• 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

Jay59 said:
If you are going to persist in this lie, you will never understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of the facts of this case.

Let's go over why we know Flynn lied, and I'm going to skip all his lies about the UN stuff, which he also got caught lying about.

--

The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. Flynn stated that he did not.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...smiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf

The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouragedKISLYAK not to escalate the the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a " tit- for- tat. " FLYNN responded, " Not really. I don' t remember. It wasn't Don' t do anything. " The U.S. Government's response was a total surprise to FLYNN FLYNN did not know about the Persona Non-Grata ( PNG ) action until it was in the media. KISLYAK and FLYNN were starting off a good footing and FLYNN was looking forward to the relationship. With regard to the scope of the Russians who were expelled, FLYNN said he did not understand it FLYNN stated he could understand one PNG, but not thirty- five

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...smiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf

And as a refresher, here is what Flynn said in the call with Kislyak, on page 9:

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 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 tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

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

--

The first response is clearly a lie because it totally contradicts the transcript.

"No information" responses can still be prosecuted. The second response is still prosecutable if the DOJ can prove Flynn had knowledge of it.

Let's look at Flynn's third response in relation to this topic:

The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which KISLYAK told him the Government of Russia had taken into account the incoming administration ' s position about the expulsions or where KISLYAK said the Government of Russia had responded, or chosen to modulate their response, in any way to the U.S.'s actions as a result of a request by the incoming administration. Flynn stated it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so. FLYNN stated he was attempting to start a good relationship with KISLYAK and move forward . FLYNN remembered making four to five calls that day about this issue, but that the Dominican Republic was a difficult place to make a call as he kept having connectivity issues, FLYNN reflected and stated he did not think he would have had a conversation with KISLYAK about the matter, as he did not know the expulsions were coming . FLYNN stated he did not have a long drawn out discussion with KISLYAK where he would have asked him to "don' t do something"

This was another "no information" response that is still prosecutable under the False Statements statute.

Let's look at what Flynn actually talked about with Kislyak:

FLYNN: Hi Ambassador

KISLYAK: Hi General, uh, l apologize for disturbing you today.

FLYNN: That's okay, how can I help you?

KISLYAK: Uh, you know I have a small message to pass to you from Moscow and uh, probably you have heard about the decision taken by Moscow about action and counter-action.

FLYNN: yeah, yeah well I appreciate it, you know, on our phone call the other day, you know, I, I, appreciate the steps that uh your president has taken. I think that it is was wise.

KISLYAK: I, I just wanted to tell you that our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow and ...

FLYNN: Good

KISLYAK: Your proposal that we need to act with cold heads - uh, is exactly what is uh, invested
in the decision.

FLYNN: Good
 
Jay59 said:
Which has adequately been explained, if you had paid attention.
Click to expand...

Your theory was adequately explained, it was not adequately proven.

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

Do you notice how throughout most of this thread I've been referencing the source material?

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

No, he is not, read what Flynn spoke about:

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 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 tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

--

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? ls even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where we're gonna go, uh - regarding uh, regarding our relationship. And also, basically, we have to take these, these enemies on that we have. And we definitely have a common enemy. You have a problem with it, we have a problem with it in this country, and we definitely have a problem with it in the Middle East.

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

--

Flynn was speaking very specifically about the expulsions and about how Russia should respond to it. Flynn was not just speaking about relations between countries in "very general" terms.

Why, when they caught you in the act?
Click to expand...

You accept the propaganda pro-Trump propagandists keep publishing. You have an inaccurate view of what happened. So when you are saying I lied about something, it is based out of ignorance and a desire to protect your incompetent, crooked, idiotic cult leader, Donald Jenius Trump.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You are ignorant of the facts of this case.
Click to expand...

Speaking of being ignorant of the facts, what happened to the ridiculous lie that Flynn was a Russian agent or that he'd committed crimes with the country?

Why do you keep dodging that question, Mr. Mueller Report Expert?
 
OpportunityCost said:
To interview the potential NSC advisor, ignore Executive branch protocol, and waive off a lawyer, they damn sure better have one.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a nice opinion to have, but it doesn't matter in the real world. These fake obstacles you keep inventing aren't real.

All of that aside, the FBI as supposed to have closed that case.
Click to expand...

All the FBI had done was create a draft memo to close the case. The fact that they created a draft memo to close the case doesn't mean the FBI was "supposed" to have closed the case. The FBI is allowed to open and close cases according to its own schedule. There is no requirement that once an FBI employee drafts a memo closing a case that the case must be closed within X number of days, or something. And had they closed the case it wouldn't have mattered. Had they closed the case they could have just opened it back up. You keep inventing procedural obstacles that do not exist, that aren't real, in an attempt to defend Flynn.

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

How do you know this? You don't know that the 302 was altered to make Flynn look "more guilty." And the 302 doesn't matter as much as you think it does. The 302 is hearsay evidence. Remember that discussion?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
All the FBI had done was create a draft memo to close the case. The fact that they created a draft memo to close the case doesn't mean the FBI was "supposed" to have closed the case. The FBI is allowed to open and close cases according to its own schedule. There is no requirement that once an FBI employee drafts a memo closing a case that the case must be closed within X number of days, or something. And had they closed the case it wouldn't have mattered. Had they closed the case they could have just opened it back up. You keep inventing procedural obstacles that do not exist, that aren't real, in an attempt to defend Flynn.
Click to expand...

The case was supposed to be closed because the FBI had found zero evidence that Flynn had committed any crimes.

There was zero criminal predicate for them to interview Flynn at all as US Attorney Jensen determined.

Which is why those Mueller prosecutors are now under criminal investigation.

Why did you lie and claim that Barr made the decision, Mr. Mueller Report Expert?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Hillary Clinton's entire inner circle. **** the arrogance stance, its not going to mean **** to me.
Click to expand...

You don't have anything specific you can point to, can you? You just don't like them, do you? And you like Trump, and that's that.

The FBI's conclusions from the interview was that he wasn't lying
Click to expand...

This is a lie. This isn't true.

The FBI concluded that he was lying, and the FBI also concluded that Flynn did not give any non-verbal or visual indications he was lying.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Flynn is just a good liar.

And just repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true.

We can go over the testimony where McCabe and Comey said that there were no visual indicators that Flynn was a liar, if you want.

We can go over the testimony where McCabe said Flynn was lying -- based on the facts -- despite the lack of non-verbal or visual indicators that Flynn lied.

that he wasn't a national security threat
Click to expand...

This was the assessment until Flynn lied to Trump White House officials.

AFTER Flynn lied to Trump White House officials they became suspicious enough to investigate Flynn further.

Then they wanted/needed multiple issues to bring to trigger the SC law.
Click to expand...

The trigger that lead to the Special Counsel's appointment was dummy Trump FIRING Comey for NOT ending the Flynn investigation.

You are constantly minimizing the actions of Trump and his cohorts.

Flynn and Trump are responsible for their own behavior.

If Trump did suspicious things that warranted investigation, that's on Trump, that's not on the FBI.

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

They had a great reason. Flynn lied to the Trump White House about his calls with Kislyak.

You are demanding that the FBI should have had overwhelming evidence against Flynn. But this is not a thing. The FBI doesn't need overwhelming evidence.

You're just mad the investigation had an impact on Trump.

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.
Click to expand...

I am constantly referring to the source material. You are constantly confusing assumptions with facts.

you have gall to assume I need to educate your ignorance.
Click to expand...

You don't have to support your argument. You can do whatever you want. I don't really care. And I don't really care what you think of me. What matters is the argument. And you consistently fail to support your assumptions and accusations. And that's okay. But don't pretend what you are doing is effective. It's not.
 
Grim17 said:
There was absolutely no predication for interviewing Flynn... None.
Click to expand...

This is not true.

Let's go over it again.

Flynn took $45,000 from the Russian government and then lied about it. Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Dec 2015. Flynn's call with Kislyak undermined the U.S. government's response to Russia's attack on U.S. elections. And then Flynn lied about it to Trump White House officials. All of this is happening within the context of Russia's attack on U.S. elections and within the context of the investigation into the attack on our election.

This was a really good predication to interview Flynn.
 
[
QUOTE=W_Heisenberg;1071982127]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.
Click to expand...

No. The Obama Admin would have had to reveal they were investigating the Trump campaign. And when asked for evidence to support that investigation, at best they would have produced the Steele dossier-- the anti-Trump political document that came from anonymous Russian sources.
They would have been laughed at and condemned for an abuse of power.
 
Grim17 said:
Everything he said publicly about the bogus Trump/Russia collusion nonsense was correct...
Click to expand...

Most of what Nunes said were blatant lies, and you are fool to believe him.

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.
Click to expand...

Adam Schiff is one of the greatest congressmen we've ever had. I love him. He's great. Schiff believes in the Rule of Law and holding crooks to account. The complete opposite of the thugs and crooks that support crooked Trump.
 
Termn8or said:
Nunes got the entire Russian Collusion Hoax right. Almost every claim by corrupt Obama officials was a complete and utter lie.
Click to expand...

This is not remotely close to being true. It's amazing how delusion you Trump supporters are.

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
Click to expand...

Whether or not Barr's sham investigations are occurring, they aren't going to find anything. They are wasting their time.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Well, that's a nice opinion to have, but it doesn't matter in the real world. These fake obstacles you keep inventing aren't real.
Click to expand...

Those procedures actually do exist in the real world.
And they exist for a good reason.
And the FBI director-- you know the guy who is supposed to enforce the rules-- blatantly disregarded them.

All the FBI had done was create a draft memo to close the case. The fact that they created a draft memo to close the case doesn't mean the FBI was "supposed" to have closed the case.
Click to expand...

Signed by Mr. Comey.

The FBI is allowed to open and close cases according to its own schedule.
Click to expand...

And they closed on their schedule.
There was no reason to think Mr. Flynn was a security threat.

There is no requirement that once an FBI employee drafts a memo closing a case that the case must be closed within X number of days, or something
Click to expand...
.

Signed by Mr. Comey. The only delay was the bureaucracy of it.

And had they closed the case it wouldn't have mattered. Had they closed the case they could have just opened it back up.
Click to expand...

They would need evidence. A telephone conversation with which the FBI director had said showed no evidence of a crime or a national security threat is not a particularly strong argument for re-opening.
Click to expand...
 
Grim17 said:
That is totally False!

That is exactly what the FBI wanted:

View attachment 67282167

That was the purpose of that interview... To get Flynn to lie so they could prosecute him.

They created a crime where no crime existed.

.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously that naive and/or ignorant that you don't know that when law enforcement thinks someone is hiding something they shouldn't trap them in a lie? It's not just a standard interrogation technique it's a valid and effective one. You people. It's always been thus: full force of the law for the other side but not for you.
 
Termn8or said:
And gosh, so far only two illegal FISA warrants, with all the related crimes?
Click to expand...

This investigation was far more complicated than Page FISA warrants. I think it's silly to get hung up on those two warrants, and yes, the fact that two of them were not invalidated is a good thing.

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

What is important is that Horowitz said the investigation was not impacted by bias.

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.
Click to expand...

Read Volume 2. Mueller outlines multiple instances of obstruction of justice on Trump's part just by laying out the facts. It's true he didn't come to a conclusion, because he did not believe that to be his job, be the facts indicate Trump obstructed justice.

Would you like a little nice cheese with that whine?
Click to expand...

At least I am not writing my posts using huge font sizes and bright colors like a crazy person.

It is grossly illegal to spy on anyone, let alone a presidential campaign
Click to expand...

It's not illegal, for better or for worse, it's not illegal.

then two years of an actual presidency without legal justification, and they had none.
Click to expand...

You should really set aside time to read the Mueller report.

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

You seem nuts, man. Are you off your meds today? Writing in all caps and brightly-colored font?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Most of what Nunes said were blatant lies, and you are fool to believe him.



Adam Schiff is one of the greatest congressmen we've ever had. I love him. He's great. Schiff believes in the Rule of Law and holding crooks to account. The complete opposite of the thugs and crooks that support crooked Trump.
Click to expand...

The Nunes report has been shown to be correct.
The Schiff has been shown to be incorrect.
 
digitusmedius said:
Are you seriously that naive and/or ignorant that you don't know that when law enforcement thinks someone is hiding something they shouldn't trap them in a lie? It's not just a standard interrogation technique it's a valid and effective one. You people. It's always been thus: full force of the law for the other side but not for you.
Click to expand...

They had the transcript. They knew what was said.
What exactly is that you think the FBI thought Flynn was trying to hide?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You don't have anything specific you can point to, can you? You just don't like them, do you? And you like Trump, and that's that.



This is a lie. This isn't true.

The FBI concluded that he was lying, and the FBI also concluded that Flynn did not give any non-verbal or visual indications he was lying.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Flynn is just a good liar.

And just repeating it over and over doesn't make it more true.

We can go over the testimony where McCabe and Comey said that there were no visual indicators that Flynn was a liar, if you want.

We can go over the testimony where McCabe said Flynn was lying -- based on the facts -- despite the lack of non-verbal or visual indicators that Flynn lied.



This was the assessment until Flynn lied to Trump White House officials.

AFTER Flynn lied to Trump White House officials they became suspicious enough to investigate Flynn further.



The trigger that lead to the Special Counsel's appointment was dummy Trump FIRING Comey for NOT ending the Flynn investigation.

You are constantly minimizing the actions of Trump and his cohorts.

Flynn and Trump are responsible for their own behavior.

If Trump did suspicious things that warranted investigation, that's on Trump, that's not on the FBI.



They had a great reason. Flynn lied to the Trump White House about his calls with Kislyak.

You are demanding that the FBI should have had overwhelming evidence against Flynn. But this is not a thing. The FBI doesn't need overwhelming evidence.

You're just mad the investigation had an impact on Trump.



I am constantly referring to the source material. You are constantly confusing assumptions with facts.



You don't have to support your argument. You can do whatever you want. I don't really care. And I don't really care what you think of me. What matters is the argument. And you consistently fail to support your assumptions and accusations. And that's okay. But don't pretend what you are doing is effective. It's not.
Click to expand...

The FBI already had the phone calls, the FBI already knew there was nothing illegal or untoward in the phone calls, so no, the FBI had no reason to keep or reopen the investigation of Flynn.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is not true.

Let's go over it again.

Flynn took $45,000 from the Russian government and then lied about it. Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Dec 2015. Flynn's call with Kislyak undermined the U.S. government's response to Russia's attack on U.S. elections. And then Flynn lied about it to Trump White House officials. All of this is happening within the context of Russia's attack on U.S. elections and within the context of the investigation into the attack on our election.

This was a really good predication to interview Flynn.
Click to expand...

Valiant effort, professor, but futile. These people are so mired in their filthy lies there's no getting through to them.
 
Athanasius68 said:
They had the transcript. They knew what was said.
What exactly is that you think the FBI thought Flynn was trying to hide?
Click to expand...

That would be a question for Liar Flynn. Why, indeed, did he feel the need to lie and the agree to plead guilty in order to avoid a trial which would have involved a much deeper inquiry into all his activities--not just what was on the phone call tapes. I'm tempted to think it was something much worse than just what passed between him and Kislyak on their telephone calls.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This investigation was far more complicated than Page FISA warrants. I think it's silly to get hung up on those two warrants, and yes, the fact that two of them were not invalidated is a good thing.
Click to expand...

It actually does matter because the FISA warrant was sought as part of the argument that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia and Page needed to be monitored. That it was fraudulent again shows they had nothing to support their claims.
Click to expand...
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This investigation was far more complicated than Page FISA warrants. I think it's silly to get hung up on those two warrants, and yes, the fact that two of them were not invalidated is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, it's no big deal when a presidential campaign and two years of a presidency are illegally spied on, is it?

Oh, it's giggle, a "good thing."

What is important is that Horowitz said the investigation was not impacted by bias.
Click to expand...

He said no such thing, Mr. Mueller Report Expert. In fact, he indicated that it was highly likely that there was bias.

Termn8or said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read Volume 2. Mueller outlines multiple instances of obstruction of justice on Trump's part just by laying out the facts. It's true he didn't come to a conclusion, because he did not believe that to be his job, be the facts indicate Trump obstructed justice.
Click to expand...

No, I asked you to quote the Report, Mr. Mueller Report Expert.

Because your word is worth absolutely nothing.

At least I am not writing my posts using huge font sizes and bright colors like a crazy person.
Click to expand...

The usual excuse from liberals to dodge key evidence and questions they can't answer without revealing their lies and garbage.
 
digitusmedius said:
That would be a question for Liar Flynn. Why, indeed, did he feel the need to lie and the agree to plead guilty in order to avoid a trial which would have involved a much deeper inquiry into all his activities--not just what was on the phone call tapes. I'm tempted to think it was something much worse than just what passed between him and Kislyak on their telephone calls.
Click to expand...

Flynn doesn't have to answer that question.
This is America. Flynn doesn't have to prove his innocence.
There was no Trump/Russia conspiracy. It didn't happen. That's why Mueller couldn't prove anything.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Well, that's a nice opinion to have, but it doesn't matter in the real world. These fake obstacles you keep inventing aren't real.?
Click to expand...

Speaking of the real world, what happened to the ridiculous lie that Flynn was a Russian agent or that he'd committed crimes with the country?

Why do you keep dodging that question, Mr. Mueller Report Expert?
 
Termn8or said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obama officials did not leak to the press that Flynn was a "Russian agent." Some pundits may have expressed this suspicion, but this was not something the Obama administration did.

Flynn was interviewed because Flynn lied to Trump White House officials.

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.
Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't have to close a case according to a time frame that makes Trump supporters happy. All the FBI did was create a draft memo to close the case, and they can decide when to make the draft memo the finalized memo any time they want.

After being coerced into the plea under duress
Click to expand...

Boo-hoo. Flynn is a grownup. Flynn is responsible for his behavior, whether it was to lie in the first place, or to plead guilty, twice, under oath, in open court, before a judge.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The government kind of needs to have a evidence of a crime to investigate.
Click to expand...

It needs an articulable factual basis, it doesn't need overwhelming evidence of a crime.

Comey cited NO evidence for concern.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, Comey did cite evidence. And Comey did say he was concerned. And the fact that Comey did not list other evidence during that conversation doesn't mean there was not other evidence. And we know based on OTHER sources that OTHER evidence did exist at the time. There is more to this investigation than the Rice memo. And the Rice memo was not about the investigation. The Rice memo was about Obama's concerns about security and whether or not to share information with Flynn about Russia.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Termn8or said:
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,
Click to expand...

Obama officials did not leak to the press that Flynn was a "Russian agent." Some pundits may have expressed this suspicion, but this was not something the Obama administration did.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap, how would "pundits" have the slightest idea what Flynn was doing without classified information being illegally leaked as it was?

And it wasn't pundits who first reported it, it was reporters.

Freaking ridiculous lie that it wasn't Obama officials. There is no one else that it could have been.:lol:

Whatever claim you make, the opposite is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom