General Flynn completely exonerated

#601
#601
Vol8188 said:
I said nothing about going after Obama. It may go that far to the top. I doubt it, but it’s possible
Click to expand...

At this point we know there was an email sent on inauguration day from the outgoing NSA adviser to.... Herself noting that this had been done "by the book."
 
#602
#602
vols40 said:
You threw out accusations against general Flynn and omitted the fact that 4 days after the FBI had nothing on Flynn sent investigators to question him with no lawyer present and without notifying the Justice Dept. Are you ok with this?
Click to expand...

Still not sure where the "tough keyboard warrior" comment comes from. Is it just because we disagree?

Shouldn't a 3* who is about to be in charge of national security either a) be smart enough not to get tricked by some "hacks" or b) know he doesn't have to answer their questions or he can at least stop the interview and get a lawyer.

I notice you didn't say Flynn never lied to the FBI or Pence. I never said the FBI acted properly, but it's naive or disingenuous to pretend Flynn is some kind of innocent martyr, especially after he was fired for lying to Pence.
 
#603
#603
clarksvol00 said:
Still not sure where the "tough keyboard warrior" comment comes from. Is it just because we disagree?

Shouldn't a 3* who is about to be in charge of national security either a) be smart enough not to get tricked by some "hacks" or b) know he doesn't have to answer their questions or he can at least stop the interview and get a lawyer.

I notice you didn't say Flynn never lied to the FBI or Pence. I never said the FBI acted properly, but it's naive or disingenuous to pretend Flynn is some kind of innocent martyr, especially after he was fired for lying to Pence.
Click to expand...

Answer my question are you ok with coercing someone to plead guilty in the face of no evidence while holding a potential conviction if his son all because you don't like the election outcome? If you are ok with that then there is nothing to discuss
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#606
#606
vols40 said:
Answer my question are you ok with coercing someone to plead guilty in the face of no evidence while holding a potential conviction if his son all because you don't like the election outcome? If you are ok with that then there is nothing to discuss
Click to expand...

You never answered my question either but you dont have too. You're question is loaded and presupposes there was no evidence. I think they had evidence to move forward against both of them. As for this being about the election, I could care less. If they have evidence against the Bidens and they let one of them take a plea and not prosecute the other one that's fine.
 
#610
#610
clarksvol00 said:
You never answered my question either but you dont have too. You're question is loaded and presupposes there was no evidence. I think they had evidence to move forward against both of them. As for this being about the election, I could care less. If they have evidence against the Bidens and they let one of them take a plea and not prosecute the other one that's fine.
Click to expand...

For you to believe that means that you completely discount the overwhelming evidence that it was a set-up. And it's people who feel like this that slowly eats away at the very foundation that this country was founded on. It's a wonderful thing that we as Americans have largely lived a easy life. People who trust corruption as SOP are the ones who will be among the first who meet their own demise and never see it coming. But as I have said if you think the government at the highest level has every day Americans best interests in mind by spying on Known CIA assets and don't question that then you and I can't exist in what this great experience if being an American is. I have a huge problem with federal agents setting people up who otherwise just want to be left alone. And when those every day Americans have had enough and fight back protecting themselves by shooting those federal agents I am always going to applaud them.
 
#612
#612
vols40 said:
For you to believe that means that you completely discount the overwhelming evidence that it was a set-up. And it's people who feel like this that slowly eats away at the very foundation that this country was founded on. It's a wonderful thing that we as Americans have largely lived a easy life. People who trust corruption as SOP are the ones who will be among the first who meet their own demise and never see it coming. But as I have said if you think the government at the highest level has every day Americans best interests in mind by spying on Known CIA assets and don't question that then you and I can't exist in what this great experience if being an American is. I have a huge problem with federal agents setting people up who otherwise just want to be left alone. And when those every day Americans have had enough and fight back protecting themselves by shooting those federal agents I am always going to applaud them.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of words. You're obviously way smarter than me, and know exactly what you're talking about. Now based on your last sentence I'm going to slowly back away from this conversation.
 
#613
#613
hjeagle1vol said:
or perhaps you don't understand which courts handle which cases? Tribunals are very different, handled by different investigations, and very different prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you don’t understand it was just a news flash yesterday that he wouldn’t be doing so and Trump aiin’t happy about it
 
#618
#618
VolStrom said:
On what grounds?
Click to expand...

I think it's a writ of mandamus, which basically means that Flynn's attorneys are asking the DC Circuit to order Sullivan (the district court judge) to dismiss the charges. It's a rarely used device, but it also appeared in maybe the famous constitutional law case (Marbury v. Madison).
 
#619
#619
evillawyer said:
I think it's a writ of mandamus, which basically means that Flynn's attorneys are asking the DC Circuit to order Sullivan (the district court judge) to dismiss the charges. It's a rarely used device, but it also appeared in maybe the famous constitutional law case (Marbury v. Madison).
Click to expand...
So why should the judge try to continue prosecuting a person when the prosecutor decided to drop the charges? You're saying that the judge should appeal this to the supreme court?
 
#620
#620
evillawyer said:
My guess is that they'll order the Sullivan to dismiss the case (the panel is two Trump appointees and one Bush appointee). Then Sullivan appeals to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
And Sullivan is trying to bring the Obama judges in to find charges not there.

What he's doing is unheard of. The judge is a joke.


Edit: I bet Powell appeals to SCOTUS first.
 
#621
#621
Flynn's name was never 'masked' in FBI report on call with Russian
From the article:

In a blow to GOP efforts to create a cloud of scandal around so-called "unmasking," two sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's name was never redacted from the FBI intelligence report about his conversation with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn has admitted lying to the FBI about a phone call with then Amb. Sergey Kislyak.
[...]
Flynn's name was unmasked in other intelligence reports about other conversations he had with foreigners, but not the one about the Dec. 29 phone call that got him in legal trouble, the sources said.
That call with Kislyak was monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant covering Kislyak, as is standard practice, current and former officials have said. Many former ambassadors and foreign officials working in the U.S. are monitored by the FBI as part of routine counterintelligence inquiries.
A former senior intelligence official explained that FBI reports based on FISA collection, unlike reports from the National Security Agency, generally do not "mask" the names of U.S. persons because the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency and the conduct of Americans is part of its purview.
 
#622
#622
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Flynn's name was never 'masked' in FBI report on call with Russian
From the article:

In a blow to GOP efforts to create a cloud of scandal around so-called "unmasking," two sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's name was never redacted from the FBI intelligence report about his conversation with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn has admitted lying to the FBI about a phone call with then Amb. Sergey Kislyak.
[...]
Flynn's name was unmasked in other intelligence reports about other conversations he had with foreigners, but not the one about the Dec. 29 phone call that got him in legal trouble, the sources said.
That call with Kislyak was monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant covering Kislyak, as is standard practice, current and former officials have said. Many former ambassadors and foreign officials working in the U.S. are monitored by the FBI as part of routine counterintelligence inquiries.
A former senior intelligence official explained that FBI reports based on FISA collection, unlike reports from the National Security Agency, generally do not "mask" the names of U.S. persons because the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency and the conduct of Americans is part of its purview.
Click to expand...
Msm bs.
 
#624
#624
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Flynn's name was never 'masked' in FBI report on call with Russian
From the article:

In a blow to GOP efforts to create a cloud of scandal around so-called "unmasking," two sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News that then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's name was never redacted from the FBI intelligence report about his conversation with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn has admitted lying to the FBI about a phone call with then Amb. Sergey Kislyak.
[...]
Flynn's name was unmasked in other intelligence reports about other conversations he had with foreigners, but not the one about the Dec. 29 phone call that got him in legal trouble, the sources said.
That call with Kislyak was monitored by the FBI under a FISA warrant covering Kislyak, as is standard practice, current and former officials have said. Many former ambassadors and foreign officials working in the U.S. are monitored by the FBI as part of routine counterintelligence inquiries.
A former senior intelligence official explained that FBI reports based on FISA collection, unlike reports from the National Security Agency, generally do not "mask" the names of U.S. persons because the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency and the conduct of Americans is part of its purview.
Click to expand...

Yet we know that much (a crazy amount) of unmasking occurred and by people who had no real business doing it so who were they unmasking?

Also conflicts with documents released by current acting DNI of people who asked for unmasking that turned out to be Flynn.

We're back to "sources familiar" with the matter. Forgive me if I wait to see more reporting on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, StarRaider and DC_Vol
#625
#625
Vol8188 said:
You believe Barr should go after Flynn without any underlying crime? What purpose would that serve?
Click to expand...
Another fake new story “960 prosecutors” = liberal Political group called Democracy for Action which only three people actually signed the document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top