Jump to content
chare chare (Member)

Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn

Politics   (850 Views 39 Comments)
49,034 Visitors; 583 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 3 of Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

As you can see from the reading material offered up here, the propagandists are busy convincing those who are desperate to believe that Trump didn't surround himself with criminals. Those aren't really criminals if you  squint your eyes and look sideways ... see, Barr has this all figured out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

As you can see from the reading material offered up here, the propagandists are busy convincing those who are desperate to believe that Trump didn't surround himself with criminals. Those aren't really criminals if you  squint your eyes and look sideways ... see, Barr has this all figured out. 

I find it amusing because they are preaching to the choir, and nobody else!

Trumpsters never seem to tire of spitting in the wind.

So be it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 8:33 PM, Lucylu71 said:

It's not complicated.  The "old" argument that I'm uninterested in is that there was a legitimate basis for the investigation.  Most realize there was not, and its absurd to keep saying there was.

"The FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of Flynn in August 2016 on the absurd ground that he might be a clandestine Russian agent. (Flynn is a retired three-star Army general and decorated combat commander, who had then recently written a book identifying Russia as a committed global adversary of the United States.) This suspicion was frivolously supported.

The FBI's then-director, James Comey, authorized closing the investigation in December 2016, and the paperwork to do so was completed on Jan. 4, 2017 - 20 days before the Flynn interview.

Then the FBI learned that Flynn, as an official in the Trump transition who was designated to become the president's national security adviser, had had communications in December with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The government was monitoring Kislyak, and recordings showed that Flynn did nothing inappropriate; there was no ground to reopen or continue the counterintelligence investigation or to begin a criminal investigation. "

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your "most realize there was not" a legitimate basis for an investigation claim from.  The IG report found sufficient basis, and in even conservative leaning polls there were only a minority of people who didn't agree there was sufficient basis for the Russia investigation.

The investigation into Flynn that was nearly closed when it was discovered he had conversations with Kislyak was into his payment from the Russian government for making an appearance with Putin, then it was discovered that he was undermining US foreign policy in his discussions with Kislyak and on top of that had lied to Pence and Spicer about the conversation.  US intelligence intercepted conversations between Russian operatives about how to take advantage of the fact that Flynn was now compromised and susceptible to blackmail.  And keep in mind that Flynn was just one of a number of Trump staff with shady dealings with Russia.  

So what particular part of that is not worthy of investigation, do you disagree that Flynn spoke with Kislyak?  Was he not compromised?  Is having a National Security Advisor who can be easily blackmailed not something we should be concerned about?  This doesn't seem to be a gray area.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 8:44 PM, Lucylu71 said:

"On Friday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany laid out basic parts of the so-called “Obamagate” scandal that has gained traction in recent days on the alleged actions of Obama administration officials against members of the Trump campaign and against people who were then-incoming members of his administration."

I'd strongly encourage all to scroll down and watch the video clip.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/reporter-asks-press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-to-explain-obamagate-she-gives-a-first-class-education?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

I've seen it, I'm not sure what you find so impressive. 

Basically, she was asked the same question that the President and others have not yet been able to answer, which is to explain the basis of the "Obamagate" claim.  Her answer was essentially, "I have no idea but the President really wants this to be a thing, so we were hoping the media could come up with an explanation, here's some vaguely bad sounding things that point to nothing specific to get you started.

The only specific examples she gave was a reference to the "unmasking" list, although these were common and not-unusual 'unmasking' requests made to the NSA, there's not actually anything illegal or improper about it.  What was problematic was that someone leaked that information to the press, and that person should be prosecuted, although that goes down a dangerous road for the Trump administration, one of the leakiest in recent history.

The other was a two-fer; that the Steele Dossier was "bogus", all the information in the dossier that is so far verifiable has been verified as correct, and that it was the basis for the start of the investigation and/or a FISA application, the investigation started after a Trump staffer revealed to a foreign diplomat that Russia was in possession of material damaging to Clinton, and Page's FISA warrant was based on reports that he had travelled to Russia in July of 2016 (there was a video of his visit posted to youtube the day after he arrived) and had meet with Russian officials (he publically admitted to this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MunoRN said:

what particular part of that is not worthy of investigation, do you disagree that Flynn spoke with Kislyak?

He did speak with him.  So what?  Even the WaPo was divided if it was a news story worth printing.

9 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Was he not compromised? 

Correct. 

9 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Is having a National Security Advisor who can be easily blackmailed not something we should be concerned about? 

In light of the answer to the previous question, this one is not applicable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I've seen it, I'm not sure what you find so impressive. 

Basically, she was asked the same question that the President and others have not yet been able to answer, which is to explain the basis of the "Obamagate" claim.  Her answer was essentially, "I have no idea but the President really wants this to be a thing, so we were hoping the media could come up with an explanation, here's some vaguely bad sounding things that point to nothing specific to get you started.

The only specific examples she gave was a reference to the "unmasking" list, although these were common and not-unusual 'unmasking' requests made to the NSA, there's not actually anything illegal or improper about it.  What was problematic was that someone leaked that information to the press, and that person should be prosecuted, although that goes down a dangerous road for the Trump administration, one of the leakiest in recent history.

The other was a two-fer; that the Steele Dossier was "bogus", all the information in the dossier that is so far verifiable has been verified as correct, and that it was the basis for the start of the investigation and/or a FISA application, the investigation started after a Trump staffer revealed to a foreign diplomat that Russia was in possession of material damaging to Clinton, and Page's FISA warrant was based on reports that he had travelled to Russia in July of 2016 (there was a video of his visit posted to youtube the day after he arrived) and had meet with Russian officials (he publically admitted to this).

Yes, the unmasking requests were unusual.  Biden's a few days before he leaves office for example.  And, he denies knowing anything about an investigation.  Clapper diesnt know why he himself requested it.

If youre still claiming the Steele dossier is a legitimate basis for anything, except maybe into the DNC part in it, then there isnt much more to discuss. 

Some more good reading on Biden's part.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/497711-the-unmasking-of-joe-biden

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lucylu71 said:

Yes, the unmasking requests were unusual.  Biden's a few days before he leaves office for example.  And, he denies knowing anything about an investigation.  Clapper diesnt know why he himself requested it.

If youre still claiming the Steele dossier is a legitimate basis for anything, except maybe into the DNC part in it, then there isnt much more to discuss. 

Some more good reading on Biden's part.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/497711-the-unmasking-of-joe-biden

 

 

 

Still refusing to answer my question, huh?

Why did Trump fire Flynn?

Play number three, deflection isn't working here.

It only works among the Red Hatters.

Again, most reasonable understand that Trump and Trumpsters are trying to whitewash the Truth.

But the Truth is the Truth, no matter how hard Trump wishes it away.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

On 5/15/2020 at 8:33 PM, Lucylu71 said:

It's not complicated.  The "old" argument that I'm uninterested in is that there was a legitimate basis for the investigation.  Most realize there was not, and its absurd to keep saying there was...

So why did President Trump say this?

Quote

[In 2018] Donald Trump claimed that the FBI told Obama about Russian meddling BEFORE the 2016 election but the then president failed to act because he thought 'Crooked Hillary' would win

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775583/Donald-Trump-claims-FBI-told-Obama-Russian-meddling-2016-election.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, herring_RN said:

So why did President Trump say this?

 

 

Of course we know a lot more now then we did two years ago, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lil Nel said:

Still refusing to answer my question, huh?

Why did Trump fire Flynn?

Play number three, deflection isn't working here.

It only works among the Red Hatters.

Again, most reasonable understand that Trump and Trumpsters are trying to whitewash the Truth.

But the Truth is the Truth, no matter how hard Trump wishes it away.

 

 

I'm sorry you choose not to read the various sources I've provided for you.  I'm sure many of your questions would be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lucylu71 said:

Of course we know a lot more now then we did two years ago, right?

Do you think he was truthful when he said there was Russian meddling? If so should he, as president, have asked for an investigation himself?

 On Friday June 28, 2017 President Donald Trump Tweeted that former President Barack Obama knew “far in advance” about Russian election “meddling” but did “nothing” about it. 

The following Monday President Trump tweeted again that Obama did “NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling.”

According to the  Daily Caller News Foundation:
"The Obama administration’s attempt to cease Russian meddling in the 2016 election consisted of empty warnings to the Russian government. Trump’s claim that Obama knew about Russian election meddling “far in advance” and that he did “nothing” is therefore true."
Quote

[In 2018] Donald Trump claimed that the FBI told Obama about Russian meddling BEFORE the 2016 election but the then president failed to act because he thought 'Crooked Hillary' would win

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775583/Donald-Trump-claims-FBI-told-Obama-Russian-meddling-2016-election.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lucylu71 said:

I'm sorry you choose not to read the various sources I've provided for you.  I'm sure many of your questions would be answered.

I am asking YOU one simple question, which you steadfastly refuse to answer.

Directing the asker of the question to read through various right-wing conspiracy theory propaganda, isn't an appropriate response to the question.

My guess is, you are unable to answer my question because the answer will implode your conspiracy theory.

Otherwise, why not answer?

Why did Trump fire Flynn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.