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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In testimony, Yates said she also thought that Brennan was in the room.

Interestingly, she never stated that Susan Rice was in the room.

So, either she omitted her name from her testimony OR Susan Rice wasn't actually there. Yet, she drafted an email saying she was.

Go look at her memo. One would assume she was in the room, but the wording leaves room for speculation.

Her testimony indicates she wasn't there. Yates does not say she was there, but thought that Brennan was........

Looks like both Yates and Rice need to testify again to clarify.
Yates doesn't indicate she was there. Rice's memo to self says she was. Who to believe?

This is material to what? To proving that Flynn's lies are immaterial? To proving that Obama did something wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In testimony, Yates said she also thought that Brennan was in the room.

Interestingly, she never stated that Susan Rice was in the room.

So, either she omitted her name from her testimony OR Susan Rice wasn't actually there. Yet, she drafted an email saying she was.

Go look at her memo. One would assume she was in the room, but the wording leaves room for speculation.

Her testimony indicates she wasn't there. Yates does not say she was there, but thought that Brennan was........

Looks like both Yates and Rice need to testify again to clarify.
Yates doesn't indicate she was there. Rice's memo to self says she was. Who to believe?

This is material to what? To proving that Flynn's lies are immaterial? To proving that Obama did something wrong?

Also interesting, the meeting is not mentioned in Rice's testimony. In fact, she said she learned of investigation of Flynn from public information.

[Anonymous]

Ooops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html


TLR - The GOP and frothy right have been making this claim for three years that someone unmasked Flynn, but it turns out he was never masked in the first place.

I hope they keep releasing documents. In the past two releases, we have learned a lot about Trump Administration idiocy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ooops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html


TLR - The GOP and frothy right have been making this claim for three years that someone unmasked Flynn, but it turns out he was never masked in the first place.

I hope they keep releasing documents. In the past two releases, we have learned a lot about Trump Administration idiocy.

Flynn was in the DR when speaking to Kisliak. So DUH.

It was other times he was unmasked, like 6 others

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ooops

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html


TLR - The GOP and frothy right have been making this claim for three years that someone unmasked Flynn, but it turns out he was never masked in the first place.

I hope they keep releasing documents. In the past two releases, we have learned a lot about Trump Administration idiocy.

We've known this for 3 years. Guess you don't know as much as you think you do.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/05/16/michael-flynn-s-name-was-included-in-intelligence-reports-on-his-calls-with-sergey-kislyak

In the interview, however, Yates said Flynn’s name was never “unmasked” and added that there are two common instances in which Americans’ names are included in the reports: “because [the] intelligence only made sense if you knew who the identity of the U.S. person was, and that’s an exception to the minimization requirements,” she said, or, “If it’s evidence of a crime.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In testimony, Yates said she also thought that Brennan was in the room.

Interestingly, she never stated that Susan Rice was in the room.

So, either she omitted her name from her testimony OR Susan Rice wasn't actually there. Yet, she drafted an email saying she was.

Go look at her memo. One would assume she was in the room, but the wording leaves room for speculation.

Her testimony indicates she wasn't there. Yates does not say she was there, but thought that Brennan was........

Looks like both Yates and Rice need to testify again to clarify.
Yates doesn't indicate she was there. Rice's memo to self says she was. Who to believe?

This is material to what? To proving that Flynn's lies are immaterial? To proving that Obama did something wrong?

Also interesting, the meeting is not mentioned in Rice's testimony. In fact, she said she learned of investigation of Flynn from public information.

More and more things have happened that indicate Rice was not actually present.
This piece outlines some of the testimony and facts that call her presence at this meeting into question.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/20/has-susan-rice-made-herself-a-target-for-durham-probe-with-langauge-in-her-cya-memo/

[Anonymous]

Today, Rice said that she was directed by WH counsel to write the memo.
They sent her out to do five Sunday shows after Benghazi when it was really HRC's issue.

Just how smart is Rice?

[Anonymous]

Redstate: not a legitimate news source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Redstate: not a legitimate news source

Well, is the testimony that Yates gave with Special Counsel a legitimate news source?

Yates' testimony with the House Intelligence Committee.

Both times, she said it was Comey, Obama, and her. Possibly Brennan when she testified before House. Never said Rice was present. Rice was present at the prior briefing. And, when Rice testified, she said she wasn't aware of the investigation of Flynn until she saw it reported publicly. Never mentioned the meeting. Odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redstate: not a legitimate news source

Well, is the testimony that Yates gave with Special Counsel a legitimate news source?

Yates' testimony with the House Intelligence Committee.

Both times, she said it was Comey, Obama, and her. Possibly Brennan when she testified before House. Never said Rice was present. Rice was present at the prior briefing. And, when Rice testified, she said she wasn't aware of the investigation of Flynn until she saw it reported publicly. Never mentioned the meeting. Odd.

Yes, the House testimony is a legitimate news source. Redstate still isn't. The article was written by "shipwreckedcrew."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redstate: not a legitimate news source

Well, is the testimony that Yates gave with Special Counsel a legitimate news source?

Yates' testimony with the House Intelligence Committee.

Both times, she said it was Comey, Obama, and her. Possibly Brennan when she testified before House. Never said Rice was present. Rice was present at the prior briefing. And, when Rice testified, she said she wasn't aware of the investigation of Flynn until she saw it reported publicly. Never mentioned the meeting. Odd.

Yes, the House testimony is a legitimate news source. Redstate still isn't. The article was written by "shipwreckedcrew."

So, because you don't like a website that cites sources, it's not legitimate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redstate: not a legitimate news source

Well, is the testimony that Yates gave with Special Counsel a legitimate news source?

Yates' testimony with the House Intelligence Committee.

Both times, she said it was Comey, Obama, and her. Possibly Brennan when she testified before House. Never said Rice was present. Rice was present at the prior briefing. And, when Rice testified, she said she wasn't aware of the investigation of Flynn until she saw it reported publicly. Never mentioned the meeting. Odd.

Yes, the House testimony is a legitimate news source. Redstate still isn't. The article was written by "shipwreckedcrew."

So, because you don't like a website that cites sources, it's not legitimate?

Did you not go to HS? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redstate: not a legitimate news source

Well, is the testimony that Yates gave with Special Counsel a legitimate news source?

Yates' testimony with the House Intelligence Committee.

Both times, she said it was Comey, Obama, and her. Possibly Brennan when she testified before House. Never said Rice was present. Rice was present at the prior briefing. And, when Rice testified, she said she wasn't aware of the investigation of Flynn until she saw it reported publicly. Never mentioned the meeting. Odd.

Yes, the House testimony is a legitimate news source. Redstate still isn't. The article was written by "shipwreckedcrew."

So, the testimony cited in the article is incorrect? The timeline cited in the article is incorrect? The excerpts of the letter are inaccurate?
Did the author of this article rely on unnamed sources? Did he cite people not authorized to speak about this issue?
What is incorrect about the article?

[Anonymous]

A little detail that has been largely overlooked, but may get more attention in coming weeks is that the FBI offered to pay Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Flynn......

An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released in December.

The reference to the FBI proposal, which was made in an Oct. 3, 2016, meeting in an unidentified European city, has received virtually no press attention. But it might have new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom.

It is not clear how and when Steele came across the rumor, or if it was the result of the FBI asking him to look into Flynn.

The inspector general’s report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele “significantly” to collect intelligence from three separate “buckets” that the bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane, its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates.

One bucket was “Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as [Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,” the IG report stated.

FBI agents also sought contact with “any individuals or sub sources” who Steele could provide to “serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the Trump campaign-Russian relationship.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little detail that has been largely overlooked, but may get more attention in coming weeks is that the FBI offered to pay Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Flynn......

An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released in December.

The reference to the FBI proposal, which was made in an Oct. 3, 2016, meeting in an unidentified European city, has received virtually no press attention. But it might have new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom.

It is not clear how and when Steele came across the rumor, or if it was the result of the FBI asking him to look into Flynn.

The inspector general’s report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele “significantly” to collect intelligence from three separate “buckets” that the bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane, its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates.

One bucket was “Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as [Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,” the IG report stated.

FBI agents also sought contact with “any individuals or sub sources” who Steele could provide to “serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the Trump campaign-Russian relationship.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

This has been public knowledge for more than 2 years. He has long been a source for the FBI, but on this one, the deal fell through and the info he provided was already known...the investigation had already started because of Papadopolous.