Jump to content
chare chare (Member)

Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn

Politics   (851 Views 39 Comments)
49,034 Visitors; 583 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 4 of Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

7 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.

What we have here, is a classic case of Trumpster Whinorrhea.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 8:06 AM, Lucylu71 said:

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


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

I know the Fox news story on the interview with the WaPo reporter who discussed their coverage of the story left this part out, by accident I'm sure, but if you read the transcript of the interview they're referring to you'll find that what they were 'divided' about was that they only knew the calls had taken place, they didn't know the content of the calls, and they couldn't determine if the calls were benign; just a cordial introduction prior to taking office, or more scandalous, with the specific example being if they had discussed the newly imposed sanctions.  Of course we now know they had discussed the sanctions.

Both the NSA and FBI define a "compromised" person as someone who a foreign power has information on that could, for instance, get them fired.  We don't have to wonder if the Russian's knowledge that Flynn had lied about the Kislyak meant they had information that could get him fired, since it did indeed get him fired.

On 5/17/2020 at 8:21 AM, 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.



The unmasking request occurred a week and a half after the call that triggered the report in question.  I would agree it would seem unusual if the request was a year or two after the report, but this isn't an unusual timeframe for such a request to occur.

You're free to offer what in the Steele Dossier has been disproven.  It's main claims were that Russia was behind the DNC server hack (multiple US intelligence agencies have come to this conclusion) and that people associated with the Trump campaign were aware of Russia's involvement (a Trump staffer admitted this to a foreign diplomat).  It also centered on Page, who the report claimed had travelled to Russia in the beginning of July (he did) and had met with Sechin and Diveykin (he admitted to this under oath).

Mainly, I'm not sure how I'm supposed get worked up about Biden making an unmasking request as a supposed attack on a political opponent when that information came about due to declassifying and leaking to the press the list of unmasking requests, as a fairly obvious attack on a political opponent.

And this is all in the context of what now defines what rises to the level of justifying an investigation into political dirty tricks.  Trump illegally withheld funds, funds meant to protect our interests and national security, to leverage a personal political favor, the resulting investigation that was then defined as a "hoax" by Trump and his supporters.  If that's not a big deal then why would this be?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key, often overlooked context of the investigation into Michael Flynn

...   August [of 2016], the CIA provided the White House with a report documenting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s specific instructions to do so. Papadopoulos wasn’t the only Trump campaign staffer with links to Russia. Campaign manager Paul Manafort had worked for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. Adviser Carter Page, who had previously been identified as a possible recruitment target by a suspected Russian agent, had traveled to Russia in July. Flynn himself had been a guest at an event for Russia Today, a Kremlin-backed media entity in December 2015. That included his attendance at a dinner at which he was seated at the same table as Putin...

...  Documents attached to the Justice Department motion to dismiss the Flynn charges indicate that the investigation of Flynn — Crossfire Razor — began on Aug. 16, 2016.  Flynn, the document reads, “may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” Flynn's travel to Russia the prior year was cited. It's important to note that the Flynn investigation was into whether he as an individual was potentially working on behalf of Russia, not whether the campaign itself was...

...   There were two interactions between Flynn and Kislyak about which Flynn later lied to investigators. The first was a Dec. 22 call in which Flynn asked Kislyak to ensure that Russia voted against a measure under consideration at the United Nations. (Flynn made similar calls to other governments.) The second was a conversation or conversations on Dec. 29 in which Flynn asked that Russia not introduce sanctions in retaliation for ones the Obama administration had announced the previous day — sanctions that were a response to Russia’s 2016 election interference. Russia didn’t retaliate, and Kislyak later told Flynn it was out of consideration for his request.

The federal government would have been monitoring these calls. Because of limits on surveillance that apply to American citizens, Flynn’s identity would have been withheld from resulting transcripts. The call would instead have been between Kislyak and “U.S. Person 1.” In order to see who was making the request to Kislyak not to retaliate, that anonymous person would need to be “unmasked” — revealing that it was Flynn...

...   Flynn lied about his conversations with Kislyak. In early February, he admitted to The Post that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak, and Trump fired him from his position soon after. After special counsel Robert S. Mueller III began his probe into Russian interference that May, Flynn admitted to having lied to the investigators and made a plea deal with prosecutors...


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.