Barr Installs Outside Prosecutor to Review Case Against Michael Flynn, Ex-Trump Adviser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She sent the email to herself because she knew what they were doing was not "by the book." Sally Yates also knew this. It's pretty much in her testimony, although she does not say it. She said she was trying to "process" the information while listening to Obama and Comey.

Other than your speculation, what proof is there that they were not going by the book?

Comey said it himself in his interview with Nicole Wallace.

[Anonymous]

So let's summarize.

Trump selects as his incoming National Security Advisor a 3-star General who has served his country very honorably for 33 years. There was no love lost between Flynn and Obama, largely because Flynn didn't agree with Obama's anemic response to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Flynn also believed China was a threat.

Flynn was clearly being surveilled and targeted long before Dec., 2016. At a Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting (attending.. Comey, Obama, Biden, Rice, Clapper and Yates) , FBI Director Comey stated to selected attendees of that meeting that it would potentially be bad if sensitive information were to be shared with Flynn (and, presumably, the Trump administration in general since Flynn would undoubtedly find out) because Flynn had had conversations with Kislyak. He had no evidence of any wrongdoing, mind you. He even stated that he had no evidence that confidential info had been shared with the Russians. Yates later testified that she first heard about Flynn's call with Kislyak at this meeting.

Susan Rice drafts an email to herself at the very time Trump is being inaugurated. She uses "by the book" 3 times in the email. Days after the inauguration, Comey sends two agents to interview Flynn. This was not at all "by the book" (as he has stated publicly). As a result of this interview, Flynn is ultimately charged with lying to the agents. He pleaded guilty because, according to him, they threatened to prosecute his son (for what, we don't know) and having never seen the 302, he thought the FBI agents had stated they thought he was lying to them. He spent over 6 million on his defense and his attorneys encouraged him to take the plea. Now, with a new attorney, he wants to withdraw his plea - the defense claims the prosecution withheld exculpatory information among other things, including the original 302.

So, the outgoing administration did not share sensitive information with the incoming administration based on the word of a since disgraced FBI Director with no evidence at all. An investigation of a 3-star General was conducted based on no evidence other than phone calls which were within his responsibility to make. The previous administration has caused Flynn and countess others to go through hell and ago into incredible debt based on a phony investigation based on Russian disinformation.

So, who exactly is subverting democracy here?

[Anonymous]

Flynn: The man who knew too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let's summarize.

Trump selects as his incoming National Security Advisor a 3-star General who has served his country very honorably for 33 years. There was no love lost between Flynn and Obama, largely because Flynn didn't agree with Obama's anemic response to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Flynn also believed China was a threat.

Flynn was clearly being surveilled and targeted long before Dec., 2016. At a Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting (attending.. Comey, Obama, Biden, Rice, Clapper and Yates) , FBI Director Comey stated to selected attendees of that meeting that it would potentially be bad if sensitive information were to be shared with Flynn (and, presumably, the Trump administration in general since Flynn would undoubtedly find out) because Flynn had had conversations with Kislyak. He had no evidence of any wrongdoing, mind you. He even stated that he had no evidence that confidential info had been shared with the Russians. Yates later testified that she first heard about Flynn's call with Kislyak at this meeting.

Susan Rice drafts an email to herself at the very time Trump is being inaugurated. She uses "by the book" 3 times in the email. Days after the inauguration, Comey sends two agents to interview Flynn. This was not at all "by the book" (as he has stated publicly). As a result of this interview, Flynn is ultimately charged with lying to the agents. He pleaded guilty because, according to him, they threatened to prosecute his son (for what, we don't know) and having never seen the 302, he thought the FBI agents had stated they thought he was lying to them. He spent over 6 million on his defense and his attorneys encouraged him to take the plea. Now, with a new attorney, he wants to withdraw his plea - the defense claims the prosecution withheld exculpatory information among other things, including the original 302.

So, the outgoing administration did not share sensitive information with the incoming administration based on the word of a since disgraced FBI Director with no evidence at all. An investigation of a 3-star General was conducted based on no evidence other than phone calls which were within his responsibility to make. The previous administration has caused Flynn and countess others to go through hell and ago into incredible debt based on a phony investigation based on Russian disinformation.

So, who exactly is subverting democracy here?

half truths and lies. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flynn: The man who knew too much.

Flynn knew what Russia wanted, what Turkey wanted, what Israel wanted, what KSA wanted. And he wanted to give it to them.

What did he know about what the US wants? What did he care about the US?

He made a lot of money selling himself and the US. He knew exactly what he was doing. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

[Anonymous]

Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He served well. And then he sold out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Foreign_agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He served well. And then he sold out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Foreign_agent

Want to add that there is nothing legally wrong with being a declared foreign agent. But people like that shouldn't be in the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He got fired by two different presidents. How many people can say that?

This is the most generous description of Flynn's downward trajectory that I've seen (and it leaves out several of his military oopsies like giving classified intel to allies because he didn't want to bother to get authorization):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/opinions/mystery-of-michael-flynns-fall-from-grace-bergen/index.html

In sum, he was a bad manager and became a conspiracy theorist, a kook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He got fired by two different presidents. How many people can say that?

This is the most generous description of Flynn's downward trajectory that I've seen (and it leaves out several of his military oopsies like giving classified intel to allies because he didn't want to bother to get authorization):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/opinions/mystery-of-michael-flynns-fall-from-grace-bergen/index.html

In sum, he was a bad manager and became a conspiracy theorist, a kook.

So, Clapper wanted him out of DIA. Clapper who goes on cable and talks about evidence of Russian collusion, but denies it under oath. Clapper who lied to Congress about spying on Americans.

Obama hated Flynn because he was right about Islamic terrorism. Flynn expressed his views and Obama didn't like them. Obama thought ISIS was the JV team and Flynn knew it wasn't.

Flynn may not have been the right person for NSA--but he did not deserve to be framed. He was not a Russian asset and he knew that China was a greater adversary. Sure, he thought we could work with Russia--so did Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He got fired by two different presidents. How many people can say that?

This is the most generous description of Flynn's downward trajectory that I've seen (and it leaves out several of his military oopsies like giving classified intel to allies because he didn't want to bother to get authorization):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/opinions/mystery-of-michael-flynns-fall-from-grace-bergen/index.html

In sum, he was a bad manager and became a conspiracy theorist, a kook.

So, Clapper wanted him out of DIA. Clapper who goes on cable and talks about evidence of Russian collusion, but denies it under oath. Clapper who lied to Congress about spying on Americans.

Obama hated Flynn because he was right about Islamic terrorism. Flynn expressed his views and Obama didn't like them. Obama thought ISIS was the JV team and Flynn knew it wasn't.

Flynn may not have been the right person for NSA--but he did not deserve to be framed. He was not a Russian asset and he knew that China was a greater adversary. Sure, he thought we could work with Russia--so did Hillary.

After he was fired from the DIA, he went completely around the bend. You're ignoring that part.

While he was in the military, he didn't follow rules and he broke laws but they looked the other way. After he was out of the military, he didn't follow rules and broke laws and got in a little bit of trouble for it. And here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He served well. And then he sold out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Foreign_agent

Want to add that there is nothing legally wrong with being a declared foreign agent. But people like that shouldn't be in the White House.

Except he did his FARA filing months after the fact and was Trump's advisor while on Turkey's payroll. Highly improper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn repeatedly had off the record conversations with foreign officials, did not disclose them, and lied about them when questioned. By any book, he was a national security risk who needed to be investigated before he could be trusted with sensitive information.

33 years as a Military Intelligence officer. Credited with fixing combat intel? Please cite your sources on this.

He got fired by two different presidents. How many people can say that?

This is the most generous description of Flynn's downward trajectory that I've seen (and it leaves out several of his military oopsies like giving classified intel to allies because he didn't want to bother to get authorization):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/opinions/mystery-of-michael-flynns-fall-from-grace-bergen/index.html

In sum, he was a bad manager and became a conspiracy theorist, a kook.

So, Clapper wanted him out of DIA. Clapper who goes on cable and talks about evidence of Russian collusion, but denies it under oath. Clapper who lied to Congress about spying on Americans.

Obama hated Flynn because he was right about Islamic terrorism. Flynn expressed his views and Obama didn't like them. Obama thought ISIS was the JV team and Flynn knew it wasn't.

Flynn may not have been the right person for NSA--but he did not deserve to be framed. He was not a Russian asset and he knew that China was a greater adversary. Sure, he thought we could work with Russia--so did Hillary.

After he was fired from the DIA, he went completely around the bend. You're ignoring that part.

While he was in the military, he didn't follow rules and he broke laws but they looked the other way. After he was out of the military, he didn't follow rules and broke laws and got in a little bit of trouble for it. And here we are.

Then, he should have been charged with the laws he broke. Not one that was framed for him. January 4, FBI form said it found no deragatory information on him and were closing the investigation. January 5, they sent in the henchmen.

[Anonymous]

Someone who supported the Pizzagate conspiracy theory had no business being anywhere close to the White House.