Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suggest you read the article from Fox News written by the OP. Nobody interviewed had a smoking gun. But they nearly all had suspicions are indirect evidence. That is sufficient to start an investigation. What exactly are you complaining about????

Suspicions are not evidence. And, because all these people lived in the same universe, it was likely wishful thinking for a way to get Trump.

Flynn is literally a foreign agent. He was paid by foreign governments to lobby on their behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. This is an undisputed fact. It should come as no surprise that he was investigated. He probably lied to hide even more illegal activity. He IS the swamp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Foreign_agent

On March 8, 2017, Flynn registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for $530,000 worth of lobbying work before election day.

Flynn sat in on classified national security briefings with then-candidate Trump at the same time that Flynn was working for foreign clients, which raises ethical concerns and conflicts of interest.[70][71] Flynn was paid at least $5,000 to serve as a consultant to a U.S.-Russian project to build 40 nuclear reactors across the Middle East, which Flynn's failure to disclose was flagged by Representatives Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel as a possible violation of federal law.

Except, he was investigated and the FBI wanted to close the case....the FBI said there was NO derogatory information....until Stzrok intervened.

Why did Trump let a REGISTERED FOREIGN AGENT on his team?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you doubting Thomases out there who think everything the FBI did was above board and the DOJ dismissing this case was wrong, take a few minutes and read this piece. It recounts the mystery of the original 302 for Flynn. And, you can absolutely see why there are numerous questions around this case.

The new irregularities concern what happened after Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka on January 24, 2017 – the interview in which Flynn was alleged to have lied about a December phone call with the Russian ambassador. FBI procedure is that one agent asks questions while another takes notes. Here, lead agent Strzok was the questioner and Pientka was responsible for memorializing the interview. After completing an interview, those notes are required to be organized and written up on an FD-302 form, which then becomes an official document used as evidence in an investigation.

FBI policy requires 302 forms to be submitted within five working days of an interview. The FBI took three weeks to deliberate on and compose Flynn’s 302 form, and it was mislabeled a “DRAFT DOCUMENT,” requiring a resubmission of the form three months later. A prosecutor working in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which eventually charged Flynn, was required to submit a separate document to a federal judge to explain that irregularity.

The new Flynn documents shed light on what happened during the unusual three weeks composing the 302. They include texts between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were communicating extensively during an extramarital affair in interchanges revealing anti-Trump bias and resulting in their later dismissal from Mueller’s investigation.

n one text, dated February 10, Strzok tells Page he is heavily editing Pientka’s 302 form to the point he’s “trying not to completely re-write” it. Other messages reveal that Page, who did not attend the interview, reviewed the 302 form and made editing suggestions. On February 14, Page texts Strzok, "Is Andy good with the 302?" – presumably referring to FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The next day, February 15, the Flynn 302 was officially submitted and filed with the FBI.

FBI supervisors, however, are not supposed to rewrite other agents’ 302 forms. Nor are 302 forms supposed to be edited by FBI personnel who were not present at the interview, and both of these things happened in the Flynn case. “I've probably written in the close to the low thousands of 302s. I've probably supervised or overseen thousands upon thousands of more of those,” James Gagliano, retired 25-year veteran of the FBI and current CNN analyst, told RealClearInvestigations. “This is not how we do business as an FBI supervisor. I never, ever materially altered a 302.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_case_123520.html

Not surprised at this. The whole thing stinks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suggest you read the article from Fox News written by the OP. Nobody interviewed had a smoking gun. But they nearly all had suspicions are indirect evidence. That is sufficient to start an investigation. What exactly are you complaining about????

Suspicions are not evidence. And, because all these people lived in the same universe, it was likely wishful thinking for a way to get Trump.

Flynn is literally a foreign agent. He was paid by foreign governments to lobby on their behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. This is an undisputed fact. It should come as no surprise that he was investigated. He probably lied to hide even more illegal activity. He IS the swamp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Foreign_agent

On March 8, 2017, Flynn registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for $530,000 worth of lobbying work before election day.

Flynn sat in on classified national security briefings with then-candidate Trump at the same time that Flynn was working for foreign clients, which raises ethical concerns and conflicts of interest.[70][71] Flynn was paid at least $5,000 to serve as a consultant to a U.S.-Russian project to build 40 nuclear reactors across the Middle East, which Flynn's failure to disclose was flagged by Representatives Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel as a possible violation of federal law.

Anonymous wrote:For all of you doubting Thomases out there who think everything the FBI did was above board and the DOJ dismissing this case was wrong, take a few minutes and read this piece. It recounts the mystery of the original 302 for Flynn. And, you can absolutely see why there are numerous questions around this case.

The new irregularities concern what happened after Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka on January 24, 2017 – the interview in which Flynn was alleged to have lied about a December phone call with the Russian ambassador. FBI procedure is that one agent asks questions while another takes notes. Here, lead agent Strzok was the questioner and Pientka was responsible for memorializing the interview. After completing an interview, those notes are required to be organized and written up on an FD-302 form, which then becomes an official document used as evidence in an investigation.

FBI policy requires 302 forms to be submitted within five working days of an interview. The FBI took three weeks to deliberate on and compose Flynn’s 302 form, and it was mislabeled a “DRAFT DOCUMENT,” requiring a resubmission of the form three months later. A prosecutor working in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which eventually charged Flynn, was required to submit a separate document to a federal judge to explain that irregularity.

The new Flynn documents shed light on what happened during the unusual three weeks composing the 302. They include texts between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were communicating extensively during an extramarital affair in interchanges revealing anti-Trump bias and resulting in their later dismissal from Mueller’s investigation.

n one text, dated February 10, Strzok tells Page he is heavily editing Pientka’s 302 form to the point he’s “trying not to completely re-write” it. Other messages reveal that Page, who did not attend the interview, reviewed the 302 form and made editing suggestions. On February 14, Page texts Strzok, "Is Andy good with the 302?" – presumably referring to FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The next day, February 15, the Flynn 302 was officially submitted and filed with the FBI.

FBI supervisors, however, are not supposed to rewrite other agents’ 302 forms. Nor are 302 forms supposed to be edited by FBI personnel who were not present at the interview, and both of these things happened in the Flynn case. “I've probably written in the close to the low thousands of 302s. I've probably supervised or overseen thousands upon thousands of more of those,” James Gagliano, retired 25-year veteran of the FBI and current CNN analyst, told RealClearInvestigations. “This is not how we do business as an FBI supervisor. I never, ever materially altered a 302.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_case_123520.html

Anonymous wrote:

I suggest you read the article from Fox News written by the OP. Nobody interviewed had a smoking gun. But they nearly all had suspicions are indirect evidence. That is sufficient to start an investigation. What exactly are you complaining about????

Suspicions are not evidence. And, because all these people lived in the same universe, it was likely wishful thinking for a way to get Trump.

On March 8, 2017, Flynn registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for $530,000 worth of lobbying work before election day.

Flynn sat in on classified national security briefings with then-candidate Trump at the same time that Flynn was working for foreign clients, which raises ethical concerns and conflicts of interest.[70][71] Flynn was paid at least $5,000 to serve as a consultant to a U.S.-Russian project to build 40 nuclear reactors across the Middle East, which Flynn's failure to disclose was flagged by Representatives Elijah Cummings and Eliot Engel as a possible violation of federal law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you are posting nonsense. There's no reason to continue with you, Flynn stan.

LOL! So, you don't want to read the truth. And, you don't know anything about the laws. Got it.

Where’s this elusive “truth?” You’re just making sh** up, and don’t know the first thing about the law. You’re sowing disinformation and posting NO LINKS to credible sources to corroborate your “evidence.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you are posting nonsense. There's no reason to continue with you, Flynn stan.

LOL! So, you don't want to read the truth. And, you don't know anything about the laws. Got it.

Where’s this elusive “truth?” You’re just making sh** up, and don’t know the first thing about the law. You’re sowing disinformation and posting NO LINKS to credible sources to corroborate your “evidence.”

Anonymous wrote:

But you are posting nonsense. There's no reason to continue with you, Flynn stan.

LOL! So, you don't want to read the truth. And, you don't know anything about the laws. Got it.

The new irregularities concern what happened after Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka on January 24, 2017 – the interview in which Flynn was alleged to have lied about a December phone call with the Russian ambassador. FBI procedure is that one agent asks questions while another takes notes. Here, lead agent Strzok was the questioner and Pientka was responsible for memorializing the interview. After completing an interview, those notes are required to be organized and written up on an FD-302 form, which then becomes an official document used as evidence in an investigation.

FBI policy requires 302 forms to be submitted within five working days of an interview. The FBI took three weeks to deliberate on and compose Flynn’s 302 form, and it was mislabeled a “DRAFT DOCUMENT,” requiring a resubmission of the form three months later. A prosecutor working in the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which eventually charged Flynn, was required to submit a separate document to a federal judge to explain that irregularity.

The new Flynn documents shed light on what happened during the unusual three weeks composing the 302. They include texts between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were communicating extensively during an extramarital affair in interchanges revealing anti-Trump bias and resulting in their later dismissal from Mueller’s investigation.

n one text, dated February 10, Strzok tells Page he is heavily editing Pientka’s 302 form to the point he’s “trying not to completely re-write” it. Other messages reveal that Page, who did not attend the interview, reviewed the 302 form and made editing suggestions. On February 14, Page texts Strzok, "Is Andy good with the 302?" – presumably referring to FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The next day, February 15, the Flynn 302 was officially submitted and filed with the FBI.

FBI supervisors, however, are not supposed to rewrite other agents’ 302 forms. Nor are 302 forms supposed to be edited by FBI personnel who were not present at the interview, and both of these things happened in the Flynn case. “I've probably written in the close to the low thousands of 302s. I've probably supervised or overseen thousands upon thousands of more of those,” James Gagliano, retired 25-year veteran of the FBI and current CNN analyst, told RealClearInvestigations. “This is not how we do business as an FBI supervisor. I never, ever materially altered a 302.”

I suggest you read the article from Fox News written by the OP. Nobody interviewed had a smoking gun. But they nearly all had suspicions are indirect evidence. That is sufficient to start an investigation. What exactly are you complaining about????

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think the FBI screwed up. Anyone who works for the federal government knows that lying to the FBI is a crime. That Barr has tried to have these charges dropped is the other crime.


THANK YOU. Yes this has been totally lost in the right wing propagandasphere. They are shrieking that it wasn’t right for an investigation to take place. It’s insane.

GOP propaganda has made the lie big enough. People - as evidenced by the Traitor Terrys on this thread - are gonna go whole hog rather than examine their poor decisions.

Problem is that:
1. FBI agents had no reason to interview him. There was no crime.
2. Initially, they said he did not lie. Strozk "edited" the 302--which he was not supposed to write.
3. Flynn plead guilty because his son was threatened and he was out of funds. That was the only "lie" he told. He was coerced --that is illegal on the part of the prosecutor.
4. According to the law, it is only illegal to lie to the FBI about "material" matters. Since there was no crime, even if he told a lie, it is not prosecutable.

I strongly suggest that you go read the actual interviews just released from Congress and not the media opinions. For example, Schiff has repeatedly said that there was "evidence" of collusion from the testimonies. Yet, none of those interviewed (53) had evidence of that. So, Schiff has lied repeatedly. Same for Clapper, Farkas, and others. They testified they saw nothing of collusion, yet repeatedly have gone on cable news and said there was. So, whose spreading propaganda?

Anonymous wrote:Another shocking detail: Crowdstrike (which has been cited on media many times as saying the Russians had the DNC emails) admitted in testimony via Shaun Henry that they did not know that. That it was just "circumstantial" evidence--meaning that there was not any evidence.

And DNC never let FBI check it out--they relied on Crowdstrike.