Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

No, Rafiekian was convicted, but the judge overturned it due to lack of evidence.

Flynn didn't testify because he wasn't able to give the prosecutors the testimony that they wanted. He never refused to testify.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/michael-flynn-trial-federal-prosecutors-1403317

Eh... who knows which lie a lying traitorous weasel is going to spout? The prosecutors lost confidence. He was willing to take the stand, but not cooperate.

So, in your mind, cooperating means lying for the prosecution? Got it.

You literally get nothing. Lying WHEN? Which time? He backed away from statements he made to the Mueller team? So which was the lie?

DP. According to the article:

Court filings unsealed earlier Tuesday in Flynn’s partner’s case in Virginia said the decision to dump Flynn as a witness followed “trial prep” sessions where prosecutors were dissatisfied by answers to questions critical to the case against Rafiekian, better known as Kian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

No, Rafiekian was convicted, but the judge overturned it due to lack of evidence.

Flynn didn't testify because he wasn't able to give the prosecutors the testimony that they wanted. He never refused to testify.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/michael-flynn-trial-federal-prosecutors-1403317

Eh... who knows which lie a lying traitorous weasel is going to spout? The prosecutors lost confidence. He was willing to take the stand, but not cooperate.

So, in your mind, cooperating means lying for the prosecution? Got it.

You literally get nothing. Lying WHEN? Which time? He backed away from statements he made to the Mueller team? So which was the lie?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

No, Rafiekian was convicted, but the judge overturned it due to lack of evidence.

Flynn didn't testify because he wasn't able to give the prosecutors the testimony that they wanted. He never refused to testify.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/michael-flynn-trial-federal-prosecutors-1403317

Eh... who knows which lie a lying traitorous weasel is going to spout? The prosecutors lost confidence. He was willing to take the stand, but not cooperate.

So, in your mind, cooperating means lying for the prosecution? Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

No, Rafiekian was convicted, but the judge overturned it due to lack of evidence.

Flynn didn't testify because he wasn't able to give the prosecutors the testimony that they wanted. He never refused to testify.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/michael-flynn-trial-federal-prosecutors-1403317

Eh... who knows which lie a lying traitorous weasel is going to spout? The prosecutors lost confidence. He was willing to take the stand, but not cooperate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

No, Rafiekian was convicted, but the judge overturned it due to lack of evidence.

Flynn didn't testify because he wasn't able to give the prosecutors the testimony that they wanted. He never refused to testify.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/09/michael-flynn-trial-federal-prosecutors-1403317

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

Source?

Anonymous wrote:A note: Flynn signed a cooperation agreement where he agreed to cooperate, including testify in the Rafiekian trial, in return for the reduced sentence. He refused to testify in the Rafiekian trial, which the government subsequently lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Flynn seemingly entered into that conversation with no idea that U.S. intelligence would be spying on Sergey Kislyak shows that he had no business being a National Security Advisor to begin with.

Has it occurred to you that he did not lie about it? Of course, he knew. He discussed many things with the ambassador and the conversation about the sanctions was pretty limited--please don't escalate. The original leak implied that he had discussed eliminating the sanctions.

Yes, we haven't seen the transcript but we know that he told the Russian ambassador to not worry about the sanctions because they would be lifted.

The conversation has been described as "very bad". Minimize all you want. The transcript will come out and then you'll just find some other unfactual absurdity to argue.

If the conversation was very bad, why wasn't he charged with anything related to it? And no, there were no other charges that were "plead down". Nothing in the plea deal.

Yes, there were other charges that were "plead down." That what a plea deal is - you plead to a lower charge; there wouldn't be anything public written down. Prosecutors would have said, "Hey, we can charge you with x and you'll likely get x jail time, or you could plead to Y, and we'll recommend Y sentence cap."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Flynn seemingly entered into that conversation with no idea that U.S. intelligence would be spying on Sergey Kislyak shows that he had no business being a National Security Advisor to begin with.

Has it occurred to you that he did not lie about it? Of course, he knew. He discussed many things with the ambassador and the conversation about the sanctions was pretty limited--please don't escalate. The original leak implied that he had discussed eliminating the sanctions.

Yes, we haven't seen the transcript but we know that he told the Russian ambassador to not worry about the sanctions because they would be lifted.

The conversation has been described as "very bad". Minimize all you want. The transcript will come out and then you'll just find some other unfactual absurdity to argue.

If the conversation was very bad, why wasn't he charged with anything related to it? And no, there were no other charges that were "plead down". Nothing in the plea deal.

Yes, there were other charges that were "plead down." That what a plea deal is - you plead to a lower charge; there wouldn't be anything public written down. Prosecutors would have said, "Hey, we can charge you with x and you'll likely get x jail time, or you could plead to Y, and we'll recommend Y sentence cap."

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, we haven't seen the transcript but we know that he told the Russian ambassador to not worry about the sanctions because they would be lifted.

Maybe he did, but we do not KNOW that. Please give your source.

Yes, we haven't seen the transcript but we know that he told the Russian ambassador to not worry about the sanctions because they would be lifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Flynn seemingly entered into that conversation with no idea that U.S. intelligence would be spying on Sergey Kislyak shows that he had no business being a National Security Advisor to begin with.

Has it occurred to you that he did not lie about it? Of course, he knew. He discussed many things with the ambassador and the conversation about the sanctions was pretty limited--please don't escalate. The original leak implied that he had discussed eliminating the sanctions.

Yes, we haven't seen the transcript but we know that he told the Russian ambassador to not worry about the sanctions because they would be lifted.

The conversation has been described as "very bad". Minimize all you want. The transcript will come out and then you'll just find some other unfactual absurdity to argue.

If the conversation was very bad, why wasn't he charged with anything related to it? And no, there were no other charges that were "plead down". Nothing in the plea deal.