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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

[/quote]

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. [b]many of the meetings took place in italy[/b]
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? [b]They did, in August of 2016. Trump tossed it back in their faces, which raised the alarms even more. [/b] The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier. [b]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.[/b] 
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?[b]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[/b]

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

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
[b]If the name was masked the requestor would not have known that.  Which means, the requestor knew the identity of Flynn before the request. [/b]

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.  [b]Cite me a source that says the FBI told Trump about their concerns regarding Flynn.  [/b]

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   [b]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?  
[/b]

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

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

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Try reading documents.  Form your own opinions.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics