U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

[ludin]

Nunes can't find his own committees interview with the FBI? LOL! Yeah, right. That's what you get when you listen to knuckleheads like him. There is no 'missing 302'. There are only 2 documents the DOJ probably wouldn't have had or reviewed already. One an FBI document. The draft memo closing the investigation of Flynn. Which probably wouldn't have made it into the DOJ's files anyway seeing as though that investigation was kept open with the discovery of the Flynn calls with Kislyak. The other the transcript of Jim Comey's briefing the House.Intelligence Committee on the Flynn investigation. Which the DOJ said last year that they did not have an unredacted copy of. But those the facts have long been public and were included in the House Intelligence report on their Russian investigation 9 months before Flynn plead guilty. For the second time.

It is missing.
it isn't the committee's version it is the FBI version the one that is supposed to be stored on the computer at the FBI.
it isn't there.

you obviously didn't read the article.

The FBI cleared flynn on the Kislyak calls there was nothing onerous going on he is allowed to call him that was his job.
Yep comey admitted to the committee that flynn didn't lie in agreement with the original 302 filed by the FBI that is missing.

The only 302 we have left is the one that stzok illegally edited.

 

[hanger4]

True that the investigation opened on Flynn under the umbrella of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the links between Trump campaign and Russia had turned up no derogatory information in that respect, until it did, with the discovery of the calls between Flynn and Kislyak. At first officials in the DOJ/FBI and NSA, McCabe, Yates and McCord assumed Flynn’s calls were simply an incoming Administration reaching out to foreign counterparts. That is until they studied the actual transcripts and then they realized that it was far more problematic than that. For one thing Flynn had raised the sanctions himself in that discussion, among other things, not Kislyak. So now they had questions. Then it went from bad to worse when in response to a WAPO story about Flynn's calls with Kislyak Flynn gave an account that was not at all consistent or factual with what they knew to be in the transcripts. In addition Preibus gave the same misleading accounts to the media followed by the Vice President doing the same in a nationally televised Sunday news show. Now clearly somebody has to ask what the hey is going on here? Is everybody lying, or is it just somebody? So it was decided they needed to ask somebody, and that somebody was logically Flynn. They "requested" an interview with him. They told him what the subject matter of the interview would be and he voluntarily agreed to it. And then he lied to the agents despite being given multiple opportunities by them to tell the truth. Now we have a criminal charge. A felony criminal charge. Now how in world is a voluntary interview, the subject matter of which he was previously informed about, that he could have terminated at any point, be a perjury trap? Just by using the term you are acknowledging that he lied. Nobody forced him to and nobody "needed him to lie". (well, except maybe Trump and Pence, but that it would be a story for another time) Actually it would've been something of a relief I imagine if he hadn't. There would still be some loose ends to tie up about his fitness for the office, but at least they would've had that much going for them. What they "needed" was to see if he would tell the truth. He didn't, and now the bigger question becomes why. Why didn't he tell the truth?

BTW a lot that stuff in the post you responded to comes from DIOG. Maybe you should take a look at it sometime.

Still nothing illegal or untoward in the phone calls, why then did they feel the need to interview Flynn again in the hopes of catching him in a lie ??

 

[OpportunityCost]

Are you calling the House, Senate, and the DOJ retards for all stating unequivocally that Crossfire Hurricane was properly predicated and that predication was not fomented in any way out of political bias? As for your "bombshell", which is not so much a bombshell after nearly 2 years. That 302 was related to the obstruction case file. Not the interview. As Mueller's filing made clear. Not to mention Sullivan has already ruled on those 302s

View attachment 67280976

You guys aren't big on new information refuting old information, are you?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

That's not important. What's important is that they suspected that Mifsud was working on behalf of the Russian government.



But, we don't know that, do we?

But for some reason, this suspicion, in your mind, has become as important as a fact.

You cannot distinguish the two things, with respect to Mifsud.

You assume it to be true. You assert it to be true. And you get mad at me when I ask you for some facts to establish your assertion.



I do not believe this is an accurate description of what the FBI thought about the dossier. It's an overly simplistic view of raw human-sourced intelligence. I would encourage you to read that entire Lawfare article you, yourself, posted.



When you describe these problems with the FISA court application process, you are imputing into the process some sort of bad motive on part of the individuals involved.

And when Trump supporters say the FISA applications related to Page were found to be done improperly or, to borrow their phrasing, "illegally", they fail to remind their reader that two of them were actually done properly, and were not found to be invalid by the FISA court.

You actually want to lecture me on facts regarding Mifsud when you have failed to bring any? More fail.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

when trump was under suspicion you ranted and raved that he was colluding with russia to meddle in the election. yet you are perfectly fine with hillary clinton and the DNC buying russian intelligence on this was russian misinformation to meddling the election.

Yes, I am fine with Clinton's campaign spying AGAINST the Russian government.

I am not fine with the Trump campaign working WITH the Russian government AGAINST the United States.

 

[sanman]

You are trying to create a moral equivalence where there is none.

Steele was not disloyal to the U.S. when he conducted a private intelligence operation against the Russian government.

Steele was a complete liar and a peddler of fiction. You're basing your conspiracy on blatantly cooked up garbage.

You need to understand that Americans will not live under a Federal Stasi Bureau of Investigation.

You are becoming what you claim to hate.

Trump and his campaign were acting disloyally towards the U.S. when they sought to benefit from a Russian intelligence operation against the U.S.

To reiterate:

Steele was attacking the Russian government.

Trump and his campaign were trying to work with the Russian government against the Untied States.

Steele claims his information was from Russian govt sources - so propaganda either way. I think he just slapped together some bar-room babble and sold it for cash.

Hillary paid for it, because it's mud-slinging. She doesn't care whether it's true or not.


The fact that you believe such junk says more about you than anything else.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

The problem is that the Russian investigation is a complicated issue involving domains of knowledge that require expert knowledge to fully explore. I think for the average voter or average citizen, my posts are a complete and total waste of time. You are not an average voter, okay? You should be okay with my posts given your post history. Your knowledge and ability to discuss these issues is far above any average voter.

It's hard to have a good discussion with you or anyone else, if you're not going to put any work into your posts, and if you are unwilling to use logic to support your arguments, and also to use facts to support your logic (one has to think logically, and also use actual facts within a logical argument).

It's okay to have assumptions and to use placeholders in your argument, but what I find time and time again, is that over a period of time, a placeholder or an assumption somehow magically transforms into a fact..at least in the minds of pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. And this happens to everyone, even FBI investigators. It's easy to fall in love with a theory.

If you are suspicious, that's okay, say you're suspicious.

If you are using an assumption, that's okay, say you're using an assumption when you are working on an argument or working to support some particular theory.

But don't pretend your suspicions and assumptions aren't anything other than suspicions and assumptions. And that's the main problem I have with your arguments, and with most pro-Trump arguments that involve some degree of conspiratorial thinking.

One has to think logically, but also tie it to the real world.

That doesn't mean you can't work on a hunch, or develop something arising out of suspicion, but those things have to be labeled properly.

Where you can say 1+1 = 2. Highlight that.

Where there is ambiguity, acknowledge it.

Where you are saying 1 + something + something = the conclusion I want to reach...where those "somethings" are, accurately describe them as unknown variables.

What you guys are doing is saying 1 + something + something = Obama framed Trump. Obama is a piece of crap and I hope he rots in hell.

It's hard to trust people. Trump lied over 16,000 times. The media isn't always honest. The government doesn't do things right all the time. But it's not that difficult to find the exit to the maze. The way out through his maze is logic.

Yep, I keep sourcing things you falsely called conspiracy theory while at the same time boasting of superior knowledge. You don't have working knowledge of the subject at hand, you have superficial knowledge, you don't embrace multiple sources of information, you haven't read the Mueller and Horowitz reports, you have not followed the paper trail and recent information regarding the 302s.

You aren't familiar with Clinesmith, you don't know why Strzok was fired, you don't find Strzok to be biased despite emails revealing him as biased, you don't seem to understand he was part of Mueller's team with Page, you don't understand Page revealed bias and voiced she would act on it, you don't even want to know what Durham and Barr will find....its just endless amounts of things you wont acknowledge, or dismiss as CT when I have given you multiple sources to work from.

Most importantly, you are anti due process. Revealing exculpatory information is a duty of an officer of the court, it isn't optional, it frequently carries harsh penalties and lost cases. You are dismissing it as nothing, I will never accept that as a mindset.

 

[ludin]

Yes, I am fine with Clinton's campaign spying AGAINST the Russian government.

They weren't spying against the russian government they were working with the russian government.
OMG how do you not understand this by now?

I am not fine with the Trump campaign working WITH the Russian government AGAINST the United States.

he wasn't.
you have no clue what you are talking about.

Newly released transcripts of interviews from the House Intelligence Committee’s long-running Russia investigation reveal top Obama officials acknowledged that they knew of no “empirical evidence” of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, despite their concerns and suspicions.

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2017. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. ... But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, according to the transcript of her interview, was asked about the same issue. Power replied: “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

When asked again, she said: “I am not.”

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was asked the same question.

“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,” she said, according to her transcribed interview, in response to whether she had any evidence of conspiracy. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

When asked whether she had any evidence of “coordination,” Rice replied: “I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”

When asked about collusion, Rice replied: “Same answer.”

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was asked the same question during his House Intelligence interview.

“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,” Rhodes said.

When pressed again, he said: “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch also said that she did "not recall that being briefed up to me."

"I can't say that it existed or not," Lynch said, referring to evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination.

The trump campaign didn't work with russia it was the DNC and clinton that did.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Did the FBI leak the dossier? Yes or no?

Why do you think the dossier was meant to be leaked? What evidence do you have to support your conclusion?

And, to what degree do you think the U.S. government wanted it to be leaked? Obviously, Steele ended up leaking information about it, and obviously Steele was doing oppo research for a political campaign, but your main issue is not with Steele, it's with Obama-era officials, right? You are pointing the finger at some vast anti-Trump government conspiracy involving dozens if not hundreds of Obama-era officials, who sought to "get" Trump.

The dossier was "shopped" by multiple sources. No, I'm pointing to only a few. Strzok amongst them as one of the worst. Bruce Ohr for passing information through from his wife as an unverified source. Comey for another for leaking to cover his own ass. There can be multiple bad actors unaware of each other's actions. But bad faith actions and actions outside of protocol or operations doesn't even have to be a conspiracy----but hiding it has become an altogether different story, hasn't it?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

You actually want to lecture me on facts regarding Mifsud when you have failed to bring any? More fail.

With respect to Mifsud, my assumption is as follows:

When the Special Counsel's office wrote the following in their report, on page 83 on the print document and 91 of the PDF file, that what they wrote was accurate:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Mifsud is a Maltese national who worked as a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy in London, England. Although Mifsud worked out of London and was also affiliated with LCILP, the encounter in Rome was the first time that Papadopoulos met him. Mifsud maintained various Russian contacts while living in London, as described further below. Among his contacts was [REDACTED], a one-time employee of the IRA, the entity that carried out the Russian social media campaign. In January and February 2016, Mifsud and [REDACTED] discussed [REDACTED] possibly meeting in Russia. The investigation did not identify evidence of them meeting. Later, in the spring of 2016, [REDACTED] was also in contact [REDACTED] that was linked to an employee of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and that account had overlapping contacts with a group of Russian military-controlled Facebook accounts that included accounts used to promote the DCLeaks releases in the course of the GRU’s hack-and-release operations.

Also:

Page 5 of the print document and page 13 of the PDF file:

Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia

--

So, I understand you do not trust the Special Counsel's office. I understand you do not trust this account in the Special Counsel's report.

So, I have given to you the assumption I am working with, and what I have based my argument on with respect to Mifsud...

On what basis do you conclude that Mifsud was part of some elaborate conspiracy theory to "get" Trump?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Still nothing illegal or untoward in the phone calls, why then did they feel the need to interview Flynn again in the hopes of catching him in a lie ??

Oh so you've seen the transcripts? I haven't. Don't think you have either. McCabe, Yates and McCord have though, and they don't agree with you. Cant imagine why we haven't seen them yet if they do indeed show that there was nothing illegal or untoward about them. Could it be because it wouldn't benefit Flynn because they aren't exculpatory? And I'm not aware of any previous FBI interviews with Flynn. At least that pertain to this matter. Are you? And once again the point of the interview was to see if he would tell the truth. The only way you get 'caught' in a lie is when you neglect to tell the truth.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

They weren't spying against the russian government they were working with the russian government.

When Steele was seeking information out amongst his network of contacts, he wasn't asking the Russian government for help, he was asking, effectively, for individuals to turn AGAINST the Russian government.

This is how spying works.

This is how spying has always worked.

OMG how do you not understand this by now?

It's clear to me you have no idea how spycraft works.

Fundamentally, if we're talking about human-sourced intelligence, what spycraft involves is talking to people in, or associated with, a foreign government, and asking them for information that that particular foreign government does not want to be revealed.

 

[iguanaman]

The Logan Act, what a joke, Flynn was part of the Presidential transition team, he had every right as an incoming WH offical to deal with foreign dignitaries. The FBI and the prosecutors would have been laughed out of court.

Meanwhile the FBI saw a undisclosed foreign agent who was about to be made privy to our most guarded secrets and something needed to be done. You obviously have no regard for those secrets. Sad.

 

[iguanaman]

When Steele was seeking information out amongst his network of contacts, he wasn't asking the Russian government for help, he was asking, effectively, for individuals to turn AGAINST the Russian government.

This is how spying works.

This is how spying has always worked.



It's clear to me you have no idea how spycraft works.

Fundamentally, if we're talking about human-sourced intelligence, what spycraft involves is talking to people in, or associated with, a foreign government, and asking them for information that that particular foreign government does not want to be revealed.

I have tried to make them understand that too but it is useless. They have been told that the Steele dossier is made up of Kremlin supplied "disinformation" because all of a sudden Putin decided to hurt Trump and incriminate himself I guess. It is as ridiculous as it comes but that never stands in the way of the cult.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The Logan Act, what a joke, Flynn was part of the Presidential transition team, he had every right as an incoming WH offical to deal with foreign dignitaries. The FBI and the prosecutors would have been laughed out of court.

Actually the fact they would be coming into power soon would give Flynn far more leverage than any other private citizen could ever dream of having to make secret deals capable thwarting the foreign policy goals and interests of the Administration in power. That's not all laughable.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

With respect to Mifsud, my assumption is as follows:

When the Special Counsel's office wrote the following in their report, on page 83 on the print document and 91 of the PDF file, that what they wrote was accurate:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf



Also:

Page 5 of the print document and page 13 of the PDF file:



--

So, I understand you do not trust the Special Counsel's office. I understand you do not trust this account in the Special Counsel's report.

So, I have given to you the assumption I am working with, and what I have based my argument on with respect to Mifsud...

On what basis do you conclude that Mifsud was part of some elaborate conspiracy theory to "get" Trump?

Uh huh, they didn't detail his Western contacts. Papadopoulos was doing his job and trying to cultivate contacts in Russia to understand and know who the players were in Russia on energy. Mifsud also met all the time with people in the West. The issue is, even though the Mueller investigation laid out contacts, it never explicitly stated who was working for. Hell, he could be playing both sides.

Because his statement to Papadopoulos started everything. Who was he getting information from, who was telling him to leak it to G.Papa. (Im not spelling that over and over) with the expectation that it would go to the campaign.

Based on other information---the Crowdstrike CEO testified the information on the supposed DNC hack was circumstantial only, not conclusive. So even in this, Mifsud may have been lying, we don't know. Its odd to me that they had the guy that caused the investigation and made few efforts to really dig into what he was doing and who for. Conclusion: get the facts even if they don't serve the narrative or theory you are pursuing.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Actually the fact they would be coming into power soon would give Flynn far more leverage than any other private citizen could ever dream of having to make secret deals capable thwarting the foreign policy goals and interests of the Administration in power. That's not all laughable.

False. He would have no power until reaching office at which point he would not be interfering in policy. No prosecutable action would be occurring until it isn't prosecutable. That's what is wrong with going after transition members under the Logan Act.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is basically a strawman argument.

It is not necessary for the FBI to catch someone committing a crime over the phone, or to be engaged in an act of disloyalty in counterintelligence terms, before interviewing them.

It flat-out doesn't matter there was no quid pro quo captured in the conversation.

This is a requirement that you are inserting into the process that has no basis in reality. The FBI does not do things this way. The justification required to interview someone is far, far lower than what you suggest.

Missing the point. The argument is that there was no investigation, therefore no "material" fact was stated by Flynn.
Thus no violation of law.

 

[Atomic Kid]

False. He would have no power until reaching office at which point he would not be interfering in policy. No prosecutable action would be occurring until it isn't prosecutable. That's what is wrong with going after transition members under the Logan Act.

I said he would have "leverage" that most any other private citizen wouldn't have to be able to violate the act via the mere fact that he would soon be occupying a high office in close proximity to the the President-elect and therefore be perceived as being in a position to possibly be able to eventually deliver the goods in any corrupt agreement he might enter into with a foreign power. That would certainly be interfering in policy. What other private citizen could possibly have that kind of leverage? That's why transition members conducting such contacts in the dark would invite inquiry.

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outsid

Link to this false assertion please and another good reason that Russia chose not to retaliate would be nice too. Also you could explain this....

Trump White House Made Secret Efforts to Remove Russia Sanctions

Flynn’s Downfall Sprang From ‘Eroding Level of Trust’ - The New York Times

 

[Athanasius68]

1. So what? Are you suggesting it was somehow mandatory for the FBI to only investigate the Russian government's actions?

2. That's not actually what they did. They investigated both what the Russian government did, and also who the Russian government talked to and reached out to, and also what the Trump campaign did in response, and also on their own to reach out to the Russian government.

Well no, they didn't look at who Russia talked to and reached out to.
Yet again, they accepted the Steele Dossier-- uncorroborated 2nd and third hand from anonymous Russian sources anti-Trump info at a time when they knew Russia was seeking to screw with election.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Flynn’s Downfall Sprang From ‘Eroding Level of Trust’ - The New York Times

Sorry can't read that. No subscription.

 

[Athanasius68]

The accusation by Trump supporters in this thread, and Trump supporters in the general public, is that the investigation of Trump and his campaign personnel was somehow unwarranted.

Nobody is this thread, nobody in the public, and nobody associated with Trump has ever presented a good argument that the investigation was unwarranted.

Sure we have-- the House Intelligence Commitee released the transcripts of the testimony of the heads of the Obama DOJ and DNI.
They all say they saw no evidence that Mr. Trump was conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
In other words, there was as much basis to investigate Mrs. Clinton for conspiring with Russia to fix the 2016.
In the USA, governments cannot just launch investigations because they feel like it.

Nobody is this thread, nobody in the public, and nobody associated with Trump has ever presented a good argument that there was some conspiracy to "get" Trump in order to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

The real issue is why was there an investigation when there was no evidence there was a crime or even a national security threat.
The inability to explain that is what causes the belief that this was the objective of the investigation.

 

[iguanaman]

Well no, they didn't look at who Russia talked to and reached out to.
Yet again, they accepted the Steele Dossier-- uncorroborated 2nd and third hand from anonymous Russian sources anti-Trump info at a time when they knew Russia was seeking to screw with election.

They certainly looked at the 100's of contacts with Russian operatives and the Trump campaign. That's a lot of talking and 'reaching out" don't you think? There were ZERO contacts with Russians reaching out to Hillary's campaign. Much of the Steele dossier was verified to be true and it's main assertion that Trump was being helped by the Russians was certainly backed up with other info. It fit perfectly with what others had found like the hacking of the DNC by GRU agents.

Here Are All the Times Donald Trump and His Associates Intersected With Russians | Time

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

I don't think I have erred by not researching and then adopting all the stupid, idiotic, tin-foil hate pro-Trump conspiracy theories that paint Trump as a misunderstood genius who is being victimized by some sort of vast conspiracy against him.

Why do you think I should just take your word for things? And, let's be honest, this isn't your word. This is Trump's word. You accept Trump's version of events, the version that paints him as the victim, and paints the USIC and US law enforcement as the villains. Certainly, it should be clear to you by now, that not everyone believes the things Trump says, especially after lying or misleading over 16,000 times since assuming office? That's a lot of lies, but in truth, that is your primary source, isn't it?

Nobody has to believe Trump.
The burden is always on the government.
Right now we know for a fact that the Obama DOJ and DNI folks did not see any evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Period. End of story.
But we know there was an investigation of him.

The burden isn't on Trump to show that he didn't conspire or that the government was wrong when they investigated. The burden is on the government to show they are justified when they said had no evidence that he and his campaign represented a criminal or national security threat, yet investigated.
He was a presidential candidate. This is a problem. Government can't be running around using its national surveillance powers against political opponents. No sir. No way.