Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing they will overturn the panel and remand to Judge Sullivan.

Sullivan will eventually dismiss without prejudice, meaning Flynn can be retried when there are real lawyers and patriots involved and not this corrupt GOP/Barr charade.

If he is retried, do you think they will turn over all the exculpatory evidence they withheld?

There was no exculpatory evidence. Barr even admitted so during his testimony. You are being lied to and are repeating the lie here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that’s a no on an indictment. Cool.

Durham is not done yet.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/meadows-previews-school-reopening-plans-durham-probe-results-i-expect-indictments

Anonymous wrote:So that’s a no on an indictment. Cool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

He altered the email to make the grammar worse?

DP.
He altered the email to make it say the exact opposite of the truth.
A felony.

It's not. But you'll never admit it m

"Supervisory Special Agent 2," who swore to an affidavit for all three FISA renewals against Page in 2017, told Horowitz's investigators that on the third renewal he wanted "a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application."

While in contact with what was reportedly the CIA's liaison, Clinesmith was reminded that back in August 2016, predating the first Page warrant application in October 2016, the other agency informed the FBI that Page "did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency."

An email from the other government agency's liaison was sent to Clinesmith, who then "altered the liaison's email by inserting the words 'not a source' into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was 'not a source' for the other agency" and sent it to "Supervisory Special Agent 2," Horowitz found.

"Relying upon this altered email, [Clinesmith] signed the third renewal application that again failed to disclose Page's past relationship with the other agency," Horowitz wrote.

Consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978, Horowitz said he informed Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray with "relevant information" about Clinesmith's actions. The inspector general does not mention criminal referrals, but it has been reported that Clinesmith is now a subject of U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation. The reports also said Clinesmith left the FBI after being confronted by Horowitz over his actions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

He altered the email to make the grammar worse?

DP.
He altered the email to make it say the exact opposite of the truth.
A felony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

He altered the email to make the grammar worse?

DP.
He altered the email to make it say the exact opposite of the truth.
A felony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing they will overturn the panel and remand to Judge Sullivan.

Sullivan will eventually dismiss without prejudice, meaning Flynn can be retried when there are real lawyers and patriots involved and not this corrupt GOP/Barr charade.

If he is retried, do you think they will turn over all the exculpatory evidence they withheld?

Anonymous wrote:I am guessing they will overturn the panel and remand to Judge Sullivan.

Sullivan will eventually dismiss without prejudice, meaning Flynn can be retried when there are real lawyers and patriots involved and not this corrupt GOP/Barr charade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

He altered the email to make the grammar worse?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.

No it isn't. It was bad grammar.

Anonymous wrote:Klinesmith changing the part that Page worked/helped the CIA is kind of significant.