The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

More problems for Weissmann

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

It took two years, but we are finally learning about the National Security Letters used by the FBI in Crossfire Hurricane. They were actually used against Flynn — under Hurricane Razor, which was run solely while Obama was president, and ultimately found Flynn to be innocent. 
 

PPP has been ahead on that since 2018. 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/

 

“The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn’s finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person’s property and information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory information.“

 

REALLY think about what that is saying. They abused the most powerful counterintelligence tools available to STALL an investigation into a man that they KNEW to be innocent, and to generate dirt on him. 
 

And then remember that that man was a three star general, a Democrat, and the former head of the DIA. 

[Deranged Rhino]

They knew Flynn was innocent -- even of FARA violations -- yet they called him a traitor and drummed up fake charges to ruin his life. All because he wanted to tell the truth to the country about the war on terror. That's what got him fired and on Obama's enemies list long before he joined Trump's campaign. He was a democrat, and handpicked by Obama to run the DIA -- an honest to god war hero -- and they set him up and tried to destroy not just him but his entire family.

 

If that's how they treat members of their own, what limits do you think they have against those outside their tribe? 

 

This is dirty. As dirty as it gets. And this is just a drop in the bucket!  

 

It was always a coup. Every step of the way... Even the ICA, the last bastion for those clinging to the Russia Collusion fairytale:

 

 

 

They lied to the American people -- they being Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Clinton, Obama and all their lieutenants. They concocted a phony scandal that was 3 parts projection and 1 part tin-foil-hat-crazy, mixed it up into a toxic yet addictive cocktail of scandal and drama, and then asked their cut-outs in the legacy media to serve it to the American people 24/7. This was done not because they believed Donald Trump or Michael Flynn were working with Russia or that either were a threat to our national security, this was done because the American people elected someone they did not approve. 

 

This wasn't just a crime committed against Trump or Flynn or his team. It was an attempt to subvert the will of the People in favor of the unelected "establishment". 

 

Yet 67% of democrats believe it in full to this day. 

 

That's the power of conditioning and the mass media. We have all been subjected to the biggest information-warfare operation ever run against the American public by its own intelligence services. These people who still believe the fiction aren't informed, they're programmed. Literally. And now it's been three years and trying to break through that programming causes cognitive dissonance (pain) which makes them unhinged and unwilling to even consider the evidence. As Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

Hence our current bifurcated reality -- which is incredibly dangerous. No matter how this breaks.

 

People need to be held accountable, or else the whole American experiment runs the risk of coming undone. 

 

[WideNine]

On 9/23/2020 at 12:42 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Seems like John's back

 

 

 

 

A big ol' nothing burger for all that digging and I have to think they dug hard, and all they have is retread material on Hunter and nothing on Joe, because I really don't think there is anything to find.

 

Hunter was already chided by a Congressional oversight committee back in 2019 and was cautioned by Obama admin about providing the appearance of a "potential conflict of interest" so that was water well under the bridge. As in already reported on and dug into and did not have to fill up a dossier. Then a whole bunch of muck-raking of Hunter Biden's business dealings that even if there was proof of wrongdoing (none given) then it yet has little to do with Joe Biden as a presidential candidate and is a waste of Congressional dollars.

 

I personally think that Hunter Biden is a weasel and feel the same way about Trump's sons and daughters. But at least I don't think I ever saw Hunter acting as some kind of private State Dept for the White House like you see with Kushner and it is not like he has not made a lot of money off of his WH connections. I would not be surprised if there was dirt on all of these children of political figures that know how to leverage either the idea or real DC connections to secure lucrative consulting gigs.

 

 

Although the Republican report cites George Kent as one of the State Department officials who found Hunter Biden’s role awkward, Kent testified during the House impeachment hearings that Joe Biden did nothing wrong.

 

Asked if there was any factual basis to support allegations against Biden, Kent replied: “None whatsoever.” He also testified that he didn’t witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny and said it’s “a fair assessment” that Biden was fighting corruption in Ukraine and Trump wasn’t.

 

 

Well on to what started this ball rolling: Guiliani's and Parnas's work in Ukraine to dig dirt on Bidens:

Well, we all know how this Jerry Springer-like debacle of a partnership has unfolded with Rudy clumsily trying to get Kompromat on Joe Biden thru his son:

 

Lev Parnas interview:

“So in the interest of telling the truth, did Rudy Giuliani know for a fact that Andrii [Derkach] was a Russian agent and working on behalf of the Russian government in his dealings with him in getting information about Joe Biden?” Capehart asked.

 

“I mean, it’s impossible for him not to (I happen to think it is possible that Rudy was this dumb in pursuit of his interests and goals in Ukraine) ,” Parnas replied. “I mean, I — before we came on I Googled just for curiosity, a simple child can Google, and the first thing that comes up is actually a Washington Post article, the murder story involving they call him the Ukrainian Putin and this is  news media and you’re talking about from personal experience.”

 

“You remember, I’ve spent the last time with Rudy and Rudy mentioned that he delivered that report in March,” he continued. 

 

“Remember, I was part of helping him with that report at the time and helping the president get all that information and all that propaganda against Vice President Joe Biden, so I’m very well aware and he knows that I know that I’m not lying and he knows that I know the truth. And that’s why I think he’s a little bit nervous right now because of what he got himself into.”

 

“Let’s take a step back for a second,” Parnas continued. “He lied to you that he said he hasn’t spoken to President Trump about the meeting. As you recall there was plenty of reporting that Trump himself came out on to the lawn and said that Rudy called him from the plane before the plane landed to tell him he had great news.”

 

“So if that information like Rudy’s been talking about for the past two or three years saying that it’s a bombshell, where is it? What’s going on?” he continued. “It’s a fairy tale, it’s propaganda and like I said from day one, it was all meant for a new cycle to put doubt in Joe Biden because President Trump was always scared of Joe Biden.”

 

Interview below:

 

 

 

On to John Solomon and Rudy:

 

We know Solomon is about as right-biased as possible as he has almost been a paid fixture on Hannity's propaganda machine. He has had held many posts for prominent news outlets, but a reputation for shoddy journalism, too much conservative slant, and failing to vet sources from his peers has plagued his career and has forced him out of many roles. 

 

There is so much irony in Solomon and Guliani working together to beat this drum when Solomon was a constant Guliani critic when Rudy wanted to run for president, but politics make for strange bed-fellows:

 

One person who worked with Solomon at the Post said they liked Solomon, but found him hard to work with and said that his proposed stories often didn’t pan out. “You just had to say, ‘John, what the *****? You don’t have this thing.’ And he would say ‘OK, alright, I’ll do something else.’”

 

Twelve years later and in the swirl of Trump’s impeachment, Giuliani and Solomon seem to have become almost co-dependent as both men seek to investigate Hunter Biden’s stint on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption allegations in Kyiv. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing, and other reporters have been unable to substantiate the allegations.

 

As Giuliani himself claimed to Glenn Beck in November, he and Solomon had joined forces to turn the Ukraine narrative into a nationwide event. “I said to John, I think you should take the lead and we should put this all in the newspapers because if I go to the Justice Department now, they’re going to say Trump is forcing the Justice Department to do it. Let’s put the darn thing out, and let’s see if any of these crooked media people will follow up on a proven case of bribery.” Solomon’s own lawyers are Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, who also represent Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who has been fighting his extradition to the United States.

 

In a different interview, Giuliani boasted that he sling-shot Solomon’s Ukraine reporting into the public eye. “I said, ‘John, let’s make this as prominent as possible,’” Giuliani recently told The New Yorker. “‘I’ll go on TV. You go on TV. You do columns.’” He then included Solomon’s columns on Ukraine in a dossier to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who handed them over to the department’s inspector general.

 

Solomon himself contributed to the joint effort by sharing unpublished drafts of his columns with Toensing, diGenova, and Ukrainian-American businessman and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, according to the New York Times. Several witnesses, in sworn congressional testimony during the House’s impeachment inquiry, said that critical reporting on former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch — including Solomon’s — was inaccurate and amounted to an effort to smear a well-regarded, veteran diplomat.

 

The irony of how Solomon and Giuliani’s relationship has changed appears to elude both men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

NSL's used as a stall/frame tactic. They still found nothing -- yet proceeded anyway. 

 

Seditious Conspiracies carry pretty weighty sentences. 

[Hedge]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It was always a coup. Every step of the way... Even the ICA, the last bastion for those clinging to the Russia Collusion fairytale:

 

Dropping this here also, for those who haven't read it. If what Paul Sperry is reporting is true the ICA was even worse than previously thought.

 

 

 

Quote

The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White House.

“It wasn’t 17 agencies and it wasn’t even a dozen analysts from the three agencies who wrote the assessment," as has been widely reported in the media, he said. "It was just five officers of the CIA who wrote it, and Brennan hand-picked all five. And the lead writer was a good friend of Brennan’s.”

Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the assessment reflected the “consensus of the entire intelligence community.” His unilateral role also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.

 

[WideNine]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

NSL's used as a stall/frame tactic. They still found nothing -- yet proceeded anyway. 

 

Seditious Conspiracies carry pretty weighty sentences. 

 

 

Sidney Powell I believe that is the lawyer representing Flynn right?

That's his lawyer doing a good job as she should spreading a bit of doubt and conspiracy.

 

Flynn is not a saint, he is just doing what ex-political appointees do, trying to capitalize on his contacts to make money and to gain positions of influence. He brokered this deal to shield himself from misrepresenting his prior dealings with Turkey and I read somewhere that the FBI may have been leaning on him and had some dirt on his son - seems a common pressure tactic.

 

Regardless, he did plead guilty to lying about working as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russia's ambassador regarding sanctions that were currently imposed on Russia and lying on documents regarding that activity.

 

There has been a lot of focus on the FBI's sloppy procedural efforts when looking into the Russian influence efforts targeting the Trump campaign, but I find that a bit disingenuous when it comes to whether someone was doing something wrong. If I was embezzling funds from a charity, I could scream about the investigation into my activities being carried out improperly, that does say anything about the merit of whether or not I was guilty of embezzling the money.

 

Sure murderers and crooks can get off on procedural issues or technicalities, but that does not mean that they were not guilty. Just that the prosecution and/or investigation was too sloppy to make it stick. Procedural issues can certainly be used to push for an appeal and maybe even get off Scott free, but only if Flynn had decided to plead not guilty and fight the charges in court. Not if he took a plea deal and had the court enter a guilty plea. 

 

This is what has the Federal courts undees in a bunch.

Back in December 2017, Flynn offered no objection to prosecutors’ description of the series of falsehoods he told the FBI. Indeed, he sounded unequivocal (link to transcript of court proceeding - it is a good read) that he had indeed violated the law.

 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Flynn, now that you've read the written statement of facts, you've heard the government's oral presentation, are there any corrections or errors that you need that you need to point out?

THE DEFENDANT: Nothing that I heard, Your Honor, no.

THE COURT: Or that you read? 

THE DEFENDANT: Or that I read. 

THE COURT: Is that factual summary true and correct? 

THE DEFENDANT: It is.

 

The COURT: “Are you entering this plea of guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason?” U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras asked at the time.

THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, Your Honor,” 

 

I encourage folks to read through the actual court report... attacking the justification seems to be a smart legal tactic of Barr and the DOJ  -  However, both sides of the isle seem to agree that Russia meddled a lot and that we needed to do something about it and privately they wanted to know who the Russians were trying to leverage and how - hence the need to investigate. Publicly, the GOP felt it would be damning to Trump to note how many people around him were one person removed from Russians and the politically had to downplay it. So we have kind of a bi-polar response to the meddling investigations and conclusions.

 

The Flynn recast of "being fired" by Obama:

Flynn’s own explanation of his “firing” has been that he was ousted by Obama himself and Obama political appointees because of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. In this narrative, he was a “lone voice” fighting against a negligent defense and intelligence establishment.

According to what Flynn had said in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration's public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.

In contrast, external sources present a different story, that Flynn was a loose cannon, unable to give and take direction effectively.

He was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency. In a private e-mail that was leaked online, Colin Powell said he had heard in the DIA (apparently from later DIA director Vincent R. Stewart) that Flynn was fired because he was "abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc." According to The New York Times, Flynn exhibited a loose relationship with the truth, leading his subordinates to refer to Flynn's repeated dubious assertions as "Flynn facts".

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

19 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

 

Sidney Powell I believe that is the lawyer representing Flynn right?

That's his lawyer doing a good job as she should spreading a bit of doubt and conspiracy.

 

Flynn is not a saint, he is just doing what ex-political appointees do, trying to capitalize on his contacts to make money and to gain positions of influence. He brokered this deal to shield himself from misrepresenting his prior dealings with Turkey and I read somewhere that the FBI may have been leaning on him and had some dirt on his son - seems a common pressure tactic.

 

You're literally posting things that were debunked years ago -- and were literally just confirmed today: 

 

 

You're years behind this case, with a lot of work to do to catch up. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, WideNine said:

 

 

Sidney Powell I believe that is the lawyer representing Flynn right?

That's his lawyer doing a good job as she should spreading a bit of doubt and conspiracy.

 

Flynn is not a saint, he is just doing what ex-political appointees do, trying to capitalize on his contacts to make money and to gain positions of influence. He brokered this deal to shield himself from misrepresenting his prior dealings with Turkey and I read somewhere that the FBI may have been leaning on him and had some dirt on his son - seems a common pressure tactic.

 

Regardless, he did plead guilty to lying about working as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russia's ambassador regarding sanctions that were currently imposed on Russia and lying on documents regarding that activity.

 

There has been a lot of focus on the FBI's sloppy procedural efforts when looking into the Russian influence efforts targeting the Trump campaign, but I find that a bit disingenuous when it comes to whether someone was doing something wrong. If I was embezzling funds from a charity, I could scream about the investigation into my activities being carried out improperly, that does say anything about the merit of whether or not I was guilty of embezzling the money.

 

Sure murderers and crooks can get off on procedural issues or technicalities, but that does not mean that they were not guilty. Just that the prosecution and/or investigation was too sloppy to make it stick. Procedural issues can certainly be used to push for an appeal and maybe even get off Scott free, but only if Flynn had decided to plead not guilty and fight the charges in court. Not if he took a plea deal and had the court enter a guilty plea. 

 

This is what has the Federal courts undees in a bunch.

Back in December 2017, Flynn offered no objection to prosecutors’ description of the series of falsehoods he told the FBI. Indeed, he sounded unequivocal (link to transcript of court proceeding - it is a good read) that he had indeed violated the law.

 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Flynn, now that you've read the written statement of facts, you've heard the government's oral presentation, are there any corrections or errors that you need that you need to point out?

THE DEFENDANT: Nothing that I heard, Your Honor, no.

THE COURT: Or that you read? 

THE DEFENDANT: Or that I read. 

THE COURT: Is that factual summary true and correct? 

THE DEFENDANT: It is.

 

The COURT: “Are you entering this plea of guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason?” U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras asked at the time.

THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, Your Honor,” 

 

I encourage folks to read through the actual court report... attacking the justification seems to be a smart legal tactic of Barr and the DOJ  -  However, both sides of the isle seem to agree that Russia meddled a lot and that we needed to do something about it and privately they wanted to know who the Russians were trying to leverage and how - hence the need to investigate. Publicly, the GOP felt it would be damning to Trump to note how many people around him were one person removed from Russians and the politically had to downplay it. So we have kind of a bi-polar response to the meddling investigations and conclusions.

 

The Flynn recast of "being fired" by Obama:

Flynn’s own explanation of his “firing” has been that he was ousted by Obama himself and Obama political appointees because of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. In this narrative, he was a “lone voice” fighting against a negligent defense and intelligence establishment.

According to what Flynn had said in one final interview as DIA director, he felt like a lone voice in thinking the United States was less safe from the threat of Islamic terrorism in 2014 than it was prior to the 9/11 attacks; he went on to believe he was pressed into retirement for questioning the Obama administration's public narrative that Al Qaeda was close to defeat.

In contrast, external sources present a different story, that Flynn was a loose cannon, unable to give and take direction effectively.

He was reportedly effectively forced out of the DIA after clashing with superiors over his allegedly chaotic management style and vision for the agency. In a private e-mail that was leaked online, Colin Powell said he had heard in the DIA (apparently from later DIA director Vincent R. Stewart) that Flynn was fired because he was "abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc." According to The New York Times, Flynn exhibited a loose relationship with the truth, leading his subordinates to refer to Flynn's repeated dubious assertions as "Flynn facts".

 

 

You encourage people to read the court documents, then copy and paste 5th grade study hall rumor mongering pressed by a fading left wing rag citing friends of friends of friends and unsubstantiated gobbledygook? 
 

The government has the power to destroy lives and ruin families.  This is not conjecture, it’s not speculation, and the fact is that everyone knows it happens.  The only question is whether or General Flynn was a victim or not.  Innocent people have plead guilty, been found guilty, and later exonerated.  
 

In this case, we know the DOJ pressed on with charges until such time as they took a deeper dive into the facts, at which time they moved to dismiss.  
 

It seems fairly straightforward to me, at least on the DOJ side of things. We should be disappointed they sought to destroy him in the first place, but hopeful for the future in that when they recognized the problems with the case and subsequently moved to dismiss. 
 

 All the innuendo that Colin got from Becky who talked to Beatrice about Flynn eating someone else’s lunch stashed in the breakroom fridge is compelling in a Real Housewives of DC sort of way, but irrelevant.  

Edited September 25, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[WideNine]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information...

 

The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot?

 

There has been a concerted effort to better enforce the FARA, but to date the language is not written in a way that lawyers cannot run circles around it. And the government has not had a lot of success prosecuting FARA breaches. I think the FARA has to be better written to allow it to be enforceable if the US is going to be able to limit illegitimate foreign lobbying efforts and money used to sway US foreign policy.

 

Exerps from the Flynn "retroactively" registered FARA in question:

 

"As you know, under FARA, a U.S. firm that represents a foreign corporate client, which is not a foreign government or political party, may register under the LDA rather than FARA, so long as the firm engages in (assumed  corporate) lobbying activities for its client.

 

Flynn Intel Group concluded that because its client was a foreign corporation and the services provided included lobbying activities, it could file under the LDA. 

 

The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed This is an uncertain standard, not based on the statutory language, and not defined in the Department's regulations. Nevertheless, because of the subject matter of Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo BV, which focused on Mr. Fethullah Gulen, whose extradition is sought by the Government of Turkey, the engagement could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey.

 

To eliminate any potential doubt, the Flynn Intel Group therefore is electing to file a registration under FARA, in lieu of its prior LDA registration. 

 

Because this is a retroactive registration, compiled after the Flynn Intel Group...."

 

Seriously, he is some kind of hero or victim when collecting money and working with that Ankara regime? Because he is able to wiggle out of the obvious FARA conflicts of interests by obfuscating the loose FARA/LDA regulation language?

 

Folks don't read and admittedly tweets are easier reading than these documents and submissions.

 

So I can go with not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn, but not that Flynn is not guilty of doing what he and his business partners were doing for Ankara and how they likely knowingly (this is the problem with FARA enforcement) hid that relationship by improperly filing it as an LDA which allowed Flynn to maintain the security clearence he had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GG]

10 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information...

 

The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot?

 

There has been a concerted effort to better enforce the FARA, but to date the language is not written in a way that lawyers cannot run circles around it. And the government has not had a lot of success prosecuting FARA breaches. I think the FARA has to be better written to allow it to be enforceable if the US is going to be able to limit illegitimate foreign lobbying efforts and money used to sway US foreign policy.

 

Exerps from the Flynn "retroactively" registered FARA in question:

 

"As you know, under FARA, a U.S. firm that represents a foreign corporate client, which is not a foreign government or political party, may register under the LDA rather than FARA, so long as the firm engages in (assumed  corporate) lobbying activities for its client.

 

Flynn Intel Group concluded that because its client was a foreign corporation and the services provided included lobbying activities, it could file under the LDA. 

 

The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed This is an uncertain standard, not based on the statutory language, and not defined in the Department's regulations. Nevertheless, because of the subject matter of Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo BV, which focused on Mr. Fethullah Gulen, whose extradition is sought by the Government of Turkey, the engagement could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey.

 

To eliminate any potential doubt, the Flynn Intel Group therefore is electing to file a registration under FARA, in lieu of its prior LDA registration. 

 

Because this is a retroactive registration, compiled after the Flynn Intel Group...."

 

Seriously, he is some kind of hero or victim when collecting money and working with that Ankara regime? Because he is able to wiggle out of the obvious FARA conflicts of interests by obfuscating the loose FARA/LDA regulation language?

 

Folks don't read and admittedly tweets are easier reading than these documents and submissions.

 

So I can go with not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn, but not that Flynn is not guilty of doing what he and his business partners were doing for Ankara and how they likely knowingly (this is the problem with FARA enforcement) hid that relationship by improperly filing it as an LDA which allowed Flynn to maintain the security clearence he had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering the Mueller's crew nailed Manafort for similar and probably lesser infractions that you claim Flynn made, why was Flynn's charge a basic perjury in an interview?   Why does Turkey matter in a case where there's more and more proof that FBI manufactured evidence against the Trump camp?   Why are you even bringing up Turkey at all?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Considering the Mueller's crew nailed Manafort for similar and probably lesser infractions that you claim Flynn made, why was Flynn's charge a basic perjury in an interview?   Why does Turkey matter in a case where there's more and more proof that FBI manufactured evidence against the Trump camp?   Why are you even bringing up Turkey at all?

And he’s omitting that the Turkey job was approved by the DIA (because it was an op). That’s the real reason they couldn’t make a case of it. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, WideNine said:

 

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information...

 

The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot?

 

You seem willing to engage in an actual discussion, so first off thanks for that. Even if we ultimately disagree, a good conversation is always the goal.  

 

Theres a lot you do not know about this matter. I say that not to be combative but just because I’ve followed it closely from the start. I’ve talked to people involved, learned a lot about the minutia of the case for various reasons. You have to understand that Flynn was not just a general, he was the Army’s top spook. FIG’s contract with Alptekin was sanctioned by DIA. Flynn was serving his country on an intelligence op of some kind. This isn’t conjecture, it’s fact. Now we know as of today the FBI was aware of this as well as early as the fall of 2016. 
 

Do you know what Flynn and Obama fell out over originally? Do you know why he was fired, and then immediately targeted for an oversight-free CI investigation by the FBI? It has nothing to do with Trump and even less to do with Russia or Turkey. Dig into that, start by reading the recently published Afghanistan Papers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/ ) and notice Flynn’s role in them. 
 

After you do, ask yourself again if you think the man is a patriot or not. 

[WideNine]

10 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Considering the Mueller's crew nailed Manafort for similar and probably lesser infractions that you claim Flynn made, why was Flynn's charge a basic perjury in an interview?   Why does Turkey matter in a case where there's more and more proof that FBI manufactured evidence against the Trump camp?   Why are you even bringing up Turkey at all?

 

1. Manafort was not charged with similar infractions rather the one-time Trump campaign chairmsn was found guilty of 5 counts of filing false tax returns, 2 counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account.

 

What manufactured evidence? Several individuals close to the Trump campaign have been found guilty in courts of law.

 

If you are referring to not liking the FISA warrants used to gather the evidence then that's another conversation.

 

Mueller actually asked for leniency for Flynn because he was cooperating. 

 

William Barr has a long history of burying DC sins...going back to Iran Contra. He's perfect for Trump's DOJ.

 

Mueller also found evidence of 14 other crimes that were not part of the scope of his investigation into Russian meddling. One was an Obama associate and one had ties to Clinton, another turned out to be Michael Cohen. These were referred to the DOJ and FBI for follow-up.

 

In the heavily redacted Mueller report he indicated that the only reason there was not direct evidence of obstruction by Trump (which is a crime) was that his aides refused to carry out his orders.

 

What a dumpster fire of an administration.

 

 

 

 

[WideNine]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You seem willing to engage in an actual discussion, so first off thanks for that. Even if we ultimately disagree, a good conversation is always the goal.  

 

Theres a lot you do not know about this matter. I say that not to be combative but just because I’ve followed it closely from the start. I’ve talked to people involved, learned a lot about the minutia of the case for various reasons. You have to understand that Flynn was not just a general, he was the Army’s top spook. FIG’s contract with Alptekin was sanctioned by DIA. Flynn was serving his country on an intelligence op of some kind. This isn’t conjecture, it’s fact. Now we know as of today the FBI was aware of this as well as early as the fall of 2016. 
 

Do you know what Flynn and Obama fell out over originally? Do you know why he was fired, and then immediately targeted for an oversight-free CI investigation by the FBI? It has nothing to do with Trump and even less to do with Russia or Turkey. Dig into that, start by reading the recently published Afghanistan Papers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/ ) and notice Flynn’s role in them. 
 

After you do, ask yourself again if you think the man is a patriot or not. 

 

The post has flair for the dramatic.

 

www.sigar.mil/pdf/spotlight/SIGAR_setting-the-record-straight-on-the-afghanistan-papers.pdf

 

I happen to agree with most of the SIGAR assessments critical of the waste of efforts in Afghanistan.

 

We suck at nation building..and although we excel at winning wars we have no idea how to extract ourselves afterwards. Do we bail and leave an ISIS-sized hole, do we stick around and try to turn a murderous, backwards, tribal country with war lords, rampant corruption, little to no education or infrastructure, no effective security force into little funtional democracies??? What a joke.

 

Neither the Bush, Obama, or Trump administrations have figured out a clean way but our troop count over there has been gradually dropping. I don't recall any rosey assessments of progress being made in Afghanistan just a quagmire we were stuck policing.

 

I already stated that what Flynn did was not prosecution worthy IMO, but I do not believe his work with Turkey was an Op, or that he should have taken money from Russia's RT propaganda outfit. Just poor maybe bitter choices that are not part of the hero mythos.

 

I don't believe that Flynn had any real dirt on Russia's efforts to meddle in the Trump campaign, but understand why he would be interviewed. His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GG]

5 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

I don't believe that Flynn had any real dirt on Russia's efforts to meddle in the Trump campaign, but understand why he would be interviewed. His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

 

 

 

Are you seriously hanging your hat on this hook?   Really?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Should be interesting what Sullivan tried to do next week...
 

>>> 13 Page interview <<<
 

FBI official on Mueller team said Flynn prosecution had 'get Trump' attitude, collusion probe was 'not there'
FBI official William Barnett was assigned to lead the bureau's original investigation into Michael Flynn
 

An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there" and considered it to be a "dead end."
 

FBI agent William J. Barnett made the comments during an interview on Sept. 17 at the Justice Department, before Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen, who was tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the case against Flynn. Jensen has joined U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team in his review of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Those comments have surfaced in new government documents.
 

</snip>
 

“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”
 

After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.”
 

</snip>
 

Barnett, though, told investigators that he believed that Flynn’s position as White House national security adviser in the incoming Trump administration “offered an opportunity for the FBI to conduct the interview without alerting any suspicion and Flynn would see such an interview as being standard procedure.”
 

The 302 stated that Barnett ran the request to interview Flynn “up the chain,” but said the request was denied, and described the FBI’s investigation into Flynn as “top down”--meaning that “direction concerning the investigation was coming from senior officials," specifically then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who Barnett believed was “directing” the Flynn investigation.
 

Barnett, at the time, said that he believed the investigation was “problematic and could result in an inspector general investigation.”

</snip>
 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This is on the interview with Barnett:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Alaska Darin]

16 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

People need to be held accountable, or else the whole American experiment runs the risk of coming undone. 

 

The lack of integrity by partisans is disgusting.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information...

 

The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot?

 

There has been a concerted effort to better enforce the FARA, but to date the language is not written in a way that lawyers cannot run circles around it. And the government has not had a lot of success prosecuting FARA breaches. I think the FARA has to be better written to allow it to be enforceable if the US is going to be able to limit illegitimate foreign lobbying efforts and money used to sway US foreign policy.

 

Exerps from the Flynn "retroactively" registered FARA in question:

 

"As you know, under FARA, a U.S. firm that represents a foreign corporate client, which is not a foreign government or political party, may register under the LDA rather than FARA, so long as the firm engages in (assumed  corporate) lobbying activities for its client.

 

Flynn Intel Group concluded that because its client was a foreign corporation and the services provided included lobbying activities, it could file under the LDA. 

 

The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed This is an uncertain standard, not based on the statutory language, and not defined in the Department's regulations. Nevertheless, because of the subject matter of Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo BV, which focused on Mr. Fethullah Gulen, whose extradition is sought by the Government of Turkey, the engagement could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey.

 

To eliminate any potential doubt, the Flynn Intel Group therefore is electing to file a registration under FARA, in lieu of its prior LDA registration. 

 

Because this is a retroactive registration, compiled after the Flynn Intel Group...."

 

Seriously, he is some kind of hero or victim when collecting money and working with that Ankara regime? Because he is able to wiggle out of the obvious FARA conflicts of interests by obfuscating the loose FARA/LDA regulation language?

 

Folks don't read and admittedly tweets are easier reading than these documents and submissions.

 

So I can go with not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn, but not that Flynn is not guilty of doing what he and his business partners were doing for Ankara and how they likely knowingly (this is the problem with FARA enforcement) hid that relationship by improperly filing it as an LDA which allowed Flynn to maintain the security clearence he had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You weigh against General Flynn in multiple posts, but back out of it all by including “not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn...”. 
 

If I’m reading you correctly, you referenced transcripts where he plead guilty (fair), and in the post seen to suggest that the original prosecution was unwarranted, perhaps meaning the DOJ pursued charges erroneously but in good faith, or was overly aggressive, or they attempted to steamroll him for political purposes?  
 

The DOJ, upon review of factual information available, decided the prosecution was unwarranted.  Of course, we know that the prosecution is slow walking the release of documentation in their file, which seems to support the notion that a steam roll was the most likely explanation. 
 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

The post has flair for the dramatic.

 

It's all true. Every bit of it. What happened was the biggest scandal in US history -- and you're parroting reporting about it that's not only old and outdated, but factually incorrect. 

 

Case in point: 

 

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

 

We have seen the transcripts now. We know he didn't inappropriately discuss sanctions, in fact we know he didn't discuss sanctions at all. They discussed expulsions which are entirely different, and even in that conversation he said nothing inappropriate. We also know now, from the FBI itself, that both agents did not not think he lied during the interview. 

 

You're pushing false information as if it's facts. That's not your fault. It's your information sources' fault who have been lying to your face about this topic for four years now. Get better sources. Dig deeper. You'll be shocked what you learn. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[WideNine]

40 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's all true. Every bit of it. What happened was the biggest scandal in US history -- and you're parroting reporting about it that's not only old and outdated, but factually incorrect. 

 

Case in point: 

 

 

We have seen the transcripts now. We know he didn't inappropriately discuss sanctions, in fact we know he didn't discuss sanctions at all. They discussed expulsions which are entirely different, and even in that conversation he said nothing inappropriate. We also know now, from the FBI itself, that both agents did not not think he lied during the interview. 

 

You're pushing false information as if it's facts. That's not your fault. It's your information sources' fault who have been lying to your face about this topic for four years now. Get better sources. Dig deeper. You'll be shocked what you learn. 

 

OK here is an actual excerpt from the call discussing the sanction actions of the US expelling a number of Russians from US Embassies and the very thing Flynn was not honest about with Mike Pence. Trump knew this, and fired him not because, in Trumps world of squishy rules, the call was inappropriate, but rather because he lied to Mike Pence about the call having happened.

 

As you know, I don't like to just follow someone else's interpretation of a document - especially not left-leaning CNN or right-leaning Fox and politicians or political media hacks....need I go there?

 

Transcript:

 

Flynn: "Do not allow this (Obama) administration to box us in right now!

 

Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.

 

Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff (Russian election meddling), where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?

 

Kislyak says he understands what Flynn is saying, but Flynn might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.

 

Flynn: I know! Believe me I do! I very much appreciate it! But I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.

 

Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question.

 

Flynn says, yes.

 

Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand. Flynn repeats asking to reciprocate moderately because if Moscow sends out 60 people, "you will shut down the embassy. "

 

Flynn: Let's keep this at even-kill level; then when we come in, we will have a better conversation where we are going to go regarding our relationship. And also, basically, we have to take these enemies on that we have.

 

So YES, he did discuss the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration:

 

 

Lets use The Way-Back Machine back to when Trump decided to take action because of the calls and likely the same transcript:

 

A defiant President Donald Trump on Thursday insisted that he asked Michael Flynn to resign because of Flynn’s statements to Vice President Mike Pence. The president also denied that he told his key national security advisor to discuss sanctions with a Russian official.

 

“He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that’s just not acceptable,” Trump told reporters at the White House at his first solo news conference as chief executive.

 

“I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence.”

 

Trump added that he had no problem with Flynn making the calls because he was “doing his job.”

 

Flynn resigned Monday as national security advisor following revelations that he made contradictory statements to Pence about whether he discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Pence went on record saying the sanctions were not discussed. However, when press secretary Sean Spicer later said that the White House was warned on Jan. 26 that Flynn may have misled Pence, it raised questions about why it took more than two weeks for him to resign.

 

The sanctions were imposed by President Barack Obama after an intelligence report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directed Moscow’s efforts to sabotage the 2016 election.

 

Trump defended his administration’s handling of the situation, instead blaming media outlets and the officials who leaked details of Flynn’s calls to them. Trump appeared to contradict himself by calling the leaked information “real” and the reporting “fake.”

 

 

There is no doubt that Flynn lied to investigators and to Team Trump about his back-channel communications with the Russian ambassador. Those communications, when taken as a whole, were laying the groundwork to reverse the policies of the administration that was currently in charge of setting policy in Washington.

 

It was the lying that got Flynn into hot water with both Trump and investigators. He did not need to cover his tracks, I don't think there is a law about discussing foreign policy like he did, but it is probably improper for someone to undermine current policy before a US leadership transition. My only guess is that he was still angry at the Obama administration, felt we could effectively partner with Russia on some things in the Middle East, and panicked then lied to Trump and Pence when they were made aware of the embarrassing effort to undermine the Obama administrations reparations against Russia for their literally proven election interference efforts.

 

On a side note: As to Hillary's and the DNC's emails, never liked the Clintons and think the DNC shot themselves in the foot with their shenanigans and gave Russian hackers great material to hand over to Wikileaks prior to the election. If they had acted more appropriately there would have been nothing to release. Does not excuse the Russian efforts, but makes for a more complete conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, WideNine said:

 

OK here is an actual excerpt from the call discussing the sanction actions of the US expelling a number of Russians from US Embassies... 

 

You're already admitting you're wrong and I was right. Expulsions are different than sanctions. Two different things entirely. 

 

The transcript proves this, as does your couching above: 

 

2 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Transcript:

 

Flynn: "Do not allow this (Obama) administration to box us in right now!

 

Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.

 

Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff (Russian election meddling), where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?

 

Flynn didn't say "don't do anything" about sanctions -- which was the claim. He said to only be reciprocal with Moscow's expulsions. That's above board, entirely legal, and in no way was a lie. 

 

You're literally years behind the curve on this story. 

 

****************************************

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

All they had to do was sit quietly for 6 months and let Trump be Trump.

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This for me has always been among the most egregious elements of this.  It makes the intent of all this so obvious. 

[3rdnlng]

I wonder how the conversations that John Kerry (when he was out of office) had with the Iranians would be viewed by the Left here in comparison to Mike Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You weigh against General Flynn in multiple posts, but back out of it all by including “not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn...”. 
 

If I’m reading you correctly, you referenced transcripts where he plead guilty (fair), and in the post seen to suggest that the original prosecution was unwarranted, perhaps meaning the DOJ pursued charges erroneously but in good faith, or was overly aggressive, or they attempted to steamroll him for political purposes?  
 

The DOJ, upon review of factual information available, decided the prosecution was unwarranted.  Of course, we know that the prosecution is slow walking the release of documentation in their file, which seems to support the notion that a steam roll was the most likely explanation. 
 

 

 

Context is important. My point was that the history of FARA infractions show that convictions are rarely enforceable even where warranted. 

 

Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court. If he did that, he would have had options to appeal if he lost in court. By agreeing to all the charges levied against him, Flynn created the current cluster and appellate consternation with Barr's reversal efforts. I am speaking purely of legal strategy, not vague things like right or wrongness of actions or politicians.

 

Mueller clearly was applying leverage on Flynn (that Flynn conveniently provided by lying) to see if there were any connections he had that were germane to their investigation of Russian meddling. This is a common tactic from law enforcement. You go after the little fish with leverage to see if it leads to bigger fish and it has been used to great effect against organized crime and it can work when dismantling Russian influence campaigns as well. You are trying to connect the dots to see where they lead and determine if anyone has been compromised to a degree where they need to be exposed/removed from a role at a minimum, or sentenced in court.

 

This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again.

 

Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack so parroting Don's political witch hunt nonsense is more than a bit ridiculous when the both sides of the isle wanted to see that Mueller report.

 

The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks, or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation. On the flip side the politicians in the GOP camp wanted the report so they could downplay the Russian meddling and influence on the election and clear their President and party of any perception of impropriety.

 

Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down. It is just how everyone wants to interpret the impact of the findings post mortem.

 

Back to Mueller:

He did not feel there were any connections from Flynn that were germane to the Russian meddling investigation he was charged with pursuing and that Flynn cooperated with the probe. Mueller asked for leniency from the court for the charges levied against Flynn in the plea deal - those were my reasons for saying I think he should have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Not that Flynn didn't do the things he swore he did under oath, just that he cooperated and deserved leniency.

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

The federal government has the ability to crush a person. Flynn was being bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution all due to false prosecution of the General by the feds. We all know and can easily say that he should have plead not guilty to the nonsense charges. Easy for us to say. Not so easy for the person being charged. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

The federal government has the ability to crush a person. Flynn was being bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution all due to false prosecution of the General by the feds. We all know and can easily say that he should have plead not guilty to the nonsense charges. Easy for us to say. Not so easy for the person being charged. 

 

...so "Sleepy Bob" is actually "Sleazy Bob"........and we should believe that Comey sullied "Squeaky Clean Bob's " by the book FBI culture.......that joint needs its own sewer system....

[Deranged Rhino]

49 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Context is important....

 

Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court.

 

You must then take context into consideration. A guilty plea was forced on Flynn when the FBI threatened to go after his son and newborn grandson. Add to that he was drained of financial resources (sold his house) and, most importantly, the guilty plea allowed Flynn to spring his CI trap of which we are still reaping the rewards in the form of documents. 

 

And of course -- this pressure was all applied by an FBI/DOJ/CIA looking to hang him out to dry on falsified/fake charges. 

 

Context is key. 

 

51 minutes ago, WideNine said:

(that Flynn conveniently provided by lying)

 

Not even the FBI thinks Flynn lied. This is not an accurate representation of the facts now in record. 

 

52 minutes ago, WideNine said:

This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again.

 

We now know for a fact the FBI/DOJ/IC falsified evidence and paid/worked with an actual Russian spy deemed a threat to national security to frame the General and Trump with phony charges, using the media to spin it. 

 

Again, you're years behind in what you know about this case. Years. 

 

53 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack

 

Evidence proves you wrong. Mueller and his team knew BEFORE he started his probe that "there was no there there". They knew it was a cooked investigation with no hope of finding dirt. That's why they organized a perjury trap investigation instead. 

 

You clearly do not know Mueller's record. 

 

55 minutes ago, WideNine said:

The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks,

 

Wrong again. We learned through Stone's trial he never had a backdoor into Wikileaks. He got all his information from open source news stories and lied about having a Wikileaks connection. 

 

Again, facts are stubborn things and you're clinging to long disproven information as if they're real. They're not. 

 

56 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation.

 

And RR and Barr said didn't happen. You're batting close to .000 so far on what you think you know about this case. 

 

57 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down.

 

Not a single Trump person was indicted with anything having to do with Russia or the 2016 election. Not one. Yet we have a guilty plea for an Obama DOJ attorney who admits to falsifying evidence. 

 

Scoreboard is 0-1.