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

[Leo123]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

 

[Meister]

alterior motives

The FBI was tasked with investigating contacts between members of the trump circle and Russia.

Mike Flynn was doing back door deals with Russians. Then he lied about it.

Seems pretty consistent and on mission to me.

Back door deals, huh? Where in the hell did you come up with that one?
Like I've said all along, you make shit up as you go along. You are too damn funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime.

Then his lies weren't material. They had the actual transcript.

They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians.

And none of his communications with Sergey Kislyak were election related.

 

[beagle9]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

 

[Meister]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

And...other incoming administrations have done the same thing.
You should have just stopped with your, "They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign..."
That was it in a nut shell.

 

[depotoo]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

And...other incoming administrations have done the same thing.
You should have just stopped with your, "They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign..."
That was it in a nut shell.

Winner!!!

 

[Leo123]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

The FBI knew what the conversation was and lied that they did not know. Saying one word wrong was considered a 'lie.' Aside from that, it was not a crime for Flynn to talk to Kysliak and ask that the Obama sanctions (on Russia) be lifted. You seem to be taking a myopic view of what happened or may not have availed yourself of the whole story. In fact, your post smacks of Democrat propaganda if you ask me.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

And...other incoming administrations have done the same thing.
You should have just stopped with your, "They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign..."
That was it in a nut shell.

Well he wasn’t exactly a part of the trump campaign anymore right... Trump fired him for lying about talking to the Russians.. Remember that?

you all are twisted into knots over this one aren’t ya?! The guy is a douche, why are you trying so hard to defend him?

 

[Meister]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

They already had the transcripts to the original phone call...why would they need to follow up on that....other than to set him up?

 

[beagle9]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

First of all, every Presidential transition team has had conversations with foreign entities. Also, Flynn was not urged to get a lawyer, in fact, the FBI falsely claimed their questioning of him was no big deal. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he (Flynn) did not give any indication of deception. Flynn was never told that by his first set of lawyers. It is not 'black and white' the FBI lied as well and set up a purjury-trap in order to compile more fake evidence on their now debunked Russia-Trump investigation.

Perjury trap?! That’s a joke right? So because the FBI knew Flynn had been talking to the Russians and then asked him if he had been talking to the Russians which he chose to lie about and say NO... this is a devious perjury trap? Come on man. You don’t expect people to take that argument seriously do you?

So Flynn have you been talking to the Russians ? Flynn - (knowing why they've got him in the trap to begin with) says No......Otherwise he takes advantage of them not specifying what his conversation might have been, even though it was legal and harmless if he did speak with any Russians, so he said "No", and not giving them anymore information that would be misconstrued, and would fall into the context of what he knew they were probing him for (political assassination) in which was the trap they had set for him ??

Exactly... have you been talking to the Russians? Flynn Lied and said No... that’s obstruction and lying to federal officers. All he had to say was yes and told them what he remembered. He didn’t do that. He wasn’t tricked or forced.

Once the FBI went rogue, no one is lying to federal officials if those officials are trying to set you up for political reasons, and Peter Strzk or however it is spelled was already compromised thus causing the whole thing to be compromised. Flynn will be pardoned just as he should be in the situation, and the FBI should be charged or warned big time for going rogue like they did.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying

haha, yeah, so fatboy said. Of course, Trump told the same lie to Pence that FLynn did.

Flynn was fired for making trump look bad on television. No other reason.

Flynn was gored for getting caught... Trump told the same lies and made himself look bad on TV. He just wasn’t stupid enough to go on record with the FBI and repeat the lies

The indictments will clean out the corrupt Democrat traitors in the FBI and DOJ

Are you not capable of staying on topic? I guess I don’t blame you for changing the subject since you can’t defend the indefensible, just don’t expect anybody to take you seriously

the topic is democrat corruption inside the FBI

 

[beagle9]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

And...other incoming administrations have done the same thing.
You should have just stopped with your, "They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign..."
That was it in a nut shell.

Well he wasn’t exactly a part of the trump campaign anymore right... Trump fired him for lying about talking to the Russians.. Remember that?

you all are twisted into knots over this one aren’t ya?! The guy is a douche, why are you trying so hard to defend him?

Trump fired him due to pressure, but after new information comes into the clear, he can definitely right his wrong now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People do many things out of fear, intimidation etc

You forgot "guilt".

 

[Meister]

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty. The fact that the FBI put pressure on him during an interrogation is exactly what cops do when interrogating suspects. Anybody want to give the Flynn defense another shot?

I have yet to hear anybody properly explain the theatrics surrounding the Flynn situation. He lied, was fired BY TRUMP for lying, was interviewed by the FBI, lied again, and then plead guilty.

Well, as Andrew McCarthy writes......

This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial.

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians.... it doesn’t get and more black and white. What aren’t you understanding?

Of course they had a legitimate basis to interview Flynn. They were investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

No Russian collusion in his phone call.
So what was the need to question him about a phone call that they already had the transcript for?
If the call had evidence of a crime, charge him with that crime.

Flynn was lying about contacts with the Russians....

It wasn't illegal to phone Sergey Kislyak.
Nothing they talked about was illegal.
Nothing they spoke about referred to election collusion or wrongdoing.

it doesn’t get and more black and white.

If there was no wrongdoing before the interview, what was the wrongdoing about?

What aren’t you understanding?

If the FBI came to your office and asked you about a phone call you made a month ago, but you had done nothing wrong, should you be charged with a crime if you misremember a detail or even if you lie about something that wasn't a crime?

Absent any legitimate criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't be creating a crime.

They weren’t interrogating him because they suspected him of a crime. They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign and had been in communication with the Russians. Flynn then chose to lie to them about
Communicating with the Russians when they questioned him about it. It’s not very complicated

And...other incoming administrations have done the same thing.
You should have just stopped with your, "They were interviewing him because he was part of the Trump campaign..."
That was it in a nut shell.

Well he wasn’t exactly a part of the trump campaign anymore right... Trump fired him for lying about talking to the Russians.. Remember that?

you all are twisted into knots over this one aren’t ya?! The guy is a douche, why are you trying so hard to defend him?

What I'm 'twisted into knots' is the corruption of the FBI. I guess you could care less as long as they were doing it for your tribe.
Integrity issues?

 

[JimBowie1958]

These FBI rogues should be nailed to the rafters for breaking the public trust, violating the law and betraying their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Virgil: The Flynn Case Fully Reveals the Deep State

Virgil first wrote about the Deep State in December 2016 and about the Michael Flynn case in January 2017—and he didn’t know the half of it.

www.breitbart.com

...the FBI wasn’t working to find justice; it was plotting to get Flynn. Most egregiously, a handwritten note by former FBI man Bill Priestap, composed prior to the bureau’s January 24 interview of Flynn, asked the following: “What is our goal? Truth/Admission, or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” So there we have it, in a Deep Statist’s own words: How do we stage a micro-coup against the White House? ​

​

As White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said of the Flynn fiasco,​

People should look at this for what it is: taxpayers funded this nonsense, and to think that four days into our administration, they’re coming into the White House—not to be helpful to the incoming administration, the national security advisor and by extension helpful to you, the American people and our new presidency—but to try to trip him up, get him ‘fired’ or get him to lie. And that is a disgrace, and everybody, as the president has said, should be concerned about that regardless of your political affiliation.​

​

Indeed, much of the commentary has been withering. Former Justice Department prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote of the Flynn saga, “The closer one looks, the worse it gets. We can say that narrowly about the Flynn prosecution, and more generally about the Mueller investigation.” Meanwhile, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley declared flatly: “Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution.”​

​

Remarkably, Mark Penn, a former top adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, added even more own stinging criticism:​

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes.​

​

And The Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel opined, “Flynn’s treatment shocks the conscience,” adding, “The FBI exists to investigate crimes, not to create them.”​

​

For his part, President Trump retweeted Strassel, adding, “The Russia Hoax is the biggest political scandal in American history. Treason!!!”​

​

Behold: The Deep State.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Back door deals, huh? Where in the hell did you come up with that one?

Same place the FBI did. Russians did not retaliate for sanctions, and the lying foreign agent was on the phone with Kislyak that same day, talking about them. Then, in a crazy coincidence, trump, a few months later, tried to give them back their spyhouses for nothing.

All just crazy coincidences, if you are brainwashed.