ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Flynn Developments

The link tells us what's wrong:

"And yes, it’s wrong for the bureau to set up an interview in the absence of a viable case in order to induce a witness to lie for purposes of prosecution, but there’s no evidence that . . . ." There IS evidence of this. The agents investigating the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia wrote a closing memo about Flynn's role in the first week of January. The agents found a total lack of evidence that Flynn colluded. Their investigation included the wiretapped transcripts of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, the report of a paid informant who was close to Flynn, and surveillance of Flynn. In other words, the agents had a pretty clear picture of Flynn's activities. Despite that, the FBI did not close the Flynn investigation because Strzok personally intervened to keep it open based upon the never-prosecuted and flimsy Logan Act.

The interview about which the notes were written happened January 24, well after the agents intended to close the Flynn investigation. The interview had none of the trappings of an interview that normally would be associated with at target of an investigation. Even Hillary was given this process when she was brought in for her FBI interview and was allowed to have counsel present. Comey went on TV and joked that "he sent a couple of guys over" to talk to Flynn without going through channels or other processes associated with a targeted investigation. This is the interview that formed the sole basis for Flynn's prosecution that ruined his life.

"but agents hold relatively weak leverage over witnesses all the time." Flynn was not a witness, he was a target. Big difference.

"And yes, the bureau will sometimes confront a witness with a lie and specifically warn the person about lying being a felony, but that is not a legal requirement." Correct, this is not a legal requirement. But it is well established FBI policy. Taking this policy departure along with Strzok's personal intervention to keep the case open, Comey's admission about ignoring protocol, the notes which revealed no obvious purpose to keep investigating Flynn, the claimed Brady violations later involved with he Flynn prosecution, and more, the conclusion is clear that Flynn got screwed.

The question is why Flynn? I don't think Strzok intervened on his own initiative. This goes up the chain through McCabe, Comey, Yates, and maybe into the White House. There is evidence for all of that. Obama was also hot to trot about an anti-israeli UN resolution before he left office. Flynn worked to undermine that. Maybe this isn't about Russia at all.

So let us compare thus to the Clinton case. Clinton was found to have zero involvement with Whitewater. A man desperate for a plea and the Scaife Foundation created that. So the prosecutors discovered he had an affair with Lewinsky. Said affair was a terrible lack of judgement, but 100% not a crime. The prosecutors questioned Clinton about said non-crime and he lied. Since I know from previous discussions you have no concerns about Clinton being setup, what is the difference? Having that affair was not a crime, so clearly questions about it were a perjury trap. Heck, Starr should have told Clinton they had proof before questioning.

I have never had problems with Clinton being judged guilty of perjury, it is obvious he did it. I am holding Flynn to no higher or lower standard.
 
So let us compare thus to the Clinton case. Clinton was found to have zero involvement with Whitewater. A man desperate for a plea and the Scaife Foundation created that. So the prosecutors discovered he had an affair with Lewinsky. Said affair was a terrible lack of judgement, but 100% not a crime. The prosecutors questioned Clinton about said non-crime and he lied. Since I know from previous discussions you have no concerns about Clinton being setup, what is the difference? Having that affair was not a crime, so clearly questions about it were a perjury trap. Heck, Starr should have told Clinton they had proof before questioning.

I have never had problems with Clinton being judged guilty of perjury, it is obvious he did it. I am holding Flynn to no higher or lower standard.
Cue up some bullshit about it being a special prosecutor and not the FBI or some other similarly lame nuancy nonsense.
 
The link tells us what's wrong:

"And yes, it’s wrong for the bureau to set up an interview in the absence of a viable case in order to induce a witness to lie for purposes of prosecution, but there’s no evidence that . . . ." There IS evidence of this. The agents investigating the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia wrote a closing memo about Flynn's role in the first week of January. The agents found a total lack of evidence that Flynn colluded. Their investigation included the wiretapped transcripts of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, the report of a paid informant who was close to Flynn, and surveillance of Flynn. In other words, the agents had a pretty clear picture of Flynn's activities. Despite that, the FBI did not close the Flynn investigation because Strzok personally intervened to keep it open based upon the never-prosecuted and flimsy Logan Act.

The interview about which the notes were written happened January 24, well after the agents intended to close the Flynn investigation. The interview had none of the trappings of an interview that normally would be associated with at target of an investigation. Even Hillary was given this process when she was brought in for her FBI interview and was allowed to have counsel present. Comey went on TV and joked that "he sent a couple of guys over" to talk to Flynn without going through channels or other processes associated with a targeted investigation. This is the interview that formed the sole basis for Flynn's prosecution that ruined his life.

"but agents hold relatively weak leverage over witnesses all the time." Flynn was not a witness, he was a target. Big difference.

"And yes, the bureau will sometimes confront a witness with a lie and specifically warn the person about lying being a felony, but that is not a legal requirement." Correct, this is not a legal requirement. But it is well established FBI policy. Taking this policy departure along with Strzok's personal intervention to keep the case open, Comey's admission about ignoring protocol, the notes which revealed no obvious purpose to keep investigating Flynn, the claimed Brady violations later involved with he Flynn prosecution, and more, the conclusion is clear that Flynn got screwed.

The question is why Flynn? I don't think Strzok intervened on his own initiative. This goes up the chain through McCabe, Comey, Yates, and maybe into the White House. There is evidence for all of that. Obama was also hot to trot about an anti-israeli UN resolution before he left office. Flynn worked to undermine that. Maybe this isn't about Russia at all.
Ok, I understand your points. Some think that Flynn was a target. But what some "... don’t want you to remember is that Flynn was being questioned by the FBI as part of a counterintelligence investigation that had begun in July of 2016. He was one of four Trump campaign officials under investigation, including Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The FBI was under no obligation to inform Flynn that they suspected him of committing a crime, because it wasn’t a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation that Flynn found himself wrapped up in because he had been talking to the Russian ambassador, whose phones were tapped as part of the normal counterintelligence operations of the NSA and FBI. This was something Flynn knew about because he had been right in the middle of that loop as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. …" (exerpted Salon Truscott 12/13/18)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Cue up some bullshit about it being a special prosecutor and not the FBI or some other similarly lame nuancy nonsense.

Because inside the special counsel statute is a clause that no laws applied to the SC. They were allowed the same latitude as the Spanish Inquisition.
 
Based on the documented history why should the government even give a shit if Flynn lied to “a couple of guys” showing up in his office for no disclosed reason? This is not why we have a criminal justice system.

So the FBI made Flynn lie to the FBI?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
So let us compare thus to the Clinton case. Clinton was found to have zero involvement with Whitewater. A man desperate for a plea and the Scaife Foundation created that. So the prosecutors discovered he had an affair with Lewinsky. Said affair was a terrible lack of judgement, but 100% not a crime. The prosecutors questioned Clinton about said non-crime and he lied. Since I know from previous discussions you have no concerns about Clinton being setup, what is the difference? Having that affair was not a crime, so clearly questions about it were a perjury trap. Heck, Starr should have told Clinton they had proof before questioning.

I have never had problems with Clinton being judged guilty of perjury, it is obvious he did it. I am holding Flynn to no higher or lower standard.

IIRC, Clinton perjured himself in a deposition in a civil case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
t Flynn was being questioned by the FBI as part of a counterintelligence investigation that had begun in July of 2016.

No. That counter-intelligence investigation regarding Flynn closed. Strzok kept the investigation open as a Logan Act violation. Most likely, Flynn was questioned because he was part of the Trump administration. The IG already told us most of what we need to know about that fiasco. And not all of the IG report is public. The December 2019 different IG report about the FBI counterintelligence FISA abuses were bad enough. The March 30 report was worse. The FISA court has come down hard. That whole counterintelligence FISA thing was a crock of shit. This wasn't about sloppiness, it was about corruption. Your 2018 source is woefully out of date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
No. That counter-intelligence investigation regarding Flynn closed. Strzok kept the investigation open as a Logan Act violation. Most likely, Flynn was questioned because he was part of the Trump administration. The IG already told us most of what we need to know about that fiasco. And not all of the IG report is public. The December 2019 different IG report about the FBI counterintelligence FISA abuses were bad enough. The March 30 report was worse. The FISA court has come down hard. That whole counterintelligence FISA thing was a crock of shit. This wasn't about sloppiness, it was about corruption. Your 2018 source is woefully out of date.
Ok, you say the investigation was closed. Please show where it was closed.

I see that it wasn't closed. The FBI documents recently released show draft memos that were not finalized.


The documents produced by Jensen and released on April 30 contain a draft FBI memo closing Flynn’s case (which was never finalized), along with an internal FBI email chain and what appear to be internal FBI text messages or instant messages. It appears that the FBI drafted a memo to close the case on Flynn, a memo that is dated Jan. 4, 2017, but was likely written earlier. But FBI leadership then decided to keep the case open.

The memo describes how the FBI opened a case on “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” (clearly, from the description, Flynn) “based on an articulable factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” After describing investigative steps taken by the bureau, the memo states that the “CH team” (a reference to the bureau’s name for the Russia investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane”) “determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case,” and that the bureau is therefore closing the case. Notably, the memo flags that “FBI management” requested that Flynn not be interviewed.

A chain of messages included in the documents shows communications between Strzok and a redacted individual regarding the memo. On Jan. 4, Strzok messaged the other person to tell him or her not to close the case, apparently at the direction of FBI leadership. It’s not clear from the documents what caused the change in course, but another message between two redacted individuals notes a comment by Strzok suggesting that FBI leadership decided to interview Flynn after all.

The documents themselves don’t reveal the reason for the shift. But reporting by the New York Times provides a hint. According to the Times, the Jan. 4 decision not to close the case may have resulted from the FBI’s discovery that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak in the previous days and advised Russia against retaliating against U.S. sanctions levied by the Obama administration in response to Russian election interference—the matter about which FBI agents eventually interviewed Flynn, and about which he lied repeatedly to them. The issue was of concern to the bureau in part because it appeared that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those contacts as well, and the FBI became worried that Flynn’s falsehoods “posed a blackmail risk,” the Times writes. In other words, there’s a very good explanation for why the FBI made a U-turn on closing Flynn’s case: When the memo was drafted, the writer wasn’t yet aware of the most concerning conduct by Flynn.
Even McCabe's book says that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Ok, you say the investigation was closed. Please show where it was closed.

I see that it wasn't closed. The FBI documents recently released show draft memos that were not finalized.


The documents produced by Jensen and released on April 30 contain a draft FBI memo closing Flynn’s case (which was never finalized), along with an internal FBI email chain and what appear to be internal FBI text messages or instant messages. It appears that the FBI drafted a memo to close the case on Flynn, a memo that is dated Jan. 4, 2017, but was likely written earlier. But FBI leadership then decided to keep the case open.

The memo describes how the FBI opened a case on “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” (clearly, from the description, Flynn) “based on an articulable factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” After describing investigative steps taken by the bureau, the memo states that the “CH team” (a reference to the bureau’s name for the Russia investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane”) “determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case,” and that the bureau is therefore closing the case. Notably, the memo flags that “FBI management” requested that Flynn not be interviewed.

A chain of messages included in the documents shows communications between Strzok and a redacted individual regarding the memo. On Jan. 4, Strzok messaged the other person to tell him or her not to close the case, apparently at the direction of FBI leadership. It’s not clear from the documents what caused the change in course, but another message between two redacted individuals notes a comment by Strzok suggesting that FBI leadership decided to interview Flynn after all.

The documents themselves don’t reveal the reason for the shift. But reporting by the New York Times provides a hint. According to the Times, the Jan. 4 decision not to close the case may have resulted from the FBI’s discovery that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak in the previous days and advised Russia against retaliating against U.S. sanctions levied by the Obama administration in response to Russian election interference—the matter about which FBI agents eventually interviewed Flynn, and about which he lied repeatedly to them. The issue was of concern to the bureau in part because it appeared that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those contacts as well, and the FBI became worried that Flynn’s falsehoods “posed a blackmail risk,” the Times writes. In other words, there’s a very good explanation for why the FBI made a U-turn on closing Flynn’s case: When the memo was drafted, the writer wasn’t yet aware of the most concerning conduct by Flynn.
Even McCabe's book says that.
You won't get anywhere with COH posting facts and stuff.
 
Ok, you say the investigation was closed. Please show where it was closed.

I see that it wasn't closed. The FBI documents recently released show draft memos that were not finalized.


The documents produced by Jensen and released on April 30 contain a draft FBI memo closing Flynn’s case (which was never finalized), along with an internal FBI email chain and what appear to be internal FBI text messages or instant messages. It appears that the FBI drafted a memo to close the case on Flynn, a memo that is dated Jan. 4, 2017, but was likely written earlier. But FBI leadership then decided to keep the case open.

The memo describes how the FBI opened a case on “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” (clearly, from the description, Flynn) “based on an articulable factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.” After describing investigative steps taken by the bureau, the memo states that the “CH team” (a reference to the bureau’s name for the Russia investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane”) “determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case,” and that the bureau is therefore closing the case. Notably, the memo flags that “FBI management” requested that Flynn not be interviewed.

A chain of messages included in the documents shows communications between Strzok and a redacted individual regarding the memo. On Jan. 4, Strzok messaged the other person to tell him or her not to close the case, apparently at the direction of FBI leadership. It’s not clear from the documents what caused the change in course, but another message between two redacted individuals notes a comment by Strzok suggesting that FBI leadership decided to interview Flynn after all.

The documents themselves don’t reveal the reason for the shift. But reporting by the New York Times provides a hint. According to the Times, the Jan. 4 decision not to close the case may have resulted from the FBI’s discovery that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak in the previous days and advised Russia against retaliating against U.S. sanctions levied by the Obama administration in response to Russian election interference—the matter about which FBI agents eventually interviewed Flynn, and about which he lied repeatedly to them. The issue was of concern to the bureau in part because it appeared that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those contacts as well, and the FBI became worried that Flynn’s falsehoods “posed a blackmail risk,” the Times writes. In other words, there’s a very good explanation for why the FBI made a U-turn on closing Flynn’s case: When the memo was drafted, the writer wasn’t yet aware of the most concerning conduct by Flynn.
Even McCabe's book says that.

See my post above. Strozk kept it open based on the Logan Act. We know that Strozk and almost all in the FBI head shed were subsequently fired or demoted. That has never happened before. Ever. The IG reports are revealing.
 
You won't get anywhere with COH posting facts and stuff.

He avoids the issue of Flynn lying. No one made Flynn lie. You either tell the truth, you lie or you say “I have no recollection” a la Jeff Sessions. Flynn chose to lie.
 
See my post above. Strozk kept it open based on the Logan Act. We know that Strozk and almost all in the FBI head shed were subsequently fired or demoted. That has never happened before. Ever. The IG reports are revealing.
Flynn still lied. And plead guilty to lying.
 
Flynn still lied. And plead guilty to lying.

I've got a news flash for you. Lying to a federal officer is not a crime unless certain other elements are present. That kind of discussion will require a lot of nuancey stuff that is far above you pay grade. That other stuff is where the FBI and prosecutorial misconduct is found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
I've got a news flash for you. Lying to a federal officer is not a crime unless certain other elements are present. That kind of discussion will require a lot of nuancey stuff that is far above you pay grade. That other stuff is where the FBI and prosecutorial misconduct is found.
Sure chief. ^^^ point & laugh ^^^
 
See my post above. Strozk kept it open based on the Logan Act. We know that Strozk and almost all in the FBI head shed were subsequently fired or demoted. That has never happened before. Ever. The IG reports are revealing.
Possibly that. And the fact that discussions with the Russian Ambassador were potentially somethings that could be utilized by another nation to blackmail Flynn. So, in addition to it being a possible Logan Act issue, it was still the counterintelligence issue. Which, by the way, you are ignoring, and by the way, was never closed...which again you are ignoring.

So, try to not move the goalpost again.
 
Possibly that. And the fact that discussions with the Russian Ambassador were potentially somethings that could be utilized by another nation to blackmail Flynn. So, in addition to it being a possible Logan Act issue, it was still the counterintelligence issue. Which, by the way, you are ignoring, and by the way, was never closed...which again you are ignoring.

So, try to not move the goalpost again.

Yes, I’m ignoring the CI issue. That is different from criminal case. Moreover, the several reports from 2 different IG inquiries plus the FISA court orders show that operation crossfire was a fraud and a joke.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Once again they can threaten till they're hoarse if he's not guilty. He plead guilty because he knew his son was as well, otherwise he would have told them to pound sand .
He's not claiming his innocence, either, is he? That it was a false confession? I think he's just claiming it was a coerced confession.

There's some nuance for all you bitches to chew on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU? I'm Fine
So, you are saying that Flynn lied to the court when he said he was guilty. And he lied to the court when he said he was not forced by the FBI in to lie.

Seems like the kind of guy that Individual 1 might just want on his staff. In spite of Trump firing him and Pence saying he lied.

Accepting a pardon includes admitting guilt so the verdict will always be there. Flynn is and always will be a felon.

Everyday Trump turns around and says good morning to the night.
 
So, you are saying that Flynn lied to the court when he said he was guilty. And he lied to the court when he said he was not forced by the FBI in to lie.

Seems like the kind of guy that Individual 1 might just want on his staff. In spite of Trump firing him and Pence saying he lied.

Accepting a pardon includes admitting guilt so the verdict will always be there. Flynn is and always will be a felon.

Everyday Trump turns around and says good morning to the night.

A plea bargain rests on the prosecution fully complying with its legal and ethical responsibilities of full disclosure. As I pointed about above, simply lying to a federal officer is not a crime. To make it a crime additional elements need to exist including materiality to a pending criminal investigation and scienter. These other elements are not clear cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
IIRC, Clinton perjured himself in a deposition in a civil case.

We are both right. Two of the impeachment charges were for lying in the Jones deposition. Neither charged passed out of the House. He was impeached for lying to the Grand Jury. So he was impeached for lying to Starr's people about consensual sex as it would have been Starr or someone from that team questioning Clinton. I doubt they gave him a heads up they knew he had an affair before asking him the questions.
 
We are both right. Two of the impeachment charges were for lying in the Jones deposition. Neither charged passed out of the House. He was impeached for lying to the Grand Jury. So he was impeached for lying to Starr's people about consensual sex as it would have been Starr or someone from that team questioning Clinton. I doubt they gave him a heads up they knew he had an affair before asking him the questions.
That's way above your pay grade, Marvin.
 
We are both right. Two of the impeachment charges were for lying in the Jones deposition. Neither charged passed out of the House. He was impeached for lying to the Grand Jury. So he was impeached for lying to Starr's people about consensual sex as it would have been Starr or someone from that team questioning Clinton. I doubt they gave him a heads up they knew he had an affair before asking him the questions.

Seriously marv? Do you really see taking the oath and testifying before a grand jury the same as meeting "a couple of guys" in your office with no stated purpose?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Seriously mark? Do you really see taking the oath and testifying before a grand jury the same as meeting "a couple of guys" in your office with no stated purpose?

Yes, because you know, he worked for Trump at the time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT