General Flynn Wasn’t The Only One

Putting an admitted liar on a pedestal. Again.
I said nothing about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, nor Hussein Obama!!!!
ah damn it PC, you're making too much sense yet again. these people don't care about the truth or facts.
As I see it, you're making a hero out of a liar. Seems to be a pattern with 'you' people.
what did he lie about? you have no idea. Again, are you saying no one ever was coerced into saying they were guilty of something?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Somehow, The Washington Post had uncovered Michael Flynn’s secret. Somehow, it had learned that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador the same day the Obama administration announced hefty sanctions on the country.

Now the question was raised: Had the incoming national security adviser undermined the sanctions?

Flynn was in trouble.

“What the hell is this all about?” Trump fumed to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus called Flynn. The boss is angry, he told Flynn. “Kill the story,” he said.

Flynn, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who grew close to Trump on the campaign trail, knew it was true. Just weeks before, he had indeed discussed the sanctions and persuaded the Kremlin not to escalate the situation. But feeling the pressure of Trump’s anger after Priebus’ call, Flynn turned to his deputy.

Call the Post, Flynn said. Tell them there were no sanctions discussions. Even though she knew better, the aide, K.T. McFarland, did as she was told.

It was the first lie about Flynn’s Russia contacts. It wouldn’t be the last.
___

Over the next few days, Flynn repeated the lie to Priebus and others in the White House. No sanctions discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he told Mike Pence, the vice president-elect. He said the same to press secretary Sean Spicer. And they parroted that to the public.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said during a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS “Face the Nation.

The denials set off alarm bells at the Justice Department.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, and other senior officials knew the comments weren’t true. U.S. intelligence agencies, which routinely monitor the communications of foreign diplomats, had learned of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak when analyzing the Kremlin’s response to the sanctions. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Flynn’s relationship with Russia.

Yates worried that Flynn’s lie could put him and other U.S. officials in a compromising position because the Russians could prove the American public had been misled. There was also an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, of which Flynn’s calls were now a part of the mounting evidence.

The Justice Department’s concerns only increased when, after Trump’s inauguration and Flynn’s appointment as the nation’s top national security aide, Spicer gave his first press briefing. He had spoken with Flynn the night before, he told reporters.

The Kislyak calls weren’t about sanctions, he said. Next question.

___

Two FBI agents walked into the White House the next day. It was Jan. 24, 2017, and they were there to talk to Flynn.

One of them was Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence official who would later face scrutiny for his anti-Trump comments. Flynn agreed to talk with them, and when asked, denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.

He also lied about a follow-up phone call and another matter: On Dec. 21, 2016, when Egypt pushed a resolution at the United Nations critical of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to Flynn to push for the Kremlin to oppose the move. Flynn had unsuccessfully pressured Kislyak on the issue. But he told the agents otherwise.

News of the false statements to the FBI— a crime under federal law— quickly made it to Yates, who on Jan. 26, called White House counsel Don McGahn. She needed to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a meeting with McGahn and another White House lawyer later that day, Yates told him that Pence’s comments about Flynn weren’t true. Also, Flynn’s FBI interview hadn’t gone well.

McGahn, not entirely swayed by Yates, asked the National Security Council’s legal adviser, John Eisenberg, to look into the matter. He also went to Trump.

The president told him to work with Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon to look into it further. He added: Don’t discuss this with anyone else.

“Not again, this guy, this stuff,” Trump told Priebus, referring to Flynn.

___

Over the next week and a half, Eisenberg and McGahn gathered more information, and Flynn had a one-on-one with Trump in the Oval Office. What did you talk about with Kislyak? Trump asked. Flynn acknowledged he might have discussed sanctions.

Days later, the front page of The Washington Post would say the same thing.

The story shook Pence, who had been in the dark. A review of Justice Department documents sealed it. Flynn couldn’t have just forgotten. He had lied. McGahn and Priebus told Trump he had to fire Flynn.

That weekend, Flynn flew to Mar-A-Lago with the president. On the plane back to Washington on Feb. 12, Trump asked him whether he lied to Pence. Flynn said he may have forgotten some things but denied lying. “OK. That’s fine,” Trump responded. “I got it.”

The next day, Flynn was out.
 
Brady defends Flynn!!!

"Who was Brady, anyhow? We ask because of the incredible evidence “suggesting,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it, that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from General Michael Flynn when President Trump’s first national security adviser was being maneuvered into the guilty plea that he is now trying to withdraw. The obligation of prosecutors to disclose exculpatory material is called the “Brady Rule.” Hence our question.


It turns out that John Leo Brady was a 25-year-old murderer from Maryland. He entered the pantheon of precedent because of a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, decided in 1963. Brady and a 24-year-old companion were convicted of murdering a man they knew, William Brooks. The prosecution withheld from Brady’s defense that his companion had not only admitted doing the killing but also that he’d done it alone.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, decided that Brady’s due process right had been violated. It gave him a new sentencing hearing, which spared him the death sentence he was originally given and jailed him for life. Brady eventually was paroled. The precedent, though, has been in use since and the rule has even, in some jurisdictions (including New York) been tightened.



The thing that gets us here is the failure of the liberal press. It has long loved the Brady Rule. The New York Times has been particularly eloquent when it comes to Brady violations by, say, prosecutors in New Orleans. On the 50th anniversary of Brady, the Times backed “open files reform,” under which prosecutors’ files would be generally opened. Yet Brady abuses in the Flynn case have found the liberal papers loath to speak up for their own principles in the Trump era.” The Flynn Case: Liberal Press Fails To Speak Up for Its Own Principles
Interesting bit of history but you failed to connect the dots. What exculpatory evidence did the FBI withhold?
 
"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," the notes reveal.” Unsealed Notes Reveal FBI Planned Perjury Trap For Flynn
Of course he could have avoided the trap by telling the TRUTH. What an absurd idea.


He did tell the truth.

So said the original FBI investigators, you dope.
Nope. Flynn lied. Said he didn’t talk sanctions with the ambassador. There’s tape of him doing just that.

It’s a lie.
 
WTF is taking Barr and Durham so long? The indictments should have been issued by now for the obvious crimes.
The defense attorneys can delay and delay so that the deep state criminals escape justice.
As Trey Gowdy said yesterday, there will be no indictments.
Its because senate intelligence confirmed: Russia helped Trump.


What a stupid thing to say.....

Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.

Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????


QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
No country is monolithic, except for perhaps North Korea due to mind control.
Although Putin's approval in Russia is high (69 percent), there are still nearly a third of the country doesnt like him.
Just like not everybody here likes Trump or Obama.
The most famous Putin critic in Russia is Garry Kasparov chess player.

Audit of FBI found that they knew Russia was injecting disinformation into Steele's dossier.
Steele's sources in russia were russian dissidents, some of them living outside of Russia.
And russia poisoned them, ie: Sergi Skripal.

The Steele dossier came to be, because of efforts of opponents in the 2016 election: hired british agent Steele to work on it.
Read up: why Putin hates Hillary.
 
Putting an admitted liar on a pedestal. Again.
I said nothing about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, nor Hussein Obama!!!!
ah damn it PC, you're making too much sense yet again. these people don't care about the truth or facts.
As I see it, you're making a hero out of a liar. Seems to be a pattern with 'you' people.
what did he lie about? you have no idea. Again, are you saying no one ever was coerced into saying they were guilty of something?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Somehow, The Washington Post had uncovered Michael Flynn’s secret. Somehow, it had learned that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador the same day the Obama administration announced hefty sanctions on the country.

Now the question was raised: Had the incoming national security adviser undermined the sanctions?

Flynn was in trouble.

“What the hell is this all about?” Trump fumed to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus called Flynn. The boss is angry, he told Flynn. “Kill the story,” he said.

Flynn, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who grew close to Trump on the campaign trail, knew it was true. Just weeks before, he had indeed discussed the sanctions and persuaded the Kremlin not to escalate the situation. But feeling the pressure of Trump’s anger after Priebus’ call, Flynn turned to his deputy.

Call the Post, Flynn said. Tell them there were no sanctions discussions. Even though she knew better, the aide, K.T. McFarland, did as she was told.

It was the first lie about Flynn’s Russia contacts. It wouldn’t be the last.
___

Over the next few days, Flynn repeated the lie to Priebus and others in the White House. No sanctions discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he told Mike Pence, the vice president-elect. He said the same to press secretary Sean Spicer. And they parroted that to the public.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said during a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS “Face the Nation.

The denials set off alarm bells at the Justice Department.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, and other senior officials knew the comments weren’t true. U.S. intelligence agencies, which routinely monitor the communications of foreign diplomats, had learned of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak when analyzing the Kremlin’s response to the sanctions. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Flynn’s relationship with Russia.

Yates worried that Flynn’s lie could put him and other U.S. officials in a compromising position because the Russians could prove the American public had been misled. There was also an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, of which Flynn’s calls were now a part of the mounting evidence.

The Justice Department’s concerns only increased when, after Trump’s inauguration and Flynn’s appointment as the nation’s top national security aide, Spicer gave his first press briefing. He had spoken with Flynn the night before, he told reporters.

The Kislyak calls weren’t about sanctions, he said. Next question.

___

Two FBI agents walked into the White House the next day. It was Jan. 24, 2017, and they were there to talk to Flynn.

One of them was Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence official who would later face scrutiny for his anti-Trump comments. Flynn agreed to talk with them, and when asked, denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.

He also lied about a follow-up phone call and another matter: On Dec. 21, 2016, when Egypt pushed a resolution at the United Nations critical of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to Flynn to push for the Kremlin to oppose the move. Flynn had unsuccessfully pressured Kislyak on the issue. But he told the agents otherwise.

News of the false statements to the FBI— a crime under federal law— quickly made it to Yates, who on Jan. 26, called White House counsel Don McGahn. She needed to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a meeting with McGahn and another White House lawyer later that day, Yates told him that Pence’s comments about Flynn weren’t true. Also, Flynn’s FBI interview hadn’t gone well.

McGahn, not entirely swayed by Yates, asked the National Security Council’s legal adviser, John Eisenberg, to look into the matter. He also went to Trump.

The president told him to work with Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon to look into it further. He added: Don’t discuss this with anyone else.

“Not again, this guy, this stuff,” Trump told Priebus, referring to Flynn.

___

Over the next week and a half, Eisenberg and McGahn gathered more information, and Flynn had a one-on-one with Trump in the Oval Office. What did you talk about with Kislyak? Trump asked. Flynn acknowledged he might have discussed sanctions.

Days later, the front page of The Washington Post would say the same thing.

The story shook Pence, who had been in the dark. A review of Justice Department documents sealed it. Flynn couldn’t have just forgotten. He had lied. McGahn and Priebus told Trump he had to fire Flynn.

That weekend, Flynn flew to Mar-A-Lago with the president. On the plane back to Washington on Feb. 12, Trump asked him whether he lied to Pence. Flynn said he may have forgotten some things but denied lying. “OK. That’s fine,” Trump responded. “I got it.”

The next day, Flynn was out.
As much as some of us appreciate them, those kinds of detailed recitations of the facts have no effect on lying sacks of shit like politcalchic.
 
...or, the practical application of evil.


1.As a child, and I don’t believe that I was alone in this, I believed in people being honest. And ‘honest,’ meaning telling the truth even when it weighed against their own interests.
Early on, reality, and experience, was like an inoculation: painful, but necessary. This was the lesson one learns: there are great swaths of individuals for whom their own interests are supreme. No matter the damage, the pain, they cause.

It is summed up in this cavalier adage of the Left: “One has to break some eggs to make an omelet.”
The 20th century resulted in over 100 million ‘eggs’ being broken,….and those deaths met with a shrug on the Left.



2. We’ve learned that the Left is still at it….and General Flynn is but one of their victims.

“The Department of Justice has released new documents relating to the FBI's so-called case against former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Handwritten FBI notes reveal the FBI's strategy ahead of their Jan. 24, 2017 interview with Flynn. The notes, reportedly belonging to Jim Baker, reveal the FBI was planning a perjury trap for the retired three-star general as part of their investigation into the now-debunked allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," the notes reveal.” Unsealed Notes Reveal FBI Planned Perjury Trap For Flynn



3. No lie, plot, ploy, scheme is too indecent for these savages. Ruin an American hero, bankrupt him, threaten his family…..all for the cause. But this sort of evil is not reserved for Flynn, or Trump. It is for anyone who opposes them or their interests. I bet few know of the same sort of attack on Trevor FitzGibbon.
The following cautionary tale is how certain Democrats destroyed Fitzgibbon, and who perpetrated it……and listen for the echo of what is happening to Biden.



4. Fitzgibbon, a longtime Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, wrote this: “I have spent the majority of my adult life working to oppose war, genocide, and supporting courageous whistleblowers. In 2002 I left my job as an environmental organizer to help lead the national PR effort to push back against the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. In 2007 I worked with active-duty American soldiers who called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq — an effort featured on 60 Minutes.

My clients included Julian Assange’s Legal Defense Fund, PR support for Edward Snowden’s initial disclosures, and the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador (before they sold out JA).”
A lesson in “The Smear” | Sharyl Attkisson


5. Leading to this…
“WASHINGTON — A trove of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department on Monday …. one email after rejecting concerns from an inspector general that it contained classified information….That email, released along with 7,800 pages of messages that Mrs. Clinton sent and received when she was secretary of state, was an exchange between P. J. Crowley, at the time a State Department spokesman, and Scott Shane, a reporter for The New York Times, concerning decisions the newspaper had made about publishing information from government documents it had obtained from WikiLeaks.”
Clinton Email Is Released After Security Concern Is Dismissed



What happens to someone whose livelihood happens to impinge on the Clintons?

Next.

No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.

Is that simple for you... If you lie, it is your fault... Flynn was asked a question, he lied in the answer, the FBI figured he would lie, because not lying would make him guilty of another crime.


This is how Police have been operating for years... The problem with the Trumpsters support for Flynn release is that the case is full with redactions. But I have said if they want to unredact the whole court case and evidence I would be willing to look at letting Flynn walk. FBI was willing, it was the judge who saw the whole case that stopped it...
 
...or, the practical application of evil.


1.As a child, and I don’t believe that I was alone in this, I believed in people being honest. And ‘honest,’ meaning telling the truth even when it weighed against their own interests.
Early on, reality, and experience, was like an inoculation: painful, but necessary. This was the lesson one learns: there are great swaths of individuals for whom their own interests are supreme. No matter the damage, the pain, they cause.

It is summed up in this cavalier adage of the Left: “One has to break some eggs to make an omelet.”
The 20th century resulted in over 100 million ‘eggs’ being broken,….and those deaths met with a shrug on the Left.



2. We’ve learned that the Left is still at it….and General Flynn is but one of their victims.

“The Department of Justice has released new documents relating to the FBI's so-called case against former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Handwritten FBI notes reveal the FBI's strategy ahead of their Jan. 24, 2017 interview with Flynn. The notes, reportedly belonging to Jim Baker, reveal the FBI was planning a perjury trap for the retired three-star general as part of their investigation into the now-debunked allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," the notes reveal.” Unsealed Notes Reveal FBI Planned Perjury Trap For Flynn



3. No lie, plot, ploy, scheme is too indecent for these savages. Ruin an American hero, bankrupt him, threaten his family…..all for the cause. But this sort of evil is not reserved for Flynn, or Trump. It is for anyone who opposes them or their interests. I bet few know of the same sort of attack on Trevor FitzGibbon.
The following cautionary tale is how certain Democrats destroyed Fitzgibbon, and who perpetrated it……and listen for the echo of what is happening to Biden.



4. Fitzgibbon, a longtime Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, wrote this: “I have spent the majority of my adult life working to oppose war, genocide, and supporting courageous whistleblowers. In 2002 I left my job as an environmental organizer to help lead the national PR effort to push back against the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. In 2007 I worked with active-duty American soldiers who called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq — an effort featured on 60 Minutes.

My clients included Julian Assange’s Legal Defense Fund, PR support for Edward Snowden’s initial disclosures, and the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador (before they sold out JA).”
A lesson in “The Smear” | Sharyl Attkisson


5. Leading to this…
“WASHINGTON — A trove of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department on Monday …. one email after rejecting concerns from an inspector general that it contained classified information….That email, released along with 7,800 pages of messages that Mrs. Clinton sent and received when she was secretary of state, was an exchange between P. J. Crowley, at the time a State Department spokesman, and Scott Shane, a reporter for The New York Times, concerning decisions the newspaper had made about publishing information from government documents it had obtained from WikiLeaks.”
Clinton Email Is Released After Security Concern Is Dismissed



What happens to someone whose livelihood happens to impinge on the Clintons?

Next.

No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.

Is that simple for you... If you lie, it is your fault... Flynn was asked a question, he lied in the answer, the FBI figured he would lie, because not lying would make him guilty of another crime.


This is how Police have been operating for years... The problem with the Trumpsters support for Flynn release is that the case is full with redactions. But I have said if they want to unredact the whole court case and evidence I would be willing to look at letting Flynn walk. FBI was willing, it was the judge who saw the whole case that stopped it...



For your reading displeasure.



Who was Brady, anyhow? We ask because of the incredible evidence “suggesting,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it, that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from General Michael Flynn when President Trump’s first national security adviser was being maneuvered into the guilty plea that he is now trying to withdraw. The obligation of prosecutors to disclose exculpatory material is called the “Brady Rule.” Hence our question.

It turns out that John Leo Brady was a 25-year-old murderer from Maryland. He entered the pantheon of precedent because of a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, decided in 1963. Brady and a 24-year-old companion were convicted of murdering a man they knew, William Brooks. The prosecution withheld from Brady’s defense that his companion had not only admitted doing the killing but also that he’d done it alone.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, decided that Brady’s due process right had been violated. It gave him a new sentencing hearing, which spared him the death sentence he was originally given and jailed him for life. Brady eventually was paroled. The precedent, though, has been in use since and the rule has even, in some jurisdictions (including New York) been tightened.

The thing that gets us here is the failure of the liberal press. It has long loved the Brady Rule. The New York Times has been particularly eloquent when it comes to Brady violations by, say, prosecutors in New Orleans. On the 50th anniversary of Brady, the Times backed “open files reform,” under which prosecutors’ files would be generally opened. Yet Brady abuses in the Flynn case have found the liberal papers loath to speak up for their own principles in the Trump era.” The Flynn Case: Liberal Press Fails To Speak Up for Its Own Principles
 
They threatened his son if he didn't cop.

Win at any cost.....the motto of your side.

And since the aim of the Left is to destroy the concept of family, you won't understand Flynn's motivation.
They offered to let Flynn's son off the hook for his son's part in the conspiracy if papa would own up to what he did.

Is this the Right's view of family values?


What law did he break and what statements of his prove that?
You're welcome to Google the details but, as I recall, he met with some Russians and, when asked about it by the Feds, as part of a collusion investigation, he denied it. The Feds had a smoking gun so when they gave him a chance to admit it under oath, he chose to commit perjury instead and they had him.
well see, that's where it gets grey area. The point of the questioning was if he met russians for a meeting. he didn't. He met a russian out at a dinner or something with others. And the point of questioning was about a meeting. but fk, you just hate him because he worked for trump so facts aren't important to you. BTW, nor was he under oath.
I guess no one would ever discuss business at a dinner, especially since these Russians were, I presume, childhood friends of Flynn so a diner would be a purely person event.

I don't know about the oath stuff but I'm pretty sure you don't lie to the FBI either way since that would obstruct their investigation
he was told it wasn't a formal discussion, no need for an attorney. Doesn't matter, the question was whether or not he set up to meet with russians and he hadn't met with any. They didn't ask him have you had dinner with any.
False. He was never told anything of the sort.
 
Putting an admitted liar on a pedestal. Again.
I said nothing about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, nor Hussein Obama!!!!
ah damn it PC, you're making too much sense yet again. these people don't care about the truth or facts.
As I see it, you're making a hero out of a liar. Seems to be a pattern with 'you' people.
what did he lie about? you have no idea. Again, are you saying no one ever was coerced into saying they were guilty of something?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Somehow, The Washington Post had uncovered Michael Flynn’s secret. Somehow, it had learned that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador the same day the Obama administration announced hefty sanctions on the country.

Now the question was raised: Had the incoming national security adviser undermined the sanctions?

Flynn was in trouble.

“What the hell is this all about?” Trump fumed to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus called Flynn. The boss is angry, he told Flynn. “Kill the story,” he said.

Flynn, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who grew close to Trump on the campaign trail, knew it was true. Just weeks before, he had indeed discussed the sanctions and persuaded the Kremlin not to escalate the situation. But feeling the pressure of Trump’s anger after Priebus’ call, Flynn turned to his deputy.

Call the Post, Flynn said. Tell them there were no sanctions discussions. Even though she knew better, the aide, K.T. McFarland, did as she was told.

It was the first lie about Flynn’s Russia contacts. It wouldn’t be the last.
___

Over the next few days, Flynn repeated the lie to Priebus and others in the White House. No sanctions discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he told Mike Pence, the vice president-elect. He said the same to press secretary Sean Spicer. And they parroted that to the public.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said during a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS “Face the Nation.

The denials set off alarm bells at the Justice Department.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, and other senior officials knew the comments weren’t true. U.S. intelligence agencies, which routinely monitor the communications of foreign diplomats, had learned of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak when analyzing the Kremlin’s response to the sanctions. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Flynn’s relationship with Russia.

Yates worried that Flynn’s lie could put him and other U.S. officials in a compromising position because the Russians could prove the American public had been misled. There was also an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, of which Flynn’s calls were now a part of the mounting evidence.

The Justice Department’s concerns only increased when, after Trump’s inauguration and Flynn’s appointment as the nation’s top national security aide, Spicer gave his first press briefing. He had spoken with Flynn the night before, he told reporters.

The Kislyak calls weren’t about sanctions, he said. Next question.

___

Two FBI agents walked into the White House the next day. It was Jan. 24, 2017, and they were there to talk to Flynn.

One of them was Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence official who would later face scrutiny for his anti-Trump comments. Flynn agreed to talk with them, and when asked, denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.

He also lied about a follow-up phone call and another matter: On Dec. 21, 2016, when Egypt pushed a resolution at the United Nations critical of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to Flynn to push for the Kremlin to oppose the move. Flynn had unsuccessfully pressured Kislyak on the issue. But he told the agents otherwise.

News of the false statements to the FBI— a crime under federal law— quickly made it to Yates, who on Jan. 26, called White House counsel Don McGahn. She needed to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a meeting with McGahn and another White House lawyer later that day, Yates told him that Pence’s comments about Flynn weren’t true. Also, Flynn’s FBI interview hadn’t gone well.

McGahn, not entirely swayed by Yates, asked the National Security Council’s legal adviser, John Eisenberg, to look into the matter. He also went to Trump.

The president told him to work with Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon to look into it further. He added: Don’t discuss this with anyone else.

“Not again, this guy, this stuff,” Trump told Priebus, referring to Flynn.

___

Over the next week and a half, Eisenberg and McGahn gathered more information, and Flynn had a one-on-one with Trump in the Oval Office. What did you talk about with Kislyak? Trump asked. Flynn acknowledged he might have discussed sanctions.

Days later, the front page of The Washington Post would say the same thing.

The story shook Pence, who had been in the dark. A review of Justice Department documents sealed it. Flynn couldn’t have just forgotten. He had lied. McGahn and Priebus told Trump he had to fire Flynn.

That weekend, Flynn flew to Mar-A-Lago with the president. On the plane back to Washington on Feb. 12, Trump asked him whether he lied to Pence. Flynn said he may have forgotten some things but denied lying. “OK. That’s fine,” Trump responded. “I got it.”

The next day, Flynn was out.
As much as some of us appreciate them, those kinds of detailed recitations of the facts have no effect on lying sacks of shit like politcalchic.
it's a story, one that has nothing to do with flynn and the FBI.
 
Putting an admitted liar on a pedestal. Again.
I said nothing about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, nor Hussein Obama!!!!
ah damn it PC, you're making too much sense yet again. these people don't care about the truth or facts.
As I see it, you're making a hero out of a liar. Seems to be a pattern with 'you' people.
what did he lie about? you have no idea. Again, are you saying no one ever was coerced into saying they were guilty of something?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Somehow, The Washington Post had uncovered Michael Flynn’s secret. Somehow, it had learned that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador the same day the Obama administration announced hefty sanctions on the country.

Now the question was raised: Had the incoming national security adviser undermined the sanctions?

Flynn was in trouble.

“What the hell is this all about?” Trump fumed to his chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Priebus called Flynn. The boss is angry, he told Flynn. “Kill the story,” he said.

Flynn, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who grew close to Trump on the campaign trail, knew it was true. Just weeks before, he had indeed discussed the sanctions and persuaded the Kremlin not to escalate the situation. But feeling the pressure of Trump’s anger after Priebus’ call, Flynn turned to his deputy.

Call the Post, Flynn said. Tell them there were no sanctions discussions. Even though she knew better, the aide, K.T. McFarland, did as she was told.

It was the first lie about Flynn’s Russia contacts. It wouldn’t be the last.
___

Over the next few days, Flynn repeated the lie to Priebus and others in the White House. No sanctions discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he told Mike Pence, the vice president-elect. He said the same to press secretary Sean Spicer. And they parroted that to the public.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said during a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS “Face the Nation.

The denials set off alarm bells at the Justice Department.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, and other senior officials knew the comments weren’t true. U.S. intelligence agencies, which routinely monitor the communications of foreign diplomats, had learned of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak when analyzing the Kremlin’s response to the sanctions. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Flynn’s relationship with Russia.

Yates worried that Flynn’s lie could put him and other U.S. officials in a compromising position because the Russians could prove the American public had been misled. There was also an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia, of which Flynn’s calls were now a part of the mounting evidence.

The Justice Department’s concerns only increased when, after Trump’s inauguration and Flynn’s appointment as the nation’s top national security aide, Spicer gave his first press briefing. He had spoken with Flynn the night before, he told reporters.

The Kislyak calls weren’t about sanctions, he said. Next question.

___

Two FBI agents walked into the White House the next day. It was Jan. 24, 2017, and they were there to talk to Flynn.

One of them was Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence official who would later face scrutiny for his anti-Trump comments. Flynn agreed to talk with them, and when asked, denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.

He also lied about a follow-up phone call and another matter: On Dec. 21, 2016, when Egypt pushed a resolution at the United Nations critical of Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner turned to Flynn to push for the Kremlin to oppose the move. Flynn had unsuccessfully pressured Kislyak on the issue. But he told the agents otherwise.

News of the false statements to the FBI— a crime under federal law— quickly made it to Yates, who on Jan. 26, called White House counsel Don McGahn. She needed to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a meeting with McGahn and another White House lawyer later that day, Yates told him that Pence’s comments about Flynn weren’t true. Also, Flynn’s FBI interview hadn’t gone well.

McGahn, not entirely swayed by Yates, asked the National Security Council’s legal adviser, John Eisenberg, to look into the matter. He also went to Trump.

The president told him to work with Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon to look into it further. He added: Don’t discuss this with anyone else.

“Not again, this guy, this stuff,” Trump told Priebus, referring to Flynn.

___

Over the next week and a half, Eisenberg and McGahn gathered more information, and Flynn had a one-on-one with Trump in the Oval Office. What did you talk about with Kislyak? Trump asked. Flynn acknowledged he might have discussed sanctions.

Days later, the front page of The Washington Post would say the same thing.

The story shook Pence, who had been in the dark. A review of Justice Department documents sealed it. Flynn couldn’t have just forgotten. He had lied. McGahn and Priebus told Trump he had to fire Flynn.

That weekend, Flynn flew to Mar-A-Lago with the president. On the plane back to Washington on Feb. 12, Trump asked him whether he lied to Pence. Flynn said he may have forgotten some things but denied lying. “OK. That’s fine,” Trump responded. “I got it.”

The next day, Flynn was out.



What, exactly, was he 'in trouble' for?
 
...or, the practical application of evil.


1.As a child, and I don’t believe that I was alone in this, I believed in people being honest. And ‘honest,’ meaning telling the truth even when it weighed against their own interests.
Early on, reality, and experience, was like an inoculation: painful, but necessary. This was the lesson one learns: there are great swaths of individuals for whom their own interests are supreme. No matter the damage, the pain, they cause.

It is summed up in this cavalier adage of the Left: “One has to break some eggs to make an omelet.”
The 20th century resulted in over 100 million ‘eggs’ being broken,….and those deaths met with a shrug on the Left.



2. We’ve learned that the Left is still at it….and General Flynn is but one of their victims.

“The Department of Justice has released new documents relating to the FBI's so-called case against former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Handwritten FBI notes reveal the FBI's strategy ahead of their Jan. 24, 2017 interview with Flynn. The notes, reportedly belonging to Jim Baker, reveal the FBI was planning a perjury trap for the retired three-star general as part of their investigation into the now-debunked allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," the notes reveal.” Unsealed Notes Reveal FBI Planned Perjury Trap For Flynn



3. No lie, plot, ploy, scheme is too indecent for these savages. Ruin an American hero, bankrupt him, threaten his family…..all for the cause. But this sort of evil is not reserved for Flynn, or Trump. It is for anyone who opposes them or their interests. I bet few know of the same sort of attack on Trevor FitzGibbon.
The following cautionary tale is how certain Democrats destroyed Fitzgibbon, and who perpetrated it……and listen for the echo of what is happening to Biden.



4. Fitzgibbon, a longtime Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, wrote this: “I have spent the majority of my adult life working to oppose war, genocide, and supporting courageous whistleblowers. In 2002 I left my job as an environmental organizer to help lead the national PR effort to push back against the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. In 2007 I worked with active-duty American soldiers who called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq — an effort featured on 60 Minutes.

My clients included Julian Assange’s Legal Defense Fund, PR support for Edward Snowden’s initial disclosures, and the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador (before they sold out JA).”
A lesson in “The Smear” | Sharyl Attkisson


5. Leading to this…
“WASHINGTON — A trove of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department on Monday …. one email after rejecting concerns from an inspector general that it contained classified information….That email, released along with 7,800 pages of messages that Mrs. Clinton sent and received when she was secretary of state, was an exchange between P. J. Crowley, at the time a State Department spokesman, and Scott Shane, a reporter for The New York Times, concerning decisions the newspaper had made about publishing information from government documents it had obtained from WikiLeaks.”
Clinton Email Is Released After Security Concern Is Dismissed



What happens to someone whose livelihood happens to impinge on the Clintons?

Next.
A Trump supporter claiming they like people that tell the truth is just plain ridiculous.
 
Flynn lied and even admitted his guilt, but in this post-modern world things aren't as they are, they change and mutate and soon wrong doing becomes someone else's fault or another interpretation. Hillary had email, oh the horror, Trump abused women, boys will be boys. Depends on where you are or what you want to believe. Nothing is real. Imagine Truman or Eisenhower or Lincoln or FDR, what would they think of the post modern conservative apologist who changes reality before our eyes. The 'Pied Piper' still roams the world, only now he leads some away from order into the make believe where law is no longer law.

"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity." Simone Weil

"Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on. And it’s not a pretty picture. We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency; have complex taxonomies and classifications of ways in which we denigrate Thems; do so with a versatility that ranges from the minutest of microaggression to bloodbaths of savagery; and regularly decide what is inferior about Them based on pure emotion, followed by primitive rationalizations that we mistake for rationality. Pretty depressing."


'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst' by Robert M. Sapolsky

-"The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together." Hannah Arendt

Eh....he was certainly entrapped. The line of questioning was designed to get him.

Ahh

No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.

You see Flynn was asked questions and he lied... I say he could have pleaded the fifth and they would have got him on being an unregistered foreign agent while being in a National Security Advisor...

Flynn was extremely co-operative after he was found out and he sung like a canary about his dealings with the Trump campaign, the Trump Russian links and Russian interference... Unredact that and he should be free to walk...

There is no such thing as entrapment for perjury, lie to the cops it is on you no matter what the question...
 
Flynn lied and even admitted his guilt, but in this post-modern world things aren't as they are, they change and mutate and soon wrong doing becomes someone else's fault or another interpretation. Hillary had email, oh the horror, Trump abused women, boys will be boys. Depends on where you are or what you want to believe. Nothing is real. Imagine Truman or Eisenhower or Lincoln or FDR, what would they think of the post modern conservative apologist who changes reality before our eyes. The 'Pied Piper' still roams the world, only now he leads some away from order into the make believe where law is no longer law.

"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity." Simone Weil

"Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on. And it’s not a pretty picture. We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency; have complex taxonomies and classifications of ways in which we denigrate Thems; do so with a versatility that ranges from the minutest of microaggression to bloodbaths of savagery; and regularly decide what is inferior about Them based on pure emotion, followed by primitive rationalizations that we mistake for rationality. Pretty depressing."


'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst' by Robert M. Sapolsky

-"The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together." Hannah Arendt

Eh....he was certainly entrapped. The line of questioning was designed to get him.

Ahh

No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.

You see Flynn was asked questions and he lied... I say he could have pleaded the fifth and they would have got him on being an unregistered foreign agent while being in a National Security Advisor...

Flynn was extremely co-operative after he was found out and he sung like a canary about his dealings with the Trump campaign, the Trump Russian links and Russian interference... Unredact that and he should be free to walk...

There is no such thing as entrapment for perjury, lie to the cops it is on you no matter what the question...
If this is so cut and dry then why are people debating the merits of his arrest, conviction and imprisonment? Are you an attorney?
 
They threatened his son if he didn't cop.

Win at any cost.....the motto of your side.

And since the aim of the Left is to destroy the concept of family, you won't understand Flynn's motivation.
They offered to let Flynn's son off the hook for his son's part in the conspiracy if papa would own up to what he did.

Is this the Right's view of family values?


What law did he break and what statements of his prove that?
You're welcome to Google the details but, as I recall, he met with some Russians and, when asked about it by the Feds, as part of a collusion investigation, he denied it. The Feds had a smoking gun so when they gave him a chance to admit it under oath, he chose to commit perjury instead and they had him.
well see, that's where it gets grey area. The point of the questioning was if he met russians for a meeting. he didn't. He met a russian out at a dinner or something with others. And the point of questioning was about a meeting. but fk, you just hate him because he worked for trump so facts aren't important to you. BTW, nor was he under oath.
I guess no one would ever discuss business at a dinner, especially since these Russians were, I presume, childhood friends of Flynn so a diner would be a purely person event.

I don't know about the oath stuff but I'm pretty sure you don't lie to the FBI either way since that would obstruct their investigation
he was told it wasn't a formal discussion, no need for an attorney. Doesn't matter, the question was whether or not he set up to meet with russians and he hadn't met with any. They didn't ask him have you had dinner with any.
False. He was never told anything of the sort.
and yet there's this

 
Flynn lied and even admitted his guilt, but in this post-modern world things aren't as they are, they change and mutate and soon wrong doing becomes someone else's fault or another interpretation. Hillary had email, oh the horror, Trump abused women, boys will be boys. Depends on where you are or what you want to believe. Nothing is real. Imagine Truman or Eisenhower or Lincoln or FDR, what would they think of the post modern conservative apologist who changes reality before our eyes. The 'Pied Piper' still roams the world, only now he leads some away from order into the make believe where law is no longer law.

"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil, but as necessity." Simone Weil

"Humans universally make Us/Them dichotomies along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, language group, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and so on. And it’s not a pretty picture. We do so with remarkable speed and neurobiological efficiency; have complex taxonomies and classifications of ways in which we denigrate Thems; do so with a versatility that ranges from the minutest of microaggression to bloodbaths of savagery; and regularly decide what is inferior about Them based on pure emotion, followed by primitive rationalizations that we mistake for rationality. Pretty depressing."


'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst' by Robert M. Sapolsky

-"The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together." Hannah Arendt

Eh....he was certainly entrapped. The line of questioning was designed to get him.

Ahh

No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.

You see Flynn was asked questions and he lied... I say he could have pleaded the fifth and they would have got him on being an unregistered foreign agent while being in a National Security Advisor...

Flynn was extremely co-operative after he was found out and he sung like a canary about his dealings with the Trump campaign, the Trump Russian links and Russian interference... Unredact that and he should be free to walk...

There is no such thing as entrapment for perjury, lie to the cops it is on you no matter what the question...
someone, initials PC, already provided the supreme court case. Name was Brady.
 
Brady defends Flynn!!!

"Who was Brady, anyhow? We ask because of the incredible evidence “suggesting,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it, that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from General Michael Flynn when President Trump’s first national security adviser was being maneuvered into the guilty plea that he is now trying to withdraw. The obligation of prosecutors to disclose exculpatory material is called the “Brady Rule.” Hence our question.


It turns out that John Leo Brady was a 25-year-old murderer from Maryland. He entered the pantheon of precedent because of a Supreme Court case called Brady v. Maryland, decided in 1963. Brady and a 24-year-old companion were convicted of murdering a man they knew, William Brooks. The prosecution withheld from Brady’s defense that his companion had not only admitted doing the killing but also that he’d done it alone.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, decided that Brady’s due process right had been violated. It gave him a new sentencing hearing, which spared him the death sentence he was originally given and jailed him for life. Brady eventually was paroled. The precedent, though, has been in use since and the rule has even, in some jurisdictions (including New York) been tightened.



The thing that gets us here is the failure of the liberal press. It has long loved the Brady Rule. The New York Times has been particularly eloquent when it comes to Brady violations by, say, prosecutors in New Orleans. On the 50th anniversary of Brady, the Times backed “open files reform,” under which prosecutors’ files would be generally opened. Yet Brady abuses in the Flynn case have found the liberal papers loath to speak up for their own principles in the Trump era.” The Flynn Case: Liberal Press Fails To Speak Up for Its Own Principles
Interesting bit of history but you failed to connect the dots. What exculpatory evidence did the FBI withhold?


The agents said he didn't lie.


"Wait–The FBI Agents Who Interviewed Michael Flynn Didn't Think He Lied To Them?
The Department of Justice became involved, as Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates felt that the Flynn-Kislyak conversations were possibly illegal, prompting two FBI agents to interview Flynn on January 24, 2017. They reported back to then-FBI Director James Comey and noted that they felt Flynn did not lie to them.

The point that York and others have mentioned is that his conversations with Kislyak were not illegal. Nothing wrong occurred. Where he did land in hot water was when he wasn’t fully forthcoming about the calls to Vice President Mike Pence (via Washington Examiner):

Despite the high level of classification, word of the Justice Department's concerns got to the press. On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Flynn and Kislyak had talked. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius asked. "The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about 'disputes' with the United States. Was its spirit violated?"
Three days later, on Jan. 15, Vice President-elect Mike Pence (remember, this was all happening before the Trump administration took office) denied that Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador. "They [Flynn and Kislyak] did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence told CBS."
 
"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," the notes reveal.” Unsealed Notes Reveal FBI Planned Perjury Trap For Flynn
Of course he could have avoided the trap by telling the TRUTH. What an absurd idea.


He did tell the truth.

So said the original FBI investigators, you dope.
Nope. Flynn lied. Said he didn’t talk sanctions with the ambassador. There’s tape of him doing just that.

It’s a lie.


Nope. Flynn didn't lie......the FBI did.

And, of course.....you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top