Agree with this pretty much. I think Comey firing was justified before TRUMP was elected actually. There seems to be bipartisan agreement that Comey is an arrogant, corrupt, ass clown.

You stated that the phone call will verify that Flynn lied. I asked for a transcript so we could judge for ourselves. The link you posted doesn’t link to a transcript of the phone call. Since you are claiming the phone call verifies his lies, please post a link to the transcript so we can see what went down. Thanks.

Nobody is disputing Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents. It was part of a plea deal. He’s trying to back out of it. Judge doesn’t want to let him walk. The legal system will grind through it. We’ll see how it works out.

Even Flynn's legal team has never disputed the contents of the phone call. I don't think anyone has even suggested that he didn't omit the fact that he talked about the sanctions on the call when talking to the FBI.

As far as I can tell there are essentially two arguments that have been put forward in Flynn's defence. They are that either: the lie was not materially relevant, which seems to be the main argument at the moment but personally I think is completely absurd unless you're VMF and are arguing that there never should have been any investigation into Russian interference at all; or that he forgot that he had talked about the sanctions on the phone call and therefore wasn't deliberately lying, which is at least somewhat plausible but still difficult to accept given that it occurred on the day the sanctions were announced.

In Eva Joly's book "Justice Under Siege" she shares a very interesting observation. The corrupt people think corruption is something that everyone else does. They themselves are never corrupt. That's all that happened to Flynn. He did the same stupid crap countless of corrupt people have done before him, realized he was in deep ****, started lying and got caught lying.

And in a sane political campaign it would have ended there. When the campaign was informed, Flynn would have been let go and people would have moved on. For a brief second it even happened. Trump himself tweeted that Flynn had been lying and had to be let go.

But of course, this wasn't a sane political campaign. This we know from the countless indictments, investigations and evidence regarding their unlawful activity and litany of lies they have spun in the last three years.

So the inevitable incompetent chaos ensued, and Flynn's case had to be included in the insane and ever-changing conspiracy nonsense that Trump is somehow always the victim of.

It looks like you are trolling here and i have no interest in dancing with trolls.

Is not his ADMISSIONS of lying to the FBI in his guilty pleas supported by both Trump and Pence saying he was lying repeated about that issue at the time, not enough?

You seem to be seeking a standard of proof created ony by you. It would be like me saying in any trial 'show me the grand jury info or its not true. Everything else might be fake'.

No one is arguing he did not tell those lies. His defenders are trying to excuse him for doing so. You are not on the talking points.

What does this have to do my post you quoted? slighted stated the phone call shows obvious lies by Flynn. I asked for a link to the transcript since slighted is obviously stating that he is privy to what transpired. Unless he has the appropriate security clearance he is full of it.

Flynn made a plea deal. He’s trying to back out of it. The current DOJ is ok with that. The judge is not. The legal system will grind through it. We’ll see what happens. How much simpler can it be?

LOL at this post. I am perfectly fine with the Flynn case playing out in the legal system. Are you?

This still raises the question of why Flynn lied then? Especially since you assert 'both parties knew' the call was recorded.

If Flynn goes into the interview and just tells the truth, nothing happens to him. But he didn't.

No matter how much you conspiracy theorists try and twist this there is no escaping this simple fact.

Not to mention that if people like Comey, McCabe, Strozk and Page wanted to stop Trump from being elected all they had to do was leak that Trump was under investigation for being a Russian asset. It would've caused a sh*t storm.

But they didn't. Instead the only sh*t storm was caused when Comey (a Republican by the way) held a press conference ten days before the election and basically handed the whole thing to Trump.

Explain the concept of unmasking to us. What is it and what happens?

This can't be emphasized enough. Every action Comey and the FBI took benefitted the Trump campaigned and harmed the Clinton campaign when they could have easily burned the Trump campaign to the ground if they wanted to.

No, it's usually based on probable cause. The point then being to find evidence of a crime, or lack thereof.

Yes, this is very possible. So the way to find out if is or not is to

It doesn't sound like juan has ever watched any episode of any cop show ever, nor seen any movies involving cops doing investigations.

That reply is a great attempt to move the goalposts on our discussion.

Are you comfortable now that it is established Flynn lied? The coming legal system review seems not be about that and is about process.

Lets keep to what we were talking about, please.

joe6pack's (and trump's) literal dream



tsk tsk at this divisive post, joe

You're asking Slighted for proof of a fact of the case that has been accepted as true by both sides for the entire process. Flynn's plea and rescission are irrelevant because at no point has he disputed the basic fact that he didn't mention talking about the sanctions with the Russian ambassador when interviewed by the FBI.

Your argument is the equivalent of asking for the CCTV footage to prove that a defendant was in a certain location when the defence presented is an admission of being at the location but that they didn't commit a crime. You don't need the direct evidence yourself to be confident that something is true when that fact is accepted by every party involved.

this is a claim you made up. i never said the phone call would verify anything. you dont have to have the transcript to verify the lies. i said the lies were easily verified. flynn verified and confirmed them in that plea deal.

I don't know the process completely. That is why I am asking. Why would the vice president want/need that information? Wouldn't the person unmasking someone, be someone involved in investigation? As far as I know the VP job doesn't involve that?

Ya, there wasn't any probable cause. If you think Putin saying something like that, is cause for the past president to spy on an incoming president, than that seems like something to be corrupted very easily lol. It is time to investigate the investigators, because they made so many "mistakes" that all were against the Trump teams favor. So while you may disagree with me, I am happy that Barr doesn't.

Ignoring the disagreement into the validity of the investigation, unmasking is a person requesting information about a person who was referred to anonymously in an intelligence document. By definition the person making the request doesn't know who they are unmasking.

Just to repeat, the call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador was recorded due to surveillance of the ambassador and was in no way a result of any spying on the incoming administration.

As for "mistakes", people have already pointed out that if they were actually so anti-Trump and wanted to dismantle his campaign they could have simply leaked the fact that the investigation was happening. Instead it was kept completely out of public sight until after Trump was elected, in the meanwhile Comey made a public announcement about the investigation into Clinton. Up until January 2017 the actions of the FBI were drastically more harmful to Clinton than Trump.

It is a very confusing time for them. On one hand their Fox News Overlords are telling them “Unmasking = bad” as it relates to Flynn but on the other hand their Fox News Overlords are saying “Unmasking = good” as it relates to Covid Freedom Fighters!

Seems highly likely they did suspect someone in the campaign was betraying the country and the campaign without the campaign’s knowledge. It would obviously make sense to tell them if you thought that is what was happening.

It probably never crossed their mind it was an entire campaign conspiracy.

this is what these people simply can not get into their heads. i assume it is because it destroys the narrative of relentless spying on Trump.

What is funny is when this judge was first assigned Hannity, Pirro and others were absolutely slobbering over how good it was a fair minded justice would uncover the truth in this case and they could not make love to Sullivan hard enough.

I loved the right wing outrage last week “FBI TRIED TO CATCH FLYNN IN A LIE, OMG OMG OMG”