• 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

danielpalos said:
The executive seems to be obstructing Justice. It is the Judicial branch which is delegated the judicial power of the United States.
Click to expand...

The executive chose to cease its prosecution.
They are allowed to do that, as law enforcement is an executive power under the Constitution, not a judicial one.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This isn't correct. It is correct to say that the process isn't over until a convict is sentenced, but we can describe Flynn as guilty at this point because Flynn's plea was accepted by the court and we are now in the post-conviction stage of the process, and his case hasn't yet been dismissed. And that is the main reason for the present controversy. Convicts don't usually have their cases dismissed like this in the post-conviction stage absent some sort of irrefutable evidence indicating the convict's innocence.
Click to expand...

The government has chosen not to continue the prosecution upon the grounds that new evidence would make such a prosecution impossible.

Also, with respect to the false statements, the DOJ isn't dismissing the case on the basis that Flynn didn't make false statements to the FBI. The DOJ is dismissing the case on the basis that the lie wasn't material to any legitimate investigation.
Click to expand...

Yes-- the law upon which Flynn was charged requires a false statement to be "material."

So, even if the case is eventually dismissed we will always be able to say Flynn gave false statements to the FBI even though it was considered to not be a crime.
Click to expand...

Flynn was never the hill. The hill was the false claim of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

There was an article showing how badly Flynn's original defense attorneys had botched things for him. They never saw the transcript or the 302s (ie they never saw the evidence).
It also pointed out that Mueller's charge was flawed as Flynn only spoke about the expulsions, which legally had been a separate executive order from the sanctions.
Click to expand...
 
noonereal said:
Dude, you are teh one in denial. The man lied to the FBI.

Get that through your head. Christ, he admitted it. This is an open and close case.
Click to expand...

LMMFAO... Again, you make my point by ignoring the following FACTS surrounding the entire episode.

1. The FBI and the Mueller team used threats to coerce a guilty plea from Flynn.
2. The 2 FBI agents who conducted the interview (one of which was Peter Strzok), who had the transcripts of the call when they interview him, both reported back that they did not believe Flynn had lied.
3. The question Flynn supposedly lied about, (which Flynn doesn't remember being asked) was not listed in the FBI's notes as a question they had asked him.

Your refusal to either address or acknowledge those facts makes it clear that you fully support blatant government corruption in the name of your political agenda. That is a detestable and very dangerous position to take.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No. The DOJ dropped the charges because the evidence that has come out shows they would not have been able to sustain a prosecution.
Click to expand...

Because the evidence from the 302s proved untrustworthy.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the evidence from the 302s proved untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

That isn't what the DOJ said. They argued the lack of materiality.
Its certainly true that the 302s were unreliable, which means the testimony from the only two witnesses would be unreliable, and thus also another reason why a prosecution would be difficult to sustain.
But the DOJ didn't make that argument. Barr probably wanted to spare the FBI the embarrassment.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That isn't what the DOJ said. They argued the lack of materiality.
Its certainly true that the 302s were unreliable, which means the testimony from the only two witnesses would be unreliable, and thus also another reason why a prosecution would be difficult to sustain.
But the DOJ didn't make that argument. Barr probably wanted to spare the FBI the embarrassment.
Click to expand...

They gave the evidence to allow the argument to be made.
 
danielpalos said:
A potential legal error that may engender forms of corruption in Government. The judiciary is a co-equal branch. Men understand it is about Equality.
Click to expand...

Error ?? I sorry, are you a member of the DC District Court of Appeals ??
 
Athanasius68 said:
Flynn spoke to plenty of foreign officials during the transition. Kisylak was scarcely the only one.
And it had happened about month prior to the interview.
The call with Kisylak was innocuous.
Click to expand...

"INNOCUOUS" !!! What world are you living in? To claim that the conversation with Kislyak was "innocuous" shows the world that you either refused to read the words I provided or you are incapable of comprehending common spoken English.
 
OpportunityCost said:
All the DOJ did was provide the evidence. Dude you have Biden as your avatar, don't give me a bias argument, yours is plainly visible.
Click to expand...

That's fine. You can say the DOJ provided evidence that you erroneously interpret as some sort of conspiracy to frame Flynn to go after Trump.

You can make that argument.

But that does not mean that the DOJ asserted the argument, which is what you claimed, and that does not mean the argument is true, which is also what you claimed.

There is nothing proven, nothing definitive, about your argument, and in fact, the case against some sort of attempt on the part of the FBI to fake the 302 to frame Flynn is very, very weak. You are confusing assumptions with facts. You are confusing suspicions with the truth.

Dude you have Biden as your avatar, don't give me a bias argument, yours is plainly visible.
Click to expand...

So why do you give Trump and his associates every benefit of the doubt and assume all sorts of evil intent on part of the FBI without much evidence at all?

Do you think you're not biased in favor of Trump or against the non-corrupt FBI/DOJ employees that investigated and prosecuted Flynn?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the evidence from the 302s proved untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

This is not true. The handwritten notes confirmed 5 of the 7 question and answer sets in the 302.

You are trying to sneak this past everyone, but I've read the handwritten notes, the 302s, and the June 1st filing by the DOJ, and your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.

You can trick others, but you can't trick me.
 
Grim17 said:
2. The 2 FBI agents who conducted the interview (one of which was Peter Strzok), who had the transcripts of the call when they interview him, both reported back that they did not believe Flynn had lied.
Click to expand...

This isn't the whole truth. The FBI agents reported that Flynn did not give any physical indications that he lied, but concluded, based on the statements he gave them, that he lied nonetheless.

Why do you keep lying about this?

I've told you this several times but you keep insisting the agents did not think he was lying.
 
OpportunityCost said:
They gave the evidence to allow the argument to be made.
Click to expand...

Whatever their intent, the fact that the evidence exists and you are making a particular argument based on it, does not mean the argument is true.

Your argument is very weak. The evidence behind it is very weak and relies on a variety of assumptions that you confuse to be facts.

You think your argument is proven, and it is certainly true, and so on and so forth, but it isn't in any way proven. Not even close. It's a very weak, very poor argument.

You don't notice this because you are biased in favor of Trump and against the FBI/DOJ personnel that had the audacity to investigate people associated with your cult leader.

Now, it's fine if you want to believe this very weak, dumb, stupid, irrational, unsupported conspiracy theory to make yourself feel better, but you err in suggesting it has been definitively proven in some way.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
The executive chose to cease its prosecution.
They are allowed to do that, as law enforcement is an executive power under the Constitution, not a judicial one.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement is not the judicial power of the United States. We have separate branches of Government for a reason.
 
Grim17 said:
LMMFAO... Again, you make my point by ignoring the following FACTS surrounding the entire episode.

1. The FBI and the Mueller team used threats to coerce a guilty plea from Flynn.
2. The 2 FBI agents who conducted the interview (one of which was Peter Strzok), who had the transcripts of the call when they interview him, both reported back that they did not believe Flynn had lied.
3. The question Flynn supposedly lied about, (which Flynn doesn't remember being asked) was not listed in the FBI's notes as a question they had asked him.

Your refusal to either address or acknowledge those facts makes it clear that you fully support blatant government corruption in the name of your political agenda. That is a detestable and very dangerous position to take.
Click to expand...

you are hopeless

this is so simple and straight forward that all you can do is try to pull at strings on the end

frankly, you are just being silly

your posts embarrassing
 
noonereal said:
you are hopeless

this is so simple and straight forward that all you can do is try to pull at strings on the end

frankly, you are just being silly

your posts embarrassing
Click to expand...

Facts are embarrassing when you take a position that runs counter to them as you have done.

Your position is "Flynn plead guilty, end of story"... You don't give a damn whether he actually lied or not, or the reason why he plead guilty, or if the government abused their power by using threats to obtain that plea, or whether the government abused their power when they interviewed him knowing he had committed no crime, or whether the FBI/Mueller team's charge was even legitimate or not...

Because Flynn was a Trump appointee all you care about is "Flynn plead guilty" and whether or not he was the victim of government/political corruption is absolutely irrelevant to you. As long as it serves your political agenda, you wholeheartedly support government corruption and that is despicable.

.
 
danielpalos said:
Law enforcement is not the judicial power of the United States. We have separate branches of Government for a reason.
Click to expand...

Yes. And the Executive department said they will no longer prosecute Mr. Flynn.
The current drama has been over a member of the Judiciary throwing a temper tantrum over that decision by the Executive branch.
 
Grim17 said:
I've never seen you prove there was a quid pro quo concerning the military aid to the Ukraine.

Link please.

.
Click to expand...
That's not what I was talking about. It's not even related to the thread.

Trump defenders are so dishonest.
OpportunityCost said:
Considering the case is being ordered dismissed with prejudice and cannot be retried, innocent sounds like an apt conclusion.
Click to expand...
Only to an idiot.

Only stupid, partisan, Trump hating trolls think differently.
Click to expand...
What an absolutely stupid thing to say. Flynn admitted guilt. Twice. The DOJ is corruptly withdrawing charges AFTER getting a guilty plea, which is essentially unheard of.

Corruptly withdrawing prosecution for a political ally after that ally has already twice admitted guilt is not "innocent" to anyone who is honest or intelligent.
Athanasius68 said:
The "corrupt" reasons were due to evidence indicating there was no crime.
Click to expand...
This is a lie.

It actually quite literally was.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. Flynn had no active role the government at the time, thus it could not be his job to negotiate policy.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

It is not I who claimed that Flynn did not receive permission from the government to make a phone call.
Click to expand...
You're the one making the dishonest insinuation a random American was just having a random chat with a random international person...as opposed to a member of the Trump campaign illegally discussing US policy with the head Russian spy in America after Russia broke US criminal statutes to help the Trump campaign win the election.

Trump defenders are so dishonest.
 
Slyfox696 said:
What an absolutely stupid thing to say. Flynn admitted guilt. Twice. The DOJ is corruptly withdrawing charges AFTER getting a guilty plea, which is essentially unheard of.
Click to expand...

It is fortunate then, that we have an attorney general who, when presented with new evidence, has the courage to admit a mistake in public-- that his department erred when it had thought it had enough evidence to sustain a successful prosecution.
Just about everyday it seems the formerly convicted are released when the relevant district attorneys realize the evidence never supported the charge.
We should be proud to have such an attorney general who is proactive in the interest of justice.

Corruptly withdrawing prosecution for a political ally after that ally has already twice admitted guilt is not "innocent" to anyone who is honest or intelligent.
This is a lie.
Click to expand...

When new evidence shows that a prosecution could not be sustained, then it doesn't matter whether the person was a political ally of the president.
The interests of justice have been served.

This is a lie. Flynn had no active role the government at the time, thus it could not be his job to negotiate policy.
Click to expand...

He wasn't negotiating policy. The policy was already announced and was executed by the Obama Admin.

You're the one making the dishonest insinuation a random American was just having a random chat with a random international person...as opposed to a member of the Trump campaign illegally discussing US policy with the head Russian spy in America after Russia broke US criminal statutes to help the Trump campaign win the election.
Click to expand...

Its not illegal for the incoming NSC director to be talking to the Russian ambassador.
We already know from two sources that the FBI saw no problem with the conversation.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yes. And the Executive department said they will no longer prosecute Mr. Flynn.
The current drama has been over a member of the Judiciary throwing a temper tantrum over that decision by the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

The defendant had already plead guilty. The judiciary looking into potential obstruction of justice seems reasonable. Why not simply pardon him like Ford did for Nixon?
 
danielpalos said:
The defendant had already plead guilty. The judiciary looking into potential obstruction of justice seems reasonable. Why not simply pardon him like Ford did for Nixon?
Click to expand...

What happened was this:
The government told Flynn he had broken the law and laid out the evidence to support their claim. Flynn agreed and confessed.
However, new evidence has been released and discovered which showed that he may not have broken the law. Thus, the DOJ being ethical and responsible, dropped the charges
 
Grim17 said:
Your position is "Flynn plead guilty, end of story"... You don't give a damn whether he actually lied or not
Click to expand...

He did certainly give false statements to the FBI. "No information" statements are prosecutable.

or the reason why he plead guilty
Click to expand...

He pleaded guilty because he knew he was going to lose in court.

or if the government abused their power by using threats to obtain that plea
Click to expand...

The FBI engaged in completely ordinary behavior with respect to Flynn. You accuse the FBI of singling out Flynn for political purposes without a shred of proof. The fact is the FBI does what they did with Flynn with everyone.

or whether the government abused their power when they interviewed him knowing he had committed no crime
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing:

1) The FBI investigates crimes. How does the FBI prove a crime without investigating it first?

2) Whether or not a crime was committed or not doesn't matter. A false statement charge is about impeding an investigation, not about lying about a crime.

or whether the FBI/Mueller team's charge was even legitimate or not...
Click to expand...

Your charge that the DOJ's prosecution of Flynn was legitimate or not has never been proven. It's nothing more than an assertion based on assumptions.

You want us to be outraged about something that was never proven so we can forgive Flynn's crime, which was proven. That's a really stupid argument.

Because Flynn was a Trump appointee all you care about is "Flynn plead guilty" and whether or not he was the victim of government/political corruption is absolutely irrelevant to you. As long as it serves your political agenda, you wholeheartedly support government corruption and that is despicable.
Click to expand...

The only political corruption involved in the Flynn case is the corruption being used to overturn his conviction.

And you don't care about this because you worship Trump, think he can do no wrong, and think any criticism of him is invalid. This is how everyone knows you are a member of a cult.
 
Grim17 said:
Facts are embarrassing when you take a position that runs counter to them as you have done.

Your position is "Flynn plead guilty, end of story"... You don't give a damn whether he actually lied or not, or the reason why he plead guilty, or if the government abused their power by using threats to obtain that plea, or whether the government abused their power when they interviewed him knowing he had committed no crime, or whether the FBI/Mueller team's charge was even legitimate or not...

Because Flynn was a Trump appointee all you care about is "Flynn plead guilty" and whether or not he was the victim of government/political corruption is absolutely irrelevant to you. As long as it serves your political agenda, you wholeheartedly support government corruption and that is despicable.

.
Click to expand...

He lied to teh fBI, he pleaded guilty.

Grow the **** up.

Trumpets are the ultimate "not my fault" never take personal responsibility crowd.

Hillary was right, deplorable.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
He did certainly give false statements to the FBI. "No information" statements are prosecutable.
Click to expand...

So did you eat a McRib sandwich at McDonalds on Feb 8th 2018 at 3:45 pm?
I'm not sure... Maybe I did.
You are under arrest for giving false and misleading statement to federal investigators...

LMMFAO



He pleaded guilty because he knew he was going to lose in court.
Click to expand...

When did he say that? Link please?



The FBI engaged in completely ordinary behavior with respect to Flynn.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Sure they did... That's why Comey bypassed protocol and told him he didn't need a lawyer.


You accuse the FBI of singling out Flynn for political purposes without a shred of proof. The fact is the FBI does what they did with Flynn with everyone.
Click to expand...

Flynn was already cleared by the FBI/DOJ when a certain WH meeting took place, where Obama was told the calls were legit, yet he wanted Comey to make sure he had the right people continuing to investigate him...
Bill Priestap's note makes it clear that the intent of the interview was to set a perjury trap...
The interview was in fact a perjury trap based on the FBI only asking Flynn questions they knew the answers to...
After interviewing Flynn, both agents reported that they didn't think Flynn lied, but 8 months later after the Mueller investigation was started, Mueller's team decides to charge him...

You know, a little common sense goes a long way.



1) The FBI investigates crimes. How does the FBI prove a crime without investigating it first?
Click to expand...

Flynn was cleared... The calls were deemed "legit" by the director of the FBI... Their interview was not to gain knowledge, but for the expressed purpose of creating a crime when no crime had been committed.

and btw, you can save the "he lied to Pence" BS, because that is not a crime and none of their damned business unless the Trump people wanted it investigated.

2) Whether or not a crime was committed or not doesn't matter. A false statement charge is about impeding an investigation, not about lying about a crime.
Click to expand...

Nothing asked and answered in that interview could have possibly impeded any investigation, because the FBI knew the answers before they ever asked the questions. The interview was a setup and you damned well know it.



Your charge that the DOJ's prosecution of Flynn was legitimate or not has never been proven. It's nothing more than an assertion based on assumptions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's based on a bunch of evidence that's been recently uncovered, which you are well aware of and have dismissed because it doesn't fit your political agenda..

You want us to be outraged about something that was never proven so we can forgive Flynn's crime, which was proven. That's a really stupid argument.
Click to expand...

The recently uncovered evidence indicates that he didn't lie, and even the worse case scenario is that he couldn't remember certain things, it still doesn't change the fact that a) the interview should have never taken place, b) the interview was conducted for the purpose of creating a crime when Flynn hadn't committed one, c) the interviewing agents said that they didn't think he lied, and d) they used threats against his family to coerce him into the guilty plea.

Even if you want to claim his uncertain answer was a crime, it doesn't change all the other facts surrounding the bogus investigation and the way our legal system works, that's what is called "fruit from the poisonous tree"... Case dismissed.



.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom