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

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

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. 

Agree with your analysis on Flynn.  But I disagree with the "Obama administration has created," part.  The rot in the FBI and Intel long-preceeds Obama.  I am often frustrated by those who give Obama "credit" for being some arch-criminal, when he was just another in a line of POTUSes supporting  policy-agendas which are not in the best interests of the American people.  IMO, this "evil Obama" meme is a way to preserve belief in a substantitive difference in the 2 halves of the uniparty.

 

I suggest reading Art of the Deal, and consider how the 2 parties play "crazy policy" vs "slightly less-bad but still-awful policy," to make the latter look "reasonable" by contrast. 

[Rimmer]

A post containing a QUESTIONABLE SOURCE has been removed:

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Agree with your analysis on Flynn.  But I disagree with the "Obama administration has created," part.  The rot in the FBI and Intel long-preceeds Obama.  I am often frustrated by those who give Obama "credit" for being some arch-criminal, when he was just another in a line of POTUSes supporting  policy-agendas which are not in the best interests of the American people.  IMO, this "evil Obama" meme is a way to preserve belief in a substantitive difference in the 2 halves of the uniparty.

 

I suggest reading Art of the Deal, and consider how the 2 parties play "crazy policy" vs "slightly less-bad but still-awful policy," to make the latter look "reasonable" by contrast. 

I'm apolitical and don't believe in parties at all.  In the U.S. the Democrats and Republicans are a two headed snake.  I've never identified with any political parties.  So my feelings for Obama are not at all due to the fact that he's a Democrat.  But I believe Obama as a man is dirtier than sin.  I think he's about as slick as Slick Willie.  I pegged him as an empty suit when he was running back in '07.  We shall see what his involvement was in the Russian collusion hoax and all the other dirty scandals.

[candide]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

Ok, I get the point. Thank you.

However, even in the case the the procedure followed may be criticized (can it be considered as entrapment?), it doesn't seem to be a  Brady violation. Brady material is evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. I read the FBI redacted document, they basically say that they don't have enough evidence to go on investigating. They don't state they have evidence showing that Flynn did not commit any crime. In the latter case that would be a Brady violation. 

 

Flynn’s crime was lying to the FBI. Agent notes about interview strategy do not negate what Flynn did (what he said during contacts with a foreign ambassador) and Flynn’s lies. Additionally, as you mention, even in case he would not have lied, he could have been indicted according to the Logan Act.

 

Anyway, we'll see what the judge will decide about it.

[sirineou]

6 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

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. 

You all are just looking for a procedural reason to hang your hats on for pardoning him.

  If there is meat on the allegations a junge will provide the appropriate. remedie , as it stands Flinn has signed a confession twice. He is now trying to withdraw these confessions saying he was forced into the decision, It is up to him to prove such coercion , which he has not, but even if he was able to withdraw the confessions the facts of the crimes remain and a confession is not necessary for a conviction. 

Please Please , bring him back.

Edited May 3, 2020 by sirineou

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Ok, I get the point. Thank you.

However, even in the case the the procedure followed may be criticized (can it be considered as entrapment?), it doesn't seem to be a  Brady violation. Brady material is evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. I read the FBI redacted document, they basically say that they don't have enough evidence to go on investigating. They don't state they have evidence showing that Flynn did not commit any crime. In the latter case that would be a Brady violation. 

 

Flynn’s crime was lying to the FBI. Agent notes about interview strategy do not negate what Flynn did (what he said during contacts with a foreign ambassador) and Flynn’s lies. Additionally, as you mention, even in case he would not have lied, he could have been indicted according to the Logan Act.

 

Anyway, we'll see what the judge will decide about it.

I think you'd agree that if a physician had a poor understanding of medicine and the functioning of the human body he would most likely kill a patient if he were allowed to practice based on his lack of knowledge.  If the health of a nation was dependent on the accurate knowledge of it's voters and their ability to discern truth and it's voters were failing in both categories then the existence of the nation could become terminal.

 

Your knowledge of the Flynn case, thus far, is exceedingly poor.  Given your present understanding were you his lawyer then an innocent man would be rotting his life away while the actual criminals would be walking about scotfree.  If you're fine with that then read no further.  If a political position is what is more important to you than actual truth then read no further.  If you find a strong willingness to thumb your nose at truth in order to achieve your ends then read no further.

 

I've spent too much time here and I need to move on to other areas of life.  But before I go I will try and clear up the misunderstandings which are evident from what you wrote.

 

It is not at all a case of missteps in following procedures to be criticized.  The FBI was ready to close Flynn's case, dubbed Operation Razor, because they found no crimes.  Not that crimes existed and they were inept at finding them.  They concluded that Flynn committed no crimes.  They kept the case open because they needed to manufacture a crime.  If you don't understand that point then not much else will make sense for you, period.

 

The fact that Flynn had not committed any crime was circulated amongst many of the high ranking FBI officials and Brennan as well.  Yet they kept the case open, again because they needed to manufacture a crime.  This is at least part of the Brady material.  They withheld the fact that Flynn had been found to not have committed any crime from the defense.

 

They also withheld the fact that even after their interview with Flynn regarding the phone call the FBI had come to the conclusion that Flynn had not lied.  The FBI agents attested to this in their 302's.  Their 302's were altered by Lisa Page, which is a serious crime.  That fact was also withheld from Flynn's attorneys, so another serious Brady violation.

 

Others have brought up the fact that Flynn admitted to lying which they then use as proof positive of his guilt.  Never considered by these people are the circumstances around that admission to a false crime.  For one they had threatened to go after his son.  Again, I can't spend hours upon hours delving into to and explaining thoroughly every detail of this case so you'll have to educate yourself on this aspect.

 

You might want to ask why the need to interview Flynn on his phone call with Kislyak when they already had the complete recording of the conversation?  What were they looking for?  Why did Comey take advantage of the transition between Presidents to skirt protocol and go around the White House counsel?  Of course there's a host of other questions which could be asked but I'll raise these two.  I'm not going to answer them for you and will let you answer them for yourself through your own research.  My strong advice is to keep only one point in mind . . . when you're doing research your goal is to find the truth and not to find those facts, and only those facts, which support an already forgone conclusion you have in mind.  Your nation depends on you to be knowledgeable and above all truthful.  One of your own founding fathers, Samuel Adams, pointed this out very clearly:

 

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

When people no longer seek truth and aim only to fulfill political ends then they are "universally corrupt."

 

I'll finish with this Bloomberg piece on the Logan Act, for it seems from what you wrote that you think it would have been a legitimate violation with which to prosecute Flynn on.

 

The Logan Act: Never Used, Often Abused An obscure law looming over the Trump-Russia probe has been favored by partisan hacks since 1799.

 

"After disgraced National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, there’s been much speculation that the special counsel is using the “Logan Act” as leverage in his dealing with potential witnesses. 

Let’s hope not. No one has ever been found guilty of violating it since Congress passed the law in 1799."

 

Good luck in your search for truth, if that is indeed what you're after.

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

You all are just looking for a procedural reason to hang your hats on for pardoning him.

  If there is meat on the allegations a junge will provide the appropriate. remedie , as it stands Flinn has signed a confession twice. He is now trying to withdraw these confessions saying he was forced into the decision, It is up to him to prove such coercion , which he has not, but even if he was able to withdraw the confessions the facts of the crimes remain and a confession is not necessary for a conviction. 

Please Please , bring him back.

I think this is the fifth time in this thread but again, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Procedural reason . . . what a lie.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:51 PM, Lacessit said:

America is tearing itself to pieces, with Trump as the catalyst. The posts by Americans on this thread are proof of that. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

IMO America was already broken and electing Trump was a reaction to the, IMO, insanity of the coasts. He didn't cause it. Selecting the despised HRC was probably, IMO, the main reason for electing him.

Middle America does not believe in such nonsense as multiple genders. They see a lot of things the Dems want, IMO, as the things they despise.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I believe much will come to light before election time and hopefully arrests as well.

Lets hope Joe doesn't win then. If he does the case will be consigned to oblivion. As the Obama VP he's as much in it as all of them.

 

Re Flynn, re employing him would certainly be giving the finger to those that set him up.

[Eric Loh]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Go Durham and Barr.

We wouldn’t have to wait that long for this year old investigation. Barr promised by summer in time for the Trump’s climax push towards re-election. Barr has made bold accusation calling this a biggest travesty in the American history on his own department. Let’s see if he is a hero or a zero. 

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Lets hope Joe doesn't win then. If he does the case will be consigned to oblivion. As the Obama VP he's as much in it as all of them.

 

Re Flynn, re employing him would certainly be giving the finger to those that set him up.

Joe will never be nominated.  He's a placeholder.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

We wouldn’t have to wait that long for this year old investigation. Barr promised by summer in time for the Trump’s climax push towards re-election. Barr has made bold accusation calling this a biggest travesty in the American history on his own department. Let’s see if he is a hero or a zero. 

If we use the Flynn case as a gauge then Durham coming up a hero is a slam dunk.  Recall, too, it was Barr who assigned outside prosecutor Jeff Jensen to review the case.  And look what's happened.

 

I pity all of the libs who swallowed uncritically all of the MSM narratives they were fed and the shock and denial they'll have to deal with.  I've told lib posters from the start of my posting days here . . . you're being played.  We'll see, though, won't we?

[Rimmer]

A post citing a questionable source has been removed

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If we use the Flynn case as a gauge then Durham coming up a hero is a slam dunk.  Recall, too, it was Barr who assigned outside prosecutor Jeff Jensen to review the case.  And look what's happened.

 

I pity all of the libs who swallowed uncritically all of the MSM narratives they were fed and the shock and denial they'll have to deal with.  I've told lib posters from the start of my posting days here . . . you're being played.  We'll see, though, won't we?

Really nothing much happen with Flynn’s attorney ex-FBI attorney Jeff Jensen. His focus was on the exposure of exculpatory documents by the prosecutors which the court last year rejected. The court ruled out that the government wrongly withheld documents that could have made a difference to the case. The attorneys will now bear the burden of showing reasonable probability of a different outcome and it will be a tall order for Flynn to overcome that hurdle. Don’t think the libs have been played as they recognized the propensity of Trump and Trump’s allies committing crimes continuously. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Really nothing much happen with Flynn’s attorney ex-FBI attorney Jeff Jensen. His focus was on the exposure of exculpatory documents by the prosecutors which the court last year rejected. The court ruled out that the government wrongly withheld documents that could have made a difference to the case. The attorneys will now bear the burden of showing reasonable probability of a different outcome and it will be a tall order for Flynn to overcome that hurdle. Don’t think the libs have been played as they recognized the propensity of Trump and Trump’s allies committing crimes continuously. 

LOL.  True, Judge Sullivan ruled against Flynn's defense's arguments on Dec. 16th last year.  A whole lot has changed since then . . . from his change of plea request to the unearthing of much greater damning evidence against the government.  Your assessment of the way forward for Flynn does not, astoundingly, include any of these new developments.  It's based on dated circumstances which no longer apply.  You really need to get up to speed, my friend, because again, you have no idea of what you're talking about.  That's evidenced by the fact that you do not mention any of the recent developments.  I've been posting profusely on this topic and it seems you've read absolutely nothing of what I've written or linked to, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to reply as you did.

 

As it stands Sidney Powell filed a supplement to the motion to dismiss on April 24th.  Judge Sullivan has given prosecution until May 4th to file a response.

 

Aside from all of the damning new exculpatory evidence, some of which is still under seal, the Giglio violation, which is also part of the recent trove of released documents, is in itself enough to force a retrial.  According to the people who have been following this closely complete exoneration is expected.  I, myself, don't see any other just outcome.

 

Below is text from Powell's April 24th supplement to the Jan. 29th motion to dismiss in which she mentions the Giglio violation.

 

The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution—knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.  In addition, Mr. Flynn’s counsel has found further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically. Not only did he make baseless threats to indict Michael G. Flynn, he made a side deal not to prosecute Michael G. Flynn as a material term of the plea agreement, but he required that it be kept secret between himself and the Covington attorneys expressly to avoid the requirement of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Exs. 1, 2.

 

Just as you've fallen for the false narrative regarding Flynn, provided you by your "trustworthy" MSM, and believed he was guilty you have equally fallen victim to the false narratives of "Trump and Trump’s allies committing crimes continuously."

 

Sorry to have to inform you again but you have been played.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Tippaporn

[i84teen]

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If you want your posts to stay up, post the headline and 3 sentences only.

This post will very likely get deleted.

 

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If you want your posts to stay up, post the headline and 3 sentences only.

This post will very likely get deleted.

oh well, c'est la vie. Not much can be done about it now.

[Rimmer]

A post has been removed also a reply:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[Tippaporn]

Breitbart - Sidney Powell: Comey & Co. Committed Prosecutable Crimes in Targeting Flynn, Trump

 

"Former FBI Director James Comey and other senior officials in the Obama administration likely committed federal crimes in their use of “lawfare” against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and President Donald Trump, said Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, former federal prosecutor, and author of Conviction Machine: Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse.  Recently unsealed FBI documents revealed that the bureau “completely made up what they said [Michael Flynn] said wrong,” said Powell. “I think that’s going to be more evident with the next productions we’re expecting this week.""

 

Within the article is an interview with Sidney Powell, in which she states: "The government has advised that we will be getting more documents, including more text messages between FBI people."

 

I don't think people quite understand the expected fallout from the implosion of this case.  Again, the Flynn case is intimately connected to the entire Russian collusion narrative propagated by Comey et al and the mainstream press.  When that narrative is exposed as being equally contrived America is going to have to do some serious soul searching.  And heads will roll.  My prediction is that Obama will be one of those heads to be put on the chopping block.

 

When that happens will those libs here who have sanctioned these false narratives make profuse apologies?  Will you folks apologize for your denigrations of Flynn?  I kinda doubt it because as the Flynn case steamrolls downhill there is nary a lib to be seen on this thread.  Not one of them appear here to denounce a single travesty perpetrated by corrupt government officials.  Not one.  Makes one wonder if they truly believe in the principles their country was founded on.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Joe will never be nominated.  He's a placeholder.

If he's not, it would be a slap in the face for everyone that voted in the primaries. That would, IMO, be the catalyst for a mass boycott of the election by those that would have voted for the Dem candidate.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If he's not, it would be a slap in the face for everyone that voted in the primaries. That would, IMO, be the catalyst for a mass boycott of the election by those that would have voted for the Dem candidate.

It didn't happen when they torpedoed Sanders in 2016.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

When that happens will those libs here who have sanctioned these false narratives make profuse apologies? 

Jokin' right?

 

Congratulations on the expose of the false narrative. Hopefully heads will roll before the election. Be great to see Obama held to account.

 

However, do the Dems have anyone they can put up if Joe is out? Perhaps someone they want to sneak in at the convention, that avoided all the debates.

 

I've asked before but got no reply- does Trump have to be elected in primaries, or does he just get confirmed at convention?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It didn't happen when they torpedoed Sanders in 2016.

I thought Trump won because so many Dem voters stayed away.

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It didn't happen when they torpedoed Sanders in 2016.

It did happen, one of the reasons Trump won.

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I thought Trump won because so many Dem voters stayed away.

My bad.  I misread your post.  Yeah, I can imagine some failed to vote over it and some disillusioned with the Dems perhaps voted for Trump.  This election cycle, however, is different.  The Dems will vote for anyone the DNC puts up since the sole objective is to remove Trump.

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Jokin' right?

 

Congratulations on the expose of the false narrative. Hopefully heads will roll before the election. Be great to see Obama held to account.

 

However, do the Dems have anyone they can put up if Joe is out? Perhaps someone they want to sneak in at the convention, that avoided all the debates.

 

I've asked before but got no reply- does Trump have to be elected in primaries, or does he just get confirmed at convention?

 

Thanks.  In my opinion this case needs to be front and center and not get buried down the memory hole.  As I said, I believe this case represents the first major crack in the entire Russian collusion hoax.

 

It's speculated that they will insert another candidate and one of those speculations was Hillary/Obama.  The situation is quite serious.  Those corrupt desperately need to remove Trump at all costs becuase their ar$e$ are literally on the line.  It's expected that they will pull out all the stops and I do believe they'll put up another surprise candidate.

 

Trump can be challenged by another candidate, as happened when Reagan challenged Ford in '76.  I don't see any chance of Trump failing to get nominated at the RNC August 24-27.

[frenetic]

On 5/3/2020 at 3:07 PM, Tippaporn said:

I'm apolitical and don't believe in parties at all.  In the U.S. the Democrats and Republicans are a two headed snake.  I've never identified with any political parties.  So my feelings for Obama are not at all due to the fact that he's a Democrat.  But I believe Obama as a man is dirtier than sin.  I think he's about as slick as Slick Willie.  I pegged him as an empty suit when he was running back in '07.  We shall see what his involvement was in the Russian collusion hoax and all the other dirty scandals.

Another version of "I'm not a Trump supporter but..."

[frenetic]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Breitbart - Sidney Powell: Comey & Co. Committed Prosecutable Crimes in Targeting Flynn, Trump

 

"Former FBI Director James Comey and other senior officials in the Obama administration likely committed federal crimes in their use of “lawfare” against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and President Donald Trump, said Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, former federal prosecutor, and author of Conviction Machine: Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse.  Recently unsealed FBI documents revealed that the bureau “completely made up what they said [Michael Flynn] said wrong,” said Powell. “I think that’s going to be more evident with the next productions we’re expecting this week.""

 

Within the article is an interview with Sidney Powell, in which she states: "The government has advised that we will be getting more documents, including more text messages between FBI people."

 

I don't think people quite understand the expected fallout from the implosion of this case.  Again, the Flynn case is intimately connected to the entire Russian collusion narrative propagated by Comey et al and the mainstream press.  When that narrative is exposed as being equally contrived America is going to have to do some serious soul searching.  And heads will roll.  My prediction is that Obama will be one of those heads to be put on the chopping block.

 

When that happens will those libs here who have sanctioned these false narratives make profuse apologies?  Will you folks apologize for your denigrations of Flynn?  I kinda doubt it because as the Flynn case steamrolls downhill there is nary a lib to be seen on this thread.  Not one of them appear here to denounce a single travesty perpetrated by corrupt government officials.  Not one.  Makes one wonder if they truly believe in the principles their country was founded on.

Is this the same Sidney Powell whose arguments the Judge rejected last time? Why do you think that the primary advocate for Michael Flynn should be considered a trustworthy source? Do you actually believe that his attorney is going to provide an objective view of the situation? 

Edited May 5, 2020 by frenetic

[frenetic]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:11 AM, 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?

This is coming from someone who believes that Barack Obama was deeply involved in the "conspiracy" against Trump.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, frenetic said:

Another version of "I'm not a Trump supporter but..."

Just a BS reply with no relevance to the topic.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, frenetic said:

This is coming from someone who believes that Barack Obama was deeply involved in the "conspiracy" against Trump.

If you have something pertinent to add to this topic then out with it.  Otherwise you're just trolling.