re: What exactly was Flynn’s supposed lie?

quote:

---

I have no issue with taking a LEO or anyone else to task using flimsy evidence and certainly what happened to Flynn was flimsy at best and criminal at worst.

---

oh i agree 100%

that's why it's a good example/teaching situation for the "back the blue" types freaking out over it

Flynn had a defense and a real argument for trial. he still pled guilty. if Flynn pled guilty to something he's probably not guilty of, a man with a reputation, experience, intelligence, and means, imagine what it's like for a typical lower-class person caught up in the system. hell Flynn wasn't even in jail. imagine waiting 12+ months in a parish jail waiting for your trial and the pressures that would create to plea to something you didn't do

the worst part of it is the FBI in their own edited 302's stated they did not think he lied. Even comey said it under oath.

But mueller's team months later brought up the charges.

the entire mueller probe HAD NOTHING to do with collusion. It was all to save face for FBI and charge a few people.

quote:

---

people plea/admit to things they're not guilty of, as part of a bigger plea deal, all the time

---

Therein lies the problem with lawyers^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(no message)

quote:

---

Therein lies the problem with lawyers^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

---

i've been pushing this idea for like a decade on here

if Flynn is the guy to have people on the right/Trumpkins wake up and see the problem, on a societal level, then that's fine with me

(no message)

quote:

---

Maybe you misunderstood. They did not target Flynn in any "unmasking" because they had no knowledge of who it was in the recorded conversation.

Once they gained that information, they absolutely pressured him. That's literally how every investigation works. You pressure potential defendants with as much as you reasonably can in an effort to get them to give additional information in exchange for reduced charges.

I don't understand why anyone believes this is some special circumstance where prosecutors were out of line. That happens in a simple burglary, a massive financial fraud case, and everything in between.

There is no such thing as a "perjury trap". That is a nonexistent thing. It's a term coined to try and flip the blame. If someone asks you if you did something that you did in fact do, you can shut your mouth, you can tell the truth, or you can lie and commit perjury. That's called being caught in a lie. That's not a "perjury trap".

---

Ah, so you're just another intellectually dishonest leftist piece of shite. I see.

"No such thing as a perjury trap." ROFL

And clearly you don't know how the FISA 702 program works. Nor does whomever wrote the bullshite you quoted.

You fricktards expect people to be ignorant so you can say and post shite like that, but when you come across someone who knows WTF the real process is, you just make shite up to save face.

The 702 program specifically states that foreigners they put under it's surveillance must have probable cause to be deemed a national security threat, and the government must show/update this probable cause every 90 days to renew surveillance monitoring.

This is the ONLY way foreigner's communications can even be read (both FISA warrants and 702 targeting).

The data is automatically collected on damn near everyone, but you can't enter a SCIF and query just anybody and read their communications simply because they aren't an American.

A FISA judge has to sign off on 702 targets, just like they have to sign off on regular FISA warrants.

And then, as we all most likely know by now, if that target speaks to an American, that American is "masked" as something like "American-1" rather than their name.

And to unmask that American, there MUST AGAIN BE PROBABLE CAUSE that projects a risk to national security. And the rationale needed to do the unmasking must meet that strict criteria and be stated in the SCIF at the time of unmasking.

This either means Kislyak was either put under 702 monitoring and someone physically went into a SCIF, read this conversation, which was perfectly legal and legit and showed zero risk to national security, and then physically requested the unmasking of Flynn... OR... Flynn was being monitored under a FISA warrant.


Either way, it's clear Flynn was absolutely targeted. There's no other explanation why he would have been unmasked with no probable cause, or put under FISA warrant authority.

Not to mention, the transcript of the conversation was leaked for the obvious purpose of smearing Flynn and Trump.

Plus, Obama obviously imposed sanctions on Russia in the 11th hour and then put Kislyak under 702 surveillance for this exact reason, and anyone with a goddamn brain knows it.


And frick you for "no such thing as a perjury trap". The FBI HAD THE TRANSCRIPT and didn't tell him. What they did tell him was he didn't need a lawyer, and this was an informal inquiry that had nothing to do with speaking to Kislyak. There is ZERO valid responsible reason to question someone about what they said when you already know exactly what they said. Absolutely none. Nada. Zilch.

UNLESS... you're hoping they perjure themselves.


And don't forget, this isn't the only trap that was pulled. These frickin clowns gave Papadopolous $10,000 in Italy, and then apprehended him at Dullas Airport trying to nail him for entering the US with an unreported foreign cash payment.

But hey, "They weren't targeting Trump associates"... Riiiiiight.


Now piss off, ya Leftist hack idiot.

quote:

---

Yeah it would be improper for the incoming Director of National Intelligence to go through obviously unsecured unofficial channels to negotiate something without the knowledge of the current president and administration.

---

He was on a government phone.

What “negotiations”? Take your OMB blinders off for half a second. Imagine if an outgoing President Bush had slapped Russia with sanctions weeks before he left office, in opposition to the wishes of the incoming Obama administration, would you find it odd that ranking member of the Obama administration would try to calm relations with Russia in a short phone call?

quote:

---

have yet to hear a legitimate justification regarding Flynn working for Turkey while at the same time serving as the incoming DNI

---

That’s because you’re making it up. So was the prosecutor.

Flynn was hired by a private company out of Turkey to give guidance about U.S. policy. The connection to the Turkish government wasn’t known and still hasn’t been established. This was BEFORE he was acting DNI, not during. This is not controversial, even though you’re trying to make it so. His son was only a bookkeeper. The case could not be made against either of them, but it would have broken them financially to try to defend it.

FARA laws, like 18:1001, are regularly selected for abuse by unscrupulous prosecutors who selectively prosecute only those who are enemies.