Re: Gen. Flynn, the so-called martyr

Hall of Famer [24477]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 13968

Joined: 7/3/01

Those are strong words, and it seems, inaccurate. Shady?

May 14, 2020, 1:32 AM

"Shady as they come?" No, the issue is actually who was being shady, and is why the doj dropped the prosecution.

There is no question that he told a lie to Agent Stzrok. Having heard that, you now should know what the issue is.

Flynn had done nothing illegal. This conversations with Kislyak were ordinary, the FBI had recordings of them, and based on those recordings had decided Flynn had done nothing wrong. This is when Strzok got involved. He went to the White House hoping he could get Flynn to say something, anything, wrong. For reasons Flynn has not yet said under oath, he said he didn't have those conversations. So, why would the doj drop prosecution? The mitigating factors are, as I understand it:

- The 'investigation' of the Trump campaign came sources, which we now know had no basis in fact. In the recently released transcripts of closed session House committee meetings, the Obama officials who were on TV saying they had proof of collusion were at that very time, while under oath, telling Congress that they knew of no evidence of collusion.

- The FISA court warrants, which authorize surveillance of US citizens that is otherwise hugely illegal, were therefore obtained by lies from the FBI. Those lies were in the form of information bought from the Russians by the Clinton campaign.

- The taping of Flynn's call with Kislyak was perhaps not legal, but perhaps legal as calls from Russia and often recorded. Whichever way that turns out, the fact is that the FBI went over those calls and determined nothing wrong was said in the calls. US and Russian officials do talk.

- When agent Sztrok heard that the Flynn portion of the investigation was going to be closed, he lobbied to make a visit to the Flynn in hopes of getting him to say something wrong. It was conducted as though it was an interview, a conversation, not an investigation. I forget the importance of the distinction (I am speaking off the top of my head here) but it is apparently important as to whether anything said is an illegal lie.

- At any rate, yes, he perhaps (more on that in a sec) said he had not talked to Kislyak. No one knows why he said that. It didn't matter. Had he said, "Sure, of course I talked with him", nothing would have come of it: the FBI already shrugged its shoulders on it, He had done nothing wrong. I have some ideas about that, but I will let him speak about that.

- As I understand it, there might not be a"302" (the official notes of the meeting, the evidence of what was said or not said) of that conversation. Flynn and his defense have never seen it. No one has. What we know is that Flynn denies that what he said was a lie. Rather than carry that defense to a conclusion, when the FBI threatened him and his son he agreed to confess to the lie.

In short: (1) the FBI was conducting a politically motivated investigation for which there was no evidence of a crime, a thing which in central America that is called a coup, (2) Flynn was targeted not for a crime but in an attempt to slander anyone close to Trump, (3) a judgement was made that no crime was committed by Flynn (4) so they maneuvered him into what is technically a lie, but was about nothing substantive or illegal, akin to lying about whether he parked in an approved spot that morning and (5) it is a confession to a lie, the evidence for which no one has seen.

Add all that together, and you do not have a shady character. What you have is a frightening national police.

If you don't think this is bad, the last thing Obama wants is for proof to come out that he knew about what was about to happen with Flynn and approved the action. It appears that evidence for this now exists, and if that is so Obama's life might not be good over the next few months.

It is unfortunate that how people view these facts is determined by which party they pull for. It shouldn't matter. Strzok and others were acting as national police on behalf of a political party to first determine an election and then to unseat an elected official. That is not even in question: him and his mistress openly talked about it. And the evidence shows that to be the case. That ought to scare the jeebus out of anybody.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

profuscious said:

Can someone explain why this “patriot” was lying about his contacts with Sergey Kislyak?

Why would he need to lie about them? He was already in the White House. He had the job. Why lie about The meetings?

The guy has no credibility and doesn’t deserve our sympathy. He is as shady as they come.

It is obvious you have not bothered to read the court submitted documentation so I'll help you out.

For starters, Flynn never lied about his contacts with Kislyak. He knew the NSA and FBI had copies of his conversation so he never denied having the conversation. Flynn even discussed this in his conversation with Andrew McCabe when McCabe set up the FBI interview on 24 January 2017.

As for what Flynn was charged with.... Mueller's goons allege that Flynn lied to the FBI about one specific part of the Kislyak conversation - that Flynn denied talking about sanctions response with Kislyak. As more of the Brady material was made available, it was discovered that the Mueller team's accusation was total BS. The most recent FBI 302 of the FBI Flynn interview entered in court filings shows that Flynn never denied having talked to Kislyak regarding sanctions. Read it for yourself:

"The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any
conversation with KISLYAK in which KISLYAK told him the Government
of Russia had taken into account the incoming administration's
position about the expulsions, or where KISLYAK said the Government
of Russia had responded, or chosen to modulate their response, in
any way to the U.S.'s actions as a result of a request by the
incoming administration. FLYNN stated it was possible that he
talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember
doing so. FLYNN stated he was attempting to start a good
relationship KISLYAK and move forward."

Once again - Flynn did not deny talking sanctions with Kislyak as he said "it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so."

There is a reason the FBI agents at the time said they did not think Flynn lied or was dishonest - because Flynn wasn't being dishonest.

If you want to talk about lying and dishonesty look no further than the Mueller prosecutors. These corrupt prosecutors knew no crime had been committed yet were desperate to get someone, anyone, in this Russian collusion BS even if they had to lie to get it. They needed to force someone into "cooperating" so they they could justify their which hunt and continue to push this false narrative through leaks in the media. So what did they do? The Government prosecutors spent 10 months badgering Michael Flynn to the point that they bankrupted the man. But even that was not enough to make Flynn sign up to a false "I lied to the FBI" confession. The Government team had to take it a step further and threaten to go after Flynn's son with a frivolous investigation that would ultimately bankrupt him too. That threat from the Government prosecutors was enough to finally break Flynn into agreeing to a "I lied to the FBI" confession that all parties knew to be utter BS. All the while, the Government prosecutors were hiding the exculpatory information from Flynn. So in summary, LTG Flynn's guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary and both of those things are required for a guilty plea in the United States of America.

Show a little intellectual curiosity towards the truth and read the actual DOJ's motion to dismiss. It methodically lays out the facts that informs exactly how Flynn was targeted and setup by the political hacks in the FBI and Mueller team. You can download a pdf of the motion here: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/FLYNN_MTD_FILED.pdf

Gen. Flynn, the so-called martyr

I admit I haven’t been following this stuff too closely.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand

Those are strong words, and it seems, inaccurate. Shady?

Sorry, I need to add something to my answer.

Re: Sorry, I need to add something to my answer.

Re/ Obama, why didn’t he take action, economic

There is no question about the conversation. The

They must be getting closer to the truth

Judge Sullivan is releasing the unredacted call transcripts

Re: Gen. Flynn, the so-called martyr

TigerBoard POTD