Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

W_Heisenberg · Jun 1, 2020

Termn8or said:
Mueller's corrupt hacks set Flynn up and framed him.

Flynn chose to lie to the FBI. Flynn is responsible for his actions.

And the ridiculous lie that Flynn was a foreign agent exposed as not only a hoax, but a huge abuse of power.

This is a strawman within the context of this thread -- as it relates to Russia -- because the FBI is being criticized for prosecuting Flynn for lying, not for accusing Flynn of being an agent of a Russia.

So now three Mueller prosecutors are under criminal investigation

Nope.

And Flynn is proven innocent.

Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, under oath, in open court, before a judge, so there's that.

In reference to your copy and paste job:

The transcript of the December 29 conversation, which was cited by Mueller, does not include a request from Flynn that Russia “refrain from escalating” in response to U.S. expulsions of Russian diplomats. According to the transcript, Flynn asked Kislyak for Russia’s response to be “reciprocal” so that the U.S.–not Russia–would not be forced to escalate beyond the expulsions.

“Make it reciprocal,” Flynn reportedly said. “[D]on’t go any further than you have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat.”

....The transcripts show that while Kislyak obliquely raised the issue of financial sanctions against certain Russian intelligence officials, Flynn himself never discussed the financial sanctions against Russian individuals and entities levied by the Obama administration. Instead, Flynn focused on preventing U.S. “tit-for-tat” escalation following the Obama administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats.

So, this is propaganda. You are copying and pasting pro-Trump propaganda...

Look at what this piece of crappy propaganda left out of the discussion:

Read page 15:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sit...05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they're looking like they're gonna, they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that - that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not - is - is - if anything - because I know you have to have some sort of action - to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don't - don't make it- don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a

Read page 16:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sit...05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

FLYNN: And please make sure that its uh - the idea is, be - if you - if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we'll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we're not going to escalate this thing, where we, where because if we put out - if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, I mean we have to get this to a - let's - let's keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay?

--

Flynn is describing an escalation on part of both countries.

I encourage you to retract your statement and apologize for insinuating I was lying.

W_Heisenberg · Jun 1, 2020

Termn8or said:
How many high FBI officials have been demoted or fired for cause?

None of these fired officials mean anything. Trump is doing the exact thing he is accusing McCabe and Comey of doing, which is to politicize law enforcement. Trump thinks he is above the law and he has been doing everything possible to punish people for doing the right thing.

Didn't a high FBI lawyer alter key evidence?

I understand the FBI made some mistakes with the FISA warrant applications, that the FISA court invalidated only 2 of the 4 FISA warrant applications, and that IG Horowitz found that he could find no evidence that bias impacted the investigation.

In contrast, how many crimes did the Mueller Report accuse Trump of?
Zero.

I can't tell you never bothered to read the Mueller report, because Vol 2. describes several instances of obstruction on the part of Trump.
How many crimes did Mueller accuse Trump of in his sworn testimony?

Is that too confusing for you?

You have this habit of being mean and ridiculing me. You don't understand I am tougher you (cute name, by the way), and I don't really care that you don't agree with me. There is not a single thing you can say to make me feel bad or make me quit. So, just stop wasting your time with these bullying tactics.

It's true that the Special Counsel's could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump or his campaign personnel or his associates engaged in the crime of conspiracy.

It's not true that because the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt that the investigation was unjustified. The whole point of an investigation is to discover the truth about something. This idea you have that if an investigation cannot establish a defendant(s) committed a crime that the investigation was somehow unjust is wrong is based out of ignorance.

W_Heisenberg · Jun 1, 2020

Termn8or said:
Gosh, wasn't Robert Mueller head of the FBI? Because he absolutely is corrupt.

He was part of the coup attempt against Trump.

Unless you want to argue that he was hopelessly incompetent or senile or something.

Nunes is such an idiot. I'm not holding my breath.

Jay59 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Flynn chose to lie to the FBI. Flynn is responsible for his actions.

If you are going to persist in this lie, you will never understand what is going on.

This is a strawman within the context of this thread -- as it relates to Russia -- because the FBI is being criticized for prosecuting Flynn for lying, not for accusing Flynn of being an agent of a Russia.

Both.

Nope. Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, under oath, in open court, before a judge, so there's that.

Which has adequately been explained, if you had paid attention.

In reference to your copy and paste job: So, this is propaganda. You are copying and pasting pro-Trump propaganda... Look at what this piece of crappy propaganda left out of the discussion:

So, are you going to post crappy propaganda, now that you have tilled the ground?

Read page 15:
FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they're looking like they're gonna, they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that - that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is to not - is - is - if anything - because I know you have to have some sort of action - to, to only make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don't - don't make it- don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a

Read page 16:
FLYNN: And please make sure that its uh - the idea is, be - if you - if you have to do something, do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that, then that is a good message and we'll understand that message. And, and then, we know that we're not going to escalate this thing, where we, where because if we put out - if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, I mean we have to get this to a - let's - let's keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay?

Flynn is describing an escalation on part of both countries.

Not quoting propaganda, just misrepresenting something very generic. Flynn is talking about the relations between countries in very general and non-secure terms.

I encourage you to retract your statement and apologize for insinuating I was lying.

Why, when they caught you in the act?

W_Heisenberg · Jun 1, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
Let me know if you can find even one that's been prosecuted for that---and plenty have lied under oath or to the FBI.

Well, I'm asking you. What examples can you bring to the table to prove your point? I put a lot of work into these posts, and I expect the same from you.

No. The case was supposed to be closed on Flynn but it was still open because some idiot didn't finalize it. Its your ignorance, you go look for a ****ing change.

I understand that the case was supposed to have been closed.

I don't understand your point: "FBI stated that he didn't lie until they needed him to be lying for the Special Counsel investigation."

If this is an argument, and not based on anything, then make your argument and say what it's based on.

Also, it doesn't matter that the case was supposed to have been closed. The FBI can open and close cases any time it wants based on new evidence.

And I don't owe you anything. If you want to prove your point then post a citation otherwise you're just basically posting to make yourself feel better. And that's fine, but don't pretend you're proving anything to me or anyone else.

And if you don't want to discuss this stuff...then stop. You have no obligation to respond to my posts.

W_Heisenberg · Jun 1, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
Quit quote bombing me, if you cant say it in a sentence quit quoting war and peace back at me based on SINGLE SENTENCES.

When I do this, I am posting something as I finish my thoughts, and I do this because I experience near-constant interruptions during the day.

To open a case you need probable cause and according the FBI regarding Flynn they never had it.

The FBI does not need probable cause to open a case. The FBI needs probable cause for a warrant, or to wiretap someone, or to arrest someone, etc., but the FBI can conduct the initial stages of an investigation without access to these various tools. And one of those things that the FBI can do without probable cause is conduct voluntary interviews.

FYI, I've showed you the ****ing evidence three times already. Its not my fault you suffer from liberal memory loss.

This is not true. I'm sorry, but just because you think some initial 302 was altered maliciously in some attempt to frame Flynn, does not mean that actually happened.

You are ASSUMING the FBI did something bad. That's all. That's all you have. An assumption.

OpportunityCost · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
When I do this, I am posting something as I finish my thoughts, and I do this because I experience near-constant interruptions during the day.

I tend to be succinct, I'm having to delete some of your replies just to keep it under the 5k post limit. You are trying to control the conversation through excessive parsing and excessively long posts. Its annoying.

The FBI does not need probable cause to open a case. The FBI needs probable cause for a warrant, or to wiretap someone, or to arrest someone, etc., but the FBI can conduct the initial stages of an investigation without access to these various tools. And one of those things that the FBI can do without probable cause is conduct voluntary interviews.

To interview the potential NSC advisor, ignore Executive branch protocol, and waive off a lawyer, they damn sure better have one. All of that aside, the FBI as supposed to have closed that case.

This is not true. I'm sorry, but just because you think some initial 302 was altered maliciously in some attempt to frame Flynn, does not mean that actually happened.

You are ASSUMING the FBI did something bad. That's all. That's all you have. An assumption.

Aside from the fact that they actually DID alter them, and each successive one tries to make Flynn look guiltier, just an assumption.

OpportunityCost · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Well, I'm asking you. What examples can you bring to the table to prove your point? I put a lot of work into these posts, and I expect the same from you.

Hillary Clinton's entire inner circle. **** the arrogance stance, its not going to mean **** to me.

I understand that the case was supposed to have been closed.

I don't understand your point: "FBI stated that he didn't lie until they needed him to be lying for the Special Counsel investigation."

If this is an argument, and not based on anything, then make your argument and say what it's based on.

Also, it doesn't matter that the case was supposed to have been closed. The FBI can open and close cases any time it wants based on new evidence.

And I don't owe you anything. If you want to prove your point then post a citation otherwise you're just basically posting to make yourself feel better. And that's fine, but don't pretend you're proving anything to me or anyone else.

And if you don't want to discuss this stuff...then stop. You have no obligation to respond to my posts.

The FBI's conclusions from the interview was that he wasn't lying, that he wasn't a national security threat. Then they wanted/needed multiple issues to bring to trigger the SC law.

The FBI shouldn't be opening/closing cases involving White House staff without very good reason. Turns out, they didn't have one.

I plan to keep discussing them and calling out your dishonest bull**** whenever you keep trying to insinuate it into the conversation. FYI, for someone that makes so many claims and makes no attempt to support them you have gall to assume I need to educate your ignorance.

Grim17 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
If you think it's not a big deal that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election, and that the Russian government shouldn't have been punished for it, then yeah, I guess I could see how you would think there was nothing nefarious about what Flynn said...

But I do not agree.

That is absolutely irrelevant... Nothing was said by Flynn in that conversation that in any way, shape, or form indicated he was colluding with the russians.

There was absolutely no predication for interviewing Flynn... None.

Grim17 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Nunes is such an idiot. I'm not holding my breath.

Everything he said publicly about the bogus Trump/Russia collusion nonsense was correct... It's Adam Schiff is the idiot that played you and your political pals like a cheap fiddle. You bought into every single lie he told.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Termn8or said:

Gosh, wasn't Robert Mueller head of the FBI? Because he absolutely is corrupt.

He was part of the coup attempt against Trump.

Unless you want to argue that he was hopelessly incompetent or senile or something.

Termn8or said:

Gosh, wasn't Robert Mueller head of the FBI? Because he absolutely is corrupt.

He was part of the coup attempt against Trump.

Unless you want to argue that he was hopelessly incompetent or senile or something.

Nunes: GOP Lawmakers Expanding Investigation Into Special Counsel Operation, “We Will Be Making Criminal Referrals of the Mueller Team” (VIDEO)
By Cristina Laila

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Nunes is such an idiot. I'm not holding my breath.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as I noted, any claim you make, the opposite is true.

Nunes got the entire Russian Collusion Hoax right.

Almost every claim by corrupt Obama officials was a complete and utter lie.

And there are now three US Attorneys looking into the vast criminal wrongdoing committed by both high Obama Officials and Mueller and his band of corrupt hacks.

Tell us again how nothing will come of that. That's so freaking funny!:lol:

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
None of these fired officials mean anything. Trump is doing the exact thing he is accusing McCabe and Comey of doing, which is to politicize law enforcement. Trump thinks he is above the law and he has been doing everything possible to punish people for doing the right thing.

Oh, so the Obama appointed IG and other officials were engaged in corrupt acts when they fired them for cause?

Who are you kidding?:doh

Termn8or said:
Termn8or said:

Didn't a high FBI lawyer alter key evidence?

Click to expand...

I understand the FBI made some mistakes with the FISA warrant applications, that the FISA court invalidated only 2 of the 4 FISA warrant applications, and that IG Horowitz found that he could find no evidence that bias impacted the investigation.

Changing key evidence to hide the fact that Page was working with the CIA isn't a "mistake." It's a felony.

And gosh, so far only two illegal FISA warrants, with all the related crimes?

That's what you call good news?

And Horowitz clearly believed there was tremendous bias, but no one testified,"Heck yes, of course we were biased!"

In contrast, how many crimes did the Mueller Report accuse Trump of?

Zero.

How many crimes did Mueller accuse Trump of in his sworn testimony?

Zero.

How many crimes did the Justice Dept determine Trump committed after examining Mueller's evidence?

Zero.

How many crimes did the Impeachment Clowns accused Trump of in their bill?

Zero.

Is that too confusing for you?

Click to expand...

I can't tell you never bothered to read the Mueller report, because Vol 2. describes several instances of obstruction on the part of Trump.

QUOTE THE MUELLER REPORT where he explicitly accuses Trump of one single crime.

QUOTE MUELLER'S TESTIMONY where he explicitly accused Trump of one single crime.

He didn't, nor did he in his testimony, despite being ordered to by his two superiors.

So the only accusation of any crime against Trump is your opinion, and we all know what that's worth.

You have this habit of being mean and ridiculing me. You don't understand I am tougher you (cute name, by the way), and I don't really care that you don't agree with me. There is not a single thing you can say to make me feel bad or make me quit. So, just stop wasting your time with these bullying tactics.

Would you like a little nice cheese with that whine?

It's true that the Special Counsel's could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump or his campaign personnel or his associates engaged in the crime of conspiracy.

They had zero, zip, nada, nothing, almost from the first day Mueller began.

And he'll have to explain under oath why he kept going for two years.

It's not true that because the investigation did not find enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt that the investigation was unjustified. The whole point of an investigation is to discover the truth about something. This idea you have that if an investigation cannot establish a defendant(s) committed a crime that the investigation was somehow unjust is wrong is based out of ignorance.

It is grossly illegal to spy on anyone, let alone a presidential campaign, then two years of an actual presidency without legal justification, and they had none.

Indictments are coming, at which point you'll disappear or make your next set of flatulent excuses.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Termn8or said:

What ever you claim, we can safely assume the opposite is true.

Mueller's corrupt hacks set Flynn up and framed him.

And the ridiculous lie that Flynn was a foreign agent exposed as not only a hoax, but a huge abuse of power.

So now three Mueller prosecutors are under criminal investigation, and Flynn is proven innocent.

Click to expand...

This is a strawman within the context of this thread -- as it relates to Russia -- because the FBI is being criticized for prosecuting Flynn for lying, not for accusing Flynn of being an agent of a Russia.

What utter garbage. High Obama officials lied and leaked to the press that Flynn was a Russian agent; that he had committed crimes in colluding with Russia. That is the reason Flynn was investigated.

They found zero evidence of that, as anyone with integrity would have expected, and closed the case, except some minor error failed to close it, so Strzok kept it alive on a pretext on orders from "the seventh floor," i.e. Come and/or McCabe.

But those whose word cannot be believed want to pretend that never happened,.

Nope. Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, under oath, in open court, before a judge, so there's that.

After being coerced into the plea under duress, he withdrew the plea and the charges were dismissed and that's that.

That's that, except for the ongoing abuse of power by the judge.

So, this is propaganda. You are copying and pasting pro-Trump propaganda..

Yeah, reality is "pro Trump propaganda.

I encourage you to retract your statement and apologize for insinuating I was lying.

I find it quite difficult that you manage to reverse reality on every aspect of this issue, but maybe you are be terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly confused.

There, happy now?:lol:

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

[

QUOTE=W_Heisenberg;1071976374]First of all, you are completely mischaracterizing the Rice memo.

Second, it doesn't matter that the FBI did not have compelling evidence proving quid pro quo. You keep inventing procedural hurdles that do not exist. The reason why investigators investigate things is to discover the truth about a thing.

The government kind of needs to have a evidence of a crime to investigate.

No, that's a lie.

Comey did not say, as you wrote, that he had "no reason to think that Flynn is sending classified info to Russia."

That is NOT what Comey said according to the Rice memo, and when you write that Comey said he "no reason to think that Flynn is sending classified info to Russia" you are lying.

Clearly, if you actually read the Rice memo, Comey was suspicious and warned Obama that "potentially" he should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey even cited evidence that made him concerned, Flynn's frequent calls with Kislyak.

Comey cited NO evidence for concern.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
Termn8or said:

What ever you claim, we can safely assume the opposite is true.

Mueller's corrupt hacks set Flynn up and framed him.

And the ridiculous lie that Flynn was a foreign agent exposed as not only a hoax, but a huge abuse of power.

So now three Mueller prosecutors are under criminal investigation, and Flynn is proven innocent.

Click to expand...

This is a strawman within the context of this thread -- as it relates to Russia -- because the FBI is being criticized for prosecuting Flynn for lying, not for accusing Flynn of being an agent of a Russia.

"Strawman?"

On what basis was the Flynn investigation started?

Who made that charge?

From what agency?

Remind me, Mr. Mueller Report Expert.

Run, Forrest, run!

I encourage you to retract your statement and apologize for insinuating I was lying.

Gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would think you are lying.

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
W_Heisenberg said:

This is a strawman within the context of this thread -- as it relates to Russia -- because the FBI is being criticized for prosecuting Flynn for lying, not for accusing Flynn of being an agent of a Russia.

Click to expand...

The FBI is being criticized for believing Flynn was an agent Russia.
They were wrong to think that and they had actually concluded otherwise.
There was no evidence with the transcripts to suggest otherwise.

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
Have to disagree with you. FARA violations that were prosecuted in the last few years carried jail time. Although the prosecution was not as pernicious as the one that went after him. Of all the charges, its questionable he lied to the FBI, its absolutely not questionable he violated FARA.

Either way-- the Obama Admin wasn't monitoring Flynn because they were worried about his having been an agent of a NATO ally.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
If you think it's not a big deal that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election, and that the Russian government shouldn't have been punished for it, then yeah, I guess I could see how you would think there was nothing nefarious about what Flynn said...

But I do not agree.

Then why didn't Mueller investigate Hillary Clinton's collusion with Russia via the Steele Dossier?

Because Steele testified that one of his sources was a former Russian Intelligence Official.

And the FBI believed it likely that the Steele Dossier contained Russian disinformation, or almost entirely was.

Yet Mueller ridiculously testified that the Dossier was outside his purview.

If you're so concerned abut Russian interference in the election, why haven't you expressed deep outrage about any of that?

Run, Forrest, run!

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
The FBI applies the same standard to everybody. They applied the same standard to former Secretary Clinton. The FBI thoroughly investigated the e-mail server issue. Clinton did not lie to the FBI either, like Flynn. Clinton was not prosecuted. Clinton was not prosecuted because the facts of the case -- with respect to the felony charge -- did not warrant prosecution.

With Mrs. Clinton the government handed out immunity in exchange for information, permitted a witness to act as her lawyer, wrote out the memo clearing her before she was interviewed and determined that the alleged crime was rarely prosecuted.
And remember, the objective was Trump, not Flynn. Flynn was a tool to get there.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
It's not necessarily the end of the case if a defendant in a false statements charge says he doesn't remember. In Flynn's case, if the prosecutors could have proven he had knowledge of the conversation they could have still convicted him for making the false statement: "I don't remember."

THE DOJ is not stupid, okay? They do this all the time. Saying, "I don't remember" is not a get out of jail free card.

If that is the standard, why wasn't former FBI Director Comey indicted for "forgetting" almost 150 times in testimony before Congress?

Up to that point Comey had a reputation for an amazing memory for details, but gosh, just couldn't manage to remember hugely important points.

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

Termn8or said:
Then why didn't Mueller investigate Hillary Clinton's collusion with Russia via the Steele Dossier?

Because Steele testified that one of his sources was a former Russian Intelligence Official.

And the FBI believed it likely that the Steele Dossier contained Russian disinformation, or almost entirely was.

Yet Mueller ridiculously testified that the Dossier was outside his purview.

If you're so concerned abut Russian interference in the election, why haven't you expressed deep outrage about any of that?

Run, Forrest, run!

What happened was that the Obama Admin saw everything through the prism of Trump conspiring with Russia as to interfere in the election as opposed to Russia interfering with the election.

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
W_Heisenberg said:

Comey did a remarkable job, and did nearly everything correctly with respect to this investigation and you have yet to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

The Horowitz report slammed him.

Prove it.

Click to expand...

We the texts of the FBI agents saying the White House wants to be kept informed.
We have Yates testifying that Obama told her about the transcripts.

I did not write that...

I wrote: investigators have no obligation to assume suspects are innocent or to assume a crime was not committed.

Click to expand...

Not quite-- but it could have been a typo on your end.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
The FBI does not need probable cause to open a case. The FBI needs probable cause for a warrant, or to wiretap someone, or to arrest someone, etc., but the FBI can conduct the initial stages of an investigation without access to these various tools. And one of those things that the FBI can do without probable cause is conduct voluntary interviews.

As the Justice Dept. noted, the FBI needs a criminal predicate to conduct an interview. They had none.

How did you manage to leave that out?

Which is one of many reasons why the charges were dropped.

This is not true. I'm sorry, but just because you think some initial 302 was altered maliciously in some attempt to frame Flynn, does not mean that actually happened.

You are ASSUMING the FBI did something bad. That's all. That's all you have. An assumption.

You are ASSUMING that Flynn did something bad. That's all,. That's all you have. An assumption.

Athanasius68 · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
It does not matter.

The idea that the FBI could not threaten Flynn with charging his son on a different crime they were both involved is not against DOJ policy.

You keep inventing procedural hurdles that simply do not exist.

It does matter.
Remember what this is all about: the false claim that Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the election. Flynn was supposedly involved and the efforts against him were to get him to provide that information.

Termn8or · Jun 1, 2020

W_Heisenberg said:
It does not matter.

The idea that the FBI could not threaten Flynn with charging his son on a different crime they were both involved is not against DOJ policy.

You keep inventing procedural hurdles that simply do not exist.

For years if not decades, it has been stunningly common for denizens of the Beltway to lobby without formally registering, yet prosecutions are exceedingly rare and sentences light.

But out of the blue, Mueller and his band of hacks not only drove a 3-star general $6 million into debt, forced the sale of his house and ruined him both professionally and personally, but threatened to do the same to his son.

Rather than see his son's life utterly ruined, Flynn pleaded guilty.

Anyone with common sense and integrity can see that for what is it; an illegal persecution of an American hero and an abuse of power.

And now the entire thing is under criminal investigation.

Tell us how nothing will come of that nor from the other two criminal investigations. That's so freaking funny!:lol:

Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

Jay59

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

Grim17

Battle Ready

Grim17

Battle Ready

Termn8or

Termn8or

Termn8or

Athanasius68

Termn8or

Athanasius68

Athanasius68

Termn8or

Athanasius68

Termn8or

Athanasius68

Athanasius68

Termn8or

Athanasius68

Termn8or