Breaking News:Flynn Case Being Dropped

[Rambunctious]

My children wouldn't commit federal felonies. They would never be in such a position.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

In the Obama "Justice" Dept, whether one had actually, you know, committed the felonies was beside the point.

If he didn't then there was no reason for Daddy to cover for him.

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

again it doesn't matter with a thug administration they had limitless funds, you have to pay a lawyer who do you believe will run out of money first?

Again. Flynn could have easily foiled the plot by being truthful.

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him....why are you taking the word of Comey the clown over the agents that were with Flynn?....

He was truthful just ask the agents that interviewed him...

Sure. That's why he pleaded guilty. Twice.

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

He pleaded guilty to save what funds he had left....they beat him down...a decorated war hero...and look at your disgusting self....the truth is out pal...you just are in total denial.....OBAMA GATE!!!!!

Hmm....
That's not what he said in court. He admitted to lying under oath. Twice.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

He didn't?
He did not plead guilty while under oath, twice?

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too, was corruptly working a political scheme to find dirt on Trump through indirect methods, and then to attempt to pursue Trump and his people by use of any information that was gathered by such methods.

Matters not if for whom he pled guilty too,

It doesn't ?

Keep it in context.

Keep it in context.

Good advice. You should follow it.
The context is federal court. Flynn admitted to the charges and pleaded guilty to them under oath in front of a federal judge in federal court.

Enough context for you?

Ever heard of coercion?....

Ever heard of coercion?....

Sure. It just isn't contextual in this case.

When you write a memo the day of the interview which was actually an investigation and you ask in that memo if you are to trick Flynn into lying or get him fired I think its definitely in context...and so would you if it was Obamas NSA director.....I'm done arguing with dishonest snowflakes....lie to yourself all you want....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When you write a memo the day of the interview which was actually an investigation and you ask in that memo if you are to trick Flynn into lying or get him fired

Oh look, more trump cult fantasy. There was no "trick". And what was being asked is how they should proceed... just nail him in a lie, or nail him then tell him they knew he was lying. "prosecuted/fired" would, indeed, be the consequences. Well, in a normal world that doesn't observe Trump cult ethics, anyway.

 

[basquebromance]

under Trump, we are sicker, poorer, and more divided than ever before.

but there is hope for america, and that hope is...JOE!

Instead of blasting you, I'll just wait a couple days until you are back on the Trump train and bashing Biden.

good plan!

 

[Markle]

My far-left Progressive and Democrat friends seem intent on ignoring the facts just recently concerning the now proven misconduct of the FBI and the prosecution of Gen. Flynn.

Allow me to re-enlighten you. It is my highlights in the following article.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn't conspire with Russian election interference
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 30, 2020

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

The Washington Times examined more than 900 pages of FBI investigations and witness interviews and found no hint that Flynn ever colluded or attempted to collude with anyone while he served as an adviser for the Trump campaign.

Sidney Powell, his attorney, said Thursday that 11 pages of freshly unsealed DOJ files will help her argument that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from his defense despite a judge’s order.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn’t conspire with Russian election interference

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

www.washingtontimes.com

###

Turley: McCabe’s “Bizarre” Defense Notwithstanding, The FBI Had No Business Targeting Flynn
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 4:01 pm on May 8, 2020
[...]
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.

Turley: McCabe's "bizarre" defense notwithstanding, the FBI had no business targeting Flynn

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of

hotair.com

Keep in mind that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were lovers.

 

[eagle1462010]

I bet Trump puts Flynn back in at NSA...that would turn Obama white....

so Trump fired him because Flynn got caught, lying to the vice president ABOUT his talks with the Russian operative about the Obama sanctions for election interference, Ambassador Kislyak, then Pence passed that lie on to we the people on the Sunday talk shows....

But now, that's all A-OK.... lying to the vice president is now hunky dorey and Flynn being a liar does not matter and he's gonna be put in charge of our National Security?

Really? That seems just plain wrong, and scummy, and crooked.....

Nope...Trump fired him because Pence told him that Flynn lied to him....but the FBI told Pence that Flynn lied and that was a lie.....get it?....look at the clowns your support?....you should be ashamed of yourself....

Flynn did Lie to Pence. Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference. We have Kislyak on tape reporting back to the Kremlin, that he spoke to Flynn about the sanctions.

Stop lying, it's unbecoming.

That wasn’t against the law. Maybe Flynn didn’t think pence should know, maybe he doesn’t like pence. Who cares .. it wasn’t against the law.

BUT lying to the FBI in an ongoing investigation, is against the law.

Shoot, McCabe only lacked candor with the IG,not even a lie, and Trump had him fired, stripped of his retirement, and urged his minions to shout LOCK HIM UP..... just FOR Mccabe lacking candor about leaking to the press that the Clinton foundation investigation was still ongoing, of which he was legally authorized to approve the leak.....

there's the law: when Trump hates someone,

and the law: for Trump's friends.....

equal justice, under the law, FOR NONE.....

Like people in Obama Administration violating masking NSA rules without the need to know........Like Biden himself.,,,,,,,,

Or the investigation I've already shown where they did it for years.............

You just ignore that which is backed up by the Fisa courts themselves huh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My far-left Progressive and Democrat friends seem intent on ignoring the facts just recently concerning the now proven misconduct of the FBI and the prosecution of Gen. Flynn.

Allow me to re-enlighten you. It is my highlights in the following article.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn't conspire with Russian election interference
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 30, 2020

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

The Washington Times examined more than 900 pages of FBI investigations and witness interviews and found no hint that Flynn ever colluded or attempted to collude with anyone while he served as an adviser for the Trump campaign.

Sidney Powell, his attorney, said Thursday that 11 pages of freshly unsealed DOJ files will help her argument that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from his defense despite a judge’s order.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn’t conspire with Russian election interference

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

www.washingtontimes.com

###

Turley: McCabe’s “Bizarre” Defense Notwithstanding, The FBI Had No Business Targeting Flynn
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 4:01 pm on May 8, 2020
[...]
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.

Turley: McCabe's "bizarre" defense notwithstanding, the FBI had no business targeting Flynn

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of

hotair.com

Keep in mind that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were lovers.

Right, Flynn was part of the payoff on the investment the russians made with their propaganda campaign.

 

[Levant]

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

You're pretty close there. But the obligation is not for those who object to prove why Flynn should not have been unmasked. It is up to the unmaskers (or their supporters here) to defend why he was unmasked. It is like the left in Washington and on CNN claiming that unmasking the unmaskers is wrong because we can't prove there's a national public interest in unmasking the unmaskers. They have it backwards. The default condition of government should be transparency. Government needs to have the compelling national public interest to NOT be transparent.

Remember when liberals supported those ideas? I do. I was half-hippy, half Republican in California in 1969 through 1972. I marched against the war in San Francisco; I read the pentagon papers cover to cover (I bet you don't know another living soul who did). You can see me in the movie about Altamont sitting on the edge of the stage when the Hell's Angels arrived... Yes, I remember when the left defended the rights of others from abuse by government.

Not so much now; now that they're closer to the communist utopia they worked for they are showing their true communist colors and acting like every communist party and government that came before them anywhere in the world.

 

[Levant]

When you write a memo the day of the interview which was actually an investigation and you ask in that memo if you are to trick Flynn into lying or get him fired

Oh look, more trump cult fantasy. There was no "trick". And what was being asked is how they should proceed... just nail him in a lie, or nail him then tell him they knew he was lying. "prosecuted/fired" would, indeed, be the consequences. Well, in a normal world that doesn't observe Trump cult ethics, anyway.

When they interviewed him, they said he didn't lie. It was only after Strzok changed the 302 to make up a lie, literally changed the analysis and changed the recorded words of Flynn, that they went after him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

You're pretty close there. But the obligation is not for those who object to prove why Flynn should not have been unmasked. It is up to the unmaskers (or their supporters here) to defend why he was unmasked. It is like the left in Washington and on CNN claiming that unmasking the unmaskers is wrong because we can't prove there's a national public interest in unmasking the unmaskers. They have it backwards. The default condition of government should be transparency. Government needs to have the compelling national public interest to NOT be transparent.

Remember when liberals supported those ideas? I do. I was half-hippy, half Republican in California in 1969 through 1972. I marched against the war in San Francisco; I read the pentagon papers cover to cover (I bet you don't know another living soul who did). You can see me in the movie about Altamont sitting on the edge of the stage when the Hell's Angels arrived... Yes, I remember when the left defended the rights of others from abuse by government.

Not so much now; now that they're closer to the communist utopia they worked for they are showing their true communist colors and acting like every communist party and government that came before them anywhere in the world.

I'm not quite sure you know what unmasking is. It's not a public reveal.

 

[Levant]

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

You're pretty close there. But the obligation is not for those who object to prove why Flynn should not have been unmasked. It is up to the unmaskers (or their supporters here) to defend why he was unmasked. It is like the left in Washington and on CNN claiming that unmasking the unmaskers is wrong because we can't prove there's a national public interest in unmasking the unmaskers. They have it backwards. The default condition of government should be transparency. Government needs to have the compelling national public interest to NOT be transparent.

Remember when liberals supported those ideas? I do. I was half-hippy, half Republican in California in 1969 through 1972. I marched against the war in San Francisco; I read the pentagon papers cover to cover (I bet you don't know another living soul who did). You can see me in the movie about Altamont sitting on the edge of the stage when the Hell's Angels arrived... Yes, I remember when the left defended the rights of others from abuse by government.

Not so much now; now that they're closer to the communist utopia they worked for they are showing their true communist colors and acting like every communist party and government that came before them anywhere in the world.

I'm not quite sure you know what unmasking is. It's not a public reveal.

Unmasking Flynn wasn't. Unmasking the unmaskers was. Unmasking a clown might or might not be. Unmasking a burglar when the dog rips the ski mask off is semi-public. Unmasking you as an idiot here is public... So what part of not knowing what unmasking is are you referring to? What part of the post you quoted led you to question whether I knew what unmasking is?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what part of not knowing what unmasking is are you referring to?

You obviously silly faux outrage, when there is nothing to be outraged about. Seems like you don't understand the mundane nature of this. The people on this list are the people you would expect to see on this list. They have to read the intelligence reports. They, unlike yourself, were actually taking the Russian interference seriously and were reading about these sensitive investigations. yes, when the incoming NSA is a foreign agent having discussions with Russians about giving their spyhouses back to them after the inauguration, it's kind of important. Important people need to know these things.

 

[Levant]

So what part of not knowing what unmasking is are you referring to?

You obviously silly faux outrage, when there is nothing to be outraged about. Seems like you don't understand the mundane nature of this. The people on this list are the people you would expect to see on this list. They have to read the intelligence reports. They, unlike yourself, were actually taking the Russian interference seriously and were reading about these sensitive investigations. yes, when the incoming NSA is a foreign agent having discussions with Russians about giving their spyhouses back to them after the inauguration, it's kind of important. Important people need to know these things.

No, there's no need for most of those people to unmask one particular person or anyone at all. Unmasking, in that context, requires a FISA warrant and at least probable cause of criminal activity. Most of those involved do not investigate criminal activity.

And then, you didn't even address the question, did you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

When they interviewed him, they said he didn't lie. It was only after Strzok changed the 302 to make up a lie, literally changed the analysis and changed the recorded words of Flynn, that they went after him.

So what happened to the original 302?

And how is the edited version admissable in court? This is an essential document to prove that Flynn actually lied.

Libtards are too stupid to grasp the nuances here, so you are wasting your time arguing with them.

 

[eagle1462010]

When they interviewed him, they said he didn't lie. It was only after Strzok changed the 302 to make up a lie, literally changed the analysis and changed the recorded words of Flynn, that they went after him.

So what happened to the original 302?

And how is the edited version admissable in court? This is an essential document to prove that Flynn actually lied.

Libtards are too stupid to grasp the nuances here, so you are wasting your time arguing with them.

They don't care...........they know they are guilty as sin...........but don't care........Why libs always trend to Communism if given all the power.

This Corona BS has shown many of their true colors............Loving the POWER OF DADDY GOV'T........

Peckerwoods shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of a girl scout troop.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They don't care...........they know they are guilty as sin...........but don't care........Why libs always trend to Communism if given all the power.
This Corona BS has shown many of their true colors............Loving the POWER OF DADDY GOV'T........

They need to start caring before this breaks out into a shooting civil war.

 

[beagle9]

I bet Trump puts Flynn back in at NSA...that would turn Obama white....

so Trump fired him because Flynn got caught, lying to the vice president ABOUT his talks with the Russian operative about the Obama sanctions for election interference, Ambassador Kislyak, then Pence passed that lie on to we the people on the Sunday talk shows....

But now, that's all A-OK.... lying to the vice president is now hunky dorey and Flynn being a liar does not matter and he's gonna be put in charge of our National Security?

Really? That seems just plain wrong, and scummy, and crooked.....

Nope...Trump fired him because Pence told him that Flynn lied to him....but the FBI told Pence that Flynn lied and that was a lie.....get it?....look at the clowns your support?....you should be ashamed of yourself....

Flynn did Lie to Pence. Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference. We have Kislyak on tape reporting back to the Kremlin, that he spoke to Flynn about the sanctions.

Stop lying, it's unbecoming.

That wasn’t against the law. Maybe Flynn didn’t think pence should know, maybe he doesn’t like pence. Who cares .. it wasn’t against the law.

BUT lying to the FBI in an ongoing investigation, is against the law.

Shoot, McCabe only lacked candor with the IG,not even a lie, and Trump had him fired, stripped of his retirement, and urged his minions to shout LOCK HIM UP..... just FOR Mccabe lacking candor about leaking to the press that the Clinton foundation investigation was still ongoing, of which he was legally authorized to approve the leak.....

there's the law: when Trump hates someone,

and the law: for Trump's friends.....

equal justice, under the law, FOR NONE.....

Like people in Obama Administration violating masking NSA rules without the need to know........Like Biden himself.,,,,,,,,

Or the investigation I've already shown where they did it for years.............

You just ignore that which is backed up by the Fisa courts themselves huh.

People should realize as well, that when Obama made the statement " now America is going to be fundementally transformed", they didn't realize exactly what all came with that.

First off we were all dealing with a person who was living in an area that created strong biases and attitudes that didn't represent the whole of a nation, nor was it ever the norm of what takes place or actually goes on in the whole of a nation, yet he wanted to make policy and rulings that him and his ilk would abusively apply to the whole of a nation, just like a good little communist/socialist would do in order to force a transformation that he was being led by the nose by hidden forces to do....... These forces couldn't believe that this nation had elected someone like Obama to do these forces bidding for them, and they swooped into action quickly. What Obama did was give power to radicals indirectly, and they jumped on it. This is the dangers of electing heavily biased individuals to anything that involves making policies that affect the entire nation, otherwise when such policies weren't needed in a blanketing of the entire nation when implemented.

I pray this doesn't happen again, and that this nation isn't so far gone that it wouldn't recognize such a thing immediately when they see it again, and act appropriately against it.

This only will work if we aren't to far gone, and the jury is still out on that one.

 

[Care4all]

I bet Trump puts Flynn back in at NSA...that would turn Obama white....

so Trump fired him because Flynn got caught, lying to the vice president ABOUT his talks with the Russian operative about the Obama sanctions for election interference, Ambassador Kislyak, then Pence passed that lie on to we the people on the Sunday talk shows....

But now, that's all A-OK.... lying to the vice president is now hunky dorey and Flynn being a liar does not matter and he's gonna be put in charge of our National Security?

Really? That seems just plain wrong, and scummy, and crooked.....

Nope...Trump fired him because Pence told him that Flynn lied to him....but the FBI told Pence that Flynn lied and that was a lie.....get it?....look at the clowns your support?....you should be ashamed of yourself....

Flynn did Lie to Pence. Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference. We have Kislyak on tape reporting back to the Kremlin, that he spoke to Flynn about the sanctions.

Stop lying, it's unbecoming.

" Flynn did speak with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak about the sanction just put on them by Obama for the Russian election interference."

So Obama met with the FBI agents to get rid of President Trump several days after the inauguration, and that was not treason? Silly girl.

Where do you get that from? Link up, please, with actual facts and truth if you can....

 

[Markle]

My far-left Progressive and Democrat friends seem intent on ignoring the facts just recently concerning the now proven misconduct of the FBI and the prosecution of Gen. Flynn.

Allow me to re-enlighten you. It is my highlights in the following article.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn't conspire with Russian election interference
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 30, 2020

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

The Washington Times examined more than 900 pages of FBI investigations and witness interviews and found no hint that Flynn ever colluded or attempted to collude with anyone while he served as an adviser for the Trump campaign.

Sidney Powell, his attorney, said Thursday that 11 pages of freshly unsealed DOJ files will help her argument that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from his defense despite a judge’s order.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn’t conspire with Russian election interference

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

www.washingtontimes.com

###

Turley: McCabe’s “Bizarre” Defense Notwithstanding, The FBI Had No Business Targeting Flynn
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 4:01 pm on May 8, 2020
[...]
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.

Turley: McCabe's "bizarre" defense notwithstanding, the FBI had no business targeting Flynn

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of

hotair.com

Keep in mind that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were lovers.

Right, Flynn was part of the payoff on the investment the russians made with their propaganda campaign.

I'm not quite sure you know what unmasking is. It's not a public reveal.

Very true, where the felony comes in is the LEAKING of that person's name to the public.

 

[bripat9643]

"Go do your homework" is not a defense. It's a deflection.

People just want to say and believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if it has a factual basis or evidence to support it. You can tell when people don't want to acknowledge that's the case, because they never seem to want to talk about why they believe what they believe. Instead they tend to get upset. They take it as an attack just to be asked why they believe what they believe. As if their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. That's the weakness.

Now, no one's perfect, and I'm certainly guilty of that at times, but I think if we want to have a functional society, people should be expected to at least try to be real and not just believe whatever is convenient, or easy or whatever satisfies their ego. It's hard, I know. But if you ask me why I believe something, I'm going to be prepared to explain why.

It's a disussion board, so I assume people are here for discussion. If defending your beliefs is too difficult, then you need to grow some spine. Life isn't your safe space.

So here's what I think. I agree that unmasking can be done for good or bad reasons. That's obvious. I don't see anyone explaining why unmasking Flynn was improper. And when asked about why people feel it was improper, they get upset. What am I to conclude based on that? I conclude that no one really knows why it's improper but it's important for them to feel that it is to justify the ongoing victimization complex.

You're pretty close there. But the obligation is not for those who object to prove why Flynn should not have been unmasked. It is up to the unmaskers (or their supporters here) to defend why he was unmasked. It is like the left in Washington and on CNN claiming that unmasking the unmaskers is wrong because we can't prove there's a national public interest in unmasking the unmaskers. They have it backwards. The default condition of government should be transparency. Government needs to have the compelling national public interest to NOT be transparent.

Remember when liberals supported those ideas? I do. I was half-hippy, half Republican in California in 1969 through 1972. I marched against the war in San Francisco; I read the pentagon papers cover to cover (I bet you don't know another living soul who did). You can see me in the movie about Altamont sitting on the edge of the stage when the Hell's Angels arrived... Yes, I remember when the left defended the rights of others from abuse by government.

Not so much now; now that they're closer to the communist utopia they worked for they are showing their true communist colors and acting like every communist party and government that came before them anywhere in the world.

I'm not quite sure you know what unmasking is. It's not a public reveal.

He knows better than you, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

My far-left Progressive and Democrat friends seem intent on ignoring the facts just recently concerning the now proven misconduct of the FBI and the prosecution of Gen. Flynn.

Allow me to re-enlighten you. It is my highlights in the following article.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn't conspire with Russian election interference
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, April 30, 2020

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

The Washington Times examined more than 900 pages of FBI investigations and witness interviews and found no hint that Flynn ever colluded or attempted to collude with anyone while he served as an adviser for the Trump campaign.

Sidney Powell, his attorney, said Thursday that 11 pages of freshly unsealed DOJ files will help her argument that prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from his defense despite a judge’s order.

Department of Justice investigations: Flynn didn’t conspire with Russian election interference

Two lengthy Department of Justice investigations show there never was evidence that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn conspired in any way in Russian election interference, a fact now coming into play in his bid to have a federal judge throw out his false statements case.

www.washingtontimes.com

###

Turley: McCabe’s “Bizarre” Defense Notwithstanding, The FBI Had No Business Targeting Flynn
ED MORRISSEY Posted at 4:01 pm on May 8, 2020
[...]
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing ”

So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.

Turley: McCabe's "bizarre" defense notwithstanding, the FBI had no business targeting Flynn

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of

hotair.com

Keep in mind that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were lovers.

Right, Flynn was part of the payoff on the investment the russians made with their propaganda campaign.

I'm not quite sure you know what unmasking is. It's not a public reveal.

Very true, where the felony comes in is the LEAKING of that person's name to the public.

Just unamasking without a lawful purpose is illegal. It's clear these Obama hacks were engaged in political snooping. All the people unmasked were Republicans.