Flynn/Kislyak transcripts released

[Slyfox696]

As usual, people see what they want to see. The Trumpsters think this is good for Flynn, while most people with functioning minds see it for the reality: Flynn lied, and he was willing to make deals with a foreign adversary before he really got into his job.

Here's what an honest person sees:

The incoming National Security Advisor was an unregistered foreign agent of Turkey secretly undermining official US policy on a phone call to the head Russian spy in America by seemingly giving aid and comfort to a hostile government who had just violated numerous US laws in their act of war against our country and then lied to the FBI about doing so.


Any conversation which does not start with that basic fact is pointless.

 

[poweRob]

Actually, there are very few people or things that I hate in this world.

How about you?

Your posts generally read like trump rage-tweets.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Your posts generally read like trump rage-tweets.

Except for the fact that I can't stand the man..........right?

In your closed in little world, everyone who disagrees with your nonsense must be a Trumpster.

 

[poweRob]

Except for the fact that I can't stand the man..........right?

In your closed in little world, everyone who disagrees with your nonsense must be a Trumpster.

I didn't call you a trumpster now did I?

 

[RetiredUSN]

I didn't call you a trumpster now did I?

No sir!

But I've seen your responses to many others.

It just might dawn on you some day that there is about 1/4" of difference between the two parties when it comes down to honesty and hypocrisy.

I have hope for you.

 

[poweRob]

No sir!

But I've seen your responses to many others.

It just might dawn on you some day that there is about 1/4" of difference between the two parties when it comes down to honesty and hypocrisy.

I have hope for you.

Gee, how inspiring.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Gee, how inspiring.

Glad I could help Rob.:lol:

 

[Manc Skipper]

How is ANY of what was said "working against America's interest"? Are you suggesting that Obama intended to instigate a harsh reaction from Russia? What would Obama's purpose be in doing something like that and how would THAT in in the interests of the US?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Visbek]

He wasn't acting outside his authority in the least....

Yes, he was -- because at that time, he had no authority. He was still a private citizen.

....he took the plea because he was broke and doing so would stop the financial bleeding

And yet, he's had enough money to drag out the proceedings for years. Lawyers laugh at people with expensive legal teams who cry poverty.

Plus, you're now say that he lied when he plead guilty. Defendants can change their plea, but he had multiple opportunities over the years to do so; meaning he basically committed perjury. Maybe you ought to be a little more careful with your "defense" of Flynn's actions.

 

[Lutherf]

Yes, he was -- because at that time, he had no authority. He was still a private citizen.



And yet, he's had enough money to drag out the proceedings for years. Lawyers laugh at people with expensive legal teams who cry poverty.

Plus, you're now say that he lied when he plead guilty. Defendants can change their plea, but he had multiple opportunities over the years to do so; meaning he basically committed perjury. Maybe you ought to be a little more careful with your "defense" of Flynn's actions.

I have talked about this before. When there is a pending transition between administrations it is and SHOULD BE expected that members of the incoming administration will have discussions with their counterparts in foreign governments. That's how we get a smooth transition of power and that smooth transfer is for the benefit of the American people. When an outgoing administration seeks to make that transfer more difficult, as appears to have happened here, it is working against the American people and for their own interests. It is an action that should be condemned, not celebrated.

As far as Flynn "lying" when he accepted the plea, that's just plain stupid. A plea is offered by the prosecution to the defense as a way to stop a protracted litigation. In this case the plea was even coerced by a prosecution that KNEW its charges were based on lies AND had withheld that evidence from the defense. The "facts" cited in the plea agreement presented to Flynn were, themselves, lies.

 

[Hypothetical]

what an honest person sees is that the FBI did everything they possibly could to incite a "gotcha" on general Flynn, even to the point of illegality.

he should walk and the bad players should be investigated further.

 

[Visbek]

I have talked about this before. When there is a pending transition between administrations it is and SHOULD BE expected that members of the incoming administration will have discussions with their counterparts in foreign governments.

:roll:

Discussions are fine.

Asking a foreign ambassador not to take action is most definitely NOT fine. It's illegal.

I mean, really. If Trump loses the election, would you be fine with Joe Biden and his crew conducting foreign policy and cutting deals with foreign nations months before Biden is inaugurated? I seriously doubt it.

When an outgoing administration seeks to make that transfer more difficult, as appears to have happened here...

Nope, that is 100% grade A bull****.

The Obama administration was fully empowered to engage in foreign policy right up to the moment the new President was inaugurated. Before the inauguration, the people on deck have absolutely NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to engage in actual foreign policy. They are still just private citizens. They're not in the NSA, they're not employed by the State Department.

If your claim was correct, then why did Flynn lie to Pence, Priebus, Spicer, and the FBI agents? If he did nothing wrong, then he had no reason to lie about his call to Kislyak, and yet that's exactly what he did.

As far as Flynn "lying" when he accepted the plea, that's just plain stupid.

lol... That's your argument?!? "He didn't lie, but he lied, because he was coerced!"

Flynn was in a far better position than almost everyone else who cuts a deal with prosecutors. He had top-notch legal representation when he made his plea deal, and months later when he told the judge in court that he stood by the deal. He chose to admit guilt and cooperate with law enforcement. He admitted that he lied to the FBI agents.

Every scrap of documentation available backs that up. The FBI had the transcripts. They asked him point blank if he engaged in discussions about "tit-for-tat" retribution, a phrase that is right in the transcripts, and he said "no."

So again, regardless of whatever motivations you ascribe to Flynn: He lied. Either he lied to FBI agents, and plead guilty to something he did; or he lied when he plead guilty, and tried to change his plea so late in the game that he obviously engaged in perjury and/or contempt of court.

I mean, really. You can't even admit that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, even when the words are right in front of your face.

Flynn also did a lot of illegal activities that he wasn't charged with, such as deliberately failing to register as a foreign agent, and engaging in fraud to avoid reporting the six-figure funds he received from Turkey to lobby the US government.

It is obvious that you have zero credibility here. Spare us your ideological warping of reality, kthx.

 

[Lutherf]

:roll:

Discussions are fine.

Asking a foreign ambassador not to take action is most definitely NOT fine. It's illegal.

I mean, really. If Trump loses the election, would you be fine with Joe Biden and his crew conducting foreign policy and cutting deals with foreign nations months before Biden is inaugurated? I seriously doubt it.



Nope, that is 100% grade A bull****.

The Obama administration was fully empowered to engage in foreign policy right up to the moment the new President was inaugurated. Before the inauguration, the people on deck have absolutely NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to engage in actual foreign policy. They are still just private citizens. They're not in the NSA, they're not employed by the State Department.

If your claim was correct, then why did Flynn lie to Pence, Priebus, Spicer, and the FBI agents? If he did nothing wrong, then he had no reason to lie about his call to Kislyak, and yet that's exactly what he did.



lol... That's your argument?!? "He didn't lie, but he lied, because he was coerced!"

Flynn was in a far better position than almost everyone else who cuts a deal with prosecutors. He had top-notch legal representation when he made his plea deal, and months later when he told the judge in court that he stood by the deal. He chose to admit guilt and cooperate with law enforcement. He admitted that he lied to the FBI agents.

Every scrap of documentation available backs that up. The FBI had the transcripts. They asked him point blank if he engaged in discussions about "tit-for-tat" retribution, a phrase that is right in the transcripts, and he said "no."

So again, regardless of whatever motivations you ascribe to Flynn: He lied. Either he lied to FBI agents, and plead guilty to something he did; or he lied when he plead guilty, and tried to change his plea so late in the game that he obviously engaged in perjury and/or contempt of court.

I mean, really. You can't even admit that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, even when the words are right in front of your face.

Flynn also did a lot of illegal activities that he wasn't charged with, such as deliberately failing to register as a foreign agent, and engaging in fraud to avoid reporting the six-figure funds he received from Turkey to lobby the US government.

It is obvious that you have zero credibility here. Spare us your ideological warping of reality, kthx.

Then explain to me how ANYTHING that Flynn said to Kislyak undermined national security. The ONLY way Flynn's discussion with Kislyak could have undermined Obama policy (not even national interests, just Obama policy) is if Obama's policy was designed to cause Russia to overreact to the sanctions thus making Trump's foreign policy process more difficult. If you have a better explanation then let's hear it.

 

[Rawley]

It's the Dec 29th call.

The section starts with Kislyak.



Now that is referencing the economic sanctions that President Obama placed that day. as spelled out in this Executive Order. Executive Order -- "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities" | whitehouse.gov


Kislyak then goes on to say that these people are fighting terrorists and you want to help fight the terrorists... right?


Flynn's response was first about expulsions.




It is then reiterated that this will all get hashed out after the inauguration.

They 100% discussed the economic sanctions.

And remember... both men knew that they were being recorded.

You quoted Flynn talking about expulsions. Where was Flynn talking about sanctions?

 

[Visbek]

Then explain to me how ANYTHING that Flynn said to Kislyak undermined national security.

:roll:

The Logan Act makes no reference to "national security." I already posted the text of the law:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

So, there ya go. Flynn was a private citizen, acting without any authority or authorization from the current administration, talking to an agent of a foreign government, with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of that foreign government, in relation to an active dispute with the US.

It is irrelevant that violations of the Logan Act are relatively minor. What matters is that Flynn lied about it to FBI agents that were conducting an investigation. He tried to cover it up, possibly just because he didn't want to get fired before his job started, and in doing so committed a worse crime.

Thanks, though, for completely eviscerating your credibility on this issue.

 

[Visbek]

You quoted Flynn talking about expulsions. Where was Flynn talking about sanctions?

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 tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

KISLYAK: I understand what you're saying - but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow....


FLYNN: We don't need to, we don't need that right now, we need to - we need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common uh, threat in the Middle East right now.

KISLYAK: We agree.

FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.

KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh, does it mean that the United States isn't willing to work on terrorist threats?

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.

Maybe you should actually try reading the document. Just a thought.

 

[Lutherf]

:roll:

The Logan Act makes no reference to "national security." I already posted the text of the law:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

So, there ya go. Flynn was a private citizen, acting without any authority or authorization from the current administration, talking to an agent of a foreign government, with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of that foreign government, in relation to an active dispute with the US.

It is irrelevant that violations of the Logan Act are relatively minor. What matters is that Flynn lied about it to FBI agents that were conducting an investigation. He tried to cover it up, possibly just because he didn't want to get fired before his job started, and in doing so committed a worse crime.

Thanks, though, for completely eviscerating your credibility on this issue.

Was Flynn prosecuted for a violation of the Logan Act? If it's such a cut and dried case then why not prosecute him for the violation?

 

[Visbek]

Was Flynn prosecuted for a violation of the Logan Act? If it's such a cut and dried case then why not prosecute him for the violation?

They didn't prosecute him for multiple criminal offenses, including a violation of the Logan Act, failure to file as a foreign lobbyist, and fraud because he cut a deal and plead guilty.

Maybe you ought to read up on the case before you comment further.

 

[RAMOSS]

what an honest person sees is that the FBI did everything they possibly could to incite a "gotcha" on general Flynn, even to the point of illegality.

he should walk and the bad players should be investigated further.

Nonsense. They gave him every chance to NOT lie, yet he continued anyway.

One must wonder why he did so.

 

[Rawley]

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 tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

KISLYAK: I understand what you're saying - but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow....


FLYNN: We don't need to, we don't need that right now, we need to - we need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common uh, threat in the Middle East right now.

KISLYAK: We agree.

FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.

KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh, does it mean that the United States isn't willing to work on terrorist threats?

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.

Maybe you should actually try reading the document. Just a thought.

Not to worry. I won't ever bother you again to support your claims here.

 

[Hypothetical]

Nonsense. They gave him every chance to NOT lie, yet he continued anyway.

One must wonder why he did so.

they had no reason at all to be asking the question.

 

[RAMOSS]

they had no reason at all to be asking the question.

Why do you think that?

 

[sanman]

:roll:

Discussions are fine.

Asking a foreign ambassador not to take action is most definitely NOT fine. It's illegal.

I mean, really. If Trump loses the election, would you be fine with Joe Biden and his crew conducting foreign policy and cutting deals with foreign nations months before Biden is inaugurated? I seriously doubt it.

There's nothing illegal about it - Trump had already won the election, and Transition of Power was underway. Flynn was not just anybody, he was the incoming national security advisor, and he has the right - indeed the responsibility - to represent his incoming administration's policy views. It's the outgoing administration which isn't supposed to be embarking on any new policy initiatives.

Nope, that is 100% grade A bull****.

The Obama administration was fully empowered to engage in foreign policy right up to the moment the new President was inaugurated. Before the inauguration, the people on deck have absolutely NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to engage in actual foreign policy. They are still just private citizens. They're not in the NSA, they're not employed by the State Department.

If your claim was correct, then why did Flynn lie to Pence, Priebus, Spicer, and the FBI agents? If he did nothing wrong, then he had no reason to lie about his call to Kislyak, and yet that's exactly what he did.

No, that's why there's the phrase "Lame Duck" used to describe the waning end of a presidential term in office. Lame Duck presidents don't get to undertake new policy initiatives, and meanwhile the incoming Whitehouse would certainly be doing that. Why was FBI interviewing Flynn following the swearing-in of the Trump admin? Once Trump was sworn-in, his people are most certainly in charge -- so now why was FBI then interviewing him, 4 days after Trump was sworn into office?

Obama certainly ****ed up the Transition of Power, which is a crucial sensitive part of the executive branch power structure.
Maybe that's how they do things in Kenya - which is probably why it's such a poorly-run country - but it's not how it's ever been done in the United States.

lol... That's your argument?!? "He didn't lie, but he lied, because he was coerced!"

Flynn was in a far better position than almost everyone else who cuts a deal with prosecutors. He had top-notch legal representation when he made his plea deal, and months later when he told the judge in court that he stood by the deal. He chose to admit guilt and cooperate with law enforcement. He admitted that he lied to the FBI agents.

Every scrap of documentation available backs that up. The FBI had the transcripts. They asked him point blank if he engaged in discussions about "tit-for-tat" retribution, a phrase that is right in the transcripts, and he said "no."

So again, regardless of whatever motivations you ascribe to Flynn: He lied. Either he lied to FBI agents, and plead guilty to something he did; or he lied when he plead guilty, and tried to change his plea so late in the game that he obviously engaged in perjury and/or contempt of court.

I mean, really. You can't even admit that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, even when the words are right in front of your face.

He's allowed to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. He was the incoming NSA, and FBI's Jan-4-2017 memo said that there wasn't anything wrong in his phone conversations, and that the investigation into him should be shut down. The phone conversation violated no laws. Trying to prosecute him over whether or not he remembered the conversation is just a political stunt to advance the Russia Collusion hoax.

Flynn also did a lot of illegal activities that he wasn't charged with, such as deliberately failing to register as a foreign agent, and engaging in fraud to avoid reporting the six-figure funds he received from Turkey to lobby the US government.

It is obvious that you have zero credibility here. Spare us your ideological warping of reality, kthx.

Clinton could be charged with the same things, which is what the Clinton Foundation was all about. Using such things to coerce Flynn into a guilty plea, just to advance the Russia Collusion narrative hoax, was a fundamental miscarriage of justice.