Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[Faun]

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Discussing them wasn't criminal, why does it matter?

Did anyone in the Obama administration authorize it?

Why would an incoming NSA need authorization to discuss anything?

What part of, to gain more information, didn't you understand?

And authorization so they don't violate the Logan Act.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

You're still confused.
They had the transcript. No more light to shed.

Yes Todd... plenty of light to shed. Nature of relationship with Russian contact. Was there contact during the election? What was discussed? Etc etc.

those are completely legit questions but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted... that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

Nature of relationship with Russian contact.

Was he charged with "relationship crimes"?

Was there contact during the election?

You mean like telling Putin you'll have more flexibility after you're re-elected?

but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted...

Yeah, but enough about McCabe .

that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

That must be why they were going to drop the investigation, before Strzok got involved.

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

What was Flynn's crime that the FBI was supposedly investigating? A fake 'Russia collusion' story that has long since been debunked? Come on Slade, you're dyin' here.

The FBI was investigating Flynn As part of a larger investigation into Russian interference in our election. They interviewed Flynn because he had been in contact with Russia. Flynn lied about those contacts. Simple. Next point

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Discussing them wasn't criminal, why does it matter?

Did anyone in the Obama administration authorize it?

Why would an incoming NSA need authorization to discuss anything?

What part of, to gain more information, didn't you understand?

And authorization so they don't violate the Logan Act.

What part of, to gain more information

No criminal investigation, no need to go fishing for more information.

He didn't need authorization. There was no violation of the unconstitutional Logan Act.

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

You're still confused.
They had the transcript. No more light to shed.

Yes Todd... plenty of light to shed. Nature of relationship with Russian contact. Was there contact during the election? What was discussed? Etc etc.

those are completely legit questions but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted... that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

Nature of relationship with Russian contact.

Was he charged with "relationship crimes"?

Was there contact during the election?

You mean like telling Putin you'll have more flexibility after you're re-elected?

but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted...

Yeah, but enough about McCabe .

that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

That must be why they were going to drop the investigation, before Strzok got involved.

LOL

Obama was president when he offered flexibility. Duly authorized as president of the United States to conduct business with foreign nations.

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that. IOW a troll.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

You know better than that...or maybe you don't, I'm really not sure.

I's starting the think he does no better but likes to brawl.

Yes I do come to brawl at times. Depends on my mood. Nothing wrong with challenging the narratives people are pushing. If I make bad points during a brawl you should be able to shoot them down. But most people ditch the substance and resort to childish photos and insults.

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

You're still confused.
They had the transcript. No more light to shed.

Yes Todd... plenty of light to shed. Nature of relationship with Russian contact. Was there contact during the election? What was discussed? Etc etc.

those are completely legit questions but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted... that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

Nature of relationship with Russian contact.

Was he charged with "relationship crimes"?

Was there contact during the election?

You mean like telling Putin you'll have more flexibility after you're re-elected?

but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted...

Yeah, but enough about McCabe .

that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

That must be why they were going to drop the investigation, before Strzok got involved.

His relationships justify the interview. He was arrested for lying during that interview. You know this. Stop trolling

 

[Faun]

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Of course more information could have been garnered. Such as did anyone ask him to discuss the sanctions with Russia?

Discussing them wasn't criminal, why does it matter?

Did anyone in the Obama administration authorize it?

Why would an incoming NSA need authorization to discuss anything?

What part of, to gain more information, didn't you understand?

And authorization so they don't violate the Logan Act.

What part of, to gain more information

No criminal investigation, no need to go fishing for more information.

He didn't need authorization. There was no violation of the unconstitutional Logan Act.

You sound like you're on drugs. They were in the midst of an investigation into Impeached Trump's associates' connections to Russia. So, yes, there was a criminal investigation and yes, there was a need to find all the information available.

And yes, he did need authorization. He was not yet authorized to negotiate US policies with foreign governments.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

What was Flynn's crime that the FBI was supposedly investigating? A fake 'Russia collusion' story that has long since been debunked? Come on Slade, you're dyin' here.

The FBI wasn’t investigating Flynn for a crime, they were investigating Russian interference in our election. They interviewed Flynn because he had been in contact with Russia. Flynn lied about those contacts. Simple. Next point

The FBI wasn’t investigating Flynn for a crime,

Exactly. That's why his lie, if he even lied, wasn't material to any investigation.
Didn't damage any investigation.

“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

You're still confused.
They had the transcript. No more light to shed.

Yes Todd... plenty of light to shed. Nature of relationship with Russian contact. Was there contact during the election? What was discussed? Etc etc.

those are completely legit questions but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted... that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

Nature of relationship with Russian contact.

Was he charged with "relationship crimes"?

Was there contact during the election?

You mean like telling Putin you'll have more flexibility after you're re-elected?

but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted...

Yeah, but enough about McCabe .

that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

That must be why they were going to drop the investigation, before Strzok got involved.

LOL

Obama was president when he offered flexibility. Duly authorized as president of the United States to conduct business with foreign nations.

Flynn conducted illegal business in his call? Tell me more!

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

You're still confused.
They had the transcript. No more light to shed.

Yes Todd... plenty of light to shed. Nature of relationship with Russian contact. Was there contact during the election? What was discussed? Etc etc.

those are completely legit questions but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted... that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

Nature of relationship with Russian contact.

Was he charged with "relationship crimes"?

Was there contact during the election?

You mean like telling Putin you'll have more flexibility after you're re-elected?

but when the person your talking to starts telling lies then his answers can’t be trusted...

Yeah, but enough about McCabe .

that’s why it’s illegal to lie to cops.

That must be why they were going to drop the investigation, before Strzok got involved.

LOL

Obama was president when he offered flexibility. Duly authorized as president of the United States to conduct business with foreign nations.

Flynn conducted illegal business in his call? Tell me more!

Already did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His relationships justify the interview.

Were his relationships illegal? How so?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Already did.

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was not yet authorized to negotiate US policies with foreign governments.

How could he negotiate policies? He wasn't in office yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, yes, there was a criminal investigation

Criminal investigation? Not counterintelligence?

 

[Leo123]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that. IOW a troll.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

You know better than that...or maybe you don't, I'm really not sure.

I's starting the think he does no better but likes to brawl.

Yes I do come to brawl at times. Depends on my mood. Nothing wrong with challenging the narratives people are pushing. If I make bad points during a brawl you should be able to shoot them down. But most people ditch the substance and resort to childish photos and insults.

Well, you keep saying Flynn lied. The legal records back that up because Flynn admitted it. What was the lie? As far as I can see, the 'lie' was Flynn saying he did not recall. That's it!!! Also, from recent reports, the FBI was trying to get him to lie according to inter agency correspondence. They wanted to get him to lie or get him to step down. Just saying 'Flynn lied' is, to me, a very monolithic view. I don't feel you are being objective and have an AX to grind with Trump. I'm not trying to insult you it's just the way I see it.

Also, the 'interview' was conducted in a hap-hazard way on purpose in order to catch Flynn off guard. They told him that a lawyer would just slow things down. Also, Flynn may have withheld information about his call because of National Security because he was part of the transition team. They basically convinced Flynn that he was guilty, threatened his son and bankrupted him with attorney fees.

 

[Faun]

Latest turn ....

Judge questions if Michael Flynn has perjured himself in his court case

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday asked whether President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn could be held in contempt of court for perjury.

www.cnn.com

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday asked whether President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn[/URL] could be held in contempt of court for perjury. Sullivan also appointed a retired judge to look into Flynn's case and argue against the Department of Justice's request to dismiss it.​

 

[Faun]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that. IOW a troll.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

You know better than that...or maybe you don't, I'm really not sure.

I's starting the think he does no better but likes to brawl.

Yes I do come to brawl at times. Depends on my mood. Nothing wrong with challenging the narratives people are pushing. If I make bad points during a brawl you should be able to shoot them down. But most people ditch the substance and resort to childish photos and insults.

Well, you keep saying Flynn lied. The legal records back that up because Flynn admitted it. What was the lie? As far as I can see, the 'lie' was Flynn saying he did not recall. That's it!!! Also, from recent reports, the FBI was trying to get him to lie according to inter agency correspondence. They wanted to get him to lie or get him to step down. Just saying 'Flynn lied' is, to me, a very monolithic view. I don't feel you are being objective and have an AX to grind with Trump. I'm not trying to insult you it's just the way I see it.

He falsely told the FBI he did not discuss Obama's sanctions with Kislyak.

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

What was Flynn's crime that the FBI was supposedly investigating? A fake 'Russia collusion' story that has long since been debunked? Come on Slade, you're dyin' here.

The FBI wasn’t investigating Flynn for a crime, they were investigating Russian interference in our election. They interviewed Flynn because he had been in contact with Russia. Flynn lied about those contacts. Simple. Next point

The FBI wasn’t investigating Flynn for a crime,

Exactly. That's why his lie, if he even lied, wasn't material to any investigation.
Didn't damage any investigation.

“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”

I misspoke. They did have an active investigation open on Flynn (Crossfire Razor) as part of a larger investigation into Russian interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign (Crossfire Hurricane)

 

[Slade3200]

To see what his connections were

Transcript is right there.

So? They sought more information.

No information about the election in the transcript.

Now you're running in circles. I already addressed that. IOW a troll.

Additionally, prior to the interview, there were internal FBI discussions about whether to show Mr. Flynn the transcripts of his calls with Mr. Kislyak. In light of the fact that the FBI already had these transcripts in its possessions, Mr. Flynn’s answers would have shed no light on whether and what he communicated with Mr. Kislyak.—and those issues were immaterial to the no longer justifiably predicated counterintelligence investigation. Similarly, whether Mr. Flynn did or “did not recall” (ECF No. 1) communications already known by the FBI was assuredly not material.


Under these circumstances, the Government cannot explain, much less prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, how false statements are “material” to an investigation that—as explained above—seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn. Although it does not matter that the FBI knew the truth and therefore was not deceived by Mr. Flynn’s statements, see United States v. Safavian, 649 F.3d 688, 691-92 (D.C. Cir. 2011), a false statement must still “be capable of influencing an agency function or decision,” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation mark omitted). Even if he told the truth, Mr. Flynn’s statements could not have conceivably “influenced” an investigation that had neither a legitimate counterintelligence nor criminal purpose. See United States v. Mancuso, 485 F.2d 275, 281 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Neither the answer he in fact gave nor the truth he allegedly concealed could have impeded or furthered the investigation.”); cf. United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (noting that a lie can be material absent an existing investigation so long as it might “influenc[e] the possibility that an investigation might commence.”). Accordingly, a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information, indicates that Mr. Flynn’s statements were never “material” to any FBI investigation.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/05/07/flynn.pdf

LOL

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department. The judge on the case has yet to rule on it. That's why Flynn is still a convicted felon.

That's according to Impeached Trump's current justice department.

If you see any errors in the post, point them out.

Sure, the very first sentence is supposition, not fact. Had Flynn been forthcoming with his answers instead of lying, more light could have been shed on his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The reason he lied, is those were high level diplomatic negotiations which were an ongoing process. To reveal them to ANYBODY, before the Russian responded to the overtures, might have endangered the mission. He did not know if he had the incoming administration's approval to discuss those negotiations with anyone.

Sometimes? Politics require obfuscation. What are you, a n00b?

He was tasked to deliver a message, if the Russians vote against or delay the resolution condemning Israeli settlements, the Trump administration would ease Russian sanctions. At that point, this was still in negotiations. The Russians hadn't gotten it back to Putin to reject. Flynn did not know the FBI was aware of the call. There were mitigating factors that low level FBI stooges did not need to know about.

Now? None of this matters.

Flynn is free to go.

The corruption has been uncovered. Stop beating a dead horse.

Kushner reportedly told Flynn to contact Russians over anti-Israel UN resolution

The quickly deposed ex-White House adviser has admitted to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Kremlin officials during Trump administration transition

www.timesofisrael.com

Wow, look at you making excuses for liars... how pathetic. You know what you say when asked about something that you consider private??? You say that the talks were confidential and you don’t feel comfortable disclosing the subject matter. The FBI can talk to your attorney if they want more. It’s that simple. What you don’t do is lie and what you don’t do is make excuses for those who lie

There you go again.... You got your ass kicked already and still have not addressed the conspiracy against Trump and Flynn that is now coming to light. Not to mention your nasty attitude toward those who disagree with you. Why don't you give it up? The FBI traitors are being outed.....Your argument is dead.

You think I got my ass kicked fine. I saw another turd avoid answering by posting a picture. Just like you’ve avoided three times now to choose a topic to discuss. I’m not going to respond to a laundry list.

my point from the very beginning was that Flynn lied to the cops. That’s a crime. Why are people making excuses for him? That’s it. If you want to talk about misconduct then fine. Pick something and I’ll agree or disagree about its validity. But one thing we should both agree on is that Flynn never should have lied and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

You did get your ass kicked, no thinking about that, Slade. Flynn was set up...no matter how much you deny that.
When Comey's Hatchet Men got caught, they had to make up stupid shit like what you're posting.

You are right, Flynn was set up. He was asked a question which set him up for perjury if he lied. He chose to lie. So he fell into the trap. Glad we straightened that out. As for me making stupid shit up... since you can’t point to one thing that I’ve stated that is false I guess you fail there too.

You know better than that...or maybe you don't, I'm really not sure.

I's starting the think he does no better but likes to brawl.

Yes I do come to brawl at times. Depends on my mood. Nothing wrong with challenging the narratives people are pushing. If I make bad points during a brawl you should be able to shoot them down. But most people ditch the substance and resort to childish photos and insults.

Well, you keep saying Flynn lied. The legal records back that up because Flynn admitted it. What was the lie? As far as I can see, the 'lie' was Flynn saying he did not recall. That's it!!! Also, from recent reports, the FBI was trying to get him to lie according to inter agency correspondence. They wanted to get him to lie or get him to step down. Just saying 'Flynn lied' is, to me, a very monolithic view. I don't feel you are being objective and have an AX to grind with Trump. I'm not trying to insult you it's just the way I see it.

Also, the 'interview' was conducted in a hap-hazard way on purpose in order to catch Flynn off guard. They told him that a lawyer would just slow things down. Also, Flynn may have withheld information about his call because of National Security because he was part of the transition team. They basically convinced Flynn that he was guilty, threatened his son and bankrupted him with attorney fees.

Leo... be honest. Do you really think a judge, a defense attorney and Flynn himself would let this escalate to what it did over a “I dont recall” answer being called Perjury? It’s been 3 years and Trumps people have been in control of the FBI and DOJ. Be honest. You really think this went on for this long on something so paper thin?