Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Lying to an FBI agent isn't perjury?

No.

"In fact, Flynn was accused of one count of lying to federal agents, but he was not under oath in a legal proceeding, which a perjury charge would require."

(You would think Obama, who has a law degree, would know this.)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-flynn-leaked-remarks-rule-law-perjury

What does Obama have to do with this? He wasn't president when Flynn was interviewed or charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Joe will have to clarify his comments now that we know his name was on the list requesting the unmasking of Flynn.
Coincidentally, he made the request the same day the Ignatius story came out identifying Flynn.

Good. I hope Biden spells out exactly what he understood Flynn was up to and calls on the DNI to release any and all calls and transcripts related to the various unmasking requests.

This won't end the way Trump thinks it will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

And yet, he was charged with none of these. Why not?

Because he had been flipped and charged with the relatively minor perjury that is at contest now. Then Barr came in, ended the Mueller investigation and its spin-offs, Flynn got a new attorney and here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about having discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. That is perjury.

No, it's not. Despite what Obama says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Lying to an FBI agent isn't perjury?

No.

"In fact, Flynn was accused of one count of lying to federal agents, but he was not under oath in a legal proceeding, which a perjury charge would require."

(You would think Obama, who has a law degree, would know this.)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-flynn-leaked-remarks-rule-law-perjury

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about having discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. That is perjury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Joe will have to clarify his comments now that we know his name was on the list requesting the unmasking of Flynn.
Coincidentally, he made the request the same day the Ignatius story came out identifying Flynn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

And yet, he was charged with none of these. Why not?

Because he had been flipped and charged with the relatively minor perjury that is at contest now. Then Barr came in, ended the Mueller investigation and its spin-offs, Flynn got a new attorney and here we are.

He was not charged with perjury.

Lying to an FBI agent isn't perjury?

Anonymous wrote:

He was not charged with perjury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

And yet, he was charged with none of these. Why not?

Because he had been flipped and charged with the relatively minor perjury that is at contest now. Then Barr came in, ended the Mueller investigation and its spin-offs, Flynn got a new attorney and here we are.

He was not charged with perjury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

And yet, he was charged with none of these. Why not?

Because he had been flipped and charged with the relatively minor perjury that is at contest now. Then Barr came in, ended the Mueller investigation and its spin-offs, Flynn got a new attorney and here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.

And yet, he was charged with none of these. Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

It's a faux pas.

It's illegal if he called Kislyak for someone other than Trump. Since he's never said, we don't know.

A faux pas? It was his frickin' job!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.
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? The only "briefing" he got was about the salacious part of the fake dossier.
If Flynn was "trying to sell nuclear secrets," why wasn't he charged with this?

Rumor has it that Flynn is only the tip of the iceberg. Things are about to get much worse.

The unmasking request came BEFORE the Kislyak calls. That is because Five Eyes and US intel caught conversations between Russians and <American>, Turks and <American> Saudis and <American> Israeli's and <American> - it is the job of the appropriate people in the IC and in the ranks of the diplomatic corps, to understand WHO might be conspiring against them. If Grennell is going to release this information, then he MUST release the recordings of the calls, so there is full transparency as to what Flynn was discussing and with whom. None of the selective BS with attached innuendo.

So, it is illegal for the incoming National Security Advisor to talk to leaders from foreign countries?

Talking to, no, not illegal.

Forming policy, planning kidnappings, arranging to sell nuclear secrets, particularly when earning $500,000 as an unregistered agent for Turkey?

Illegal.