Why was the FBI Investigating General Flynn?

excalibur

Diamond Member
Mar 19, 2015
20,156
38,871
2,290

...

They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.

The report informs us that as the FBI set its sights on Flynn, its agents were consulting with “Obama advisers.” Interesting, no? Ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8, Obama’s Democratic party had been pushing a narrative that “Putin hacked the election.” The narrative continues to have two major flaws. First, while the Russian dictator may have preferred Trump to Clinton, there is no evidence that his Russian regime did anything to compromise the voting process. The media-Democrat complex has desperately sought to obscure this problem by emphasizing Putin’s likely role in publicizing embarrassing Democratic e-mail communications. Notwithstanding Democratic talking points, that is a far cry from “hacking” the voting process.

The second flaw is that, although Trump has made disturbingly flattering remarks about Putin, there is no evidence his campaign has given or promised Russia any actual accommodation in exchange for Putin’s favor. Democrats hope to erase this problem by finding something, anything, that could be spun as a quid pro quo. Obviously, they hoped the Flynn–Kislyak conversation would answer their prayers. No such luck. As the Times puts it:

Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

Asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. That’s a good one. Let me translate: The officials don’t want you to know who they are because they are corrupt — (a) FISA intercepts are classified, so disclosing them to the press is a crime; (b) by revealing the Flynn–Kislyak conversation to the press, the “officials” inform the Russians that whatever countermeasures they are taking against U.S. surveillance have failed, assuring that the Russians will alter their tactics, making the job of our honorable intelligence agents more difficult; and (c) the FBI’s investigative powers are not supposed to be put in in the service of a political party’s effort to advance a partisan storyline, like “Putin hacked the election.”

So since there was no impropriety in Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador, why did the Bureau continue investigating Flynn? Why did FBI agents interrogate him?

...

And there was no need to “grill” him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording.

And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.

There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?

Mike Flynn & FBI Investigation: Bureau Had No Basis for It | National Review
 
Yes, questions do need to be answered. What the hell was Flynn talking to the Russians about? Why does the orange clown never challenge Putin on his aggressive moves? What do the Russians have on the clown?
 
No one was investigating Flynn for anything.
A tape of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian foreign minister was leaked to the press.

A tape like that could only have come from the NSA.

Now the FBI must investigate since the words spoken on the tape are a violation of Federal law.

You cannot officiate or negotiate in a Federal capacity until you are elected or appointed to the job.

That's why.
 
Flynn is asserting that he was acting on his own when he broke Federal law.

Question is was it true or not?

If Trump told him what to say, Trump will possibly be impeached, if the GOP wants to replace him with Pence.

Pence was a good choice by Trump, but now Pence has become a threat to him.

Trump would have been better off choosing Sarah Palin like McCain did.

Palin is not a threat. Palin is a certified air head.
 
Just read an interesting article that Trump, Pence and Flynn were running reverse sting on the leakers during this. Included the phone calls to Mexico and Australia. Were few more where press was all over the map meaning each had been fed a different story.
 
...

They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.

The report informs us that as the FBI set its sights on Flynn, its agents were consulting with “Obama advisers.” Interesting, no? Ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8, Obama’s Democratic party had been pushing a narrative that “Putin hacked the election.” The narrative continues to have two major flaws. First, while the Russian dictator may have preferred Trump to Clinton, there is no evidence that his Russian regime did anything to compromise the voting process. The media-Democrat complex has desperately sought to obscure this problem by emphasizing Putin’s likely role in publicizing embarrassing Democratic e-mail communications. Notwithstanding Democratic talking points, that is a far cry from “hacking” the voting process.

The second flaw is that, although Trump has made disturbingly flattering remarks about Putin, there is no evidence his campaign has given or promised Russia any actual accommodation in exchange for Putin’s favor. Democrats hope to erase this problem by finding something, anything, that could be spun as a quid pro quo. Obviously, they hoped the Flynn–Kislyak conversation would answer their prayers. No such luck. As the Times puts it:

Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

Asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. That’s a good one. Let me translate: The officials don’t want you to know who they are because they are corrupt — (a) FISA intercepts are classified, so disclosing them to the press is a crime; (b) by revealing the Flynn–Kislyak conversation to the press, the “officials” inform the Russians that whatever countermeasures they are taking against U.S. surveillance have failed, assuring that the Russians will alter their tactics, making the job of our honorable intelligence agents more difficult; and (c) the FBI’s investigative powers are not supposed to be put in in the service of a political party’s effort to advance a partisan storyline, like “Putin hacked the election.”

So since there was no impropriety in Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador, why did the Bureau continue investigating Flynn? Why did FBI agents interrogate him?

...

And there was no need to “grill” him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording.

And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.

There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?

Mike Flynn & FBI Investigation: Bureau Had No Basis for It | National Review
To my knowledge they were monitoring the Russian's phone because Putin did not retaliate against the US for Obama's knee jerk (and ill-advised in my opinion) reaction to Russia getting involved in our election...which is very out-of-character for Putin. So, Flynn highlighted himself when he contacted the Russian whose phone they were monitoring, thereby opening up a file on himself. (Like, if you know somebody is a liaison for a terrorist network, you don't simply monitor that person...you monitor that person and absolutely everybody he is in contact with). This is all pretty common sense.

The issue here is that the leaks are a bad problem. One of the reasons why the FBI director was said to have made his letter to Congress in the 9th inning of the election was to beat his internal leakers to the punch that they were reviewing emails that Clinton was involved in. Some leaks from our intel community help Americans...like Snowden whistleblowing the NSA nationwide phone taps. However, this amount of leaking really seems detrimental to America.

One does have to wonder if Trump has encouraged these leaks though through his repeated bashing of the intel community during his campaign.
 
Yes, questions do need to be answered. What the hell was Flynn talking to the Russians about? Why does the orange clown never challenge Putin on his aggressive moves? What do the Russians have on the clown?

Why the hell is the liberal left foaming at the mouth to go to war with Russia?

I think Trump should release the entire transcripts of Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador so we can all see what he was discussing. I don't have any problem with that because I don't think he broke any laws or did anything unethical.

What I am MORE concerned with, is why was Obama's justice department investigating Trump since early October? Where are the FISA warrants to wiretap Gen. Flynn? Why were the transcripts criminally leaked to the media and who ordered that?

There are very specific prohibitions on information gathering. There's a (Title III) protocol called "minimization rule" where agents are not supposed to monitor irrelevant conversations of private citizens, even when they are monitoring the conversations of relevant suspects. But apparently, now, to the liberal left... it's perfectly fine for our intelligence apparatus to be used for the express purpose of wiretapping private citizens for political reasons and releasing the information to the press. No problem! That is FINE with you!

So... Can Trump monitor Obama's phone calls now? Can he have the intelligence agencies release the contents to the media in order to smear him and indict him in the court of public opinion? You okay with that?
 
Last edited:
No one was investigating Flynn for anything.
A tape of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian foreign minister was leaked to the press.

A tape like that could only have come from the NSA.

Now the FBI must investigate since the words spoken on the tape are a violation of Federal law.

You cannot officiate or negotiate in a Federal capacity until you are elected or appointed to the job.

That's why.

Flynn was the incoming National Security Adviser of the President-Elect, he had every right to talk to foreign nations. The transition team is paid for by the feds.

And if you mean the 'Logan Act', it has never been enforced since becoming law in 1799. Or those Democrats who signed the 'Dear Commandante' letter in the 1980's would have been prosecuted.

Then we had candidate Øbama going on his foreign policy tour in 2008.
 
...

They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.

The report informs us that as the FBI set its sights on Flynn, its agents were consulting with “Obama advisers.” Interesting, no? Ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8, Obama’s Democratic party had been pushing a narrative that “Putin hacked the election.” The narrative continues to have two major flaws. First, while the Russian dictator may have preferred Trump to Clinton, there is no evidence that his Russian regime did anything to compromise the voting process. The media-Democrat complex has desperately sought to obscure this problem by emphasizing Putin’s likely role in publicizing embarrassing Democratic e-mail communications. Notwithstanding Democratic talking points, that is a far cry from “hacking” the voting process.

The second flaw is that, although Trump has made disturbingly flattering remarks about Putin, there is no evidence his campaign has given or promised Russia any actual accommodation in exchange for Putin’s favor. Democrats hope to erase this problem by finding something, anything, that could be spun as a quid pro quo. Obviously, they hoped the Flynn–Kislyak conversation would answer their prayers. No such luck. As the Times puts it:

Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

Asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. That’s a good one. Let me translate: The officials don’t want you to know who they are because they are corrupt — (a) FISA intercepts are classified, so disclosing them to the press is a crime; (b) by revealing the Flynn–Kislyak conversation to the press, the “officials” inform the Russians that whatever countermeasures they are taking against U.S. surveillance have failed, assuring that the Russians will alter their tactics, making the job of our honorable intelligence agents more difficult; and (c) the FBI’s investigative powers are not supposed to be put in in the service of a political party’s effort to advance a partisan storyline, like “Putin hacked the election.”

So since there was no impropriety in Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador, why did the Bureau continue investigating Flynn? Why did FBI agents interrogate him?

...

And there was no need to “grill” him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording.

And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.

There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?

Mike Flynn & FBI Investigation: Bureau Had No Basis for It | National Review

Did the FBI retaliate against Michael Flynn by launching Russia probe?

Here's your answer. It was retribution for Flynn getting in the way of their good ole boys club.
 
No one was investigating Flynn for anything.
A tape of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian foreign minister was leaked to the press.

A tape like that could only have come from the NSA.

Now the FBI must investigate since the words spoken on the tape are a violation of Federal law.

You cannot officiate or negotiate in a Federal capacity until you are elected or appointed to the job.

That's why.

He didn't negotiate anything. The Russians were calling him because they were being kicked out by Obama. Obama threw a tantrum after losing the election and Russia was the scapegoat. All Flynn did was try to calm them down and told them to just wait it out.
 
flynn-putin-5-19-17_wide-57e61af6b9e62bcff6c4bfdf8daf5213eefd3467-s900-c85.jpg


No one from Trump's team even knew Putin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top