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

[simple1]

2 hours ago, metisdead said:

<SNIP> While no links to Fox were provided<SNIP>

 

OK, but the member did reference Fox news content as summarised below.

 

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

 

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:

 

2 hours ago, metisdead said:

While no links to Fox were provided, the same can be said for sources such as CNN, MSNBC etc. with their sycophantic coverage and misleading information

Given you have entered the debate I trust you will permit a reply.

 

The likes of CNN / MSNBC will retract / clarify if they have made a reporting error, very different M.O. to the likes of Greg Jarrett from Fox quoted as a source by a member e.g.

 

Jarrett is known for his pro-Trump commentary, and for his criticism of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In 2018, he published The Russia Hoax, which argues that the "deep state" have sought to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump and protect 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He has described Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe as "illegitimate and corrupt" and likened the FBI to the KGB.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Jarrett

 

 

[simple1]

18 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

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

Don't believe the member was referring to Flynn's military career, rather his glaring errors of judgement in the political world.

[metisdead]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

OK, but the member did reference Fox news content as summarised below.

 

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

 

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:

 

Given you have entered the debate I trust you will permit a reply.

 

The likes of CNN / MSNBC will retract / clarify if they have made a reporting error, very different M.O. to the likes of Greg Jarrett from Fox quoted as a source by a member e.g.

 

Jarrett is known for his pro-Trump commentary, and for his criticism of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In 2018, he published The Russia Hoax, which argues that the "deep state" have sought to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump and protect 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He has described Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe as "illegitimate and corrupt" and likened the FBI to the KGB.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Jarrett

 

 

 

Ok, I have edited my comment.  Let's stop ridiculing members for posting links which the other side of the political divide do not like as the same can be said for members on the other side providing links that the other side do not like.  It is a round and round and round debate.  The discussion is not about news sources.   

 

Let's get back on topic which is:  Trump says he could bring back fired ex-national security adviser Flynn

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

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

The same ‘Decorated 30 year General’ who lied to the FBI and thought he could get away with it, yes that’s him.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

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!

I’m worried now that I might not be getting the best journalism.

 

You’ve moved from watching CNN, where now do you get your news?

 

[bendejo]

2 hours ago, Slip said:

[...] why do Trump guys keep supporting criminal behaviour in government?

I got a nephew.  I spotted the kid as a bully when he was in 2nd grade.  I tried to talk to my brother about, wouldn't hear of it, I was completely wrong.  One day he was caught wrestling a kid to the ground, threatening to beat him with a stone if he didn't break one of the school rules.  I tried talking to my brother again, just shrugged it off. 

Same same for the fans of the orange guy with the air accordion.

BTW, the kid is now 21 and an avid DT supporter.  "The economy's doing great."  Before the current crisis did you notice the DT fans all said that same exact phrase?  Ever see "The Manchurian Candidate"?  I'm concerned the kid is being pulled into the whole junior fascist thing.

 

 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

I refuse to reference organisations who have a very clear & documented history of promoting conspiracy theories with nary an apology for misinformation.  Not permitted to go into further detail as Mod has clearly stated to move along. As i posted above will have to wait the outcome of the judge's decision on the current proceeding which I trust you will accept, as I will, no matter the outcome. 

[mtls2005]

trump fired him, seems like he could re-hire him.

 

What am I missing?

 

Did he hever bring anyone back, whom he fired, on The Apprentice?

 

In his own words...

 

 

 

[Misty]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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?

 

Would you consider the words of Flynn's Deputy, Douglas Wise?  Career intelligence, West Point Class of 1972.  He says:

 

 

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

  

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  

9 hours 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.

 

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.

I replied to your statement that Flynn is a convicted felon with the response that he was wrongly convicted and that he had been set up even before the FBI interviewed him.  I didn't elaborate because I figured you had educated yourself on the latest developments in his case so that there was no need to explain the obvious to you.  Again, you guys are pure comedy.

 

Tell me, what happens to convictions after it's discovered that 1) the charge of the crime was deliberately planned and 2) exculpatory information was withheld?  Since you weren't keen enough to recognize that I actually did reply to your post I'm not going to trust that you'll be able to figure out the correct answer to this question on your own.  Therefore I'll give you the answer . . . the defendant is exonerated and the conviction gets overturned.  As in wiped clean, expunged.  

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I replied to your statement that Flynn is a convicted felon with the response that he was wrongly convicted and that he had been set up even before the FBI interviewed him.  I didn't elaborate because I figured you had educated yourself on the latest developments in his case so that there was no need to explain the obvious to you.  Again, you guys are pure comedy.

 

Tell me, what happens to convictions after it's discovered that 1) the charge of the crime was deliberately planned and 2) exculpatory information was withheld?  Since you weren't keen enough to recognize that I actually did reply to your post I'm not going to trust that you'll be able to figure out the correct answer to this question on your own.  Therefore I'll give you the answer . . . the defendant is exonerated and the conviction gets overturned.  As in wiped clean, expunged.  

Yes, if that happens and he can sue as well. But until that happens he is a convicted felon.

 

You're again not answering my questions.

[i84teen]

Yes, we all concede that Flynn told 3 fairly benign lies to the feds, that was their plan: to get Flynn to lie, to mess him up, threaten his family and "turn" him into becoming a rat.

 

Now, Brady violation is his ticket to exoneration and in this case it is warranted and the case should get turfed by the courts soon failing which a presidential pardon is a no brainer.

 

Thing is, EVERYONE lies, including Comey, Brennan, Mcabe, Hillary, etc but ONLY those serving the FBi's and special Coun's political agenda get charged. All these charges, mostly process charges  and most if not all are based on lies, and faulty, fake, paid for dodgy evidence, especially to the FISA court.

 

Read this, think about it and ask yourself why only some people are charged for lying to the feds or congress while others are never charged.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

 

So, yeah, I would give Flynn a job, he's 32 years of military service to his country. He deserves it.

Edited May 2, 2020 by i84teen

[candide]

2 hours ago, i84teen said:

Yes, we all concede that Flynn told 3 fairly benign lies to the feds, that was their plan: to get Flynn to lie, to mess him up, threaten his family and "turn" him into becoming a rat.

 

Now, Brady violation is his ticket to exoneration and in this case it is warranted and the case should get turfed by the courts soon failing which a presidential pardon is a no brainer.

 

Thing is, EVERYONE lies, including Comey, Brennan, Mcabe, Hillary, etc but ONLY those serving the FBi's and special Coun's political agenda get charged. All these charges, mostly process charges  and most if not all are based on lies, and faulty, fake, paid for dodgy evidence, especially to the FISA court.

 

Read this, think about it and ask yourself why only some people are charged for lying to the feds or congress while others are never charged.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/421634-alan-dershowitz-did-michael-flynn-lie-or-did-the-fbi-act-improperly

 

So, yeah, I would give Flynn a job, he's 32 years of military service to his country. He deserves it.

What is exactly this Brady violation? Did the prosecutor hide information which:

- shows that Flynn did not talk with the Russian ambassador,

- shows that he did tell him what he told

- shows that he did not lie to the FIB and Pence?

If it's not the case, it's not a Brady violation (as far as I understand).

Edited May 2, 2020 by candide

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, if that happens and he can sue as well. But until that happens he is a convicted felon.

 

You're again not answering my questions.

The evidence against the government is so overwhelmingly damning that there should be no way that Flynn does not get exonerated.  That much should be obvious to you by now.  That is, if you had educated yourself on his case.  Which, from your posts, seems unlikely as you wouldn't be pursuing this any longer since you would have a clear understanding.  Granted, it will be up to Judge Emmett Sullivan now and hopefully he will rule fairly.  But as we all know justice in the U.S. is still a coin toss.  Then again, every conceivable eye is on this case and if Sullivan chooses to dismiss the egregious conduct of the government he better have a damn good reason why.  Myself, I can't think of one.

 

Given the above, that Flynn will be exonerated, then your question is moot.  Doesn't need to be asked.  But I'll play your little game anyway for fun.  Here's the question you asked.

 

"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?"

 

As to your first question, yes, currently his status is that of a convicted felon.  Regarding your second question you're ignoring, either deliberately or obtusely, the important context in which Trump made his statement.  Again, since you've shown yourself to be not too keen I'll give you the proper context.  Trump also made the statement that he believes Flynn will be exonerated.  In which case he would be bringing him back into the administration not as a convicted felon.

 

You libs keep getting one thing wrong after another after another.  Jokers.  Here's a quote from Trump:

 

“I would certainly consider it. Yeah, I would,” Trump said at a White House press conference Thursday. He later said of Flynn: “He would be capable of coming back.”

 

Just to spell it out, so that you won't be coming back with some twisted interpretation, "capable of coming back" refers to the fact that Flynn would be exonerated, his conviction overturned, and his record expunged.  He would no longer have ever been a felon.

[Tippaporn]

57 minutes ago, candide said:

What is exactly this Brady violation? Did the prosecutor hide information which:

- shows that Flynn did not talk with the Russian ambassador,

- shows that he did tell him what he told

- shows that he did not lie to the FIB and Pence?

If it's not the case, it's not a Brady violation (as far as I understand).

I had earlier provided you with all of the links which would have made much of this perfectly clear yet here was your response:

  

On 5/1/2020 at 6:48 PM, candide said:

I started with this article because it claims there is "exculpatory evidence".

 

I found that there is absolutely no mention of what this exculpatory evidence would be. Actually, the article states:"Because the documents were filed under seal, The Federalist has not been able to review them independently." ????

 

I felt it was not necessary for me to go on losing my time with your so-called "sources".

True, my links would not have covered all of your questions but since the answers are out in the public domain then it would be up to you to find them.  You know with certainty that the MSM will not provide the answers so you would have to look to other sources.  Since you refuse to do that then you've placed yourself in a Catch-22 situation.

 

If you recall my earlier post:

  

On 5/1/2020 at 8:25 AM, Tippaporn said:

  Yesterday, a massive story broke about FBI malfeasance (the set up of Flynn) at the start of Trump’s administration. How many times did the mainstream media mention it during their morning shows?

 

CNN: 0

CBS: 0

ABC: 0

NBC: 0

MSNBC: 0

 

I wouldn't expect you to know any of the massive amount of details coming out in this case in the recent past.  As you can see, there's no reporting on any of it.  Educate yourself before you reply.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

The Wall Street Journal - The FBI’s Flynn Outrage

 

"The newest Federal Bureau of Investigation documents in the case of former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn are stunning in themselves. But the totality of Mr. Flynn’s treatment shocks the conscience."

 

Kimberley Strassel has always been a good source for the truth.  Here she gives a brief synopsis of some of the key points in the deliberate entrapment of Flynn.

 

Note:  If you don't have a subscription to the WSJ and can't read the article you can Google the headline and fine it reprinted in full on other sites which I am not allowed to link to.  The "approved sources" method of censorship.

[sirineou]

Yes please bring back Flynn, I am sure it will enhance his chances for re-election  

[Tippaporn]

To follow up on my claims that the MSM is the source of propaganda not only regarding the Flynn case but with, well, almost everything.  Consider this:

 

The Washington Post - Technology once used to combat ISIS propaganda is enlisted by Democratic group to counter Trump’s coronavirus messaging

 

"The group, Defeat Disinfo, will use artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of the president's claims on social media. It will seek to intervene by identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country - in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against the president."

 

Do you understand you are being played by the MSM to believe a narrative they need you to believe?  Clear enough?

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Yes please bring back Flynn, I am sure it will enhance his chances for re-election  

It's clear you understand nothing of what's going on.  Brings to mind the three wise monkeys, a Japanese pictorial maxim, embodying the proverbial principle "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."  The proverb and the image are often used to refer to a lack of moral responsibility on the part of people who refuse to acknowledge impropriety, looking the other way or feigning ignorance.

[sirineou]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's clear you understand nothing of what's going on.  Brings to mind the three wise monkeys, a Japanese pictorial maxim, embodying the proverbial principle "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."  The proverb and the image are often used to refer to a lack of moral responsibility on the part of people who refuse to acknowledge impropriety, looking the other way or feigning ignorance.

Clearly I don't understand 

Bring back Flinn and Teach me a lesson .

Edited May 2, 2020 by sirineou

[Tippaporn]

55 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Clearly I don't understand 

Bring back Flinn and Teach me a lesson .

I believe millions would like to see Flynn return to government.  I do.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I had earlier provided you with all of the links which would have made much of this perfectly clear yet here was your response:

  

True, my links would not have covered all of your questions but since the answers are out in the public domain then it would be up to you to find them.  You know with certainty that the MSM will not provide the answers so you would have to look to other sources.  Since you refuse to do that then you've placed yourself in a Catch-22 situation.

 

If you recall my earlier post:

  

 

Why such a mystery? Aren't you able to briefly explain what the Brady violation could be? It seems a lot of people talk about a Brady violation, but no one provides details about it.

I am talking about alleged Brady violation, not about alleged 'entrapment', which is something different.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, candide said:

Why such a mystery? Aren't you able to briefly explain what the Brady violation could be? It seems a lot of people talk about a Brady violation, but no one provides details about it.

I am talking about alleged Brady violation, not about alleged 'entrapment', which is something different.

You refuse to read the articles in the links I provided or to perform a simple Google search, such as "what was the Brady material withheld from Flynn" and claim you can't find what the Brady violation(s) are.  It beggars belief that you are being genuine.  I'm truly beginning to believe that you're just trolling by feigning ignorance.

 

The Brady material reveals that the retired three-star general did not commit any crimes.  The FBI was ready to close the case on Flynn until Strzok stepped in to demand it remain open as the "7th floor" wanted it to remain open.  They had nothing on Flynn but they needed to "get him" so they devised an interview (the hand written notes attest to that) to question him about his phone calls to Kysliak, even though they had the tapes, in the hopes that he would not recall a detail so that they could charge him with lying to the FBI.  If that failed they were going to charge him with the Logan Act.  In one way or another the deliberate intent was to take Flynn down.

 

What don't you understand????????

 

 

Also, I've heard that the FBI's top lawyer, the now fired James Baker, was aware that Flynn was not guilty of any crime and yet still referred it to the DOJ.  This was reported before any unsealing of documents and I can't remember where I saw it (there's a plethora of articles and reports it's literally impossible to keep track) so don't ask me for a link.

 

I might add, importantly, the question of specifically why they wanted to take Flynn down.  Read, read, read.  If I can figure it out for myself so can you.  No more excuses, O.K.?

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Tippaporn

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The evidence against the government is so overwhelmingly damning that there should be no way that Flynn does not get exonerated.  That much should be obvious to you by now.  That is, if you had educated yourself on his case.  Which, from your posts, seems unlikely as you wouldn't be pursuing this any longer since you would have a clear understanding.  Granted, it will be up to Judge Emmett Sullivan now and hopefully he will rule fairly.  But as we all know justice in the U.S. is still a coin toss.  Then again, every conceivable eye is on this case and if Sullivan chooses to dismiss the egregious conduct of the government he better have a damn good reason why.  Myself, I can't think of one.

 

Given the above, that Flynn will be exonerated, then your question is moot.  Doesn't need to be asked.  But I'll play your little game anyway for fun.  Here's the question you asked.

 

"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?"

 

As to your first question, yes, currently his status is that of a convicted felon.  Regarding your second question you're ignoring, either deliberately or obtusely, the important context in which Trump made his statement.  Again, since you've shown yourself to be not too keen I'll give you the proper context.  Trump also made the statement that he believes Flynn will be exonerated.  In which case he would be bringing him back into the administration not as a convicted felon.

 

You libs keep getting one thing wrong after another after another.  Jokers.  Here's a quote from Trump:

 

“I would certainly consider it. Yeah, I would,” Trump said at a White House press conference Thursday. He later said of Flynn: “He would be capable of coming back.”

 

Just to spell it out, so that you won't be coming back with some twisted interpretation, "capable of coming back" refers to the fact that Flynn would be exonerated, his conviction overturned, and his record expunged.  He would no longer have ever been a felon.

Still no answer and no, not moot.

 

Wait till the judiciary process is over.

[Tippaporn]

21 hours ago, simple1 said:

<snip>

Jarrett is known for his pro-Trump commentary, and for his criticism of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In 2018, he published The Russia Hoax, which argues that the "deep state" have sought to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump and protect 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He has described Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe as "illegitimate and corrupt" and likened the FBI to the KGB.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Jarrett

Jarrett is spot on on all counts.

[Rimmer]

A post citing a very questionable source and a reply have been removed

 

A personal attack has also been removed

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Still no answer and no, not moot.

 

Wait till the judiciary process is over.

Still no answer to what, stevenl?  I went through the exchanges between us and the I reposted both of your questions and replied to them.  And if you feel that your question is not moot then explain.

 

Anyway, by all means continue to beat a dead horse.  LOL

[Chiphigh]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:39 PM, candide said:

So what is the "exculpatory evidence"?

They had exhausted the search for a crime and were going to close the investigation. Then dirty strzok says in writing to not close the investigation because the 7th floor wanted to keep it open. 

 

Then, days later bill priestep's hand written notes prior to the Flynn interview, they discussed what their goals were. To get him fired or to get him to lie. 

 

It is blatantly obvious why this evidence was hidden from the defense for 2 years. 

 

You can't be this obtuse.....? 

 

 

[i84teen]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Why such a mystery? Aren't you able to briefly explain what the Brady violation could be? It seems a lot of people talk about a Brady violation, but no one provides details about it.

I am talking about alleged Brady violation, not about alleged 'entrapment', which is something different.

Read this to get up to speed. Also, research brady violation to become familiar with it, (in the interest of avoiding obtuse tendencies)

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/458160278/US-v-Flynn

Edited May 3, 2020 by i84teen

[Chiphigh]

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

Yes please bring back Flynn, I am sure it will enhance his chances for re-election  

Yes, it absolutely will. An innocent man persecuted by a political opposition in the govt is precisely why he needs to be in charge of the entire intelligence apparatus to clean up the mess the Obama administration has created. 

 

The rats will start ratting each other out.