Anonymous wrote:So it was the FBI on this:

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

Then, why was Comey on the list of unmaskers?

Anonymous wrote:So it was the FBI on this:

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

If this is true, and it was the FBI who collected the call, and it was their notes, I am even less convinced of the charge that he lied to to the FBI or that he lied to Pence.
I wonder if Pence has ever actually HEARD the call. I wonder if he trusted the FBI's notes.
And, if there was a Title III electronic surveillance on Flynn, then this administration was knowingly spying on the incoming Nat. Sec. Advisor. We will need to know what they put ini the Title III warrant. I am betting it was BS just like the FISA warrants.

Anonymous wrote:

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

Why didn't they charge him, then? And, wasn't it the FBI that put in the FISA for Carter Page as a spy?
The only thing this means is that there is a larger net of possible leakers.

I suppose it’s a large pool of people that wanted to see a POS get what he deserves.

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

Why didn't they charge him, then? And, wasn't it the FBI that put in the FISA for Carter Page as a spy?
The only thing this means is that there is a larger net of possible leakers.

So it was the FBI on this:

Which means Flynn's name from the Kislyak call came from a Title III electronic surveillance warrant from the CRIMINAL DIVISION, not counterintelligence.

Flynn was already in criminal trouble.

When Grenell put out the list of legal requests for unmasking from appropriate personnel protecting America, he inadvertently confirmed something else:

Flynn was under criminal AND counterintelligence investigation at the same time.

#winning

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t he also negotiating with Saudi Arabia to transfer our nuclear secrets?

Wasn’t he negotiating with the Russians on behalf of the Israeli government during a UN vote on settlements?

Weren’t he and his son working deals with the Russians and with Turkey?

There are reasons why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about him. Even Chris Christie thought Flynn was not suitable for NSA

He wasn't charged with any of the above.

It's called White Privilege.

All DAMN day... he’s been given special treatment since the start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t he also negotiating with Saudi Arabia to transfer our nuclear secrets?

Wasn’t he negotiating with the Russians on behalf of the Israeli government during a UN vote on settlements?

Weren’t he and his son working deals with the Russians and with Turkey?

There are reasons why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about him. Even Chris Christie thought Flynn was not suitable for NSA

He wasn't charged with any of the above.

It's called White Privilege.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t he also negotiating with Saudi Arabia to transfer our nuclear secrets?

Wasn’t he negotiating with the Russians on behalf of the Israeli government during a UN vote on settlements?

Weren’t he and his son working deals with the Russians and with Turkey?

There are reasons why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about him. Even Chris Christie thought Flynn was not suitable for NSA

He wasn't charged with any of the above.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t he also negotiating with Saudi Arabia to transfer our nuclear secrets?

Wasn’t he negotiating with the Russians on behalf of the Israeli government during a UN vote on settlements?

Weren’t he and his son working deals with the Russians and with Turkey?

There are reasons why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about him. Even Chris Christie thought Flynn was not suitable for NSA

Even Trump fired him (although Trump fires everybody, so that doesn't really mean anything).

Wasn’t he also negotiating with Saudi Arabia to transfer our nuclear secrets?

Wasn’t he negotiating with the Russians on behalf of the Israeli government during a UN vote on settlements?

Weren’t he and his son working deals with the Russians and with Turkey?

There are reasons why the Obama administration had serious misgivings about him. Even Chris Christie thought Flynn was not suitable for NSA

Anonymous wrote:So he unknowingly and unintentionally lied on his FARA filings? I thought he was a smart 3-star general worthy of being NSA.

If he unknowingly lied, he should not be anywhere close to the White House.

how does one unknowing lie on a FARA form?

Oops, I forgot about the check I chased from Turkey?

His original attorneys at Covington prepared the FARA filings for him. That is why it became a question as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest in Covington representing him wrt the false statements charge.

So he unknowingly and unintentionally lied on his FARA filings? I thought he was a smart 3-star general worthy of being NSA.

If he unknowingly lied, he should not be anywhere close to the White House.

how does one unknowing lie on a FARA form?

Oops, I forgot about the check I chased from Turkey?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

... that were not the same answers he gave the Mueller investigators...

Source?

The linked article.

According to the article, the prosecutors said that he admitted to making false statements on his FARA filings. However, the prosecutors in the Rafiekian case wanted him to say that he knowingly and intentionally did it, in his testimony against Rafiekian. He refused to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

... that were not the same answers he gave the Mueller investigators...

Source?

The linked article.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

... that were not the same answers he gave the Mueller investigators...

Source?