RussiaGate

[poster]

So who is the evil genius perpetrating this plot? Mueller?

And how is Flynn the first casualty when there's already been one guilty plea and two indictments?

My point goes back to January. I believe you're referring to more current events?

 

[TV and credit cards]

In other words, the Justice Department wasn’t seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak – the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.

I've been through an investigation or two in the navy for missing stuff. No one ever required "precise recollections". Then again, I suppose it's a matter of what you're forgetting. For example, loosing a few details here and there is a world apart from forgetting you put a crate of grenades.

I think the point of the quote is that the entire plan was to make Flynn the first casulty of the administration. There was nothing in the way of new information Flynn could provide because they already knew everything they could possibly want to know - they had transcripts.

My point is, you need to catch statements like "quizzed on his precise recollection" and recognize that the author couldn't possibly know this and is showing his bias. This should raise doubt in your mind.
My anecdote was to show investigators are not looking for precise recollection. They are looking for glaring omissions.
But perhaps we just forget conversations with Russian diplomats because they're such a trifle?

 

[poster]

I think the point of the quote is that the entire plan was to make Flynn the first casulty of the administration. There was nothing in the way of new information Flynn could provide because they already knew everything they could possibly want to know - they had transcripts.

My point is, you need to catch statements like "quizzed on his precise recollection" and recognize that the author couldn't possibly know this and is showing his bias. This should raise doubt in your mind.
My anecdote was to show investigators are not looking for precise recollection. They are looking for glaring omissions.
But perhaps we just forget conversations with Russian diplomats because they're such a trifle?

I guess our kids or grandkids will one day find out for sure.

 

[poster]

I think the point of the quote is that the entire plan was to make Flynn the first casulty of the administration. There was nothing in the way of new information Flynn could provide because they already knew everything they could possibly want to know - they had transcripts.

My point is, you need to catch statements like "quizzed on his precise recollection" and recognize that the author couldn't possibly know this and is showing his bias. This should raise doubt in your mind.
My anecdote was to show investigators are not looking for precise recollection. They are looking for glaring omissions.
But perhaps we just forget conversations with Russian diplomats because they're such a trifle?

From factcheck

Jan. 24 — Two days after he takes office as national security adviser, Flynn is interviewed by FBI agents. He is asked about two conversations that he had with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, in December 2016 when Flynn was still a private citizen and before Trump took office.
Flynn tells the FBI agents that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 29, 2016, conversation, for Russia to refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration announced sanctions that day against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. He also says that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 22, 2016, conversation for Russia to delay or defeat a U.N. Security Council resolution, approved Dec. 23, 2016, that would have condemned Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Flynn would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about both of those conversations with Kislyak.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/

Again, the FBI already knew what those conversations were and Flynn most likely knew that given he was part of national security in the past. Why ask Flynn about conversations that are transcripted unless you're trying to find a deviation? "Quizzing" just might be an accurate description.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You just proved Flynn lied. Don't shoot the messenger or reframe it on the messengers.

 

[Copernicus]

From factcheck

Jan. 24 — Two days after he takes office as national security adviser, Flynn is interviewed by FBI agents. He is asked about two conversations that he had with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, in December 2016 when Flynn was still a private citizen and before Trump took office.
Flynn tells the FBI agents that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 29, 2016, conversation, for Russia to refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration announced sanctions that day against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. He also says that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 22, 2016, conversation for Russia to delay or defeat a U.N. Security Council resolution, approved Dec. 23, 2016, that would have condemned Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Flynn would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about both of those conversations with Kislyak.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/

Again, the FBI already knew what those conversations were and Flynn most likely knew that given he was part of national security in the past. Why ask Flynn about conversations that are transcripted unless you're trying to find a deviation? "Quizzing" just might be an accurate description.

I think that the problem here for Flynn is the Logan Act. Flynn was not authorized to negotiate with Russia on behalf of the United States, nor was Trump, at the time. So Flynn's motivation for lying was to deny that he was working in the interests of a foreign power and against US policy. Another reason to lie was that Mueller was obviously looking to establish a motive for Putin to have helped Trump win the election. The quid pro quo was getting sanctions lifted. In fact, that is the common thread in Russia's dealings with Trump from the beginning. There is a long record of such behavior that Trump and his cronies have been trying to cover up.

 

[poster]

From factcheck

Jan. 24 — Two days after he takes office as national security adviser, Flynn is interviewed by FBI agents. He is asked about two conversations that he had with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, in December 2016 when Flynn was still a private citizen and before Trump took office.
Flynn tells the FBI agents that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 29, 2016, conversation, for Russia to refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration announced sanctions that day against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. He also says that he did not ask Kislyak, in a Dec. 22, 2016, conversation for Russia to delay or defeat a U.N. Security Council resolution, approved Dec. 23, 2016, that would have condemned Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Flynn would later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about both of those conversations with Kislyak.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/michael-flynns-russia-timeline/

Again, the FBI already knew what those conversations were and Flynn most likely knew that given he was part of national security in the past. Why ask Flynn about conversations that are transcripted unless you're trying to find a deviation? "Quizzing" just might be an accurate description.

I think that the problem here for Flynn is the Logan Act. Flynn was not authorized to negotiate with Russia on behalf of the United States, nor was Trump, at the time. So Flynn's motivation for lying was to deny that he was working in the interests of a foreign power and against US policy. Another reason to lie was that Mueller was obviously looking to establish a motive for Putin to have helped Trump win the election. The quid pro quo was getting sanctions lifted. In fact, that is the common thread in Russia's dealings with Trump from the beginning. There is a long record of such behavior that Trump and his cronies have been trying to cover up.

The use of The Logan Act has already been addressed. They were members of an incoming administration. Of course there were discussions with foreign dignataries and other officials. I'd be willing to bet every administration has done the same thing (Reagan's interference with the Iran hostage situation comes to mind. A much more worthy invocation of the act, imo. Did democrats bring it up then? NOPE!). The Logan Act was intended to prevent citizens of a non-official capacity from getting into official national security business discussions. Flynn was a the member of an incomong administration and using The Logan Act in this way smells of pure politics.

As your post alludes to, there is no will, nor has there been since Putin booted us out of Russia because of pillaging the place, to make peace with Russia. A cold war is more profitable for the military complex for which the intelligence community supports.

But I digress.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ronnie Raygun and Ollie North were also wrong.

 

[Ford]

They were members of an incoming administration. Of course there were discussions with foreign dignataries and other officials. I'd be willing to bet every administration has done the same thing.

I'd argue that there is a rather large difference between members of an incoming administration exchanging diplomatic niceties with foreign governments, and members of an incoming administration working in secret to undermine the administration still operating as the legitimate government of the US.

Remember, they lied about all these meetings. Lied about trying to establish back-channels. Lied about the subject of the meetings and attempts at communication.

And then of course there's the fact that members of the Trump campaign met with Russian agents well before the election.

But I digress...

 

[poster]

Ronnie Raygun and Ollie North were also wrong.

Yes, quite, but The Logan Act was not used against them.

 

[Patooka]

As your post alludes to, there is no will, nor has there been since Putin booted us out of Russia because of pillaging the place, to make peace with Russia. A cold war is more profitable for the military complex for which the intelligence community supports.

But I digress.

Care to clarify on that bit? I'm legitimately confused.

 

[poster]

You just proved Flynn lied. Don't shoot the messenger or reframe it on the messengers.

He could have, or might not have had perfect recollection. The point is that it doesn't matter becasue it was already known what the contents of the discussions were, so the only purpose in questioning him was??? All these people just got done with a long and exhaustive campaign and, as we all know, then the crap hits the fan the day after with all the pundantry and political attacks coming from every which way...deservidly so or not.

Like I said from the get-go, I have little sympathy for people like Michael Flynn (and Hillary Clinton) who take pleasure in killing and destroying lives in the name of war and nationalism. Or for people like Donald Trump who enjoys going about throwing his weight around. My concern is for what's happening to our civil rights.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ronnie Raygun and Ollie North were also wrong.

Yes, quite, but The Logan Act was not used against them.

The govt would have had to prove they did something first. But while you're on Reagan he said Jesse Jackson violated the Logan Act for talking to foreign govts but that he would use discretion not to prosecute. Obama was pres in Dec not Trump and Obama had outward policies and behind the scenes diplomacy. Flynn talking to Rooskies could undermine that and that was the same argument Reagan used.

 

[braces_for_impact]

They ask Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak even though they have the transcripts because Flynn is losing his ever loving mind and has been doing some very shady things as of late. Flynn is in the NEA when they issue warnings about Kapersky being used in government offices. Flynn is fired by Obama, and next thing you know Flynn is forming his own Intel group and taking jobs from Turkey, being paid by Kapersky and Volga-Dnepr Airlines, appearing on RT, and sitting next to Vladmir Putin as an honored guest. Obama cautions Trump in the White House about hiring Flynn, and Sally Yates visits the White House not once but TWICE to warn that Flynn is in a "compromised" position and basically shouldn't be in the prestiged position he's in. All of this ignored by Trump until the media got wind of it.

Flynn has all the hallmarks of a disgruntled employee. His conspiracy-minded thinking, his volatile behavior that helped prompt his firing, his frequent chants of "Lock her up!" at rallies. The man is compromised, and to Russians trying to get more and more people into Trump's orbit, an easy pawn.

 

[blastula]

poster is right, there was no reason to question Flynn at that point. Who cares if he was making deals with the Russians? That had nothing to do with the investigation into Russian interference. What idiots those FBI dunces are, they don't know what the hell they're doing.

 

[poster]

As your post alludes to, there is no will, nor has there been since Putin booted us out of Russia because of pillaging the place, to make peace with Russia. A cold war is more profitable for the military complex for which the intelligence community supports.

But I digress.

Care to clarify on that bit? I'm legitimately confused.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/us-agents-helped-yeltsin-break-coup-1436470.html

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-me...elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-09/news/mn-22423_1_boris-yeltsin

 

[poster]

They ask Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak even though they have the transcripts because Flynn is losing his ever loving mind and has been doing some very shady things as of late. Flynn is in the NEA when they issue warnings about Kapersky being used in government offices. Flynn is fired by Obama, and next thing you know Flynn is forming his own Intel group and taking jobs from Turkey, being paid by Kapersky and Volga-Dnepr Airlines, appearing on RT, and sitting next to Vladmir Putin as an honored guest. Obama cautions Trump in the White House about hiring Flynn, and Sally Yates visits the White House not once but TWICE to warn that Flynn is in a "compromised" position and basically shouldn't be in the prestiged position he's in. All of this ignored by Trump until the media got wind of it.

Flynn has all the hallmarks of a disgruntled employee. His conspiracy-minded thinking, his volatile behavior that helped prompt his firing, his frequent chants of "Lock her up!" at rallies. The man is compromised, and to Russians trying to get more and more people into Trump's orbit, an easy pawn.

Flynn was whacky, no question about that. However, if that's the case you want to make as to why get him removed from his office, that was the senates job during confirmation. That's what those hearing are for.

 

[poster]

poster is right, there was no reason to question Flynn at that point. Who cares if he was making deals with the Russians? That had nothing to do with the investigation into Russian interference. What idiots those FBI dunces are, they don't know what the hell they're doing.

This is another problem as of late; it appears that anyone who speaks to a Russian these days is un-American and making deals. I'm afraid to watch RT because I worry that sort of activity alerts intelligence agencies monitoring the internet.

 

[Ford]

it appears that anyone who speaks to a Russian these days is un-American and making deals.

Only the ones that lie about it.

Again, it isn't a big deal if an incoming administration reaches out to other countries and says "hey, we're going to be in office in a few months, hope to see you then and maybe we can talk."

If they reach out to a hostile country - and Russia is not a friend to the US - and say "hey we're going to be in office in a few months, can you help us fuck over the current administration in the meantime," then that's a problem.

If, when asked about such meetings you say "meetings? What? No, we've not met with any Russians" then you're not just undermining your own government, but are lying about it. In Flynn's case lying about it to federal investigators. Which is a federal crime.

 

[braces_for_impact]

They ask Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak even though they have the transcripts because Flynn is losing his ever loving mind and has been doing some very shady things as of late. Flynn is in the NEA when they issue warnings about Kapersky being used in government offices. Flynn is fired by Obama, and next thing you know Flynn is forming his own Intel group and taking jobs from Turkey, being paid by Kapersky and Volga-Dnepr Airlines, appearing on RT, and sitting next to Vladmir Putin as an honored guest. Obama cautions Trump in the White House about hiring Flynn, and Sally Yates visits the White House not once but TWICE to warn that Flynn is in a "compromised" position and basically shouldn't be in the prestiged position he's in. All of this ignored by Trump until the media got wind of it.

Flynn has all the hallmarks of a disgruntled employee. His conspiracy-minded thinking, his volatile behavior that helped prompt his firing, his frequent chants of "Lock her up!" at rallies. The man is compromised, and to Russians trying to get more and more people into Trump's orbit, an easy pawn.

Flynn was whacky, no question about that. However, if that's the case you want to make as to why get him removed from his office, that was the senates job during confirmation. That's what those hearing are for.

Flynn wasn't just anyone. He was a U.S. General in American intelligence circles. He had been fired, and he lied about his contact with Russians, and did not report his income from foreign governments (including Russians).

This is another problem as of late; it appears that anyone who speaks to a Russian these days is un-American and making deals. I'm afraid to watch RT because I worry that sort of activity alerts intelligence agencies monitoring the internet.

I don't see it. This is as conspiratorial as the sites you source.