• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

"Stealing the election" was exactly what Trump and Company did. Not only did the Mueller Report conclude there was massive Russian interference on Trump's behalf, so did the Republican Senate concluded the same thing.

Senate Intel report confirms Russia aimed to help Trump in 2016

Flynn talking to Kisylak was quite material regarding national security. Lying to the FBI that he didn't talk to him was a crime.

Come back when you have the slightest clue what the actual facts are.

And the Senate Intell Committee under Burr was a cesspool.

The charges against Flynn have been dropped, and the Mueller hack who brought the case is under criminal investigation.

There are three ongoing criminal investigations, but you will rarely see that covered in the corrupt liberal MSM, except to downplay that.
 
Its not so much that the report is not to be trusted, its that the evidence that keeps coming out shows its pointlessness. We now know that the none of the Obama DOJ and DNI saw evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy, which as a practical matter means that Mueller's inability to conclude a conspiracy occurred is due to the fact none existed. As opposed to obstruction or perjury as heretofore been the argument.
Mueller correctly concluded there was not enough evidence to prove in a court of law that there was a conspiracy with the Russians and the Trump campaign. Mueller did, however, find numerous cases in which Trump campaign officials shared information with Russian agents. He also found that a major reason he couldn't find enough evidence was because Trump campaign officials destroyed evidence and used encrypted means to communicate. Mueller also said that the president hindered his investigation and would have been charged with obstruction of justice had a Justice Dept memo, written in the 1970s, not barred him from indicting a sitting president. That's hardly exoneration.
 
Mueller correctly concluded there was not enough evidence to prove in a court of law that there was a conspiracy with the Russians and the Trump campaign. Mueller did, however, find numerous cases in which Trump campaign officials shared information with Russian agents. He also found that a major reason he couldn't find enough evidence was because Trump campaign officials destroyed evidence and used encrypted means to communicate. Mueller also said that the president hindered his investigation and would have been charged with obstruction of justice had a Justice Dept memo, written in the 1970s, not barred him from indicting a sitting president. That's hardly exoneration.

It wasn't just Mueller who couldn't find evidence to support the claim that Trump had conspired with Russia. The Obama DOJ and DNI folks testified to Congress that they, too, saw no evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia to fix the 2016 election.
So we have to conclude Mr. Mueller was wrong when he explained obstruction and the like accounted for his inability to find evidence. That inability seems to be be due to the fact there was no conspiracy between Russia and Trump to fix the 2016 election.
 
Come back when you have the slightest clue what the actual facts are.

And the Senate Intell Committee under Burr was a cesspool.

The charges against Flynn have been dropped, and the Mueller hack who brought the case is under criminal investigation.

There are three ongoing criminal investigations, but you will rarely see that covered in the corrupt liberal MSM, except to downplay that.
It goes noticed that anyone that investigates and writes a report that is not a glowing praise of Trump is part of a "cesspool." Now, a Republican Senator.

You bring nothing to the table except an incoherent rant. Instead of disputing facts, you merely dismiss them in the usual Trumpian fashion, without any counter-evidence.

Failure to do so means to the rest here that you cannot dispute them, thus, you retreat to your cognitive dissonance and dismiss facts that disagree with the opinions that you hold dear. 'Trump is the most honest, smartest and warmest president, and any facts that dispute that will be summarily dismissed.'
 

Have you ever wanted to simplify your life? Have less stress? Have you thought about getting back to basics? Well look how easy you can have it if you join Trumpland:

What do lawyers and judges know about legal issues? Trump knows more about the law than all of them combined. And Trump says Flynn is innocent. Case Closed!!!

See? Why spend time thinking for yourself, when you can let Trump do the thinking for you? Join Trumpland, buy a MAGA hat, dial in FOX News, and you're set! You never need to think again.
 
Of course not, because, well, BIAS.

That's why people in the legal realm recuse. But Trump supporting forumers? "I see nothing'"

Well...what tf do you see? Because all I see is Flynn working with setting up a working relationship to stabilized the Middle East and fight against Islamic extremism. You know, the thin that Obama was absolute **** at and helped create? The modern left are nothing but neo-McCarthists except I don't know if they actually do believe it. Just a bunch of pretend for political gain and hope no one sees through it.
rsz_fnrywxd.jpg
 
Well, I just finished reading the entire transcripts and Trey Gowdy was absolutely correct... There was a whole bunch of nothing in there.

There isn't a damned thing in any one of those calls that was in any way suspicious. In fact, their conversations were a snooze fest. I have to give Flynn credit though, he was definitely taking the diplomatic route and attempting to keep things between the US and Russia from escalating.

Since there was nothing on those calls indicating any kind of collusion, illegal activity, or anything that would justify not closing down the investigation of Flynn as the DOJ had instructed, Comey, Strzok, McCabe and a host of others at the FBI, DOJ and possibly even the Obama administration, are going to be very hard pressed to explain their actions.

Those transcripts make it clear that there was no legitimate reason for the FBI to be investigating Michael Flynn, so now the question now becomes who's idea was it to target Flynn and why. It's clear now it was either for personal reasons, political reasons, or both.

.

By their own notes, the investigation into him was supposed to have been closed out but "only through their own incompetence" was it still open so they could use it for their entrapment interview.
 
You are ASSUMING the FBI did something bad. That's all. That's all you have. An assumption.

Yeah,, sure, right,. Pay absolutely no attention to the three, count 'em, 3 criminal investigations happening! It's just that meany would-be Mussolini AG Barr abusing his power!:lol:

It doesn't matter one little bit that so many important FBI officials and agents were fired, demoted or are under criminal investigation, trust me!:2razz:

BOOM – Dana Boente Removed! – FBI Chief Legal Counsel Forced to Resign…
Posted on May 30, 2020 by sundance
Finally, the DOJ has moved to remove one of the biggest background corrupt officials within the FBI. According to multiple media sources FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente was forced to resign on Friday. Finally, sunlight has removed a very corrupt player.
BOOM – Dana Boente Removed! – FBI Chief Legal Counsel Forced to Resign… | The Last Refuge
 
Come back when you have the slightest clue what the actual facts are.

And the Senate Intell Committee under Burr was a cesspool.

The charges against Flynn have been dropped, and the Mueller hack who brought the case is under criminal investigation.

There are three ongoing criminal investigations, but you will rarely see that covered in the corrupt liberal MSM, except to downplay that.

It goes noticed that anyone that investigates and writes a report that is not a glowing praise of Trump is part of a "cesspool." Now, a Republican Senator.

You bring nothing to the table except an incoherent rant. Instead of disputing facts, you merely dismiss them in the usual Trumpian fashion, without any counter-evidence.

Failure to do so means to the rest here that you cannot dispute them, thus, you retreat to your cognitive dissonance and dismiss facts that disagree with the opinions that you hold dear. 'Trump is the most honest, smartest and warmest president, and any facts that dispute that will be summarily dismissed.'

Are you hopelessly naive? Why is WashDC called "the Swamp?" Because it's filled with corruption, and both parties participate in it.

Yes, Burr is a hack, and so is Warner.

Not that mere facts get in your way, there are three ongoing criminal investigations, and that might well grow in number as more crimes and corruption are revealed.
 
You bring nothing to the table except an incoherent rant. Instead of disputing facts, you merely dismiss them in the usual Trumpian fashion, without any counter-evidence.

Failure to do so means to the rest here that you cannot dispute them, thus, you retreat to your cognitive dissonance and dismiss facts that disagree with the opinions that you hold dear. 'Trump is the most honest, smartest and warmest president, and any facts that dispute that will be summarily dismissed.'

Here's a thread with considerable evidence, but only a fraction of what's publicly available.

 

Yeah...their responses are absolute trash. In the real world, you had the lame-duck Obama escalate tensions with Russia, just as he was leaving office. The incoming administration's people then were working to keep things from getting out of hand. Only a fool thinks increased tensions are a good thing.
 
LOL, so sad and pathetic. Flynn was basing anything he had to say on what would happen after Trump assumed office. Flynn wasn't promising anything, he was simply asking the Russians to not overreact. He promised nothing. He offered nothing.

What Trump offered was a cessation of the approach Obama was taking. Flynn was asking the Russians not to escalate things so it would be easier for the Trump administration to take a more positive approach and team up with them on other issues such as fighting Islamic terrorism. This had the effect of undermining the punishing effect of the sanctions and the diplomatic expulsions. Flynn was implying if you make it easier for us now by not responding in a way that will make things hard for us later, we'll make things easier for you later.

BTW, the FBI declined to prosecute based on the Logan Act because its unenforceable. Its unenforceable based on my exact argument---the incoming administration officials have nothing to offer until they have the power to do so. So any offer is contingent on them being legally able to do so.

The Logan Act has many problems, but this is not one of them.

With respect to Flynn he was successful in persuading Russia to do what he wanted.

And we know this was very important to Russia because when Congress -- having the courage that Trump lacked to fight back against Russia -- slapped sanctions on Russia then Russia responded by expelling 755 diplomats.
 
LOL, so sad and pathetic. Flynn was basing anything he had to say on what would happen after Trump assumed office. Flynn wasn't promising anything, he was simply asking the Russians to not overreact. He promised nothing. He offered nothing. BTW, the FBI declined to prosecute based on the Logan Act because its unenforceable. Its unenforceable based on my exact argument---the incoming administration officials have nothing to offer until they have the power to do so. So any offer is contingent on them being legally able to do so.

The Logan Act has many problems, but this is not one of them.

The ONLY reason the FBI investigates supposed crimes is for the purpose of indicting the suspect.

When is the last time anyone was indicted for violating the Logan Act based on evidence the FBI provided?

When is the last time anyone was prosecuted for violating the Logan Act at all?

Run, Forrest, run!
 
They had no predicate to interview Flynn

This is just not true. The call itself was enough predication, but then Flynn lied to Trump White House officials. That was adequate predication. The FBI does not need overwhelming evidence to conduct a voluntary interview.

interviewed him without notifying the executive branch

Doesn't matter. You guys keep introducing procedural hurdles like this that do not exist in the real world. It's just an argument to try and persuade others that Flynn was treated "unfairly." It has no weight in the real world.

they waived off his right to a lawyer

This is a lie.

FLYNN waived off his right to a lawyer, not the FBI.

and they altered the 302s.

There is no indication that the 302s were altered in any malicious way beyond something like fixing grammatical mistakes or bad writing.

Also, in a trial situation, the 302s are not terribly important.

All of this is from court records. Don't say cite it, I have cited it to you several times from several sources, yet here you are trying to re-argue it after multiple days---with multiple other posters.

Some of the things you are saying is simply false. Like when you say, "they" waived off his right to a lawyer. That's just simply not accurate.

Some of the things you are saying are the result of you confusing your suspicions and assumptions with facts. The fact that there was some earlier version of the 302 is not evidence that the FBI "set up" Flynn, but you act as if it is, and in absence of evidence to prove your assertion...you DO NOT have a good argument on that point.

It's not enough that YOU think something is true. You have to prove it.

It's not enough that YOU are suspicious of the FBI. You have to prove it.
 
Why does "Number one, what I would ask you guys to do - and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? - do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in", sound a lot like, "I'd like you to do us a favor, though"?
 
Last edited:
Oh, look saying the same stupid **** twice. They had no predicate to interview Flynn, they interviewed him without notifying the executive branch, they waived off his right to a lawyer, and they altered the 302s. All of this is from court records. Don't say cite it, I have cited it to you several times from several sources, yet here you are trying to re-argue it after multiple days---with multiple other posters.

This is just not true. The call itself was enough predication

Well gosh, who should we believe, Mr. Mueller Expert here or the Attorney General of the US and the US Attorney he chose to investigate this huge abuse of power who dropped all charges?:lol:

It's not enough that YOU are suspicious of the FBI. You have to prove it.

It is being proven, and indictments will result.
 
If Obama had done that as soon as he knew, back in...September, I think? No problem. Waiting until after the election and deliberately picking a fight with Russia because his party lost? That's a little bitch move.

Okay, if it's only about timing, I would have to disagree with you. If Obama had begun making an issue out of this before the election, he would have had to reveal what was happening to a greater extent. Republicans would have been furious because what was happening was that Russia was trying to help Trump. Waiting until after the election was the lesser of two evils.

Of course they did.

How do you know for sure? It may have been a decision based purely on the national interests of the U.S. without any regard to the incoming administration. Maybe the Obama administration gave the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt and assumed the Trump administration would behave loyally to the Republic and continue the policy of holding Russia to account for their attacks on the U.S.?

That's because you are a Democrat cheerleader, you aren't being objective.

Why even bother making this comment? You're not being objective either. You're a Trump cheerleader.

No President should be making major policy changes with 30 days left in their term.

Again, yet another procedural hurdle that does not exist. This isn't a thing. What if there if some foreign country starts a war with us? Is the President supposed to order the troops to not do anything for the month before he leaves office? That's stupid.

With all due respect you have no ****ing idea what Flynn thinks.

With respect to Russian interference in our elections, we know what Flynn thinks. He revealed what he thinks on his calls to Kislyak.

He had no power, Kislyak knew he had no power But Russia didn't escalate ---because they both knew what I have already told you, Obama was trying to create a mess as retaliation for his party losing the election. He needed someone to blame that wasn't Hillary Clinton.

Based on the call with Kislyak, this is not something Kislyak ever said, and further, Kislyak described to Flynn how angry the Russian government was about the expulsions.

The facts do not support your argument that Russia thought it was just a political move by Trump.
 
He didn't offer that and nothing you can produce will prove that. You have your biased, ****ty opinion and naught else.

I am basing everything on the facts. Read the transcript. Flynn communicated to Russia that if it did not escalate the situation it would make it easier for the incoming administration to work with Russia on other issues. This had the practical effect of undermining the goal of the sanctions and expulsions, which was to punish Russia and discourage Russia from attacking our elections again.
 
If they didn't think he lied until later, when it could be used to launch the Mueller investigation....well, that is some coincidence.

Where do you get this from? Why do you think this is true?

Only children believe in coincidences in politics. I don't believe in coincidences. How about you?

Yeah, I don't think I'm immature because I don't believe in your groundless theories, unmoored by any attachment to facts, floating on an ocean of assumptions.

There's no reason to immediately arrest and charge people, especially during a conspiracy investigation.
 
We don't even know that Flynn lied - the original interview notes aren't there, and neither is the original 302 document - all we have are documents that were made up weeks later.

We know Flynn lied because Flynn plead guilty to making false statements. He did so in open court, before a judge, and under oath...twice.

We can see that FBI had no reason to question Flynn

Let's recap for the slow-learners. Flynn took $45000 from the Russian government. Flynn sat directly next to Putin at a banquet. Flynn failed to disclose this payment to the government and lied about it to the American people during a nationally televised interview in July of 2016. Flynn then conducted calls with Kislyak wherein he undermined the foreign policy of the U.S. government. Flynn then lied about it to Trump White House officials. All of these things occurred within the context of an attack on our elections by the Russian government, in which various members of Trump's campaign were contacted by, and also, reached out to the Russian government.

The FBI had a duty to interview Flynn.

and that there were no material facts for him to lie about

This is a lie.

The FBI had the Logan Act, and the FBI also had the counterintelligence investigation into the Russian attacks on our election. The FBI also became worried that Flynn, himself, had become a security risk due to lying to White House officials.

nor do we even know he lied at all.

We know he lied because he pleaded guilty to lying.

All we have to go on are the words of some dirty cops.

There is no indication that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did anything wrong.

You are making wild accusations against people who do not deserve to be attacked because you cannot fathom for one instant that Trump is a crooked and dishonest person.
 
We don't know what the interference was. You certainly don't seem to be able to tell us directly in your own words. You seem to be lying - perhaps to engage in your own interference with the US political process.

I do know. I know this because I've read the special counsel's report.

I encourage you to read the special counsel's report as well.

It will relieve you of your ignorance:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
 
We know Flynn lied because Flynn plead guilty to making false statements. He did so in open court, before a judge, and under oath...twice.

And he withdrew that plea because Mueller's hack threatened to indict his son, drive him deep into debt and destroy his son's life, too.

That's called "duress."

At which point US Attorney Jensen, not Barr as you lied, dismissed charges and is now investigating the huge abuse of power against Flynn.


Let's recap for the slow-learners. Flynn took $45000 from the Russian government.

For slow learners, he accepted that for giving a speech and reported it to the appropriate office of the US government.

Flynn sat directly next to Putin at a banquet.

Given that he was going to be dealing with Putin once Trump took office, where should have sat, the kitchen?:lol:

You are making wild accusations against people who do not deserve to be attacked because you cannot fathom for one instant that Trump is a crooked and dishonest person.

You can spread endless propaganda, but there are now three criminal investigations, and there will be indictments.
 
I do know. I know this because I've read the special counsel's report.

I encourage you to read the special counsel's report as well.

It will relieve you of your ignorance:

Speaking of ignorance:

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?
 
Speaking of ignorance:

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?
ANOTHER Trump propagandist who hasn't read the Mueller report and is willing to lie about anything in a sycophantic effort to support his infatuation. One who couldn't recognize a crime if it bit him in the ass. There's no learner as slow as one who refuses to acknowledge reality.
 
Speaking of ignorance:

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?

ANOTHER Trump propagandist who hasn't read the Mueller report and is willing to lie about anything in a sycophantic effort to support his infatuation. One who couldn't recognize a crime if it bit him in the ass. There's no learner as slow as one who refuses to acknowledge reality.

So quote where the Mueller Report explicitly accuses Trump of a crime.

Or Mueller in his testimony.


Not your silly opinion, but from either of those.

Speaking of propaganda and lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom