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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about having discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. That is perjury.

No, it's not. Despite what Obama says.

Ok, so what are the charges that Flynn twice plead guilty to and affirmed under oath and before a judge?

Making false statements. That is a different charge than perjury. He was not under oath during the interview, thus, no perjury charge.

[Anonymous]

This is what Trump supporters are defending

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Joe will have to clarify his comments now that we know his name was on the list requesting the unmasking of Flynn.
Coincidentally, he made the request the same day the Ignatius story came out identifying Flynn.

Good. I hope Biden spells out exactly what he understood Flynn was up to and calls on the DNI to release any and all calls and transcripts related to the various unmasking requests.

This won't end the way Trump thinks it will.

I guarantee you, if there was any risk at all of this ending badly for Trump or Flynn, those names would not have been unmasked.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what Trump supporters are defending

LOL. Ok. We'll listen to a random twitterer. Ha ha .

[Anonymous]

The unmaksing by the UN chief is related to Flynn's activities with Isreal where he was working against US policy as it related to PBO EO #13757 - the timing of the Mid-December unmasking requests would make sense in that context.

And to the PP above who noted, the masking requests were made because the individuals were given intel with the unnamed American- they did not know it was Flynn.

Maybe if Flynn wasn't conspiring against the US with respect to surveilled individuals in Israel, Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia, he wouldn't have needed to be unmasked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Trump supporters are defending

LOL. Ok. We'll listen to a random twitterer. Ha ha .

google the random twitterer and see who he is and why his comments might be pertinent, rather than just assume it is a bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about having discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. That is perjury.

No, it's not. Despite what Obama says.

Ok, so what are the charges that Flynn twice plead guilty to and affirmed under oath and before a judge?

Making false statements. That is a different charge than perjury. He was not under oath during the interview, thus, no perjury charge.

False statement = perjury...call it whatever you like, a liar is a liar.

Why did he lie? Why did Trump lie? They all lied. Why?

If the calls with Kislyak were above board, then be upfront about it!

[Anonymous]

The unmasking requests were submitted to the NSA, which means that the NSA was the agency that originally collected and disseminated the intelligence, not FBI. That also means they were targeting *foreign nationals located abroad* -- Flynn was an incidental communication.

So basically, if Flynn isn't talking to people being legally monitored - people known to be unfriendly to the US, then none of this would have happened.

But sure, blame Obama.

[Anonymous]

Question: Why would they ask to unmask a conversation with the Ambassador to Italy? He's an American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Trump supporters are defending

LOL. Ok. We'll listen to a random twitterer. Ha ha .

google the random twitterer and see who he is and why his comments might be pertinent, rather than just assume it is a bot.

I did. I think Ric Grenell knows a bit more about the phone calls than Tim Hogan from Honolulu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: Why would they ask to unmask a conversation with the Ambassador to Italy? He's an American.

Imagine: US Intel or FiveEye allies collect a conversation between an Italian national and an American and they are discussing the transfer of nuclear secrets to the Middle East.

That intel comes across the Ambassador's desk. The Ambassador would rightly want to know what American is having that conversation, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what Trump supporters are defending

LOL. Ok. We'll listen to a random twitterer. Ha ha .

google the random twitterer and see who he is and why his comments might be pertinent, rather than just assume it is a bot.

I did. I think Ric Grenell knows a bit more about the phone calls than Tim Hogan from Honolulu.

You realize Ric Grennell is guilty of the same FARA crimes that others are, right? And maybe you know, but are okay with the idea that Grennell has been illegally representing Russian stooge Orban in Hungary, right? Maybe he has a vested interest that is contrary to the traditional American interests. But I am sure you knew that but are somehow okay with it.

[Anonymous]

Comey testified to all of this three years ago. I guess our memories are so short that no one remembers and now has to crank the outrage machine up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The unmasking requests were submitted to the NSA, which means that the NSA was the agency that originally collected and disseminated the intelligence, not FBI. That also means they were targeting *foreign nationals located abroad* -- Flynn was an incidental communication.

So basically, if Flynn isn't talking to people being legally monitored - people known to be unfriendly to the US, then none of this would have happened.

But sure, blame Obama.

That sounds like HOW it should happen. But, there is nothing "incidental" about Flynn's calls. He was being actively investigated by the FBI. So, he was not just some US citizen "incidentally" being caught up. They were monitoring HIM. That, in my opinion, is why so many people requested "unmasking." My bet is they knew who it was.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unmasking requests were submitted to the NSA, which means that the NSA was the agency that originally collected and disseminated the intelligence, not FBI. That also means they were targeting *foreign nationals located abroad* -- Flynn was an incidental communication.

So basically, if Flynn isn't talking to people being legally monitored - people known to be unfriendly to the US, then none of this would have happened.

But sure, blame Obama.

That sounds like HOW it should happen. But, there is nothing "incidental" about Flynn's calls. He was being actively investigated by the FBI. So, he was not just some US citizen "incidentally" being caught up. They were monitoring HIM. That, in my opinion, is why so many people requested "unmasking." My bet is they knew who it was.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

Nope. If you look at the document that CBS published, the one Ric Grennell declassified, it shows these are NSA intercepts, not FBI. Ergo, these were traces from foreign monitoring, where Flynn just happened to be the person on the other end of the line. The FBI didn't get involved until after the unmasking, as is normal process, and frankly, given there were 40 (!!!) different unmaskable conversations/requests, there were only charges related to one, that that was the Kislyak call, which came later. The FBI was only involved because the DOJ was concerned about the impact of the lies on the administration - that Flynn knew he was lying and that that would put him in a compromised position where foriegn influence was concerned. Hence, it was the lie to Pence that was the issue, more than anything else. If Flynn doesn't lie to the FBI during the interview, the rest of it likely would have eventually been swept under the rug by the Trump Administration.

But Flynn did lie, so maybe ask why?
And Flynn did have these conversations with monitored known US adversaries.
Maybe ask why?

Sometimes, it isn't Obama's fault and it is time to wake up.