Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is confusing to me……

When the FBI interviewed Flynn, the agents believed he was being truthful. Comey testified to that.

It wasn’t until the special counsel got involved that Flynn was charged. Why? If the FBI believed he was being truthful, why charge him?

This leads me to believe that they wanted Flynn to give them dirt on Trump, but since he had no dirt to give up, they needed to save face. The pressure campaign they launched against Flynn and his family resulted in a false “guilty” plea because Flynn could not afford the multi-million dollar defense that was needed.

This isn’t so complicated.
They heard him on the phone ( and god knows who else also have him on tape). They have him talking to foreign adversaries. Which is bad, but what is worse is he lied about it. He made himself a security risk. He was the NSA and he did that. It’s insane. It’s unforgivable. The FBI did their job. You can say thank you now.

But, the Director of the FBI testified that he didn't lie.
And, he was speaking to "foreign adversaries" as part of his upcoming role. Not a crime.

Part of his upcoming role? No. That’s not a thing.

Obama's State Dept. spokesperson disagrees with you......

Jan. 13, 2017.....

Here is Toner’s full exchange with a reporter at the State Department briefing:

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/936962187846934528

QUESTION: No, I got just one more. You probably have seen —

MR TONER: Excuse me.

QUESTION: — reports starting yesterday, but then more of them this morning, about contact between the incoming national security advisor and the Russian ambassador. I’m just wondering, from the State Department’s point of view, is this something that’s of concern at all? Or – I’ll just leave it there and then follow up.

MR TONER: Again, not necessarily – I’ve seen the reports. I don’t think they’ve been confirmed or corroborated yet. But that’s – as he’s part of the transition team, that’s really for them to speak to in how they are engaging. I mean —

QUESTION: Right, but —

MR TONER: — the president-elect is also engaged on his own with many world leaders.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So I don’t want to speculate and I don’t want to —

QUESTION: So there’s nothing – this building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials —

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: — no matter what country they’re from?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Right?

MR TONER: No. And again, this has been ongoing. I mean, we stand ready if they want to work through the State Department to contact some of these individuals, but we have no comment or no problem with them doing such on their own. 13 1/13/2017

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/12/03/flashback-obama-state-department-no-problem-trump-transition-team-contacting-foreign-official/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean...

Empty Wheel is the perfect moniker for this fraud.
She isi a conspiracy theorist.
https://spectator.us/boom-autopsy-media-mueller/

Empty Wheel doesn't know what she is talking about. Where is the "evidence" that Powell presented that Flynn told Russia "not to worry about tampering with the election?"

Anonymous wrote:I mean...

Empty Wheel is the perfect moniker for this fraud.
She isi a conspiracy theorist.
https://spectator.us/boom-autopsy-media-mueller/

Anonymous wrote:The fact that some people are defending the way Flynn was railroaded means that our country is lost.

Yep. It's a "tribe" thing. And, he is a Trump supporter. Having read the thread about never being friends or working with Trump supporters gives you insight into their thoughts and beliefs.

The fact that some people are defending the way Flynn was railroaded means that our country is lost.

I mean...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

On 1/4 Flynn hadn't lied to Pence and Priebus about the phone call yet. You understand the fact that the National Security Advisor was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the VP and President's COS is a GIANT RED FLAG, right?

Do you realize that the phone call was leaked to ignatius at the Wapo?

How much would you wager that the leak occurred in order to gin up support for the continuing investigation of Flynn?
Guess we need to find that leaker. Strzok? Yates? Brennan?

You are upset about the leak, but not about the call itself?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn has been treated very gently from the beginning. The FBI tip toed around how to question him, even though he had already lied, and they rightfully suspected he might lie again.
He has been allowed to plead down, and given the lightest possible slap on the wrist for his actions.
Railroaded? Give me a break.

"If you don't plead we will prosecute your son."
no railroading here.

Its called hardball. If his son had no liability in this he would not have much to worry about. What gets me about all these grifters including trump is even if they get caught they want to be exonerated. These people are not patriots and if they really were they would shut up play the game and take there lumps.

He went into debt to the tune of $5 million. Seems he ran out of money.
Oh, and his first counsel was totally ineffective. This is the big issue.

His first counsel got him a deal of no prison time. That's not ineffective, that's excellent.

For some unfathomable reason, he didn't like that deal.

...To plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. No, that is not effective counsel.

He committed the crime, admitted to the crime, not once, but twice before a judge, twice in sworn affidavits and also on twitter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

On 1/4 Flynn hadn't lied to Pence and Priebus about the phone call yet. You understand the fact that the National Security Advisor was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the VP and President's COS is a GIANT RED FLAG, right?

Do you realize that the phone call was leaked to ignatius at the Wapo?

How much would you wager that the leak occurred in order to gin up support for the continuing investigation of Flynn?
Guess we need to find that leaker. Strzok? Yates? Brennan?

Knowing the identity of the leaker will definitely exonerate General Misha. It will prove that he didn't lie. /s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

On 1/4 Flynn hadn't lied to Pence and Priebus about the phone call yet. You understand the fact that the National Security Advisor was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the VP and President's COS is a GIANT RED FLAG, right?

Do you realize that the phone call was leaked to ignatius at the Wapo?

How much would you wager that the leak occurred in order to gin up support for the continuing investigation of Flynn?
Guess we need to find that leaker. Strzok? Yates? Brennan?

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

On 1/4 Flynn hadn't lied to Pence and Priebus about the phone call yet. You understand the fact that the National Security Advisor was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the VP and President's COS is a GIANT RED FLAG, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

LOL. I'm sure you know better than then FBI.
We'll see what else comes out that we were led to believe as truth when in reality, was fabricated.

I'm not sure you know better than Congress?

Anonymous wrote:1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

LOL. I'm sure you know better than then FBI.
We'll see what else comes out that we were led to believe as truth when in reality, was fabricated.

1/4 was a bit premature to close the investigation. Flynn hadn't been fired yet, Comey hadn't been fired yet, Mueller hadn't been appointed yet.

Congress found that Russia interfered with the election. Stone was in the thick of that. Trump ... had plausible deniability. Semi-plausible.

Anonymous wrote:Seems the FBI field office was going to close down the investigation having found no incriminating evidence. This made someone mad. Strzok.

More......









So, the FBI couldn't find anything. Why did Mueller continue to investigate him? Because, Strzok.