they accepted his request?

if so why would Flynn ever plead guilty?https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911511551164417

Flynn knew they were listening to his call, McCabe said so in his book. I think there is good chance he didn't actually lie and the "lie" was created by the editing of the 302s weeks later. He plead guilty because they threatened to go after his son and said if he plead guilty he'd get no time.

[Spurs Homer]

:lol TSA examining dust mites in the carpet and ignoring the elephant sitting on top of him.

Flynn lied to Trump's Vice President, Trump's Chief of Staff and Trump's Press Secretary. He would've lied directly to Trump himself if it came to that. He was an untrustworthy liability and a potential security risk-- absolutely the last things anyone would want in a National Security Adviser.


and took half a million from turkey without reporting it -even when he was asked - in order to get a security clearance

[TSA]

I can smell the butthurt from this thread all the way here in sunny San Diego :lmao

[Chris]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/3f/9c/313f9c882a6d6d6697d0c181fde36969.gif

[Spurs Homer]

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911511551164417

Flynn knew they were listening to his call, McCabe said so in his book. I think there is good chance he didn't actually lie and the "lie" was created by the editing of the 302s weeks later. He plead guilty because they threatened to go after his son and said if he plead guilty he'd get no time.

no

mccabe never said that

mccabe said flynn spent his life in govt and should have known all about security

and how many criminals are given the facts of their criminality and the evidence against them and how ALL of their families will be impacted

if you want to commit crimes- YOUR actions are what endangers your family


not the investigators pointing out the evidence that can be used against you

”anything you say - can be used against you in a acourt of law...you have the right to an attorney..right to remain silent, etc”


only idiots like you want to somehow treat your preferred criminal with kid gloves

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Qhris and TSA pretending Flynn didn't lie to Pence.

[Chris]

#FLYNNDICATION

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911511551164417

Flynn knew they were listening to his call, McCabe said so in his book. I think there is good chance he didn't actually lie and the "lie" was created by the editing of the 302s weeks later. He plead guilty because they threatened to go after his son and said if he plead guilty he'd get no time.
i thought he lied on purpose as part of a 5D chess plot with mueller to nail the deep state

[ChumpDumper]

#FLYNNDICATION:lol He still said he lied.

Pence said he lied.

You're calling Pence a liar.

Trump said he lied.

You're calling Trump a liar.

[Chris]

:lol He still said he lied.

Pence said he lied.

You're calling Pence a liar.

Trump said he lied.

You're calling Trump a liar.

spin that shit

chop-chop

[ChumpDumper]

i thought he lied on purpose as part of a 5D chess plot with mueller to nail the deep stateKING SP:lol:lolK

Called it.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1258496367783284736?s=19

ruh roh

[TSA]

no

mccabe never said that

mccabe said flynn spent his life in govt and should have known all about security

and how many criminals are given the facts of their criminality and the evidence against them and how ALL of their families will be impacted

if you want to commit crimes- YOUR actions are what endangers your family


not the investigators pointing out the evidence that can be used against you

”anything you say - can be used against you in a acourt of law...you have the right to an attorney..right to remain silent, etc”


only idiots like you want to somehow treat your preferred criminal with kid glovesDo you ever get tired of being dead wrong all the time? :rollin

In his new book, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe offers extensive new details of investigators' fateful January 2017 interview with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House -- a breezy conversation which began, according to McCabe, with all the urgency of a "playdate."

McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that "one thing [Flynn] said stands out in my memory" -- namely that "when I told him that people were curious" about his conversations with the then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn replied, "You know what I said, because you guys were probably listening."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccabe-reveals-the-one-thing-that-stands-out-from-his-fateful-call-with-flynn

[ChumpDumper]

spin that shit

chop-chopSpin what?

That's what happened.

Flynn said he lied.

Pence said Flynn lied.

Trump said Flynn lied.

These statements are all true.

[TSA]

i thought he lied on purpose as part of a 5D chess plot with mueller to nail the deep state

There is still the possibility he lied on purpose and if so it seems to be working quite well in exposing the corruption of the FBI and DOJ.

[ChumpDumper]

There is still the possibility he lied on purpose and if so it seems to be working quite well in exposing the corruption of the FBI and DOJ.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rol lin:rollin

HAVE THEY CHECKED THE BASEMENT AT THE OTHER RESTAURANT FOR THE CHILD SEX DUNGEON?

CHECKMATE!

[Spurminator]

I can smell the butthurt from this thread all the way here in sunny San Diego :lmao

Generally I prefer a system where people aren't let off the hook by the DOJ because of their loyalty to the Executive, but I'm not going to lose a bit of sleep over this. Especially since it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that he'd be pardoned at some point.

I can imagine someone as personally invested in Michael Flynn as you are (lol 3 years of free PR) might have reason to get so excited about something like this but most sensible people, I think, prefer a system of checks and balances instead of cheering on the President's friends from the cheap seats.

[ChumpDumper]

Generally I prefer a system where people aren't let off the hook by the DOJ because of their loyalty to the Executive, but I'm not going to lose a bit of sleep over this. Especially since it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that he'd be pardoned at some point.Yep, as I said the victory here was getting Flynn out of government before he could do any further damage.

[TSA]

Generally I prefer a system where people aren't let off the hook by the DOJ because of their loyalty to the Executive, but I'm not going to lose a bit of sleep over this. Especially since it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that he'd be pardoned at some point.

I can imagine someone as personally invested in Michael Flynn as you are (lol 3 years of free PR) might have reason to get so excited about something like this but most sensible people, I think, prefer a system of checks and balances instead of cheering on the President's friends from the cheap seats.

Flynn was let off the hook not because of loyalty to the Executive but because the FBI had no basis to interview him in the first place and then the lead prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn. You can't claim you want a system of checks and balances while ignoring what the FBI did to Flynn followed by the DOJ prosecutor. You're a fucking joke.

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn was let off the hook not because of loyalty to the Executive but because the FBI had no basis to interview him in the first place and then the lead prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn. You can't claim you want a system of checks and balances while ignoring what the FBI did to Flynn followed by the DOJ prosecutor. You're a fucking joke.If he hadn't already been under investigation, he would've been investigated for lying to Pence about foreign contacts. Flynn is a fucking joke.

[Spurminator]

:cry

[spurraider21]

There is still the possibility he lied on purpose and if so it seems to be working quite well in exposing the corruption of the FBI and DOJ.
then the 302s are still accurate :tu

[DMC]

How much jail time has Flynn served to date?


Sentencing is in December you fucking dimwit :lol

That tends to get pushed back when cooperating


3 years of wish casting and what do you have? One Paul Manafort.


How many days has Flynn spent in jail to date?


So zero

Thanks


Major trouble my ass.

At worst he'll be pardoned.



DJohn: "Look at how many responses this thread generated? It's a huge success"

[Reck]

Armchair lawyer vs real lawyer.

The armchair lawyer thinks he’s winning the argument. :lol

[DMC]

Generally I prefer a system where people aren't let off the hook by the DOJ because of their loyalty to the Executive, but I'm not going to lose a bit of sleep over this. Especially since it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that he'd be pardoned at some point.

I can imagine someone as personally invested in Michael Flynn as you are (lol 3 years of free PR) might have reason to get so excited about something like this but most sensible people, I think, prefer a system of checks and balances instead of cheering on the President's friends from the cheap seats.

:lmao

You prefer a system that caters to the left. See? I summed up your thoughts much more elegantly than you did.

[TSA]

then the 302s are still accurate :tu

Could be accurate. Wouldn't know until we see the original 302 that Strzok edited is produced.

[spurraider21]

Could be accurate. Wouldn't know until we see the original 302 that Strzok edited is produced.
i mean the ones that we see now are accurate since he lied to them

[TSA]

i mean the ones that we see now are accurate since he lied to them

He pleaded guilty to lying to them after they threatened to go after his son if he didn't plead guilty, that doesn't mean he actually lied to them.

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911508623548416

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1255911511551164417

Were you aware this is how the charge bargain works from the Special Counsel? Was an eye opener for me and opens the door wide open for the chance he was told he lied when he never did.

[Chris]

Yep, as I said the victory here was getting Flynn out of government before he could do any further damage.

What further damage? What's your conspiracy theory here?

[Spurtacular]

DJohn: "Look at how many responses this thread generated? It's a huge success"

:lol The ultimate Chumpette comfort thread.

[Reck]

1258500858377129984

We’ve reached peak retardation in this country. Words that you say willingly to incriminate yourself are no longer enough to use against you. Whoopie.

[spurraider21]

He pleaded guilty to lying to them after they threatened to go after his son if he didn't plead guilty, that doesn't mean he actually lied to them.
so then he didnt lie on purpose to team up with mueller

[Thread]

1258500858377129984

We’ve reached peak retardation in this country. Words that you say willingly to incriminate yourself are no longer enough to use against you. Whoopie.

Though it's okay when your people do it. & when that happens you have the audacity to believe that (we) won't copy you & use the same damn tact when it benefits us.

[Chris]

wtf is Qasim Rashid? :lol

[TSA]

so then he didnt lie on purpose to team up with mueller

You're going in circles. There is still the possibility he lied on purpose, there is also the possibility he never lied and pleaded guilty to lying. And do I take your second no comment on the charge bargain as a you were not aware that was how it worked?

[TSA]

1258500858377129984

We’ve reached peak retardation in this country. Words that you say willingly to incriminate yourself are no longer enough to use against you. Whoopie.

If it was that simple why did the prosecution consistently hide exculpatory evidence from Flynn?

[Chris]

plea deal...admit you did something bad or we're coming after your family (specifically your son)

Flynn, the patriot, had no other choice.

General Flynn.

[spurraider21]

You're going in circles. There is still the possibility he lied on purpose, there is also the possibility he never lied and pleaded guilty to lying. And do I take your second no comment on the charge bargain as a you were not aware that was how it worked?
im fully aware of how plea bargains work

[spurraider21]

plea deal...admit you did something bad or we're coming after your family (specifically your son)

Flynn, the patriot, had no other choice.

General Flynn.
what did his son do?

[spurraider21]

If it was that simple why did the prosecution consistently hide exculpatory evidence from Flynn?
hard to exculpate him if he was charged with lying to the FBI and he lied to the FBI

[Chris]

what did his son do?

keep up with the thread

[Spurs Homer]

Do you ever get tired of being dead wrong all the time? :rollin

In his new book, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe offers extensive new details of investigators' fateful January 2017 interview with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House -- a breezy conversation which began, according to McCabe, with all the urgency of a "playdate."

McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that "one thing [Flynn] said stands out in my memory" -- namely that "when I told him that people were curious" about his conversations with the then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn replied, "You know what I said, because you guys were probably listening."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccabe-reveals-the-one-thing-that-stands-out-from-his-fateful-call-with-flynn


you fucking imbecile

the fbi were interviewing flynn and flynn was unsure whether to lie or come clean

so when asked this basic question - which was not even a question- it was the fbi gauging how honest or dishonest flynn would be

so they tossed him a softball- “people are curious...”

the fucking liar- didnt even wait for a direct question - instead he volunteered that “you guys were PROBABLY listening- because that is what criminals do - they try to see what kind of evidence the cops really have...

so flynn was trying to weasel out - but he knew he was toast-

So mccabe never said flynn KNEW -

Read what you posted - flynn is inquiring “you guys were PROBABLY listening” - like a true weasel criminal - squirming under interrogation

he got busted and then agreed to cooperate because he knew what he had done


fucking pizzagate moron

[TSA]

im fully aware of how plea bargains work

You're obviously not as this was never a plea bargain :lol

Here is someone with a bit more experience than you on these matters, educate yourself :bobo

Understanding the Process Used to Coerce Gen. Flynn’s Guilty Plea Shows Why His “Admission” to the Crimes Is Practically Meaningless

General Flynn entered his guilty plea on Friday, December 1, 2017, to the charge that he knowingly and intentionally made false representations, and omitted material information, in responding to questions posed to him by FBI Agents who interviewed him on January 24, 2017.

Gen. Flynn pled guilty to an “Information” which is a charging document created and signed by a Department of Justice prosecutor – in this case, a member of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (SCO). Charging by way of Information is an alternative to seeking an “Indictment” from a federal grand jury, and can only be done with the consent of the defendant charged in that fashion.

Charging by way of “Information” happens almost exclusively when the prosecution and defense have agreed in advance to the specific crime(s) the defendant will plead guilty to having committed. The terms of the deal are set forth in another document called a “Plea Agreement,” which includes a “factual” section describing what it is the defendant admits to having done. The “factual basis” must establish each element of the offense charged. This “factual basis” is, for all practical purposes, a “confession” by the defendant.

This kind of outcome is not called a “plea bargain” – it’s called a “charge bargain.” A “plea bargain” is negotiated after an Indictment is filed, and the defense has been provided the discovery in the case. “Discovery” includes the documents, witness statements, and physical evidence which the government believes will be used in a trial to establish the defendant’s guilt. The “plea bargain” process can involve a “give and take” negotiation between the two sides resulting in a written agreement wherein the defendant admits to one or more of the offenses charged in the Indictment, normally in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining charges. But the defendant, for the most part, understands the nature of the evidence the government possesses with regard to the crimes charged and can make a judgment for himself as to the “strength” of the government’s case against him when deciding to take the case to trial or accept the plea bargain offered.

A “charge bargain” – as happened in General Flynn’s case — comes before the government has filed an Indictment. The government only “threatens” the putative defendant with being charged with more serious offenses if the defendant doesn’t agree to plead guilty as suggested by the prosecutor. But what other charges the defendant might be facing — and the nature of the evidence supporting such potential charges – are commonly known only to the prosecutor. The defendant and his attorney know only what the prosecutor chooses to share with them.

When moving forward to a guilty plea pursuant to an Information, the prosecution has no obligation to provide “discovery” to a defendant. The right to discovery only arises when a defendant is charged by way of Indictment and makes an appearance in court to enter a “not guilty” plea. One significant category of evidence the government must produce after an Indictment is any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant which are in the government’s possession. In a case like Gen. Flynn’s where the allegations involve lying to investigators, the discovery would include all the memorandum of interview(s) conducted of the defendant. This means that a defendant pleading guilty to a “false statement” charge would have the Agent’s report of his interview, and he would know exactly what the Agents wrote in their report about what they claim a defendant said in the interview. But a defendant pleading guilty to an Information must make that decision without the right to see the FBI Agent’s report — unless it is given to him by the prosecution.

When Gen. Flynn and his attorneys began discussing a possible plea deal with the SCO, no Indictment had been filed, and no discovery rights/obligations existed. Since changing lawyers in June 2019, hiring attorney Sidney Powell, the subject of the defense getting access to all versions of the memorandum of interview from the January 24, 2017, interview – referred to FBI form “302” – has been extensively litigated. What seems clear now is that the 302 of the January 24 interview underwent several revisions from start to finish in the weeks and months following the interview. But it also seems that Gen. Flynn’s previous attorneys either never asked for – or they simply never received — either the final version of the 302 or any of the earlier versions of the draft 302 that are now known to have existed.

What that means is that when Gen. Flynn’s attorneys were negotiating the “factual basis” of his plea agreement – the “facts” of his confession — Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not know what the Agents had written about what they claimed he said. If both sides had access to the documents there would be little or no need for lengthy negotiations over the language in the plea agreement. Both sides could point to specific passages in the transcript, and the specific words of the Agents reporting what Gen. Flynn had told them, and the “factual basis” for his misrepresentations or omissions would be easily set forth. If Gen. Flynn disagreed with the Agents’ 302, his attorneys could point to their specific words, and characterize the nature of Gen. Flynn’s disagreement with what they wrote. Without knowing the specific words in the report, Gen. Flynn’s attorneys could only base their advice to Gen. Flynn on what the SCO prosecutor said the Agents had written.

The factual basis set forth in the plea agreement is drafted by the prosecutor. Ultimately the defendant must agree to a factual basis before each side signs the agreement. But, in the end, the facts say what the prosecutor wants them to say, and the defendant has a “take it or leave it” decision to make. This often comes down to a “risk/benefit” calculation about what is more important — the strict accuracy of the prosecutor’s language, or the outcome of the case that might ride on the willingness to accept less-than-perfect language. For Gen. Flynn the outcome of the case was as good as he could expect — a “no time” recommendation to a sentence of probation, and no exposure for people close to him.

With the benefit of hindsight, and having now had a bit of a window into the way the SCO operated, it does not seem unfair to consider the real likelihood that the SCO prosecutor was not upfront and “forthright” in communicating what the Agents wrote in their report. But the dynamic of the process, in this kind of circumstance, is that the prosecutor holds all the cards when it comes to what the defendant will be compelled to admit in the “factual basis” of the plea agreement.

The key point to understand – based on what’s been filed and reported — is that only the SCO had all the documents to work with when hashing out the language of Gen. Flynn’s “confession.” He had a transcript of Gen. Flynn’s calls with the Russian Ambassador, and he had the Agents’ report of what they said Gen. Flynn said in response to their questions. With this “monopoly” on information, the SCO prosecutor could “characterize” what the Agents had written in a manner most optimal to his negotiating tactics. He did not have to fear being contradicted because Gen. Flynn’s attorneys did not have the same source documents to work with. Given his track record, I have no confidence that SCO prosecutor Van Grack was “forthright” in characterizing what he expected the Agents would to testify to if Gen. Flynn refused to plead guilty. We saw for ourselves how the FARA prosecution of Gen. Flynn’s former business partner buckled and collapsed under scrutiny in a trial. We see how the “Troll Farm” case buckled and collapsed when the SCO’s “dream team” of prosecutors had to actually defend the Indictment they conned a grand jury into returning.

SCO prosecutor Van Grack demanded that General Flynn make a decision to plead guilty or face indictment on a very short time frame. Just 30 days earlier Manafort and Gates had been indicted. Papadopoulos had pled guilty only 45 days earlier.

When you see former federal prosecutors – or wannabe pretenders like Benjamin Wittes at Lawfareblog – repeatedly point to the fact that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to having committed the crimes with which he was charged, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn “admitted” to the characterization of events and statements that was fashioned by SCO prosecutor Van Grack, and Gen. Flynn had precious little leeway when having to decide whether to agree or not agree to the SCO’s characterization of the facts. His options were to accept what was presented, or to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in his own defense, and possibly expose family members to criminal charges by the same prosecutors he was watching run roughshod over the lives of numerous individuals simply because they had the temerity to work for the Trump campaign, or in the Trump Administration.

I’ve been there, and I did this. I used the “process” to leverage guilty pleas on my terms. I raised the price of saying “no” so high that I knew the defendants couldn’t do anything but say “yes” to what I was demanding in terms of a guilty plea. I didn’t demand that anyone admit anything that was false, but I knew defendants would sign whatever I wrote in the end because they had nothing to bargain with.

It comes down to the integrity and motives of the prosecutor. The SCO staff hired by Mueller have revealed themselves over time to not warrant any favorable presumptions on either count.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/07/the-process-used-to-coerce-gen.-flynns-guilty-plea-is-key-makes-his-admission-to-the-crimes-nearly-meaningless./

[TSA]

House transcripts out. Heading out to golf, will let other people do the digging and post later :lol

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1258511374327492609

[TSA]

And do I take your second no comment on the charge bargain as a you were not aware that was how it worked?


im fully aware of how plea bargains work


This kind of outcome is not called a “plea bargain” – it’s called a “charge bargain.” A “plea bargain” is negotiated after an Indictment is filed, and the defense has been provided the discovery in the case. “Discovery” includes the documents, witness statements, and physical evidence which the government believes will be used in a trial to establish the defendant’s guilt. The “plea bargain” process can involve a “give and take” negotiation between the two sides resulting in a written agreement wherein the defendant admits to one or more of the offenses charged in the Indictment, normally in exchange for the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining charges. But the defendant, for the most part, understands the nature of the evidence the government possesses with regard to the crimes charged and can make a judgment for himself as to the “strength” of the government’s case against him when deciding to take the case to trial or accept the plea bargain offered.

A “charge bargain” – as happened in General Flynn’s case — comes before the government has filed an Indictment. The government only “threatens” the putative defendant with being charged with more serious offenses if the defendant doesn’t agree to plead guilty as suggested by the prosecutor. But what other charges the defendant might be facing — and the nature of the evidence supporting such potential charges – are commonly known only to the prosecutor. The defendant and his attorney know only what the prosecutor chooses to share with them.


Armchair lawyer vs real lawyer.

The armchair lawyer thinks he’s winning the argument. :lol

:lol

[spurraider21]

You're obviously not as this was never a plea bargain


:lol
:rolleyes we've been talking about the same thing. i said plea bargain instead of charge bargain. my mistake.

and the "factual basis" of a plea bargain isn't an admission. it is the defendant acknowledging that the possibility exists that he could be convicted if those facts were proven in court.

[spurraider21]

keep up with the thread
what did his son do? you can't answer the question?

[Chris]

what did his son do? you can't answer the question?

You can't keep up with the thread and current events?

Already posted.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1253887314142601216?s=19
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1253887622788911106?s=19
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1253888361095467009?s=19


called that shit

dummy

[ElNono]

:lol

Congrats, you can certainly lap it up now... I would've preferred the judge to acquit on the merits, etc, but works for Flynn... :toast

[ElNono]

This is the DOJ saying the FBI royally fucked up and had no basis to interview him in the first place. It’s been obvious from the beginning this was just an effort to damage Trump. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, and Yates are all shitting bricks right now.


we already knew Barr's opinion on all this before today

Pretty much, tbh... but that shouldn't take away the fact that Flynn walked free without a pardon...

[spurraider21]

dummy
didnt answer the question at all. what did his son do?

[Chris]

didnt answer the question at all. what did his son do?

Doing the Chumpdumper thing.

I spit on you.

[GAustex]

In wrestling that would be 2 points for a reversal

[spurraider21]

Doing the Chumpdumper thing.

I spit on you.
you cant tell me what Flynn's son did. thats good enough for me

[Chris]

you cant tell me what Flynn's son did. thats good enough for me

He didn't do anything dummy.

That's the point :lol

How are you a lawyer?

[spurraider21]

He didn't do anything dummy.

That's the point :lol

How are you a lawyer?
great, so there was nothing to protect him from :tu

[Chris]

great, so there was nothing to protect him from :tu

Besides a perjury trap :tu

Keep up with the thread next time instead of asking stupid questions. :tu

[spurraider21]

Besides a perjury trap :tu

Keep up with the thread next time instead of asking stupid questions. :tu
so flynn had to plead guilty for lying to the feds in order to prevent his son from lying to the feds?

:lol

[Chris]

so flynn had to plead guilty for lying to the feds in order to prevent his son from lying to the feds?

:lol

Perjury traps don't require you to lie. Forget an exact date or two and forget to cross a t and that's all you need. The FBI agents didn't think Flymn was lying. Mueller and his prosecutors did after the fact. The exact same treatment was in store for Flynn's son unless he ageeed to a plea deal.

Dummy.

[spurraider21]

Perjury traps don't require you to lie. Forget an exact date or two and forget to cross a t and that's all you need.
:lol no. in order to be convicted a jury has to be convinced that you knowingly and willfully make a false statement. mistaking a date or forgetting to cross a t isn't going to get you there

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

knowing that you spoke to the russian ambassador about having them go easy on sanctions and then lying about it is more than mistaking date or forgetting to cross a t


The FBI agents didn't think Flynn was lying. Mueller and his prosecutors did after the fact.
doesn't matter whether or not they thought he was lying at the time. what matters is that he did lie. he denied talking to kislyak about sanctions and asking them not to escalate. in fact, he did talk to kislyak about sanctions and asked them not to escalate.


The exact same treatment was in store for Flynn's son unless he ageeed to a plea deal.

Dummy.
so all flynn's son had to do was not lie if he had contacts with russians :tu

its pretty bizarre that he was so convinced that his son would lie to the feds if it came to it that he decided to take the bullet

[Chris]

see false statement perjury

[spurraider21]

see false statement perjury
:lol there's no perjury here. perjury is when you are under oath. flynn didnt lie under oath. thats why he was charged with false statements. i linked you to the statute. requires it to be both willful and knowingly a false statement

so Flynn had to plead guilty to prevent his son from knowingly and willingly lying to the feds :lol. he must not have much respect for his son if he was so sure his son would instantly break the law if given the chance to

[Chris]

GENERAL FLYNN: "As God is my witness, the truth is I am innocent"

Doesn't look he was knowingly and willfully making a false statement.

Did your jury decide he was?

Oh that's right DOJ dropped the case :lmao

[spurraider21]

GENERAL FLYNN: "As God is my witness, the truth is I am innocent"

Doesn't look he was knowingly and willfully making a false statement.

Did your jury decide he was?

Oh that's right DOJ dropped the case :lmao
Flynn took an oath, on the bible, and told the court he was guilty, twice.

there was no jury because he pleaded guilty after taking an oath and swearing on the bible

[Chris]

Flynn took an oath, on the bible, and told the court he was guilty, twice.

there was no jury because he pleaded guilty after taking an oath and swearing on the bible

protecting his family

General Flynn.

[spurraider21]

Horowitz:

adequate grounds to investigate flynn

https://i.gyazo.com/b7452d86d553c03a3dfadf5e5d66de66.png

DOJ/Barr's filing today:

actually we dont think the investigation was justified!

https://i.gyazo.com/c290834f33a24573cef82b221754e441.png

they're not even stating outright that Flynn didn't lie to them in the first place. just that it doesnt matter

[spurraider21]

protecting his family
:lol protecting his son from knowingly and willfully lying to investigators

imagine knowing your son is so shitty that unless you plead guilty do something you absolutely didnt do, your son is going to knowingly and willfully lie and get himself in trouble


General Flynn.
lied to the court after swearing on the bible :wow

twice

[Chris]

Ilhan Omar thinks Flynn got off because of his white privilege.

[clambake]

Hey Chris, what do you think about this Flynn stuff?

[Chris]

:lol protecting his son from knowingly and willfully lying to investigators


lied to the court after swearing on the bible :wow

twice

You would throw your family under the bus.

We know.

[Chris]

Hey Chris, what do you think about this Flynn stuff?

tick tock

[spurraider21]

You would throw your family under the bus.

We know.
i would hope to have raised a good enough son who would tell me "dont worry dad, i'm not going to be a fucking idiot and knowingly lie to investigators, so you go ahead and take care of yourself, i can stay out of trouble. you dont have to bite the bullet just to cover up for my inevitable felony that i am definitely going to commit otherwise"

[clambake]

i would hope to have raised a good enough son who would tell me "dont worry dad, i'm not going to be a fucking idiot and knowingly lie to investigators, so you go ahead and take care of yourself, i can stay out of trouble. you dont have to bite the bullet just to cover up for my inevitable felony that i am definitely going to commit otherwise"
I don’t know. He said tick tock.


Sounds ominous

[Chris]

I don’t know. He said tick tock.


Sounds ominous

That's all you've ever said ITT from day one.

You deserve nothing less.

[clambake]

Your scaring me Chris

Why so ominous?

[Chris]

djohn2oo8

any updates from Kyle Griffin?

[DarrinS]

/thread

[DMC]

i would hope to have raised a good enough son who would tell me "dont worry dad, i'm not going to be a fucking idiot and knowingly lie to investigators, so you go ahead and take care of yourself, i can stay out of trouble. you dont have to bite the bullet just to cover up for my inevitable felony that i am definitely going to commit otherwise"

When you raise one, let us know how you did.

[DMC]

That's all you've ever said ITT from day one.

You deserve nothing less.

He doesn't have anything else. He's a noise maker.

[Chris]

He doesn't have anything else. He's a noise maker.

Thank you.

[clambake]

He doesn't have anything else. He's a noise maker.

Lol you probably sleep in the fridge, jaba

[TSA]

i would hope to have raised a good enough son who would tell me "dont worry dad, i'm not going to be a fucking idiot and knowingly lie to investigators, so you go ahead and take care of yourself, i can stay out of trouble. you dont have to bite the bullet just to cover up for my inevitable felony that i am definitely going to commit otherwise"

You’re pretty fucking dense. Did it ever occur to you Flynn Jr could be innocent and still have to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending himself? Would you want to do that with a four month old?

[spurraider21]

You’re pretty fucking dense. Did it ever occur to you Flynn Jr could be innocent and still have to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending himself? Would you want to do that with a four month old?
if he didnt do anything wrong and cant afford a defense, a public defender should serve him well

what was Flynn Jr going to be charged with?

[SnakeBoy]

Another L for Team muh Russia

[spurraider21]

Another L for Team muh Russia
its an L for the independent administration of justice

[DMC]

You’re pretty fucking dense. Did it ever occur to you Flynn Jr could be innocent and still have to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending himself? Would you want to do that with a four month old?

Phiio isn't really dense. He's a naive puppy that likes to bark like a big dog. One day he'll gain actual wisdom and realize all this time he was trying to force fit his naivete into a reality that it wasn't suited for. Education without life experience has often created a know-it-all attitude in younger people, genuine douchebags.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1253885038845931520?s=19

[TSA]

if he didnt do anything wrong and cant afford a defense, a public defender should serve him well

what was Flynn Jr going to be charged with?

I’m sure you’d love to have a public defender going against a hand picked DOJ lawyer :lol

No idea what Flynn Jr would be charged with, but all charges dropped against Flynn Intel Group.

[SnakeBoy]

its an L for the independent administration of justice

I know you don't actually believe that. It's just the sting talking. 1900 pages of thinking you got the W and bam it's over. Must hurt.

[DMC]

I know you don't actually believe that. It's just the sting talking. 1900 pages of thinking you got the W and bam it's over. Must hurt.

It was all joy joy and finger poking fun until they lost, now it's solely about justice and doing the right thing because the left is only concerned with virtuosity and would never take a victory lap over this. I told everyone back when it started he'd never do a minute behind bars, that they would get someone for sure, but it won't be someone who matters. Here we are, and Flynn isn't even charged with anything.

This is the naivete I was talking about with Philo. He acts like he's shocked at how the world works. It doesn't say anything about that in his books.

[ChumpDumper]

What further damage? What's your conspiracy theory here?He had already destroyed his credibility by lying to three members of the Trump administration and was a security risk because the Russians he spoke with knew he lied publicly and could use it against him.

He was the worst National Security Adviser in history.:tu

[DarrinS]

I know you don't actually believe that. It's just the sting talking. 1900 pages of thinking you got the W and bam it's over. Must hurt.

So much time wasted on this BS

[spurraider21]

I know you don't actually believe that. It's just the sting talking. 1900 pages of thinking you got the W and bam it's over. Must hurt.
he pled guilty. wasn't even going to do prison time. this is politics getting in the way of the justice system

[spurraider21]

I’m sure you’d love to have a public defender going against a hand picked DOJ lawyer :lol

No idea what Flynn Jr would be charged with, but all charges dropped against Flynn Intel Group.
if i had nothing to hide and did nothing wrong i'm not worried tbh. i'll get my due process, get my day in court, and have a jury of my peers. federal public defenders are good attorneys

[TSA]

its an L for the independent administration of justice

When the FBI has no basis to keep an investigation open and ignores proper protocol and sends in agents for a gotcha interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?

[spurraider21]

When the FBI has no basis to keep an investigation open and ignores proper protocol and sends in agents for a gotcha interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?
there's no "gotcha" if he tells them exactly what happened instead of intentionally lying to them

[SnakeBoy]

if i had nothing to hide and did nothing wrong i'm not worried tbh. i'll get my due process, get my day in court, and have a jury of my peers. federal public defenders are good attorneys

Now you're pretending to be the most naive lawyer in the country...C'mon Man!

Just take the L

[ChumpDumper]

there's no "gotcha" if he tells them exactly what happened instead of intentionally lying to them:lol the backflips

[spurraider21]

Now you're pretending to be the most naive lawyer in the country...C'mon Man!

Just take the L
not really. good facts make for a good case. any lawyer would tell you the same thing.

[DMC]

:lmao

Blacks all across the nation in prisons for small shit, probably had public defenders. OJ cuts his wife's head off, gets the best lawyers money can buy and he walks.

[Trainwreck2100]

He pled guilty

[boutons_deux]

Presidential

Trump calls Obama admin “human scum” in wild rant about Flynn’s innocence


https://washingtonpress.com/2020/05/07/trump-calls-obama-admin-human-scum-in-wild-rant-about-flynns-innocence/?fbclid=IwAR2kb46iVcWSuhp-DK3a5IKNxMZCdFAfGAcXAJGioe9k75vFU44xZzB3g0E (https://washingtonpress.com/2020/05/07/trump-calls-obama-admin-human-scum-in-wild-rant-about-flynns-innocence/?fbclid=IwAR2kb46iVcWSuhp-DK3a5IKNxMZCdFAfGAcXAJGioe9k75vFU44xZzB3g0E)

[TSA]

there's no "gotcha" if he tells them exactly what happened instead of intentionally lying to them

You completely ignored the second question :lol

You won’t be able to squirm out of this one.

When the FBI has no legitimate basis to keep an investigation open and improperly does and then ignores White House protocol and sends in agents for an interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?

[TSA]

This is nowhere close to over. Now the real fun begins.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1258541890909044736

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1258544358493581312

And you stupid fucks slurped up every last word

[ChumpDumper]

You completely ignored the second question :lol

You won’t be able to squirm out of this one.

When the FBI has no legitimate basis to keep an investigation open and improperly does and then ignores White House protocol and sends in agents for an interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?Horowitz said it was legitimate.

Protocol? :lol still legal.

Exculpatory evidence? Doesn't look like there was any since Flynn pleaded guilty twice on his own evidence.

[spurraider21]

You completely ignored the second question :lol

You won’t be able to squirm out of this one.

When the FBI has no legitimate basis to keep an investigation open and improperly does and then ignores White House protocol and sends in agents for an interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?
So now you’re shitting on Horowitz

[TSA]

So now you’re shitting on Horowitz:lol still squirming, still dodging.

Nope. Horowitz said the Russia investigation had a proper predicate. He never said the Strzok was justified in telling agents to keep the investigation into Flynn open even after FBI determined there was nothing there and said to shut investigation into him down.

Try again.

When the FBI has no legitimate basis to keep an investigation open and improperly does and then ignores White House protocol and sends in agents for an interview is that a W for independent administration of justice? When a DOJ prosecutor hides exculpatory evidence is that a W for independent administration of justice?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1258565328067596288?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

:lol still squirming, still dodging.

Nope. Horowitz said the Russia investigation had a proper predicate. He never said the Strzok was justified in telling agents to keep the investigation into Flynn open even after FBI determined there was nothing there and said to shut investigation into him down.Any National Security Adviser that is on the payroll of a foreign nation and lies to the Vice President, the Chief of Staff and the Press Secretary deserves any and all investigations into his actions.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1258572408342134790?s=19

:tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1258577810970607619?s=19

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Black President is going to haunt you for the rest of your life.

[DMC]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oriO1mU3S0M0yNh4I/200.gif

:lmao Board liberals

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn not NSA and will never get a security clearance again.

Admitted to multiple felonies.

No prison time ever expected.

Great victory for board Trumpistas.

:lol

[TSA]

Horowitz:

adequate grounds to investigate flynn

https://i.gyazo.com/b7452d86d553c03a3dfadf5e5d66de66.png

DOJ/Barr's filing today:

actually we dont think the investigation was justified!

https://i.gyazo.com/c290834f33a24573cef82b221754e441.png

they're not even stating outright that Flynn didn't lie to them in the first place. just that it doesnt matter

:lol a lawyer not being able to grasp the difference between opening an investigation in 2016 being legitimate but keeping an investigation open in 2017 after coming up with zero derogatory information and the FBI saying to shut it down as being illegitimate.

[pgardn]

When you the WH owns the DOJ, not a surprise for a guy who plead guilty.
Pretty much expected. Lets see if they get Stone out somehow or he just gets pardoned.
Crooks releasing crooks.

[TSA]

Another L for Team muh Russia

Imagine the heartbreak tonight after still not recovering from the Mueller report.

“Ok so what if there was no collusion with Russia we never believed that anyways but at least Flynn is getting charged with a felony!”

:rollin

[DMC]

When you the WH owns the DOJ, not a surprise for a guy who plead guilty.
Pretty much expected. Lets see if they get Stone out somehow or he just gets pardoned.
Crooks releasing crooks.

Marc Rich says "hi" from hell.

[ChumpDumper]

Whataboutornado activated.

[Chris]

Whataboutornado activated.

You still have Roger Stone.

[pgardn]

Marc Rich says "hi" from hell.

Id expect that from Dollar Bill Clinton.
Later Clinton said he was sorry he did it because it ruined HIS reputation.
Like lying straight into the TV set, "I did not have sex with that woman" , left him with a reputation.

[ChumpDumper]

You still have Roger Stone.I still have Flynn admitting to multiple felonies under oath tbh.

That's forever.:tu

[TSA]

If this blows up in their fucking faces too omg :lol

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258602574325985283

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258605641024843777

[Chris]

I still have Flynn admitting to multiple felonies under oath tbh.

That's forever.:tu

Flynn protecting his family forever :tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1258608764464357381?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RepStevenSmith/status/1258600072578846722?s=19

Lawdy!

[clambake]

Flynn protecting his family forever :tu

Having to lie

Stable family lol

[TSA]

Having to lie

Stable family lol

Ride or die clam man

[TSA]

If this blows up in their fucking faces too omg :lol

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258602574325985283

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258605641024843777

https://mobile.twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1258567549064810503

Becoming very clear now why Schiff never wanted these transcripts to see the light of day.

[ChumpDumper]

Flynn protecting his family forever :tuFrom what?

Walk me through the case against his son?

[Chris]

From what?

Walk me through the case against his son?

Walk yourself through:


https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1253868533580279809?s=20

[ChumpDumper]

Walk yourself through:


https://twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1253868533580279809?s=20There's nothing explaining how charges against Jr. would work.

What is your understanding of it?

[Spurminator]

:lmao

You prefer a system that caters to the left. See? I summed up your thoughts much more elegantly than you did.

Hey man, sorry I couldn't get back to you until now. I'm sure you've been on the edge of your seat waiting to see how I'd respond to this absolute behemoth of a reply.

It's a little surprising seeing you in this thread celebrating with TSA and Chris like you guys just won an NBA Championship, because unlike those guys, you don't spend your entire day scraping the fringes of Twitter looking for takes that validate your fetish for everything Trump. To your credit, you don't bother doing the work. You just wait for a W and hop on the bandwagon.

Anyway, in response to your post, I can assure you that if a Democratic President installs an AG on the basis of his loyalty to him, who subsequently uses the office of the AG to protect the President's interests at all costs, I will have plenty of bad things to say about it. But it remains to be seen if the next Democratic administration will follow the low bar set by this one.

[DarrinS]

/it's over. Go home

[ChumpDumper]

/it's over. Go homeTSA and Qhris say it's not over.

And I'm pretty sure we're all home.

Nice distraction from the glorious dead warrior threads tho.

[DarrinS]

TSA and Qhris say it's not over.

And I'm pretty sure we're all home.

Nice distraction from the glorious dead warrior threads tho.

Take the L

[ChumpDumper]

Take the LWhat L?

He was fired from a job he never should've had.

He pleaded guilty to multiple felonies under oath.

I never thought for a second he would face prison time.

What's the W?

[ElNono]

Was going to say this is probably a new low for the DOJ, but then Alberto Gonzalez was probably just about as bad, tbh...

[TSA]

Was going to say this is probably a new low for the DOJ, but then Alberto Gonzalez was probably just about as bad, tbh...

Agreed. Can’t believe what Mueller’s hand picked team of prosecutors thought they’d get away with, FBI too for that matter.

[ElNono]

Agreed. Can’t believe what Mueller’s hand picked team of prosecutors thought they’d get away with, FBI too for that matter.

It was an easy win for the prosecution... you don't get somebody to admit to committing a crime every day...

Hopefully they stick around and fight the corruption in the DOJ from within... fortunately looks like there's only 6 months left or so...

[clambake]

Ride or die clam man

i don't have to do that


some people lie because they got nothing else

you know

[Chris]

i don't have to do that


some people lie because they got nothing else

you know

People like Elie Wiesel.

People like General Flynn.