Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unless, of course, Flynn was the actual target and his name was never really masked. This remains to be seen.

It doesn't remain to be seen. There is ZERO evidence of the conspiracy theory you are implying. The documents released by Grennell confirm that.

+1 give it up. There’s nothing going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Unless, of course, Flynn was the actual target and his name was never really masked. This remains to be seen.

It doesn't remain to be seen. There is ZERO evidence of the conspiracy theory you are implying. The documents released by Grennell confirm that.

The redacted original 302 is online: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-special-counsel-releases-flynn-302

This isn't hard people.

Anonymous wrote:

Unless, of course, Flynn was the actual target and his name was never really masked. This remains to be seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

First of all, it is not YOUR call as to what is released. He was the incoming National Security Advisor. He had every right to talk to a foreign diplomat. What he saiid to him matters not one whit.

What matters is what he said to the FBI agents interviewing him and what they wrote on their 302s. And, the original 302 is still missing. The one Pientka wrote and Page and Strzok edited.
Don't you find it interesting that Pientka has been totally silent? That nobody has heard from him? I suspect there is a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

Rand is a lying idiot.
No one was listening to Flynn's calls. No one knew Flynn was a party to any calls, because his identity would have been recorded as "US Person." Intel agencies absolutely do and should listen to the Russian Amb.'s calls, just as the Russians listen to the US Amb's calls -That's what intel agencies do on a regular basis, even when there isn't an attack on democracy in action.
When the "US Person" said something suspicious, probably on several different calls, intel analysts started to think, Huh, that's odd. And higher-ups started to say, "Huh, something's going on - who is US Person?" and then lo and behold, they "unmask" the USPER and find out it's Michael Flynn, a Trump Admin official.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What notes are you speaking of?

Are you talking about the notes Priestep took about purpose of interview? The one where he asked do we want the truth or to get him to lie in order to get him fired?

Y'all really don't follow this, do you?

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

Anonymous wrote:

What notes are you speaking of?

Are you talking about the notes Priestep took about purpose of interview? The one where he asked do we want the truth or to get him to lie in order to get him fired?

What notes are you speaking of?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

First of all, it is not YOUR call as to what is released. He was the incoming National Security Advisor. He had every right to talk to a foreign diplomat. What he saiid to him matters not one whit.

What matters is what he said to the FBI agents interviewing him and what they wrote on their 302s. And, the original 302 is still missing. The one Pientka wrote and Page and Strzok edited.
Don't you find it interesting that Pientka has been totally silent? That nobody has heard from him? I suspect there is a reason.

Since we have the notes, you're still stuck on a nothing.

What he said on the phone call isn't important (although it has been described as very bad). He lied about it to everyone, and it has not been made public.

DOJ is flirting with sanctions with these shenanigans. Not material??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

First of all, it is not YOUR call as to what is released. He was the incoming National Security Advisor. He had every right to talk to a foreign diplomat. What he saiid to him matters not one whit.

What matters is what he said to the FBI agents interviewing him and what they wrote on their 302s. And, the original 302 is still missing. The one Pientka wrote and Page and Strzok edited.
Don't you find it interesting that Pientka has been totally silent? That nobody has heard from him? I suspect there is a reason.

Anonymous wrote:nope nope nope

If you are going to claim Flynn acted properly and th "unmasking" was unwarranted, then the call has to be released in order to validate said claim. Can't have it both ways.

And hey, Sen Rand, how much money did your PAC take from Russia and did you enjoy your time in Moscow?

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile there were 25 amicus brief requests on behalf of General Flynn that Judge Sullivan denied... hypocrite hack for the Democrats.