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

[Tippaporn]

An excellent Cliff notes article on the Flynn case.

 

The Federalist - Your Guide To The Obama Administration's Hit On Michael Flynn

 

Case law explaining a perjury trap, which applies specifically to Flynn's case as there was no legitimate, ongoing investigation at the time of the FBI's interview of Flynn:  it involves the government’s use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on materials which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation.

 

A few highlights.

• An in depth explanation as to why Flynn didn't break any laws.
• How prosecutors mislead the courts.
• Robert Mueller's special counsel and prosecutors violating Judge Sullivan's court order.
• The 302's.  They were edited by Lisa Page and Strzok yet the government claims they can't find the originals (I wonder why).

 

[frenetic]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

An excellent Cliff notes article on the Flynn case.

 

The Federalist - Your Guide To The Obama Administration's Hit On Michael Flynn

 

Case law explaining a perjury trap, which applies specifically to Flynn's case as there was no legitimate, ongoing investigation at the time of the FBI's interview of Flynn:  it involves the government’s use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on materials which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation.

 

A few highlights.

• An in depth explanation as to why Flynn didn't break any laws.
• How prosecutors mislead the courts.
• Robert Mueller's special counsel and prosecutors violating Judge Sullivan's court order.
• The 302's.  They were edited by Lisa Page and Strzok yet the government claims they can't find the originals (I wonder why).

 

It should be pointed out that Judge Sullivan rejected the entrapment charge in December. So the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws clearly didn't pass muster with him.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, frenetic said:

I guess you have to do name calling and such if you have no substantive reply. (If that isn't trolling, what is?) Once again, you are citing Flynn's lawyer as though she were an objective source. If that was the case, why did the judge shoot down her previous objections so thoroughly?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/judge-denies-michael-flynns-allegations-of-fbi-tampering-sets-sentencing-for-january/

I didn't know that calling a lib a lib was name calling.  As to substantive replies, well, there's 10 pages of them.

 

That's old, old news.  Doesn't apply anymore.  Factor in all of the latest developments.  If you aren't aware of the latest news regarding this case how can you hope to comment accurately?

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, frenetic said:

You're the one who attacked MSM. I think it's relevant to question the reliability of your perspective.

If you want to defend the MSM then go ahead.  If you feel that criticizing the MSM amounts to unreliability of perspective then I'm O.K. with that.  But I won't bother spending time sorting out your misconceptions.  You'd never agree anyway.

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, frenetic said:

It should be pointed out that Judge Sullivan rejected the entrapment charge in December. So the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws clearly didn't pass muster with him.

See my post #152 for an explanation.

[frenetic]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I didn't know that calling a lib a lib was name calling.  As to substantive replies, well, there's 10 pages of them.

 

That's old, old news.  Doesn't apply anymore.  Factor in all of the latest developments.  If you aren't aware of the latest news regarding this case how can you hope to comment accurately?

Calling someone a lib or a right winger is name calling when you use it as a sole rebuttal rather than resorting to fact or reason. 

And even now, you still haven't offered any defense for invoking Flynn's defense lawyer. And the latest developments have no relevance at all to the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws. The judge has already dispensed with that legal theory. The issue is now the alleged "entrapment" which is an entirely different matter.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, frenetic said:

Calling someone a lib or a right winger is name calling when you use it as a sole rebuttal rather than resorting to fact or reason. 

And even now, you still haven't offered any defense for invoking Flynn's defense lawyer. And the latest developments have no relevance at all to the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws. The judge has already dispensed with that legal theory. The issue is now the alleged "entrapment" which is an entirely different matter.

Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about.  Seriously.  I'm not saying that as a sleight.  Read the article from the Federalist which I just posted for an explanation.  Read any of the articles I've linked to in the last 10 pages to learn how new developments materially affect this case dramatically and why December 16th's ruling of last year is now moot.  Read and find out why Flynn didn't commit a crime.  Without current information you cannot possible comment accurately.

 

BTW, my rebuttal did resort to fact.  The fact that you are not up to speed on current developments so addressing this topic as if it was 5 months ago means that in this present time you don't know what your talking about.  That should be logical enough and I hope you can follow it.

[frenetic]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Again, you have no idea of what you're talking about.  Seriously.  I'm not saying that as a sleight.  Read the article from the Federalist which I just posted for an explanation.  Read any of the articles I've linked to in the last 10 pages to learn how new developments materially affect this case dramatically and why December 16th's ruling of last year is now moot.  Read and find out why Flynn didn't commit a crime.  Without current information you cannot possible comment accurately.

 

BTW, my rebuttal did resort to fact.  The fact that you are not up to speed on current developments so addressing this topic as if it was 5 months ago means that in this present time you don't know what your talking about.  That should be logical enough and I hope you can follow it.

Pointing out errors in logic in your posts or the sources you cite, doesn't mean I'm not up to speed on it. And the fact that you have demonstrated zero familiarity with counterarguments posted by many legal scholars seriously calls into question your belief that you are up to speed.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, frenetic said:

Pointing out errors in logic in your posts or the sources you cite, doesn't mean I'm not up to speed on it. And the fact that you have demonstrated zero familiarity with counterarguments posted by many legal scholars seriously calls into question your belief that you are up to speed.

Then I'll ask you:  What material developments occurred recently which dramatically change the course of Flynn's case and why?

[frenetic]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Then I'll ask you:  What material developments occurred recently which dramatically change the course of Flynn's case and why?

Nice how you put your conclusion into said question. You should look up the meaning of the phrase "leading question." Who said these developments are "material"? Isn't that yet to be decided? And the same goes for "dramatically change the course of Flynn's case." Do they? Just because there's a lot of hullabaloo doesn't mean it will amount to anything in the end. Your question doesn't really indicate much detachment on your part, does it?

 

Here are a few sources I've read:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-reports-top-fbi-officials-dismiss-flynn-entrapment-claims

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21242695/michael-flynn-bill-priestap-notes-total-exoneration-trump-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-notes-on-michael-flynn-unlikely-to-convince-judge-he-was-entrapped-legal-experts-say/2020/04/30/b340c55a-8b01-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html

[Rimmer]

Baiting flame and replies removed

[i84teen]

17 minutes ago, frenetic said:

Nice how you put your conclusion into said question. You should look up the meaning of the phrase "leading question." Who said these developments are "material"? Isn't that yet to be decided? And the same goes for "dramatically change the course of Flynn's case." Do they? Just because there's a lot of hullabaloo doesn't mean it will amount to anything in the end. Your question doesn't really indicate much detachment on your part, does it?

 

Here are a few sources I've read:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-reports-top-fbi-officials-dismiss-flynn-entrapment-claims

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21242695/michael-flynn-bill-priestap-notes-total-exoneration-trump-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-notes-on-michael-flynn-unlikely-to-convince-judge-he-was-entrapped-legal-experts-say/2020/04/30/b340c55a-8b01-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html

Flynn walks, exonerated irrespective of resistance from this dim-wit judge Sullivan, or anyone else. FBI Wray who is saying nothing and running scared, he knows the razor ruse is imploding and FBI heads will soon roll.

 

Flynn was targeted even when FBI conceded he committed no crime, but they cooked up a scheme and even cooked the evidence, falsified 302's, etc and with further docs forthcoming, Brady, entrapment, lying, will all blow back on the fbi. Wait and see, its gonna shut up those who argue against the obvious.

 

Lessons learned: "you (FBI, police, etc) CANNOT prosecute people for political reasons or because you don't like them. It will all come out in the wash, soon enough and maybe u can see the big picture here.

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, frenetic said:

Nice how you put your conclusion into said question. You should look up the meaning of the phrase "leading question." Who said these developments are "material"? Isn't that yet to be decided? And the same goes for "dramatically change the course of Flynn's case." Do they? Just because there's a lot of hullabaloo doesn't mean it will amount to anything in the end. Your question doesn't really indicate much detachment on your part, does it?

 

Here are a few sources I've read:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/carl-bernstein-reports-top-fbi-officials-dismiss-flynn-entrapment-claims

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21242695/michael-flynn-bill-priestap-notes-total-exoneration-trump-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-notes-on-michael-flynn-unlikely-to-convince-judge-he-was-entrapped-legal-experts-say/2020/04/30/b340c55a-8b01-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html

LOL.  All three articles address only the entrapment issue which the FBI handwritten notes indicate.  For one the articles don't make mention of any of the other relevant new facts surrounding the hand written notes.  For another that's not the only piece of exculpatory evidence to be revealed which bears on this case.

 

Vox and WaPo.  LOL  The article in the Washington Examiner is a bit of a surprise.  Carl Bernstein?  LOL  They've even included a video of one of the worst 'journalists' out there, Brian Stelter, with Bernstein as a guest.  "I've talked to top officials in the FBI [regarding entrapment], and they say, 'No,'" Bernstein explained during an appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday.  LOL  Yeah, ask the same FBI which had been withholding exculpatory information if they were entrapping Flynn with the expectation of receiving confirmation that they indeed did do that.  What a joke.

 

Have you read any of the articles I've linked to?

[BobBKK]

As far as i can see the only mistake Flynn made (and it is a BIG mistake) was to admit to lying to save his son. Comey admitted he broke the rules sending up 'two guys' to the White House amidst all the hand-over chaos that is normal in new administrations. I am non-political and not from USA but the bias is for all to see - right there.

[frenetic]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

As far as i can see the only mistake Flynn made (and it is a BIG mistake) was to admit to lying to save his son. Comey admitted he broke the rules sending up 'two guys' to the White House amidst all the hand-over chaos that is normal in new administrations. I am non-political and not from USA but the bias is for all to see - right there.

 

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  All three articles address only the entrapment issue which the FBI handwritten notes indicate.  For one the articles don't make mention of any of the other relevant new facts surrounding the hand written notes.  For another that's not the only piece of exculpatory evidence to be revealed which bears on this case.

 

Vox and WaPo.  LOL  The article in the Washington Examiner is a bit of a surprise.  Carl Bernstein?  LOL  They've even included a video of one of the worst 'journalists' out there, Brian Stelter, with Bernstein as a guest.  "I've talked to top officials in the FBI [regarding entrapment], and they say, 'No,'" Bernstein explained during an appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday.  LOL  Yeah, ask the same FBI which had been withholding exculpatory information if they were entrapping Flynn with the expectation of receiving confirmation that they indeed did do that.  What a joke.

 

Have you read any of the articles I've linked to?

I read the first one which consisted mainly of surmises about what the evidence might be given that it either hasn't yet been produced or is still under wraps. If this is your idea of serious investigative journalism, then you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes serious evidence.

As for Greg Jarrett's articles, the so-called investigative journalists who still cites Uranium One as evidence against Hillary Clinton, you've got to be kidding.

[Tippaporn]

51 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

As far as i can see the only mistake Flynn made (and it is a BIG mistake) was to admit to lying to save his son. Comey admitted he broke the rules sending up 'two guys' to the White House amidst all the hand-over chaos that is normal in new administrations. I am non-political and not from USA but the bias is for all to see - right there.

I agree that Flynn should not have admitted to lying but I think that unless you're in that situation it's hard to judge.  I think he knew that the government was going to take him down no matter what so then at least save your son?  I dunno.  That's gotta be a tough call.  From all accounts Flynn was well aware of corruption (threatening to do something about it is what got him into hot water with Obama) and he was most likely well aware of what those corrupt people were capable of.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, frenetic said:

 

I read the first one which consisted mainly of surmises about what the evidence might be given that it either hasn't yet been produced or is still under wraps. If this is your idea of serious investigative journalism, then you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes serious evidence.

As for Greg Jarrett's articles, the so-called investigative journalists who still cites Uranium One as evidence against Hillary Clinton, you've got to be kidding.

LOL.  No more time today.  We'll take this up tomorrow when I have time.

 

As to Greg Jarrett, on this subject matter he'd run circles around you and tie you up in so many knots you wouldn't know if you were coming or going.  LOL

[frenetic]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As to Greg Jarrett, on this subject matter he'd run circles around you and tie you up in so many knots you wouldn't know if you were coming or going.  LOL

Well this tells us lots about your feelings towards Greg Jarrett but doesn't address in the least his dubious journalistic history. He has a track record and it's not a good one.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, frenetic said:

Well this tells us lots about your feelings towards Greg Jarrett but doesn't address in the least his dubious journalistic history. He has a track record and it's not a good one.

Well on that basis we should dismiss all the MSM - of all hues.

[frenetic]

7 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Well on that basis we should dismiss all the MSM - of all hues.

Because they're all alike? Got any more cheap generalizations to share with us?

[Chiphigh]

19 hours ago, frenetic said:

It should be pointed out that Judge Sullivan rejected the entrapment charge in December. So the claim that Flynn didn't break any laws clearly didn't pass muster with him.

Until the doj made sure the fbi release redacted evidence and more information the fbi and the prosecutors were hiding 

[Tippaporn]

Well, what do we have here?  Looks like too much dirty laundry airing out exposing the lawless and traitorous FBI and DOJ players?

 

AP - Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

 

The department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

 

Why do you suppose?  Perhaps because the government actors were all corrupt?  What happens to them, the real criminals?  I don't think they'll escape justice.

 

Flynn has plenty of ammo to sue their ar$e$ and I hope he does.

 

What say you now, @frenetic?  LOL  I told you you didn't know what you were talking about.  My suggestion?  Quit reading and listening to the MSM.  They've been wrong about everything so far.

 

Now that the Flynn case has imploded next to implode is the entire Russian collusion hoax.  Don't think so?  Just wait . . . . 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Tippaporn

[suspectdevice]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:07 AM, Tippaporn said:

Wow, a picture of Flynn sitting next to Putin.  That's your evidence of guilt?  What buffoonery.  Do you know the story behind this photo?  Of course not.

What about the clip of Obama whispering to Putin about he would have more freedom to grease Russian palms when they won the election!

[Tippaporn]

Almost forgot to mention . . . Trump should bring him back on the team.  Hopefully.

[Tippaporn]

These people are truly sick.

 

MSN - Top Democrat demands 'immediate explanation' from Barr after Flynn case dropped

 

"A politicized and thoroughly corrupt Department of Justice is going to let the President's crony simply walk away," Nadler said. "We are not supposed to get special treatment because we are friends with the President or refused to cooperate with federal investigators on his behalf.

"The integrity of our criminal justice system is at stake, and the American people deserve answers," he added. "I will also ask the Inspector General for the Department of Justice to investigate this matter."

 

I said it long ago when Barr first came on board . . . anytime the DOJ rules in favour of anyone associated with Trump or goes after any Dem the Dems will accuse Barr of politicizing the DOJ.  The despicably corrupt Nadler and Schiff are both living on borrowed time.

[TopDeadSenter]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, what do we have here?  Looks like too much dirty laundry airing out exposing the lawless and traitorous FBI and DOJ players?

 

AP - Justice Department is dropping Flynn's Trump-Russia case

 

The department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

 

Why do you suppose?  Perhaps because the government actors were all corrupt?  What happens to them, the real criminals?  I don't think they'll escape justice.

 

Flynn has plenty of ammo to sue their ar$e$ and I hope he does.

 

What say you now, @frenetic?  LOL  I told you you didn't know what you were talking about.  My suggestion?  Quit reading and listening to the MSM.  They've been wrong about everything so far.

 

Now that the Flynn case has imploded next to implode is the entire Russian collusion hoax.  Don't think so?  Just wait . . . . 

 

We really need some new threads on these left wing hoaxes all falling apart. We had years of threads hounding Republicans like Flynn and Trump and making wild collusion allegations which to argue against was deemed "conspiratorial". Yet now we learn all the allegations were total rubbish and a huge waste of 4 years, yet we hear crickets. That's not how it works!

 

Luckily Trump will not be letting this failed witch hunt rest. He is understandably a bit fired up after being justified and proven correct yet again.

 

"President Trump reacted from the Oval Office just minutes after the DOJ filing surfaced. "He was an innocent man... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said, while criticizing Obama administration officials. "They're human scum. ... It’s treason."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drops-doj-case-against-michael-flynn-in-wake-of-internal-memo-release

[Chomper Higgot]

On 5/5/2020 at 2:49 PM, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  No more time today.  We'll take this up tomorrow when I have time.

 

As to Greg Jarrett, on this subject matter he'd run circles around you and tie you up in so many knots you wouldn't know if you were coming or going.  LOL

Is Greg Jarrett a member here on TVF?

 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

We really need some new threads on these left wing hoaxes all falling apart. We had years of threads hounding Republicans like Flynn and Trump and making wild collusion allegations which to argue against was deemed "conspiratorial". Yet now we learn all the allegations were total rubbish and a huge waste of 4 years, yet we hear crickets. That's not how it works!

 

Luckily Trump will not be letting this failed witch hunt rest. He is understandably a bit fired up after being justified and proven correct yet again.

 

"President Trump reacted from the Oval Office just minutes after the DOJ filing surfaced. "He was an innocent man... Now, in my book, he's an even greater warrior," Trump said, while criticizing Obama administration officials. "They're human scum. ... It’s treason."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drops-doj-case-against-michael-flynn-in-wake-of-internal-memo-release

Let’s wait to hear what the judge has to say.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Almost forgot to mention . . . Trump should bring him back on the team.  Hopefully.

I agree, he absolutely should.

 

Hiring people with direct association to Putin is exactly what Trump needs to do.

 

If Trump can appoint Flynn before the judge in Flynn’s case responds that would be swell too.

 

 

[Mama Noodle]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hiring people with direct association to Putin is exactly what Trump needs to do.

 

Its been over 3 years and you guys, in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, still rely on Putin. 

 

Its old, stale, and echos Hillary Clinton. 

 

Its been a rough day for Dems. Flynn... Schiff being forced to release his transcripts... Democrat run governors being forced to release imprisioned business owners.... Tara Reid's interview throwing shade on Biden... 

 

Couple more weeks and you guys won't have much left.