Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
You have a lot of probably going on, always a good basis for a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I admit that, unlike you, I don't write as if I KNOW. I'm just, as you actually do, conjecturing. As I say, its not my theory. Certainly, the evidence for the conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russia is total conjecture by those who admitted under oath that there was no evidence that he did.
Here’s Schiff’s recent statement
Maybe you forgot to show Schiff's statement?
Is this what you were referring to: from The Hill "facing the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) bizarrely maintained that 'Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk' because he could be blackmailed over his false statement."
"Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have information that others did not have."
Here’s what the Flynn transcripts show:
Gen. Flynn secretly discussed the U.S. response to Russia’s brazen election interference, and lied about it to the FBI and Vice President.
From The Hill by Jonathan Turley: "The newly released transcripts of Flynn's calls are deeply disturbing - not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence. The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice Department and by Congress, starting with next week's Senate testimony by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It turns out Flynn's calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points.
No wonder Trump and his allies are trying to re-write history,
Because the facts are so damning.
|
The facts are (again from The Hill): "The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge [the false statement]. Courts have held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked to the particular 'subject of the investigation.' The Justice Department found that the false statement in February 2017 was not material 'to any viable counterintelligence investigation - or any investigation, for that matter - initiated by the FBI.' In other words, by that time, these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime. The question is: Why?
"So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal investigation to speak of when Comey sent 'a couple guys over' to entrap Flynn; they already had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong."
Is this the history that you claim is being re-written (from The Hill):"The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as 'cutting #^&#^&#^&#^&' another high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.
"Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn regarding his calls.
"Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he 'probably wouldn't have ... gotten away with it' in other administrations, but he sent 'a couple guys over' to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents 'just casually slip' in a reference to the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.
"Flynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied, he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing
Threaded Mode