Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

Yeah right. The strategy that was written in those notes, was indeed carried out as planned. What else could those notes have meant?

The FBI never got an explanation for Flynn's lies about the phone calls. Neither he nor KT MacFarlane remember. And the transcript for the calls haven't been released, although one person who saw them said they were very bad.

The FBI's strategy of asking Flynn about the calls wasn't successful, since he lied to them and has never told anyone the truth about them.

That bolded line is hilariously stupid. If they were very bad, then Flynn would have been convicted for treason.

Who knows? The judge never saw them.

I wasn't the one who jumped from "very bad" to "treason", btw. That was you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

And, the judge walked back that comment, AFTER the prosecutor said that they had no evidence of treason.

Exactly! If you have someone on treason, which is huge, you do not let them plea down to one charge of lying. That's absurd. The "Flynn switched" attorneys" is a hysterical comment, given that the former defense attorney didn't hand all the documents to the current defense attorney, and neither did the prosecution.

Do the people answering your comments think anything through logically?

Several posters trying to explain some of this to you are lawyers. But you don't want to hear that. You just want to stick with your "thinking logically" to excuse Flynn's lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

Yeah right. The strategy that was written in those notes, was indeed carried out as planned. What else could those notes have meant?

The FBI never got an explanation for Flynn's lies about the phone calls. Neither he nor KT MacFarlane remember. And the transcript for the calls haven't been released, although one person who saw them said they were very bad.

The FBI's strategy of asking Flynn about the calls wasn't successful, since he lied to them and has never told anyone the truth about them.

That bolded line is hilariously stupid. If they were very bad, then Flynn would have been convicted for treason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

And, the judge walked back that comment, AFTER the prosecutor said that they had no evidence of treason.

Exactly! If you have someone on treason, which is huge, you do not let them plea down to one charge of lying. That's absurd. The "Flynn switched" attorneys" is a hysterical comment, given that the former defense attorney didn't hand all the documents to the current defense attorney, and neither did the prosecution.

Do the people answering your comments think anything through logically?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

Yeah right. The strategy that was written in those notes, was indeed carried out as planned. What else could those notes have meant?

The FBI never got an explanation for Flynn's lies about the phone calls. Neither he nor KT MacFarlane remember. And the transcript for the calls haven't been released, although one person who saw them said they were very bad.

The FBI's strategy of asking Flynn about the calls wasn't successful, since he lied to them and has never told anyone the truth about them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

And, the judge walked back that comment, AFTER the prosecutor said that they had no evidence of treason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

Yeah right. The strategy that was written in those notes, was indeed carried out as planned. What else could those notes have meant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

Powers was trying to find out who was trying to change votes at the UN. The unmasking revealed that person was Flynn. He was up to no good which is why he kept getting unmasked

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

the judge asked the same question. i think the logical answer is, he had agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and then, Barr fired Mueller, so Flynn switched attorneys and created the mess we are in now with his case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

Flynn wasn't masked on the phone calls in question. Those other unmaskings were all other conversations. And with lots of different foreign persons.

Again, why wasn't Flynn arrested for treason?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.

I don't think you are getting this. They don't know who they are asking to unmask. I think the more troubling event is Flynn have 7 different conversations that required unmasking requests.

You are complaining about the hot coffee being spilled rather than the theft of the coffee to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: The FBI strategized about getting him to commit a crime so that they could prosecute him. Fact: They couched the interview so that it would like it was just an informal meeting. Fact: They told him he didn't need counsel.

That, in itself, should be enough for this case to be thrown out.

Fact, you are taking someone else's interpretation of the notes. The person who wrote the notes has commented on them and has said their words were being mischaracterized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powers claimed she never tried to unmask Flynn; records show she unmasked him 7 times. Why lie?

She didn't lie. She didn't know it was Flynn who was having treasonous conversations and sought to find out who it was.

She unmasked him 7 times. Clearly by the 7th time, she knew she it was Flynn she unmasked.

If he was having treasonous conversations, then why not to straight for treason? It's cut and dried - they have the goods!

Yet they did not.