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

[Leo123]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

 

[MisterBeale]

I have to say, I really did not know a lot about the recent developments on this issue, but, I read a lot of articles on both sides, and read arguments from both sides.

After reading this thread, and all that has come out?

Whomever is paying Slade3200 to post his agitprop? I have to warn them, he is over-charging you.

If, OTH, Slade? If you actually believe the tripe you write at this point?

Here, I hope this helps. . . before you get that, er. . . kick. . . as it were;

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

And that's why his lies were not material.

Of course they are material, I honestly can’t explain it in any simpler terms. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t take another turn on the broken record of stupidity with you.

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

 

[Leo123]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

And that's why his lies were not material.

Of course they are material, I honestly can’t explain it in any simpler terms. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t take another turn on the broken record of stupidity with you.

Of course they are material,

Then you can explain how they damaged a legitimate criminal investigation......go!

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

And that's why his lies were not material.

Of course they are material, I honestly can’t explain it in any simpler terms. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t take another turn on the broken record of stupidity with you.

Of course they are material,

Then you can explain how they damaged a legitimate criminal investigation......go!

They don’t need to damage an investigation. When people are being interviewed and lie about things it wastes time and resources and it obstructs the investigation. there is a penalty because facts that may seem insignificant to the person being questioned may be relevant to the case. So you don’t lie! ThTs why the law is the law. You don’t get to pick and choose in hindsight

 

[Leo123]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

What point do you want to discuss? Let’s do one at a time. Go ahead

 

[Leo123]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

What point do you want to discuss? Let’s do one at a time. Go ahead

All of them, apparently you are a one trick pony. I posted more than one point. 12 to be exact. None of which you have addressed in any way shape or form. I even linked it for you. I think each bullet point has a link. But I realize your 'Orange Man Bad' brainwashing prohibits you from logical thinking.

 

[Slade3200]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

What point do you want to discuss? Let’s do one at a time. Go ahead

All of them, apparently you are a one trick pony. I posted more than one point. 12 to be exact. None of which you have addressed in any way shape or form. I even linked it for you. I think each bullet point has a link. But I realize your 'Orange Man Bad' brainwashing prohibits you from logical thinking.

I’m just not one to write novels as posts on this board. Shit gets lost and overlooked that way. How about you pick a specific point you want me to address and I’ll address it.

 

[Leo123]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

What point do you want to discuss? Let’s do one at a time. Go ahead

All of them, apparently you are a one trick pony. I posted more than one point. 12 to be exact. None of which you have addressed in any way shape or form. I even linked it for you. I think each bullet point has a link. But I realize your 'Orange Man Bad' brainwashing prohibits you from logical thinking.

I’m just not one to write novels as posts on this board. Shit gets lost and overlooked that way. How about you pick a specific point you want me to address and I’ll address it.

Cherry picking again? Are you not capable more than one thought at a time?

 

[iceberg]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

We're not discussing cops just 'talking' to people.

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

There was nothing illegal in the phone call. No legitimate reason to ask him about the call.

You're talking in circles Todd, we’ve been through this. You’re point does not land. Cops can talk to people with whom they don’t have evidence of crimes

Nice cherry picking and ignoring all the other exculpatory evidence.

During normal conversations you make actual counter arguments by bringing up the stuff your accusing me of leaving out so I can then respond in agreement or disagreement on whether it’s relevant.

You're cherry picking again. Why can't you consider all the evidence I have shown you? You seem to zero in on esoteric information that bolsters your arguments. It makes me think you are just being contrary only for the sake of arguing.

What point do you want me to acknowledge Leo? That the FBI wanted to catch Flynn in a lie to use it as leverage to get more information? Cause that definitely happened. You think it is the signal of some deep state conspiracy to overthrow the president. I don’t. Am I missing something else?

Yes. The fact you can't see what was going on speaks volumes about your bias. You missed most everything and did not address any of the points I posted.

What point do you want to discuss? Let’s do one at a time. Go ahead

All of them, apparently you are a one trick pony. I posted more than one point. 12 to be exact. None of which you have addressed in any way shape or form. I even linked it for you. I think each bullet point has a link. But I realize your 'Orange Man Bad' brainwashing prohibits you from logical thinking.

I’m just not one to write novels as posts on this board. Shit gets lost and overlooked that way. How about you pick a specific point you want me to address and I’ll address it.

i tried that once. you gave me a generic bulletpoint and didn't bother reading the details, you know - where the devil is.

good to see you've not changed. DEBATE SLADE WITH HEADLINES AS HE CAN'T COMPREHEND DETAILS!

 

[iceberg]

now -

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

no russian hacking of DNC per crowdstrike.

that's gonna leave a mark.

queue "ZEROHEDGE LIES!!!!" maybe. but since we can be selective in when to get angry about that, i'm choosing not to get angry here and ask "is it true"?

is it? is there no evidence of hacking? if not, RUSSIA fades away even more.

let the bodies hit the floor.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes.

I wonder if Flynn will even be pardon at all by Trump?

NO need... Flynn has been exonerated...

"Exonerated??"

He's still a convicted felon.

LOL...

The DOJ has asked to have the plea expunged and the prosecution abandoned for cause. (which means the prosecutors were engaging in criminal misconduct)

 

[Faun]

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

That makes bo sense

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

If you could just shut the media's mouth, and stop the leaks, the case may have stood, but the get Trump threats by the media in their gotcha now bullcrap (revealing methods and traps), just keeps backfiring and backfiring. Any day now.. rotflmbo.

The media have always been dishonest turfs. It’s not that hard to stay out of that vortex. Either way, our leaders should rise above, not stoop down to their level or in Trumps case... go below. It’s an embarrassment

Really? One would not know you thought the media was dishonest because your posts parrot what they say about Trump. The fact that Trump holds then to account IS rising above their distortions and lies.

if the media says the same stuff that im sayIng then that stuff is accurate. The media is mixed bag of accurate, hyperbolic and dishonest reporting.

The leftist shit 'bag' media says the same things you do. The same shit bag media that follows liars like Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and any other TDS politician and that parrots them. You parrot THOSE bags of shit.

I don’t parrot shit, I call it like I see it... I can’t help it if trump and his puppets call everything a lie.

No one called 'everything a lie' that is an irresponsible blanket statement. The same kind of statement the lamestream media makes and you're here squawking out the same shit.

Yes I agree not everything is anything. So why are you wasting time trying to say I’m parroting lies from the media? How about you just stick the the things I say and refute what you can if you can

I have already refuted what you posted. You keep parroting the same media talking points. There was a concerted effort to get rid of Flynn. The FBI did not use protocol when interviewing Flynn, they told him he did not need a lawyer, they pretended it was just a chat, did not offer his Miranda rights and memos have surfaced they were trying to get him to lie about information they already had. Also Obama was in on it. Now, you say none of that is a big deal but given everything that the Democrats have tried, it fits right in with with their conspiracy to unseat Trump. You had a US Representative (Adam Schiff) reading what he purported to be a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call and outright lying about what was said. You had Shumer and Pelosi declaring that Trump was 'unfit'......Also Obama fired Flynn for coming down hard on radical Muslims. What was he doing wanting to be 'in the loop' in the FBI's 'Razor' scheme? Flynn did noting wrong and was representing the new administration and to powerful Democrats that was enough to set him up. The FBI had no cause to investigate him they just wanted him out of the way.

Dude you lie in your first sentence. They told him he could bring a lawyer. That’s a fact, stop acting like they tricked him, stop lying! Flynn said in court that the FBI did not trap him and he knew the consequences of lying. Jesus Christ. Stop spreading fake shit! Flynn lied by choice not by force. He has a history of it. The FBI tried and leverage that lie to get as much info as they could. You may think they pushed to hard... that’s fine, we can have that debate. But come back to ******* earth.

No, you're lying, "Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one." You did not tell the whole truth you just spewed half-assed propaganda with no regard at all to the facts at the time.

"In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place. His contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate” and the interview “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the department said. "

"Flynn in his filing claimed that “I never would have pled guilty” if his first set of lawyers had told him that FBI agents wrote that he had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception” in a report they prepared after questioning him about the nature of his conversations with then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak."

"Instead, Flynn said that “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed.”

You are dead wrong, the facts do not support what you claim. Flynn committed no crime in talking to Kysliak. Exculpatory evidence was withheld at his trial. It was a set up pure and simple. Those in the FBI should be held responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

Ok let’s get very specific here. The agents said they offered him council but said it would slow things down. That’s is the absolute truth isn’t it? Is anything in that statement a lie?

Why did they discourage him from having council by saying the interview would go quicker? The only reason for that is to try to set up a trap. Why did they not afford him the same consideration as anyone else? Why was exculpatory evidence withheld at the trial? Do you just follow like a sheep to slaughter as long as your TDS is satisfied? What was the crime they were investigating?

It’s not a trap! That’s a buzz word you keep using. Flynn knew his rights, he knew he could have a lawyer and he knew lying was a crime.... he did it anyways, nobody forced him. Of course the cops would rather there not be an attorney present, and of course they would like to exposed a lie or admission to used against Flynn. That’s what cops do during investigations. Do you have any clue how law enforcement works?

That’s what cops do during investigations.

Why were the cops investigating that phone call?

Because it could have been a violation of the Logan Act.

They should have charged him, they had the transcript.
Zero need for an interview.

They chose to interview him. Nothing wrong with that.

And no good reason for it either.

Sure there was. To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

He's the incoming NSA.

So? Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government. He did so anyway. The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

Before becoming the NSA, he was just a citizen with no authority to act on behalf of the USA's government.

It's perfectly legal for members of an incoming administration to contact foreign governments.

The FBI was right to investigate the matter.

They investigated.
A week after the call they found no derogatory info and were going to drop the case.

Oh? Who authorized Flynn to discuss Obama's sanctions with Russia?

He needed authorization? LOL!

According to the law, yes.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.​

 

[Faun]

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes.

I wonder if Flynn will even be pardon at all by Trump?

NO need... Flynn has been exonerated...

"Exonerated??"

He's still a convicted felon.

LOL...

The DOJ has asked to have the plea expunged and the prosecution abandoned for cause. (which means the prosecutors were engaging in criminal misconduct)

So? He's still a convicted felon.

 

[Faun]

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

That makes bo sense

Asking questions is not setting traps.

That's wishful bull shit! Perjury trap - Wikipedia
The principle is well known...to everyone but you.

Flynn lied on his own free will

The FBI was perfectly aware they were entrapping Flynn and had to be careful about it.

Documents show FBI debated how to handle investigation of Michael Flynn

The four pages reflect bureau brainstorming about how to approach the Trump adviser’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

www.politico.com

Ok so per your link this is what you are whining about?

“A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, doing so would in essence, condone perjury.”

If you could just shut the media's mouth, and stop the leaks, the case may have stood, but the get Trump threats by the media in their gotcha now bullcrap (revealing methods and traps), just keeps backfiring and backfiring. Any day now.. rotflmbo.

The media have always been dishonest turfs. It’s not that hard to stay out of that vortex. Either way, our leaders should rise above, not stoop down to their level or in Trumps case... go below. It’s an embarrassment

Really? One would not know you thought the media was dishonest because your posts parrot what they say about Trump. The fact that Trump holds then to account IS rising above their distortions and lies.

if the media says the same stuff that im sayIng then that stuff is accurate. The media is mixed bag of accurate, hyperbolic and dishonest reporting.

The leftist shit 'bag' media says the same things you do. The same shit bag media that follows liars like Hillary, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and any other TDS politician and that parrots them. You parrot THOSE bags of shit.

I don’t parrot shit, I call it like I see it... I can’t help it if trump and his puppets call everything a lie.

No one called 'everything a lie' that is an irresponsible blanket statement. The same kind of statement the lamestream media makes and you're here squawking out the same shit.

Yes I agree not everything is anything. So why are you wasting time trying to say I’m parroting lies from the media? How about you just stick the the things I say and refute what you can if you can

I have already refuted what you posted. You keep parroting the same media talking points. There was a concerted effort to get rid of Flynn. The FBI did not use protocol when interviewing Flynn, they told him he did not need a lawyer, they pretended it was just a chat, did not offer his Miranda rights and memos have surfaced they were trying to get him to lie about information they already had. Also Obama was in on it. Now, you say none of that is a big deal but given everything that the Democrats have tried, it fits right in with with their conspiracy to unseat Trump. You had a US Representative (Adam Schiff) reading what he purported to be a transcript of Trump's Ukraine call and outright lying about what was said. You had Shumer and Pelosi declaring that Trump was 'unfit'......Also Obama fired Flynn for coming down hard on radical Muslims. What was he doing wanting to be 'in the loop' in the FBI's 'Razor' scheme? Flynn did noting wrong and was representing the new administration and to powerful Democrats that was enough to set him up. The FBI had no cause to investigate him they just wanted him out of the way.

Dude you lie in your first sentence. They told him he could bring a lawyer. That’s a fact, stop acting like they tricked him, stop lying! Flynn said in court that the FBI did not trap him and he knew the consequences of lying. Jesus Christ. Stop spreading fake shit! Flynn lied by choice not by force. He has a history of it. The FBI tried and leverage that lie to get as much info as they could. You may think they pushed to hard... that’s fine, we can have that debate. But come back to ******* earth.

No, you're lying, "Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one." You did not tell the whole truth you just spewed half-assed propaganda with no regard at all to the facts at the time.

"In court documents filed Thursday, the Justice Department said that after reviewing newly disclosed information and other materials, it agreed with Flynn’s lawyers that his interview with the FBI should never have taken place. His contacts with the Russian ambassador were “entirely appropriate” and the interview “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis,” the department said. "

"Flynn in his filing claimed that “I never would have pled guilty” if his first set of lawyers had told him that FBI agents wrote that he had a “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception” in a report they prepared after questioning him about the nature of his conversations with then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak."

"Instead, Flynn said that “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed.”

You are dead wrong, the facts do not support what you claim. Flynn committed no crime in talking to Kysliak. Exculpatory evidence was withheld at his trial. It was a set up pure and simple. Those in the FBI should be held responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

Ok let’s get very specific here. The agents said they offered him council but said it would slow things down. That’s is the absolute truth isn’t it? Is anything in that statement a lie?

Why did they discourage him from having council by saying the interview would go quicker? The only reason for that is to try to set up a trap. Why did they not afford him the same consideration as anyone else? Why was exculpatory evidence withheld at the trial? Do you just follow like a sheep to slaughter as long as your TDS is satisfied? What was the crime they were investigating?

It’s not a trap! That’s a buzz word you keep using. Flynn knew his rights, he knew he could have a lawyer and he knew lying was a crime.... he did it anyways, nobody forced him. Of course the cops would rather there not be an attorney present, and of course they would like to exposed a lie or admission to used against Flynn. That’s what cops do during investigations. Do you have any clue how law enforcement works?

That’s what cops do during investigations.

Why were the cops investigating that phone call?

Because it could have been a violation of the Logan Act.

They should have charged him, they had the transcript.
Zero need for an interview.

They chose to interview him. Nothing wrong with that.

And no good reason for it either.

Sure there was. To get additional information about why he was talking to a Russian ambassador and who authorized him to do so.

Again, why were they curious or who was it that was directing them that was curious ?

They had intercept a call between Flynn and a Russian ambassador discussing Obama's sanctions. That's a potential violation of the Logan Act.

 

[postman]

If you think there is something improper for cops to ask questions they know the answer to to see if the subject is being honest or not then I don’t know what to tell ya.

I hate to tell you, but the USSC said that the cops can lie to you when they question you, and it's O.K.

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969)

During the interrogation, police falsely informed Frazier that Rawls had already confessed and implicated him in the murder

Later case law has interpreted Frazier v. Cupp as the case permitting police deception during interrogations. The language of the ruling did not specifically state which forms of police deception were acceptable, but the ruling provided a precedent for a confession being voluntary even though deceptive tactics were used.