Before the interview, the FBI was ready to drop the case against Flynn. It did not find that he did anything wrong. Nor was his conversation with kislyak illegal or treasonous. As the incoming National Security Adviser, it was not some illegal, nefarious, "talks to Russia," it was a perfectly legal conversation in response to the Russian Ambassador calling him and questioning a policy issue. Flynn did not say anything treasonous in the call. And knew that his call had been monitored. So there was no reason to lie about it. The FBI knew what was said on the call and had no need to have Flynn regurgitate the details. The sole purpose of questioning Flynn was to entrap him in a perjury charge. If Flynn didn't remember correctly and said the wrong thing, it was not a deliberate lie, but they would have what they really wanted. What they wanted was not to convict a traitor or criminal, it was to remove an obstacle that would frustrate their intention to preserve the Trump-Russia probe, as Andy McCarthy wrote: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...-russia-probe/

If Flynn had actually done something treacherous or illegal (other than so-called lying to the FBI), he would have, and should have, been prosecuted for that. They had no evidence of him doing any of that. They had no evidentiary reason for any further investigation of him (as I noted above, they were ready to close the investigation of Flynn), but he had to be removed in order to protect the attempt to continue the bogus Trump/Russia conspiracy. McCarthy spells it out very well in the above linked article.

On December 29, 2016 the Obama administration announced punitive sanctions on Russia.

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

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

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

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

Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

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

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

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

you sound like a fool

this was not law enforcement trying to solve a crime...this was partisan hacks trying to take down a president

Obviously a Death Star Stormtrooper

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tquaim7OMaQ

No I'm not that naïve. But when an assistant director asks in writing if the goal is to get him fired, that sounds like bias to me.

Again, Dershowitz knows more than both of us, and he's a lot less politically deranged than you. No offense, he has the credibility.

Here are the predicates for the Flynn investigation and predicates are cumulative or in simple words, they add up.
Now if you look at these and you are a government official charged with national security, do you say there is a possible threat here (predicate) which makes the lies material or just walk away?
Walking away is what the DOJ leadership purports to be the correct solution.

1. A senior official with a TS/SCI (top secret/sensitive compartmented information) clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities.
2. He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
3. As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he has phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he asked Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
4. He subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public.
5. The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

Pete, you criticized me for relying on Dershowitz's opinion. So please (for the second time), can you explain why you relied on the opinion of a Jeb Bush staffer to bolster your claim that Trump is a bad person? Do you agree with every single opinion that man has?

Boy do you have a problem answering questions.

Most, he's a good honest guy.

Dershowitz is a suckup and easily impressed, buddied up to Epstein and Trump, I'm not surprised you like him.

there’s the baby i’ve been missing. you got called out for having weak arguments, and instead of admitting anyone else is right, or could even have a point, you go on the attack.

that’s what makes you a bore. that’s what makes you a bitch slapped pussy.

so Dershowitz doesn’t know
much about the law, despite spending his career at Harvard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

you don’t think we have to open
the economy back up soon?

how did taiwan, which is densely populated and close to china, manage to keep deaths to less than 20 without destroying themselves?

unemployment is the highest since the great depression. and not because the economy was unhealthy, but because we shut it off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this the point at which to praise liberal educational institutions, that you otherwise denigrate?
Really are you that much of a hypocrite?
Is Alan stealing money from you like Liz Warren or is his excessive salary OK because he said something you like?
Quite the hypocrite you are, guess you didn’t listen to the Jesuits you claim to have been educated by.
Maybe you should have gone to summer school
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

This is where MR1 usually says greatest President ever!
Of course that’s if your metric equates most infected with #1
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

I like suburbans and I don’t watch news. He is not a likable person but he happens to be the best thing that has happened to you in a long time. Trust me. ✌🏼
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many times do you think the staff in and around Trump and pence get tested


Yet the administration doesn't want to test Americans at 50% of the rate they test at in the WH

And those around Trump should get tested often it's a national security issues hes the POTUS ...

But I can't get tested unless I am symptomatic or work some place that does testing like nursing homes or prison or hospital, try to get an antibody test that's even harder..

But some see him as the best thing to happen to America in a long time .. minus examples of how of course LOL

again, it’s ok for you to rely on opposition opinion when it suits you, but wrong when i do it. I see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of course there are other plans. there are countries that didn’t destroy their economies, and they are doing ok, like taiwan and sweden.

the alternative plan would have been a strict lockdown on the at risk groups you mention, and let everyone else continue to live their lives. there’s evidence we could have done that.

if the goal is always to reduce deaths, let’s set the speed limit at 5 mph. or do away with cars entirely. that would save lives. but we don’t do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good question

My brother got tested yesterday as a heart problem has him going through some procedures. He said the test was agonizing and held at a drive through at St Elizabeth inBoston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hope hes ok.

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really the point is it.. but again you love comparing thing that aren't remotely the same as the same :claps:

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

You’re reading fragments of someone’s thoughts as they were deliberating about their objectives and recognizing quite rationally it could have political ramifications. In the end they did the right thing.

I have no problem with doing the right thing.


You’re getting off topic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, the DOJ. The DOJ said there was no investigative reason to interview Flynn. The FBI isn't allowed to set people up out of political spite. If that's what happened. I don't know that happened, you don't know that it didn't. The note from the assistant director, asking if the goal is to "get him to lie, or get him fired", is troubling.

And the judge isn’t allowed to accept a guilty plea unless there is evidence of a crime and the defendant has no reasonable defense.

All the DOJ did was file a motion anyway. For the case to be really dismissed the judge who has a very strong reputation would have to do a serious 180...wait for the court to be the next member of the deep state. You’re being played as a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, but the documents showing possible fishiness at the start, were just released. Flynn's lawyers definitely did not have access to those, maybe the trial judge didn't either.

"You’re being played as a fool."

Oh, thanks for looking out for me.

Apparently I missed that as part of some code or law.
It does sound quite Orwellian.
Never mind the rule of law, we pass judgment based on fishiness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1193072]Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
[size=1][i]Posted from my iPhone

Even a conspiracy nut can get one right. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and asking if the goal is to get the guy to lie, or to get him fired, is what you'd say if it was a setup.

Either way, the charges will likely be dropped, and we all get to decide what we think of it. I know what your opinion is, and if the political parties were reversed, your opinion would be the exact opposite.

Have you ever noticed that you always side with the democrat? You ever take note of that, and ask yourself why?

As Jordan Peterson calls it, the pathological possession of ideology. You're are enslaved by it, prevented from thinking anything that doesn't fit. If that's wrong, please tell us the biggest single issue, on which you disagree with liberals.

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device