Trump says he could bring back fired ex-national security adviser Flynn

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sure mate.

I say white and you say black.  I say black and you say white.  Get real, mate.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Up to you if you want to give up so quickly.  Or maybe you don't really want to know?

 

Yeah, the old "sources" ruse.  LOL  What a joke.

So what is the "exculpatory evidence"?

[Gillyflower]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

A fourth poster who has no clue as to the Flynn case and the implications of this bombshell damning evidence.  "Look, squirrel!!!"  LOL

I can't put all your posts here, but nevertheless my answer to all of them is.........DO YOU?

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

So what is the "exculpatory evidence"?

You're joking me, aren't you?  You guys ridicule me for not providing links and then when I do, and I supplied 6 good ones, you tell me you refuse to read them and complain about the "source" to boot.  And you have the balls to come back to me and ask for me to hold your hand and point out where the text is?

 

I'm telling you, you guys are pure comedy.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Gillyflower said:

I can't put all your posts here, but nevertheless my answer to all of them is.........DO YOU?

Go back a page and read the links I provided.  Do that first and talk to me after that.

[candide]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

You're joking me, aren't you?  You guys ridicule me for not providing links and then when I do, and I supplied 6 good ones, you tell me you refuse to read them and complain about the "source" to boot.  And you have the balls to come back to me and ask for me to hold your hand and point out where the text is?

 

I'm telling you, you guys are pure comedy.

You linked an article claiming there was exculpatory evidence, and in this article, there was nothing. So what is the exculpatory evidence? Where is is clearly explained?

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, candide said:

You linked an article claiming there was exculpatory evidence, and in this article, there was nothing. So what is the exculpatory evidence? Where is is clearly explained?

I ain't playing your game, candide.  I provided links and it's up to you now.  Next time you ask me the same silly question I won't respond.

[riclag]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Internal FBI documents turned over by the Justice Department on Wednesday showed FBI officials debated whether and when to warn Flynn that he could face criminal charges as they prepared for a January 2017 interview with him in the Russia probe

The liar and despicable Trump hater,comey, was the director over the disgraced  top career professionals at the once was, premier law enforcement agency, during cross fire hurricane!

 

 Comey who is under criminal investigation presently and was recommended for criminal prosecution in 2019, was interviewed many months ago saying,when sending agents into the WH (interviewing Gen:Flynn): " noting it is "something we, I ,wouldn't have done or gotten away with in a more organized investigation -- a more organized administration."

 

Andrew McCarthy former US prosecutor said:"If General Flynn was a gangbanger or mafia guy, they would have sat down with them, they would have told them this is a criminal investigation, they would have identified themselves as FBI agents, told him the reason for the interview, told him he had a right not to answer questions, and told him he made false statements, that that could be grounds for prosecution. They would do all of those things for criminals".

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/30/comey_i_sent_fbi_agents_into_the_white_house.html

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/barr-on-durham-investigation-evidence-shows-that-were-not-dealing-with-just-mistakes-or-

sloppiness/

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/455616-james-comeys-next-reckoning-is-imminent-this-time-for-leaking

 

https://www.axios.com/doj-inspector-general-fisa-fbi-comey-vindicated-c40cc42a-369c-4df2-b982-40be71a8798f.html

 

 From the article: "Internal FBI documents turned over by the Justice Department on Wednesday showed FBI officials debated whether and when to warn Flynn that he could face criminal charges as they prepared for a January 2017 interview with him in the Russia probe".

(side note ,McCarthy makes reference to  this above).

 

The msm reports, the FBI debated, lol . Looking at that from the actual notes , this was some of the scheming imop

what is our goal? Truth/ Admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

"we regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing", (side note this is referenced to what Andy McCarthy was saying in the beginning of my comments)!

 

https://saraacarter.com/powell-unsealed-fbi-handwritten-notes-and-emails-reveal-agents-plotted-perjury-trap-on-flynn/

 

America is waiting Mr. Durham,waiting to see why you couldn't entirely agree with IG Horowitz limited in scope investigation!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[riclag]

14 hours ago, Thailand said:

Nobody else want to work for Trump now?

Sources,for nobody

[riclag]

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Flynn has direct and undisputed connections to Russian Intelligence and to Putin himself, why wouldn’t Trump want this ‘useful idiot’ on his team?!

So doesn't everybody in the same position as Flynn in every past administration ,had contact with P and R

The Putin/Russian conspiracy theory is nonsense!

 

They closed the investigation  on January 4 2017. Enter comey,mccabe stroz and page ,all fired for either lying ,one recommended for criminal prosecution and all according to Horowitz not vindicated ,these are so called professional agents. Stroz couldn't find no evidence of

directed,controlled by or coordinated activities with Russia by Mr. Flynn so they set a perjury trap for him.

IMOP the judge is goin to take away all charges ,so the present and future POTUS Mr. Trump won't have to pardon him.

Once the judge in the case dismisses all charges he's gonna get millions from law suits! Good for him

Edited May 1, 2020 by riclag

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, Proboscis said:

I saw it on CNN and on the BBC. But in a measured way. The allegations against FBI officials are, as yet, unproven. 

 

That said, Flynn lied to the FBI. That is a felony in the USA. That is bad enough. Now apparently Flynn claims that he did not know this was a felony and he was not warned it was a felony.

 

The real headline should be: "Should Flynn ever have been made National Security Advisor if he did not know that lying to the FBI is a felony."

The new info does not consiste of "allegations" against the FBI - though not surprised CNN presented it as such.  Documented proof of their misconduct was released - yet more notes of a premediated conspiracy against an elected official and his staff by agencies which should be acting In Their Service.  Those who don't like this system should call for a Constitutional Convention to change it.

 

As to Flynn's "lying" - they had a a recording of a conversation - one of dozens he had with foreign leaders in a short time-span. The "agents" then quizzed him to see if they could get something that didn't match.  The notes reveal this was planned in-advance.  His conversation was not like John Kerry in Iran - working against a sitting president - which WAS a violation of the Logan Act.  Flynn's conversation was that of a transition-team official and incoming National Security chief who was former head of the Defense Intel Agency (so, yeah, he knew Putin).

 

Flynn did not know he was under investigation, or would have requested a lawyer, who would have obtained the prosecution's evidence for his review.  That's how criminal-justice is supposed to work.  Comey joked about how he set up the meeting which, by standard protocol, should have been arranged through the President's Chief of Staff.

 

The real headline should be, "Obama and the deep-state didn't like Flynn or Trump, so decided they should violate the principle of elections and democracy, and decide - for themselves - who Trump could hire for staff."  This, while working to build an impeachment case, which "agent" Strock called "the insurance policy" (documented), on false-premises. 

 

I put "agent" in quotes, because they were engaged in criminal behavior - a now-verified conspiracy.

And, btw, I actively-hate MOST of Trump's hires - just as supporters of Jimmy Carter were disappointed in his - and those in-between.  They always seem to come from the same crop of anti-Americans (against the citizen's interests), regardless of which party wins the election.

 

Ironically, some of the same people who critizize the permanent power-class in Thailand, seem to think the same is "just great" in the USA - where a bunch of unelected, self-righteous bureaucrats can do away with the results of elections and referendums, when they find the results "unsatisfactory."

[JackThompson]

9 hours ago, Susco said:

Guess it is election Russian interference time again

Yes - I'm sure the Russians were delighted to get a POTUS who gave lethal military aid to Ukraine (Obama/Hillary didn't), and greatly increased US Energy production, which severly reduced their income from their primary income-source.  Contrast to Hillary, who would have greatly reduced American energy, and had her people colluding with Russian intel, to dig up dirt on Trump.

[Catkiwi]

16 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

Those FBI handwritten notes mean nothing. He did lie to investigators. Case closed. We all know he will be pardoned once his case is over.

And the proof of your 4 points lies where exactly? Wild speculation at best I would tender....

[JackThompson]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You're joking me, aren't you?  You guys ridicule me for not providing links and then when I do, and I supplied 6 good ones, you tell me you refuse to read them and complain about the "source" to boot.  And you have the balls to come back to me and ask for me to hold your hand and point out where the text is?

 

I'm telling you, you guys are pure comedy.

They love to use the "disreputable source" excuse, which means anything not owned by one of the 6 conglomerates that own almost all US Media.  It's not like those sources have vested-interests to protect or something.

 

Their response would be funny - except they don't realize all their "legitimate source" info is propaganda - just like Iraq's WMDs were - and then they VOTE based on what they were told is true.

[Redline]

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The Flynn case is going to have major repercussions.  This article is pure propaganda because it restates much of the initial circumstances involving the case while not delving into any of the bombshell findings of the past week which show as the bottom line:

 

Flynn was set up by the U.S. government.

His whole life!

[Redline]

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The new info does not consiste of "allegations" against the FBI - though not surprised CNN presented it as such.  Documented proof of their misconduct was released - yet more notes of a premediated conspiracy against an elected official and his staff by agencies which should be acting In Their Service.  Those who don't like this system should call for a Constitutional Convention to change it.

 

As to Flynn's "lying" - they had a a recording of a conversation - one of dozens he had with foreign leaders in a short time-span. The "agents" then quizzed him to see if they could get something that didn't match.  The notes reveal this was planned in-advance.  His conversation was not like John Kerry in Iran - working against a sitting president - which WAS a violation of the Logan Act.  Flynn's conversation was that of a transition-team official and incoming National Security chief who was former head of the Defense Intel Agency (so, yeah, he knew Putin).

 

Flynn did not know he was under investigation, or would have requested a lawyer, who would have obtained the prosecution's evidence for his review.  That's how criminal-justice is supposed to work.  Comey joked about how he set up the meeting which, by standard protocol, should have been arranged through the President's Chief of Staff.

 

The real headline should be, "Obama and the deep-state didn't like Flynn or Trump, so decided they should violate the principle of elections and democracy, and decide - for themselves - who Trump could hire for staff."  This, while working to build an impeachment case, which "agent" Strock called "the insurance policy" (documented), on false-premises. 

 

I put "agent" in quotes, because they were engaged in criminal behavior - a now-verified conspiracy.

And, btw, I actively-hate MOST of Trump's hires - just as supporters of Jimmy Carter were disappointed in his - and those in-between.  They always seem to come from the same crop of anti-Americans (against the citizen's interests), regardless of which party wins the election.

 

Ironically, some of the same people who critizize the permanent power-class in Thailand, seem to think the same is "just great" in the USA - where a bunch of unelected, self-righteous bureaucrats can do away with the results of elections and referendums, when they find the results "unsatisfactory."

Deep state ????????????

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

They love to use the "disreputable source" excuse, which means anything not owned by one of the 6 conglomerates that own almost all US Media.  It's not like those sources have vested-interests to protect or something.

 

Their response would be funny - except they don't realize all their "legitimate source" info is propaganda - just like Iraq's WMDs were - and then they VOTE based on what they were told is true.

The entire concept of "approved sources" is bogus and contrived.  For one it's meant to protect the MSM as they've been anointed "approved sources" when in fact, as you well know and have pointed out, they have become pure propaganda.  For another it's meant to muzzle the true investigative journalists who ultimately will not be stopped from exposing the crimes of corrupt power no matter how great the attempt is to censure them.

 

The New York Times, WapO, CNN and others have been caught time and time again writing outright fake stories, printing bogus headlines without vetting the information which get completely debunked in a day or two.  At what point do they lose their credibility and lose their "approved sources" status?  Should have happened long ago.

 

And finally, who is the arbiter of truth?  Who or what group gets to decide?  All information is filtered and altered in some way through the personal beliefs of each and every individual.  Period.  The concept of fact checking is often the process of filtering information through another's belief system, through another's world view, especially when what is being fact checked entails a great deal of complexity.  And this then is supposed to be accepted by all as ultimate truth?

 

I love the U.S. for the foundational truths it's creation was based, rooted in.  Freedom, for one.  Freedom of speech is merely a subset of freedom, period.  Who in their right mind would argue against the principle truth of freedom, which is the absolute basis of all life?  Not I.  Only men and women who have accepted twisted beliefs which run counter to and deny the true reality of which they are yet unaware.

 

Back to Flynn.  What astounds me is the fact that the truth of Flynn's case, finally being brought to light and which exposes the illegal misdeeds of rogue and corrupted players at the highest levels of the FBI and Justice Department, should make every true American cheer for the exposure of corruption and cheer for the exoneration of a man wronged yet we find the exact opposite.  We have individuals here who, despite being confronted with an avalanche of undeniable facts, continue to ardently argue for a narrative which is being shown to be false.  And when they are pointed in the direction of where the truth lays they refuse to look.  Can any of you posters explain this?

[simple1]

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

A hot news item such as this should be easily found by typing "Michael Flynn news" in that little search bar at the top of your browser.  Let me know if you guys need help finding it.  You guys are truly comical.

 

Here's a comprehensive article which details some of the evidence withheld in the Flynn case.  Of particular note is the part of a little illegal side deal worked out between the prosecutors and Flynn's lawyers at the time, Covington & Burling.  For those Americans who cherish their country's rule of law I can understand how some of this would be quite disturbing to you.  I await your outraged responses.

 

The Federalist - Robert Mueller’s Case Against Michael Flynn Is About To Implode

 

"Also attached to the filing were two heavily redacted exhibits that consisted of email communications between Flynn’s former Covington attorneys. “We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that they are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” one email read, referring to Flynn’s son, also named Michael Flynn."

 

Here's an article describing Brady information withheld by the prosecution.  Though I'm not an American I can understand the outrage Americans reading this will feel to learn that their DOJ purposely withheld exculpatory which would exonerate a defendant.  My God, what if it was you?

 

The Federalist - Newly Filed Court Documents Include Exculpatory Evidence For Michael Flynn

 

"New court documents filed under seal include significant exculpatory information about Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser, an FBI official familiar with the situation told The Federalist on Friday. The new documents, which were filed under seal by the Department of Justice Friday, allegedly include exonerating evidence about Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations with foreign diplomats as Trump’s top incoming foreign policy adviser and is currently attempting to withdraw his plea, as well as evidence of malfeasance by the FBI during its investigation of Flynn."

 

Here's an article about his former attorneys delay in turning over documents which they had been ordered to due last July.  What?  There are still missing documents?  How can that be.  Covington Burling . . . doesn't that ring a bell?  Oh, yeah, that's where former AG Eric Holder landed after stepping down.  What a coincidence!

 

The Washington Times - Michael Flynn's former attorneys say they've uncovered missing documents in case

 

"Michael Flynn’s former legal team said they recently uncovered emails and handwritten notes they “inadvertently” left out of a cache of documents they turned over to the former national security adviser’s new attorney last summer, according to a court filing Thursday.

Lawyers at Covington & Burling said in a filing that the emails were missed because of technical errors and they mistakenly overlooked the handwritten notes.

And the lawyers may have missed even more documents, according to court documents."

 

Here's a follow up article as to the latest order by Judge Emmet Sullivan for Covington Burling to perform another search for documents.  Holey moley, they've found another 6,800 documents and emails??  How could this possibly be?  What's really going on here?

 

The Washington Examiner - Judge orders Michael Flynn's former attorneys to execute another search for documents after new trove discovered

 

"Around the same time Tuesday afternoon, a seven-page filing from the Covington attorneys was unsealed, showing that Kelner and Anthony had just transferred thousands of documents that they had been sitting on for almost a year to Powell and Flynn’s new team. Earlier in April, Covington admitted it failed to transfer a number of emails and two handwritten notes over to Powell, but Tuesday showed that this was just the tip of the iceberg."

 

Here's Gregg Jarrett, who's been all over the Flynn case for the longest time, unlike some of the know-it-all posters here, writing an article about how this exposed government malfeasance of sitting on exculpatory information for years will exonerate Flynn.  Again, I'm sure all you red-blooded Americans will by now be absolutely livid over this travesty of justice and will now speak your minds against it here.

 

Fox News - Gregg Jarrett: New evidence on Michael Flynn — drop all charges and let him sue his persecutors

 

"The unvarnished truth is that the retired Army lieutenant general and former National Security Adviser never did anything wrong and committed no crimes. He was set up by unscrupulous FBI officials, then relentlessly pursued by Mueller’s team of overzealous prosecutors who were desperate to show that President Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election."

 

There's at least one true blue red-blooded American out there who still has his sense of true justice in tact and is making his voice heard loud and clear.  Would be nice if all Americans had this same sense of justice.  Who here wants to see an innocent man sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit and see his life destroyed?  Can we get past politics here?

 

The Federalist - Grassley Demands DOJ Release All Exculpatory Information On Michael Flynn

 

His letter to the DOJ states:  “Simply stated, after years of rampant speculation and publicly reported inconsistencies regarding how the FBI handled the case, it’s time for the public to know the full set of facts relating to Lt. Gen. Flynn, including any and all government misconduct,” Grassley wrote in a letter to DOJ Attorney General William Barr. “In the alternative, I request that you amend the protective order so that Congress can review the information in light of its constitutional oversight prerogatives.”

 

I could go on and on and on but I think I've provided y'all with enough leads to educate yourselves.

Thanks for sharing your links. Personally I no longer read / listen to Fox as they have a proven track record of sycophantic coverage of trump as well as misleading information. Same applies to The Federalist as they also have a poor track record, including misleading information regards Covid-19 and political issues; refer below. Accordingly it is no surprise I was unable to locate your source info. BTW Mods have repeatedly stated it is a member's responsibility to authenticate their claims by providing credible links, not to demand people to do Google searches for verification.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)#Alleged_Coronavirus_pandemic_misinformation

 

I have read in WAPO, cannot provide link due to paywall, it is unlikely the judge hearing the case will accept fynn's appeal / overturn the conviction as, putting it simply, the basis of facts for the original conviction still stand, though have to wait and see the final outcome

 

An article covering flynn's current legal team which sheds some background light...

 

Powell was there as a leading proponent, on cable news and in op-eds, of a conspiratorial narrative advanced by the far right: that special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was part of a plot by the intelligence community to force President Donald Trump from office

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

[candide]

31 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Thanks for sharing your links. Personally I no longer read / listen to Fox as they have a proven track record of sycophantic coverage of trump as well as misleading information. Same applies to The Federalist as they also have a poor track record, including misleading information regards Covid-19 and political issues; refer below. Accordingly it is no surprise I was unable to locate your source info. BTW Mods have repeatedly stated it is a member's responsibility to authenticate their claims by providing credible links, not to demand people to do Google searches for verification.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)#Alleged_Coronavirus_pandemic_misinformation

 

I have read in WAPO, cannot provide link due to paywall, it is unlikely the judge hearing the case will accept fynn's appeal / overturn the conviction as, putting it simply, the basis of facts for the original conviction still stand, though have to wait and see the final outcome

 

An article covering flynn's current legal team which sheds some background light...

 

Powell was there as a leading proponent, on cable news and in op-eds, of a conspiratorial narrative advanced by the far right: that special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was part of a plot by the intelligence community to force President Donald Trump from office

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

Interesting article. Actually, it's not certain that Flynn made a good choice.

Edited May 1, 2020 by candide

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Thanks for sharing your links. Personally I no longer read / listen to Fox as they have a proven track record of sycophantic coverage of trump as well as misleading information. Same applies to The Federalist as they also have a poor track record, including misleading information regards Covid-19 and political issues; refer below. Accordingly it is no surprise I was unable to locate your source info. BTW Mods have repeatedly stated it is a member's responsibility to authenticate their claims by providing credible links, not to demand people to do Google searches for verification.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)#Alleged_Coronavirus_pandemic_misinformation

 

I have read in WAPO, cannot provide link due to paywall, it is unlikely the judge hearing the case will accept fynn's appeal / overturn the conviction as, putting it simply, the basis of facts for the original conviction still stand, though have to wait and see the final outcome

 

An article covering flynn's current legal team which sheds some background light...

 

Powell was there as a leading proponent, on cable news and in op-eds, of a conspiratorial narrative advanced by the far right: that special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was part of a plot by the intelligence community to force President Donald Trump from office

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

Do you understand what's happening here, simple1?  Posters such as myself are asked to provide links to factual information - not opinion pieces but factual information, such as documents, which cannot be spun by either left or right leaning opinion.  If left leaning media outlets refuse to report certain news then the information must be sought somewhere else.  So here's the Catch-22.  Posters such as yourself then automatically reject sources in which the information does appear with the reasoning that they are sources they do not use and so refuse to look at the information which they themselves requested.  You do understand what a Catch-22 is?

 

Also, rather than critically examining information they instead disparage the source (or in this case you're disparaging Flynn's attorney as well) and use this as an excuse to invalidate the information without every examining it!!!  Blow me away that you don't understand this.

 

I'll give you an example.  Contained in the Federalist article entitled Robert Mueller’s Case Against Michael Flynn Is About To Implode are the two heavily redacted exhibits that consist of email communications between Flynn’s former Covington attorneys in which one states, “We have a lawyers’ unofficial understanding that they are unlikely to charge Junior in light of the Cooperation Agreement,” referring to Flynn’s son.  This is clearly and majorally illegal and It is impossible for the author of the article to alter the fact through opinion.  The author explains it accordingly:

 

"The revelation of a “lawyers’ understanding,” after all, concerns much bigger questions than just Flynn’s guilty plea. It raises the specter of widespread abuse by federal prosecutors of the plea process to sidestep constitutional requirements. That’s what Giglio is: a constitutional mandate that the prosecution provide an accused with material evidence affecting the credibility of a government’s witness."

 

The above is purely factual and provides an explanation of the illegality of the side deal between prosecutors and Flynn's attorneys.  Where is a right-leaning spin in the above?  What is not factual about it?  What is untrue about it?  I'm challenging you to point it out.

 

I'll provide you with another example.  In the Fox News article there's a quote by Flynn's current attorney, Sidney Powell, in which she stated publicly:

 

“This afternoon, the government produced to Mr. Flynn stunning Brady evidence that proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI. The government deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution — knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.”

 

Again, the fact that the government withheld Brady material, in other words evidence in the possession of prosecutors which point to a defendant's innocence, is unalterable factual information.  Where is the misinformation?  How is this fact untrue?  Again, I'm challenging you to point it out.  BTW, Sidney Powell is currently prohibited from disclosing to the public certain Brady material due to it being sealed.

 

So one more time, in your reply you state that you do not approve of the sources and therefore you refuse to look for the information you requested I provide to you.  Please, please don't reply with an inexcusable spin as to why you reject valid information.  You cannot fool me so please don't try.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Tippaporn

[metisdead]

A post with a link to a questionable source has been removed.

 

A member has been asked to provide links and links have been provided.  

 

• I no longer read / listen to Fox as they have a proven track record of sycophantic coverage of trump as well as misleading information.

 

While links to Fox were provided, the same can be said for sources such as CNN, MSNBC etc. with their sycophantic coverage and misleading information.  Seems it is difficult to find sources that are "Least Biased".  Links have been provided, stop the bickering. 

 

[stevenl]

He is a convicted felon. When all is sorted and there has been a miscarriage of justice, ok, rehire the guy.

 

Put at this point in time even considering rehiring him is telling.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He is a convicted felon. When all is sorted and there has been a miscarriage of justice, ok, rehire the guy.

 

Put at this point in time even considering rehiring him is telling.

What is coming to light is that Flynn was wrongly convicted.  He was deliberately set up from the start.  Again, you won't find the MSM explaining this to you since they were responsible for creating a false narrative to begin with and have therefore been cheerleading his guilt.  Enough damning information has come out to date to where you can pretty much stick a fork into the false narrative at this point.  If the information exposed thus far has not swayed your understanding then perhaps when (or if, depending on the wisdom of Judge Emmett Sullivan) he's exonerated and the balance of evidence regarding government corruption is revealed to show the true picture, the true reality, will you finally accept the truth.  Then again perhaps not.  People have been known to cling to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  I won't pretend to know what's in your heart.

 

I've have been particularly all over the Flynn case because it is critically tied to the entire Russian collusion hoax and Flynn's exoneration would be the first major crack in exposing the Russian collusion hoax for what it truly is.  Go Durham and Barr.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What is coming to light is that Flynn was wrongly convicted.  He was deliberately set up from the start.  Again, you won't find the MSM explaining this to you since they were responsible for creating a false narrative to begin with and have therefore been cheerleading his guilt.  Enough damning information has come out to date to where you can pretty much stick a fork into the false narrative at this point.  If the information exposed thus far has not swayed your understanding then perhaps when (or if, depending on the wisdom of Judge Emmett Sullivan) he's exonerated and the balance of evidence regarding government corruption is revealed to show the true picture, the true reality, will you finally accept the truth.  Then again perhaps not.  People have been known to cling to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  I won't pretend to know what's in your heart.

 

I've have been particularly all over the Flynn case because it is critically tied to the entire Russian collusion hoax and Flynn's exoneration would be the first major crack in exposing the Russian collusion hoax for what it truly is.  Go Durham and Barr.

You're quoting me to come with your narrative, you're not reacting to my post.

 

Is Flynn a convicted felon? Should a convicted felon have a high position in government, not to mention one that requires security clearances, or even stronger deciding about security clearances?

 

Wait till justice has run its course.

 

And yes, people stick to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, proven on a daily basis here.

Edited May 2, 2020 by stevenl

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What is coming to light is that Flynn was wrongly convicted.  He was deliberately set up from the start.  Again, you won't find the MSM explaining this to you since they were responsible for creating a false narrative to begin with and have therefore been cheerleading his guilt.  Enough damning information has come out to date to where you can pretty much stick a fork into the false narrative at this point.  If the information exposed thus far has not swayed your understanding then perhaps when (or if, depending on the wisdom of Judge Emmett Sullivan) he's exonerated and the balance of evidence regarding government corruption is revealed to show the true picture, the true reality, will you finally accept the truth.  Then again perhaps not.  People have been known to cling to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  I won't pretend to know what's in your heart.

 

I've have been particularly all over the Flynn case because it is critically tied to the entire Russian collusion hoax and Flynn's exoneration would be the first major crack in exposing the Russian collusion hoax for what it truly is.  Go Durham and Barr.

The idea the The MSN in its entirety, with the exclusion of FOX News, has somehow agreed or otherwise settled upon a unified effort to misinform the general public (AKA an industry wide conspiracy) is demonstrable fanciful nonsense.

 

However, it’s not that I don’t agree with everything you say, your observation that

 

‘People have been known to cling to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.‘ 

 

Is self evident in your clinging to and repeatedly posting your gaslighting assertion ‘Russian collusion hoax’.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

Trump fired Flynn because he lied to Pence and other staffs. Now he is considering to hire him back. That kind of described his WH swamp. Good guys out and bad guys in. 

[metisdead]

A post with claims that it was not commenting on moderation which was indeed commenting on moderation has been removed. 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, candide said:

Interesting article. Actually, it's not certain that Flynn made a good choice.

Agree looks like another poor decision. However, demonstrates the milieu trump and his people inhabit, therefore no surprise trump's people and he keep on talking nonsense / conspiracy stuff every day.

Edited May 2, 2020 by simple1

[BobBKK]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Flynn has direct and undisputed connections to Russian Intelligence and to Putin himself, why wouldn’t Trump want this ‘useful idiot’ on his team?!

A decorated 30 year General is a 'useful idiot'?  come now

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The idea the The MSN in its entirety, with the exclusion of FOX News, has somehow agreed or otherwise settled upon a unified effort to misinform the general public (AKA an industry wide conspiracy) is demonstrable fanciful nonsense.

 

However, it’s not that I don’t agree with everything you say, your observation that

 

‘People have been known to cling to false beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.‘ 

 

Is self evident in your clinging to and repeatedly posting your gaslighting assertion ‘Russian collusion hoax’.

 

 

No it's not it's the Elephant in the room and any reasonable person can see that. CNN used to be my 'go to' for years and years but I can barely watch them these days due to their utter bias.

All of them have left their journalistic credentials in the bin and pursue political commentary. Bring back Walter Cronkite when journalists were journalists!