DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    TaylorB said:
    The calls were secret. Trump tweeted about how smart Putin was for not retaliating without acknowledging that it was at his own team's request. Flynn did not want it known that he was discussing sanctions with the Russians, which is why he excluded that from his text to McFarland summarizing the call, and why he lied to Pence and Spicer about discussing sanctions. Flynn had many secret discussions with Kislyak from 2015 through the transition.

    He was a private citizen in that he was not authorized to negotiate foreign policy of an administration he was not part of. His status as a transition official did not give him the right to undercut Obama's foreign policy. That's what the Logan Act prohibits.
    Click to expand...

    Okay - so you do think that people named as a National Security Advisor, and presumably anyone named as any Administration official, during a transition speaking with a foreign official is evidence of a threat to national security. I find such a position absurd and untenable for a country like the United States.

    You can go through history and see many examples of transition teams having representatives of the Administration-in-transition to "negotiate". I mean an easy example is Madeline Albright meeting world leaders at the 2008 G20 summit on behlaf of the Obama Administration.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Okay - so you do think that people named as a National Security Advisor, and presumably anyone named as any Administration official, during a transition speaking with a foreign official is evidence of a threat to national security. I find such a position absurd and untenable for a country like the United States.
    Click to expand...
    No.
     
    FullMonte said:
    I take it from your post that you think:

    "speaking with a foreign official " and "negotiate foreign policy of an administration he was not part of. " are the same thing?
    Click to expand...
    No, I do not think that. But is that the distinction you want to make, because it does not strike me as a very sharp distinction as a practical matter.
    You take any incoming Administration, whether it be the President-elect, a representative appointed by the transition team, or a person chosen as part of an official post - when they meet with foreign heads of state, high-ranking officials, ambassadors, etc, there will be an air of illegality surrounding such a meeting on the view you seem to be advocating.

    Perhaps grounds for the current Administration to get a secret court warrant to use U.S. intelligence sources on the incoming Administration? Not exactly a view I feel comfortable.
     
    JimEverett said:
    No, I do not think that. But is that the distinction you want to make, because it does not strike me as a very sharp distinction as a practical matter.
    You take any incoming Administration, whether it be the President-elect, a representative appointed by the transition team, or a person chosen as part of an official post - when they meet with foreign heads of state, high-ranking officials, ambassadors, etc, there will be an air of illegality surrounding such a meeting on the view you seem to be advocating.

    Perhaps grounds for the current Administration to get a secret court warrant to use U.S. intelligence sources on the incoming Administration? Not exactly a view I feel comfortable.
    Click to expand...
    This article discusses the G20 summit during the Obama transition:

    PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA won't be attending this weekend's global economic crisis summit in Washington—saying again that there is only "one president at a time"—but he's sending a bipartisan team to talk with the visiting world leaders and report back to him.

    This thread spells out the host of reasons that secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions resulting from acts of cyber-war conducted against the United States, which are conducted by someone who is already acting as a secret foreign agent for Turkey and who is being paid by other foreign adversaries (Flynn) -- particularly when nearly everyone else in the transition team is also conducting secret discussions with that adversary -- present more of a potential national security threat than discussions of a bipartisan tandem that was publicly announced by Obama and which was sent to a multi-nation summit to listen to proposed solutions to a global economic crisis.

    There is evidence that Flynn wanted the sanctions lifted for personal reasons, which included a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. He was doing lots of secret things to benefit himself personally. We should be careful about political motivations when it comes to intelligence ops on US citizens. Flynn deserved to be subjected to a CI investigation. His secret contacts with Russians had been going on long before the transition and he continued to hide them through the inauguration when he was texting his nuclear deal partners that the project was "good to go." The number of secret contacts Trump's other people had with Russians in that time frame was astounding. I am sure Trump apologists have an excuse about every single one of them, or at least a gripe about how they were discovered. But it is crystal clear to me that the investigation into them was warranted.
     
    Last edited:
    TaylorB said:
    This article discusses the G20 summit during the Obama transition:

    PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA won't be attending this weekend's global economic crisis summit in Washington—saying again that there is only "one president at a time"—but he's sending a bipartisan team to talk with the visiting world leaders and report back to him.

    This thread spells out the host of reasons that secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions resulting from acts of cyber-war conducted against the United States, which are conducted by someone who is already acting as a secret foreign agent for Turkey and who is being paid by other foreign adversaries (Flynn) -- particularly when nearly everyone else in the transition team is also conducting secret discussions with that adversary -- present more of a potential national security threat than discussions of a bipartisan tandem that was publicly announced by Obama and which was sent to a multi-nation summit to listen to proposed solutions to a global economic crisis.

    There is evidence that Flynn wanted the sanctions lifted for personal reasons, which included a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. He was doing lots of secret things to benefit himself personally. We should be careful about political motivations when it comes to intelligence ops on US citizens. Flynn deserved to be subjected to a CI investigation. His secret contacts with Russians had been going on long before the transition and he continued to hide them through the inauguration when he was texting his nuclear deal partners that the project was "good to go." The number of secret contacts Trump's other people had with Russians in that time frame was astounding. I am sure Trump apologists have an excuse about every single one of them, or at least a gripe about how they were discovered. But it is crystal clear to me that the investigation into them was warranted.
    Click to expand...
    Hey TaylorB. I'm still waiting to hear your opinions on Van Grack withholding Brady material for 3 years that totally contradicted his case against Flynn, Van Grack lying to Judge Sullivan multiple times, all of the Obama administration officials testifying under oath to Schiff's committee saying they saw no evidence of collusion with Russia while they were saying the complete opposite on CNN & MSNBC, and the Crowdstrike guy saying they had no evidence that Russia stole the emails.

    www.realclearinvestigations.com

    Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

    CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia
    www.realclearinvestigations.com www.realclearinvestigations.com
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Hey TaylorB. I'm still waiting to hear your opinions on Van Grack withholding Brady material for 3 years that totally contradicted his case against Flynn, Van Grack lying to Judge Sullivan multiple times, all of the Obama administration officials testifying under oath to Schiff's committee saying they saw no evidence of collusion with Russia while they were saying the complete opposite on CNN & MSNBC, and the Crowdstrike guy saying they had no evidence that Russia stole the emails.

    www.realclearinvestigations.com

    Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

    CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia
    www.realclearinvestigations.com www.realclearinvestigations.com
    Click to expand...
    I’ve asked repeatedly for you to cite the best piece of evidence turned up in the last week that exonerates Flynn. You keep sending long articles and twitter threads. I don’t have time to respond to that, and you don’t try to respond to my questions. But I’ll bite. Let’s start with Van Grack. What is thing he withheld that is the most important in exonerating Flynn?
     
    JimEverett said:
    No, I do not think that. But is that the distinction you want to make, because it does not strike me as a very sharp distinction as a practical matter.
    You take any incoming Administration, whether it be the President-elect, a representative appointed by the transition team, or a person chosen as part of an official post - when they meet with foreign heads of state, high-ranking officials, ambassadors, etc, there will be an air of illegality surrounding such a meeting on the view you seem to be advocating.
    Click to expand...

    Not.at.all.

    Example A: "Hey, I'm going to be the new president's National Security Adviser. I'm looking forward to working with you. Here is my contact information, please let me know if there is anything you need. Once we take office, I'd like to meet with you to discuss the way forward."

    Example B: "Hey, I'm going to be the new president's National Security Adviser. I know that the current administration is pushing for you to take certain actions. If you do the opposite of what they want, I can assure you that the incoming president will reward your country."

    Do you think those two are not a "sharp distinction as a practical matter"?
     
    Judge Sullivan: "Do you wish to challenge the circumstances on which you were interviewed by the FBI?"

    Mike Flynn: "No, your honor."

    Judge Sullivan: "Do you understand that by maintaining your guilty plea and continuing with your sentencing, you will give up your right forever to challenge the circumstances under which you were interviewed?"

    Mike Flynn: "Yes, your honor."

    ......

    Judge Sullivan: "Your sentencing memorandum also states that you pled guilty before certain, quote, revelations that certain FBI officials involved in the January the 24th interview were themselves being investigated for misconduct, end quote. Do you seek an opportunity to withdraw your plea in light of these revelations?

    Mike Flynn: "I do not, your honor{/quote]

    So, Flynn was aware that the FBI officials who interviewed him were being investigated for misconduct, and STILL agreed to forfeit his right forever to challenge the circumstances of his interview.

    Click to expand...
     
    TaylorB said:
    I’ve asked repeatedly for you to cite the best piece of evidence turned up in the last week that exonerates Flynn. You keep sending long articles and twitter threads. I don’t have time to respond to that, and you don’t try to respond to my questions. But I’ll bite. Let’s start with Van Grack. What is thing he withheld that is the most important in exonerating Flynn?
    Click to expand...
    Seriously dude? I've stated multiple times all the new developments in the past week that have continued to weaken the Russia case and you want to play this game about asking me what the best piece of evidence is. Cant you just use google if you are unable to read articles or twitter threads? I've responded to a few of your posts in this thread.
     
    FullMonte said:
    Not.at.all.

    Example A: "Hey, I'm going to be the new president's National Security Adviser. I'm looking forward to working with you. Here is my contact information, please let me know if there is anything you need. Once we take office, I'd like to meet with you to discuss the way forward."

    Example B: "Hey, I'm going to be the new president's National Security Adviser. I know that the current administration is pushing for you to take certain actions. If you do the opposite of what they want, I can assure you that the incoming president will reward your country."

    Do you think those two are not a "sharp distinction as a practical matter"?
    Click to expand...
    The only problem is Flynn didn't say what you claimed in example B. If you believe he did can you cite an official document that shows that to be the case?
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Seriously dude? I've stated multiple times all the new developments in the past week that have continued to weaken the Russia case and you want to play this game about asking me what the best piece of evidence is. Cant you just use google if you are unable to read articles or twitter threads? I've responded to a few of your posts in this thread.
    Click to expand...
    Seriously. Most important piece of evidence withheld by Van Grack that was discovered in the last week that exonerates Flynn. You can cite two, or three if you need more than one. I am just asking you to identify the documents and state why you think they exonerate Flynn. If you’ve been posting them all week then it shouldn’t be hard to find them.
     
    TaylorB said:
    Seriously. Most important piece of evidence withheld by Van Grack that was discovered in the last week that exonerates Flynn. You can cite two, or three if you need more than one. I am just asking you to identify the documents and state why you think they exonerate Flynn. If you’ve been posting them all week then it shouldn’t be hard to find them.
    Click to expand...
    The Twitter posts or threads that for some reason you are unable to read all have the screenshots of those documents. You are a smart guy so this game you are playing makes it quite obvious that you aren't interested in having a good faith debate.
     
    Biden's unmasking request was on the same day as the Ignatius Washington Post column that first reported the Flynn-Kislyak call. I believe that the penalty for revealing that is 10 years in jail. I'll be curious to see if they can pin down exactly who leaked it.

     
    SaintForLife said:
    The Twitter posts or threads that for some reason you are unable to read all have the screenshots of those documents. You are a smart guy so this game you are playing makes it quite obvious that you aren't interested in having a good faith debate.
    Click to expand...
    I am not playing any games. I find it hard to debate when you say things like “you failed to consider the fact that everyone agreed there was no collusion” or “you didn’t mention that Van Grack lied about and withheld Brady materials for three years” because those statements are vague, usually turn out to be framed inaccurately, and when I respond to them, it leaves me open to you saying “OK but you failed to consider X” because I didn’t rebut thousands of pages of Sidney Powell briefs and all of ”Deep State Target” in a single post. Same thing with lengthy twitter threads.

    For the sixth-ish time I am simply asking you to be specific in identifying two or three recently revealed documents you think exonerate Flynn the most, and why. “Brady material.” OK, what Brady material? What documents did Flynn not have until last week that prove his innocence? I responded to Beach Friends with the reasons I think Flynn lied. I offered a rebuttal to Andrew McCarthy’s article that Trump defenders were all wound up about. I explained why I think Sullivan will deny the DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn — you snickered at my analysis without explaining why you think I’m wrong. I was right about Stone’s new trial being denied and about the McGahn case being taken up en banc, and you lost interest in the topics. I am not afraid of these debates. I am just not debating long twitter threads and articles. Just name the specific documents and why they help you.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom