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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CBS reporter tweeted out the list of those who requested unmasking. The comments on the tweet are ridiculous.

Why did energy need to know? because Flynn was trying to sell nuclear secrets.

Why did the Italian Ambassador need to know? Because that is where a lot of the meetings, including Papadopolous, took place.

this isn't some nefarious ploy by the Obama administration. It was law enforcement and counterintelligance doing its freaking job.

Obama WARNED Trump. It's almost like Obama had the care of the country in mind and trump hired Flynn to spite Obama.

Well that worked out. If people want the truth, the truth is going to come out, and it won't work very well for Trump, or the Trump loyalists, no matter HOW they try to spin it.

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes.

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
If the name was masked the requestor would not have known that. Which means, the requestor knew the identity of Flynn before the request.

If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously. Cite me a source that says the FBI told Trump about their concerns regarding Flynn.

If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval This is a BS response. First of all, you have no proof of this. Secondly, why in hell would the FBI settle for a penny-ante charge like lying to the FBI when they could go for a much bigger charge?


And, no response to this? Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes. No, actually, for those in Obama's orbit.

[Anonymous]

Who was President when the FBI interviewed Flynn?

(hint, it wasn't Obama)

[Anonymous]

The only people who think this makes Obama look bad are the same people who thought there was pedophile ring in a pizza parlor, right?

The same people who think it's a sign of weakness to wear a mask. Who think the CDC is making up the death toll. Who think Covid is just like the flu.

We're so screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "knows nothing about it" refers to the lawsuit/appeal/amicus brief.

Seriously, It's one of the questions no Trump conspiracy theorist can explain: why did Obama try to *warn* Trump, if he was trying to *hurt* him?

Obama and everyone KNEW he was under investigation because he was conspiring with the Turks, the Israelis and the Russians.

Chris Christie knew it and tried to warn Trump too, and for his trouble, Javanka tossed him out.

The Obama administration was desperate to get Flynn out. That's why. Once the Crossfire Razor investigation produced no derogatory information, they had to come up with something.

Because Flynn was bad at his job, was a bad general, is a liar and a loon. Not a good NSA.

That's why Obama told Trump not to hire him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people who think this makes Obama look bad are the same people who thought there was pedophile ring in a pizza parlor, right?

The same people who think it's a sign of weakness to wear a mask. Who think the CDC is making up the death toll. Who think Covid is just like the flu.

We're so screwed.

They are well represented on Twitter but not IRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CBS reporter tweeted out the list of those who requested unmasking. The comments on the tweet are ridiculous.

Why did energy need to know? because Flynn was trying to sell nuclear secrets.

Why did the Italian Ambassador need to know? Because that is where a lot of the meetings, including Papadopolous, took place.

this isn't some nefarious ploy by the Obama administration. It was law enforcement and counterintelligance doing its freaking job.

Obama WARNED Trump. It's almost like Obama had the care of the country in mind and trump hired Flynn to spite Obama.

Well that worked out. If people want the truth, the truth is going to come out, and it won't work very well for Trump, or the Trump loyalists, no matter HOW they try to spin it.

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes.

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
If the name was masked the requestor would not have known that. Which means, the requestor knew the identity of Flynn before the request.

If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously. Cite me a source that says the FBI told Trump about their concerns regarding Flynn.

If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval This is a BS response. First of all, you have no proof of this. Secondly, why in hell would the FBI settle for a penny-ante charge like lying to the FBI when they could go for a much bigger charge?


And, no response to this? Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes. No, actually, for those in Obama's orbit.

I am the PP you are responding to.

Yes, the Ignatius leak was wrong and illegal.

The rest of it, you are simmply not understanding the law and the process behind how the Intelligence Community works as well as FISC procedures. That is fine, but please don't take your information from Fox News or Senators like Rand Paul (who McCain said on the senate floor worked for Putin) - any Senator that spent July 4th 2018 in moscow should not be considered a trusted source on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy.
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

[Anonymous]

Attacking the intelligence community for unmasking Mike Flynn is like attacking the Social Security Administration for cutting monthly checks, USDA for inspecting poultry factories, DOD for deploying troops overseas, or the State Department for writing diplomatic cables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who was President when the FBI interviewed Flynn?

(hint, it wasn't Obama)

You are f'ing kidding with this question, right?

Remember Comey's little admission while being interviewed about his book? The president had no idea they were interviewing Flynn - Comey made sure of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy.
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe I have to clarify this but the above exchange is giving me a headache: just so everyone understands, WHEN YOU MAKE A REQUEST TO UNMASK A NAME, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE NAME. IT IS MASKED. YOU ARE ASKING NSA OR WHOEVER TO UNMASK IT AND TELL YOU THE NAME.

In other words, no one knew they were unmasking Flynn. The reports probably said something like "person A spoke to foreigner John smith about xyz" and admin officials said "we want to know who person A is."

They would not have known it was Flynn they were unmasking ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy.
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

It's a faux pas.

It's illegal if he called Kislyak for someone other than Trump. Since he's never said, we don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CBS reporter tweeted out the list of those who requested unmasking. The comments on the tweet are ridiculous.

Why did energy need to know? because Flynn was trying to sell nuclear secrets.

Why did the Italian Ambassador need to know? Because that is where a lot of the meetings, including Papadopolous, took place.

this isn't some nefarious ploy by the Obama administration. It was law enforcement and counterintelligance doing its freaking job.

Obama WARNED Trump. It's almost like Obama had the care of the country in mind and trump hired Flynn to spite Obama.

Well that worked out. If people want the truth, the truth is going to come out, and it won't work very well for Trump, or the Trump loyalists, no matter HOW they try to spin it.

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes.

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
If the name was masked the requestor would not have known that. Which means, the requestor knew the identity of Flynn before the request.

If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously. Cite me a source that says the FBI told Trump about their concerns regarding Flynn.

If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval This is a BS response. First of all, you have no proof of this. Secondly, why in hell would the FBI settle for a penny-ante charge like lying to the FBI when they could go for a much bigger charge?


And, no response to this? Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes. No, actually, for those in Obama's orbit.

I am the PP you are responding to.

Yes, the Ignatius leak was wrong and illegal.

The rest of it, you are simmply not understanding the law and the process behind how the Intelligence Community works as well as FISC procedures. That is fine, but please don't take your information from Fox News or Senators like Rand Paul (who McCain said on the senate floor worked for Putin) - any Senator that spent July 4th 2018 in moscow should not be considered a trusted source on this.

I am not getting my info from any source other than my spouse who was career FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy.
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

It's a faux pas.

It's illegal if he called Kislyak for someone other than Trump. Since he's never said, we don't know.

A faux pas? It was his frickin' job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CBS reporter tweeted out the list of those who requested unmasking. The comments on the tweet are ridiculous.

Why did energy need to know? because Flynn was trying to sell nuclear secrets.

Why did the Italian Ambassador need to know? Because that is where a lot of the meetings, including Papadopolous, took place.

this isn't some nefarious ploy by the Obama administration. It was law enforcement and counterintelligance doing its freaking job.

Obama WARNED Trump. It's almost like Obama had the care of the country in mind and trump hired Flynn to spite Obama.

Well that worked out. If people want the truth, the truth is going to come out, and it won't work very well for Trump, or the Trump loyalists, no matter HOW they try to spin it.

Questions I have......

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.
If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes.

If the Italian Ambassador did not already know who the unmasked person was, why make an unmasking request? This phone call had NOTHING to do with Italy. many of the meetings took place in italy
If the name was masked the requestor would not have known that. Which means, the requestor knew the identity of Flynn before the request.

If the Obama admin was so worried about Flynn and his influence, why didn't the FBI give Trump a defensive briefing? They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. Not true, see August 2016, when he demonstrated he could not be trusted. The IC was trying to make sure he didn't have people on his staff trying to undermine him and he defended them vigorously. Cite me a source that says the FBI told Trump about their concerns regarding Flynn.

If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?Because they tried to flip him and for a while, he was a cooperating witness, until he wasn't. By then, Barr was in place and the effery with the new lawyers started, with trump's approval This is a BS response. First of all, you have no proof of this. Secondly, why in hell would the FBI settle for a penny-ante charge like lying to the FBI when they could go for a much bigger charge?


And, no response to this? Which one of these people leaked the call to David Ignatius? This is essentially a suspect list for the only crime here. A felony.

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse. for Trump, yes. No, actually, for those in Obama's orbit.

I am the PP you are responding to.

Yes, the Ignatius leak was wrong and illegal.

The rest of it, you are simmply not understanding the law and the process behind how the Intelligence Community works as well as FISC procedures. That is fine, but please don't take your information from Fox News or Senators like Rand Paul (who McCain said on the senate floor worked for Putin) - any Senator that spent July 4th 2018 in moscow should not be considered a trusted source on this.

I am not getting my info from any source other than my spouse who was career FBI.

Try reading documents. Form your own opinions.