daz28

Great. I know you're on vacation like Flynn was when he made the phone call, but if ya got any time between being in the pool and butt chuggin, I'm wondering if anyone can tell me why Flynn said he new nothing about Obama's actions, yet he was on the phone talking about them. I'm sure he might not have remembered much about the call(lol), but he did remember it was before he even knew anything about Obama's actions. Yeah, except it wasn't. Don't be afraid to jump right in, and tell me why I'm wrong before DR makes up something to say I'm weak spinning. Be brave and do it yourself. An expert on the matter said it had all the signs of being a Russian hack. Are you an expert? If not what credentials or facts do you have to supersede the link and the person I quoted in my post before? You can cherry pick he said he's not positive, but he said that's what they thought(as an expert opinion). Sometimes you people are insufferable. Every single intelligence apparatus we have(Trumps and Obamas) says the Russians interfered(and I linked it), BUT DEEP STATE. I stay open to facts, but see my facts rejected. Now I know how Kellyanne Conway would feel if she was telling the truth. Let me throw in another piece of expert testimony: Henry delivered this classic: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.” ...sound like prodding??? https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/11/new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-dnc/ ...and please for the love of God and Jesus do not try to extrapolate any of the facts I've given into the bigger picture. Debate is only worth it if you debate fact with fact.

So you're just going to ignore the fact he told the FBI that he didn't even know about the actions before he made the phone call, and act like there's something wrong with me for noticing? C'mon now. I thought we were fine with dealing with facts. You asked what he might have lied about, and I just showed you. Hopefully we can resume that issue later. Cheers

That statement about not even knowing about the actions isn't from Breitbart. it's from the transcript

Prickly Pete it is funny that someone had a conversation about something they didn't know about isn't it?? Now who's in the trunk????

We don't and won't know what was originally said. He said he was not aware of the actions, because he had no Tv and his blackberry wasn't working. That can't be the true. Then there's this from Breitbart: He also told the FBI agents he had not discussed the Obama administration’s impending actions against Russia and had not been informed of them at the time of his call with Kislyak because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic without access to television news or a working government-issue smartphone. He also said he did not recall specifically telling the Russians, via Kislyak, “Don’t do anything.” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/17/special-counsel-releases-original-302-of-michael-flynn-interview/ I don't like Trump, but integrity is more important than what I want. Also, DR does do a lot of research, but he also makes a lot of assumptions he declares facts.

You're making it sound like I'm advocating it. I'm absolutely not. Just pointing out he's not the first guy to get railroaded, and that he's in a better situation to handle it than most. Don't blame me that the system sucks. I don't make the rules, and actually the way it is in America IS the American way. I don't agree with it

Now I'm going to ask you for honesty. Read how specifically they asked him about that conversation. I mean they literally were reading his words back to him, and he said, I really don't remember. It's basically the equivalent of your GF reading back a text you sent another chick. You can feel it all the way up your spine as she reads each word. Then you say, "what text". In your heart do you believe he really didn't remember it??

Not at all, but look at it this way. Flynn has many powerful friends, and could get support from the public. When this is over, he will also likely get a large book deal, too. Those are advantages MANY people don't have, so it's really not all woe is he. Possibly. Unlike DR I won't just assume those are facts

Then why wouldn't he have done it MUCH sooner to leave a much bigger mess? I hate when you assume things that make no logical sense.

Yes, I agree with that. It looks like Obama was making a token gesture to handling the situation on the way out the door, after he did nothing for so long.

Again back to square one. He was dictating the Russian response. No one said he removed anything. You love circles don't you.

Yes, I'll admit there's a lot of projection. People go broke defending themselves all the time. If there was truly the injustice that some of you believe, then I hope it's uncovered. Let's not forget he's not the first guy to accept a plea, because he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. Unfortunately, that is the American way.

Well, it sounds like he was telling them he didn't say anything about doing anything, when he in fact did ask for things. Quit with the sanctions semantics. We're past that

The call and announcing of sanctions are both dated Dec 29, 2016. Obama's sanctions came 1 day sooner, and I'm guessing he knew about them before that. You might want to look up the word effect.

I was just pointing out that this is why we have appeals courts.

I was only referencing their findings on election interference.

I don't think he should have attempted to effect a policy that was just put in place. I understand why he did, but I think he should have waited.

Even if everything you say is true, and I know you believe it to be, I still feel he has to take responsibility for his own plea. If he had bad lawyers, bad judges, and bad evidence, he has to have faith in his own appeal. If I was in his shoes, I'd be upset, but in the end my plea is my plea Actually I got it from this, and it sounds much like what an expert would say in court: Henry added: “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the — what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.” https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/11/new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-dnc/ Sorry your reply has my name to it Reality Check. I screwed that up

Again, thanks for an honest, well thought out post. I never said the election was hacked, so that's your use of vague terminology. As for who did hack the server, they don't know it as fact, but all signs point to Russia. I also feel there's a difference between a country like Russia disseminating information about our election, and information obtained from Russian sources. Not a huge one, but def a difference. Even if that info isn't true, candidates lie about each other every hour on the hour.

I really don't buy that an agent's "demeanor" would effect whether I am guilty or not. If his lawyers did that, I'm sure he'll have a very wealthy future after he sues them. As for his son bringing the 4 year old into it, well isn't it just as likely he says they threatened him as it is he's trying to get his dad off the hook now.

Let's just get to the meat and potatoes. He willingly admitted that he did what he was accused of then changed it to, “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed,” . So he was taking their word for it??? Why didn't he just say he was coerced, because they threatened his family? Thank you for an honest answer, but interference doesn't necessarily have to mean that votes were changed. If they hack one party to expose things that sway voters, I'd consider that interference as well. That's just one example, too

Maybe he forgot what he told the FBI too? That's a real shame because you were so enlightening.

That's a truly fine rebuttal. I can see why people think you're a genius. Try this on for size Einstein. Other than DEEP STATE SUX, what is wrong with the FBI having info on someone, and trying to get them to lie about it? Cops do it ALL DAY LONG. The FBI doesn't record conversations, but they knew they had him dead to rights if he didn't admit it. Once he knew what they knew after his interview, he up and said, "you got me". He pleaded guilty. Not because of the deep state, or that they threatened his family. He pleaded guilty because he knew what he told them was not what matched the facts. I don't care if the agents didn't "think" he was lying.

What does "Don't do anything" mean? Would asking not to get into an escalation be considered something?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but this is a fair question, yes or no, do you believe that there was Russian interference in the election? Please don't take the easy way out, and say there's always interference in elections. So he tried to conceal it from Pence and everyone else, but not Mueller? C'mon now