Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
858
Views

858 Views
Message 1 of 39

The interview gave Flynn every opportunity to tell the truth. As the FBI’s partially redacted memo documenting Flynn's interview reflects the questions were careful, they were specific. The agents planned to try and jog Flynn’s memory, if he said he could not remember a detail, by using the exact words they knew he had used in his conversation with Kislyak.

 

And Flynn, as he admitted in open court twice, did not tell the truth. That is not entrapment or a set-up, and it is very far indeed from outrageous government conduct. It’s conducting an interview, and a witness at the highest levels of government lying in the interview.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
858
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
866
Views

866 Views
Message 2 of 39

When it comes to Trump World conspiracy theories, everything's a bombshell. In reality, Flynn is still being charged with LYING TO THE FBI.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
866
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
872
Views

872 Views
Message 3 of 39

Flynn bombshells cast doubt on Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack's compliance with court order

 

BY:  Greg Re

 

Explosive, newly unsealed evidence documenting the FBI's efforts to target national security adviser Michael Flynn -- including a top official's handwritten memo debating whether the FBI's "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired" -- calls into question whether Brandon Van Grack, a Justice Department prosecutor and former member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Team, complied with a court order to produce favorable evidence to Flynn.

 

Since February 2018, Van Grack has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession “that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.”

 

The order also requires the government to submit favorable defense evidence to the court, including possible "impeachment evidence" that could undermine witnesses, even if the government believes the evidence “not to be material.”

 

Van Grack has long informed Sullivan that the government’s so-called "Brady" obligations, referring to prosecutors' duty to turn over exculpatory materials to defendants, have been met. In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

 

In that same October 2019 motion, Van Grack elaborated on those claims, telling Sullivan that the government had not “affirmatively suppressed evidence” or hid Brady material. He denied that government was “aware of any information that would be favorable and material to [Flynn] at sentencing.”

 

Van Grack further dismissed arguments by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, that “General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes” as “conspiracy theories.”

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller walks from the podium after speaking at the Department of Justice Wednesday, May 29, 2019, in Washington, about the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

 

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about – and didn’t provide to Flynn – was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 "Closing Communication" from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."

 

Van Grack also failed to provide evidence to Flynn’s attorneys that anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok then immediately intervened and instructed the FBI case manager handling the Flynn investigation to keep the probe open, followed by indicators that the bureau would seek to investigate Flynn for possible violations of an obscure 18th century law known as the Logan Act -- which has never been utilized in a modern prosecution.

 

Another Strzok text mentions that the FBI’s "7th floor" – meaning FBI leadership – may have been involved in the decision to keep the Flynn case alive.

 

Instead, Van Grack characterized Flynn’s alleged false statements as critical to the FBI’s “legitimate and significant investigation into whether individuals associated with the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump were coordinating with the Russian government in its activities to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

 

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

 

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties, coordination, or communication with Russia. Just a day before Flynn's January 2017 White House interview, the Washington Post ran a story declaring that the FBI "had reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit," citing unnamed "U.S. officials."

 

Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap -- written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told -- show discussions of whether their “goal” at the White House interview was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

 

In this July 26, 2017 photo, Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, testifies during a Judiciary Committee hearing into alleged collusion between Russian and the Trump campaign. (Reuters)

 

These unsealed notes further suggest that agents planned in the alternative to get Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act” when he spoke to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

 

The Logan Act has never been used in a modern criminal prosecution and has a questionable constitutional status; it was enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.

 

"Any criminal investigation grounded in Logan Act questions is an obvious political pretext to attack the Trump Administration," GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday, in a letter seeking in-person interviews and key documents. "FBI attorney Lisa Page admitted to Congress the Justice Department saw the Logan Act as an 'untested' and 'very, very old' statute."

 

This new evidence puts Van Grack at risk for accusations that he was misleading Sullivan as to the materiality of Flynn’s statements to FBI agents Strzok and Joe Pientka when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.

 

Jordan and Johnson are now specifically seeking to question Pientka, who participated in the January 2017 White House interview that led to Flynn's prosecution.

Fox News has previously determined that Pientka was also intimately involved in the probe of former Trump aide Carter Page, which the DOJ has since acknowledged was riddled with fundamental errors and premised on a discredited dossier that the bureau was told could be part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

 

Pientka was conspicuously removed from the FBI's website after Fox News contacted the FBI about his extensive role in Crossfire Hurricane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) matters -- a change first noticed by Twitter user Techno Fog -- but sources say Pientka remains in a senior role at the agency's San Francisco field office.

 

The FBI, speaking to Fox News last December, asserted that reporting on Pientka's identity would potentially endanger his life and would serve no legitimate journalistic purpose. Republicans have previously sought to question Pientka, however, beginning in 2018. On Monday, the FBI declined to provide any additional comment.

 

For an individual to be prosecuted for a false statement offense under federal law, the lie must be “material.” The newly revealed materials strongly suggest the FBI wasn’t truly concerned about Flynn’s call with Kislyak during the presidential transition period. If the questioning of Flynn by Strzok and Pientka were based on a pretext, that revelation would arguably defeat any assertion that Flynn’s purported lies were material.

 

Other reports of edited information and a secret agreement may put the issues surrounding the compliance with Sullivan’s standing order into context.

 

For example, the Mueller Report omitted key parts of a voicemail from Trump lawyer John Dowd to Flynn’s former lawyers discussing a joint defense agreement and the exchange of information.

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
872
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
895
Views

895 Views
Message 4 of 39

Flynn bombshell puts renewed attention on Durham probe, source says Barr talking to him ‘every day’

 

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham has reviewed the bombshell files released earlier this week showing FBI officials discussed whether they wanted to interview Michael Flynn in order to “get him to lie,” sources familiar with his investigation told Fox News, as the document drop renews attention on his probe of the law enforcement community's Russia case.

 

Sources even said charges could be justified against officials, and that those reviewing the Justice Department and the FBI's actions are building a "serious case." Durham and Attorney General Bill Barr are said to be speaking regularly.

 

Durham has seen all of this already,” one source told Fox News, adding that they “could be sufficient for some charges against agents.”

 

FLYNN BOMBSHELL STIRS SPECULATION OF POSSIBLE PARDON, DISMISSAL

“It’s a crime to present under oath false or misleading information,” the source told Fox News. “Not to mention obstruction of justice.”

 

Another source also told Fox News that the files have been reviewed by Durham and Jeff Jensen, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri who was tapped by the Justice Department in February to review the Flynn case specifically.

 

“They’re building a very serious case,” the second source told Fox News in reference to Durham's team.

 

MICHAEL FLYNN PROSECUTION: A TIMELINE OF TRUMP'S EX-NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER'S CASE

 

 

Video

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI multiple times for comment on the Flynn files, but has not received a response.

 

Documents unsealed late Wednesday by the Justice Department revealed that top FBI officials openly questioned if their “goal” in interviewing Flynn in January 2017 was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

 

The handwritten notes were penned by the FBI’s former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and before Flynn’s interview.

 

The notes suggested that agents also considered getting Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act” when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. The Logan Act is an obscure statute that has never been successfully used in a criminal prosecution and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.

 

Flynn did not admit to such a violation during his 2017 interview, and later pleaded guilty to making false statements. He has since tried to withdraw the plea.

The files prompted accusations from Flynn's defenders that agents essentially talked about setting a perjury trap.

 

The source added that it is “disturbing to Durham” that “there weren’t any whistleblowers” that came forward in the FBI and Justice Department at the onset of the Russia probe.

 

Sources also told Fox News that more exculpatory documents are forthcoming, as Attorney General Barr continues to look over the DOJ's investigation into the handling of the Flynn case.

“Barr talks to Durham every day,” a source told Fox News. “The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it’s serious.”

 

DURHAM PROBE EXPECTED TO END THIS SUMMER: SOURCES

 

The source added: “They’ve asked the president to say nothing about it and not screw it up. He is laying back for a change.”

 

The new Flynn documents have also raised questions of whether President Trump could pardon Flynn, or whether the case could be tossed by the Justice Department or a judge.

 

 

Video

A source told Fox News Friday that the president would prefer Flynn be “exonerated” by the justice system.

 

“They would prefer that he be exonerated because then it’s an exoneration by judicial process and not a pardon from a friend, or a coconspirator as some would allege,” the source said. “It would have more value from a public policy standpoint if the courts do it.”

 

The source added: “Obviously if that happens then the exoneration has credibility.”

Multiple sources have also told Fox News that Durham is expected to wrap up his investigation by the end of the summer.

 

One source suggested the investigation could end as soon as July, while another said it could be closer to September, based on Durham's progress, which could be hindered by the coronavirus pandemic rocking the nation and the globe.

 

“If they don’t have it, they’re not going to bring it,” another source told Fox News. “But they think they’ve got it.”

 

Durham was appointed last year by Barr to review the events leading up to the 2016 presidential election and through Trump’s Jan. 20, 2017 inauguration.

 

But, as Fox News first reported, Durham has since expanded his investigation to cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017 — when Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
895
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
906
Views

906 Views
Message 5 of 39

Michael Flynn case should be dismissed to preserve justice

 

BY:  Jonathan Turley

 

Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.

 

These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a "deep state" conspiracy.

 

One note reflects discussions within the FBI shortly after the 2016 election on how to entrap Flynn in an interview concerning his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to Fox News, the note was written by the former FBI head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe.

 

The note states, "What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over" to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.

 

The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.

 

In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general.

 

Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

 

It is also disturbing that this evidence was only recently disclosed by the Justice Department. When Flynn was pressured to plead guilty to a single count of lying to investigators, he was unaware such evidence existed and that the federal investigators who had interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially then threatened to charge his son.

 

Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed, President Trump publicly discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions. But Flynn still ultimately pleaded guilty to the single false statement to federal investigators. This additional information magnifies the doubts over the case.

 

Various FBI officials also lied and acted in arguably criminal or unethical ways, but all escaped without charges. McCabe had a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution. He was then later found by the Justice Department inspector general to have repeatedly lied to investigators. While his case was referred for criminal charges, McCabe was fired but never charged. Strzok was also fired for his misconduct in the investigation.

 

Comey intentionally leaked FBI material, including potentially classified information but was never charged. Another FBI agent responsible for the secret warrants used for the Russia investigation had falsified evidence to maintain the investigation. He is still not indicted. The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is galling and grotesque.

 

Even the judge in the case has added to this disturbing record. As Flynn appeared before District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Pointing to a flag behind him, Sullivan declared to Flynn, "You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out."

 

Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent. But when Sullivan menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there, Flynn wisely passed. It is a record that truly shocks the conscience. While rare, it is still possible for the district court to right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced. The Justice Department can invite the court to use its inherent supervisory authority to right a wrong of its own making. As the Supreme Court made clear in 1932, "universal sense of justice" is a stake in such cases. It is the "duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself to protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its courts."

 

Flynn was a useful tool for everyone and everything but justice. Mueller had ignored the view of the investigators and coerced Flynn to plead to a crime he did not commit to gain damaging testimony against Trump and his associates that Flynn did not have. The media covered Flynn to report the flawed theory of Russia collusion and to foster the view that some sort of criminal conspiracy was being uncovered by Mueller. Even the federal judge used Flynn to rail against what he saw as a treasonous plot. What is left in the wake of the prosecution is an utter travesty of justice.

 

Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution. But whatever the "goal" may have been in setting up Flynn, justice was not one of them.

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
906
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
914
Views

914 Views
Message 6 of 39

You can read this parody of the FBI investigation or ask yourself a simple question. If the hocus pocus put forth in this thread was true, why didn't the FBI drop the criminal charges against Flynn? The answer is obvious to anyone who wants the truth, the FBI is still pursuing the charges against him.

 

Flynn was the National Security Advisor, the man chosen to protect the United States from foreign adversaries. He belongs in prison.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
914
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
918
Views

918 Views
Message 7 of 39

Secret FBI Source Provided Information On Michael Flynn Visit To UK

 

BY:  Chuck Ross

 

  • A confidential informant provided information to the FBI regarding Michael Flynn’s visit to the University of Cambridge when he served as an intelligence official in the Obama administration, according to newly public documents. 

 

  • An FBI memo says the source told investigators they were “somewhat suspicious” of Flynn’s interactions at the Cambridge event with a Russian-British researcher. 

 

  • Svetlana Lokhova, who says she is the researcher in question, says the FBI source spread false allegations about her as part of “a plot to set up Gen. Flynn.”

 

  • The FBI memo suggests that investigators did not find evidence to substantiate the source’s allegations.  

 

A secret source for the FBI provided investigators working on the Trump-Russia probe with unverified allegations regarding Michael Flynn and a Russian-British academic at the University of Cambridge, according to documents made public on Thursday.

 

According to a Jan. 4, 2017 memo, investigators on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team asked an “established” confidential human source, or CHS, for any information about Flynn to potentially use for a counterintelligence investigation against the retired lieutenant general.

 

The source told investigators about an “incident” during Flynn’s visit to an event when he served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the memo, which was unsealed Thursday in legal proceedings in Flynn’s case.

 

The FBI at the time was investigating several Trump associates for possible ties to the Russian government. The memo cited evidence that had been collected on Flynn, including from the CHS, but said that there was not enough evidence to continue a counterintelligence investigation against him.

 

(RELATED: FBI Planned To Close Michael Flynn Investigation, And Then Peter Strzok Intervened)

 

The information from the CHS appears to center on a visit that Flynn made to the University of Cambridge in February 2014, when he served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The memo does not specify the location of the event, or with whom Flynn interacted. But multiple news reports in recent years have said that U.S. intelligence officials had some interest in Flynn’s visit to the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, an event hosted at the storied British university for high-profile intelligence officials from around the world.

 

The memo says that the CHS was “somewhat suspicious” of a person who interacted with Flynn at the event. The source believed that Flynn’s interlocutor “has been affiliated with several prominent members” of an organization that is not identified in the memo.

 

It was not previously known that the FBI relied on information from informants as part of the investigation of Flynn.

 

Investigators used at least three confidential sources as a part of Crossfire Hurricane. One of the CHSs has been identified as Stefan Halper, a former Republican political operative who taught at Cambridge. He secretly recorded Trump campaign aides Carter Page and George Papadopoulos as part of the investigation.

 

(RELATED: A London Meeting Before The Election Aroused George Papadopoulos’s Suspicions)

 

Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, also served as an FBI source for the investigation. He is best known as the author of a salacious dossier that the FBI used to obtain warrants to surveil Carter Page.

 

The FBI contacted Halper in August 2016 to seek his help on the Crossfire Hurricane probe, according to a Justice Department inspector general’s (IG) report.

 

Halper agreed, and met Page and Papadopoulos. The IG report said that Halper — referred to as “Source 2” in the report — “had been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn.”

Halper was a co-convener of the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar that Flynn attended. He ran the seminar alongside Cambridge professor Christopher Andrew and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of MI6.

 

Dearlove reportedly had contact before the 2016 election with Steele.

 

Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British historian who studied at Cambridge, says she is the person referenced in the memo who allegedly interacted with Flynn.

 

She also says she believes that Halper is the CHS described in the FBI’s Flynn memo. The Daily Caller News Foundation could not independently verify that Halper is the CHS. His attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

 

More than three years ago, several news outlets reported vaguely sourced stories implying that Lokhova and Flynn had suspicious contact during the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar event.

 

“I have been very clear since these lies first appeared in the press in 2017 that my good name was abused in a plot to set up General Flynn,” Lokhova told the DCNF.

 

The Wall Street Journal and Guardian reported in March 2017 that U.S. intelligence officials were suspicious of Flynn’s interactions at a Cambridge event in February 2014 with Lokhova, who studied Soviet-era espionage at Cambridge.

 

The Journal reported on March 17, 2017 that the contact between Lokhova and Flynn “came to the notice of U.S. intelligence.” The Guardian reported on March 31, 2017 that “US intelligence officials had serious concerns” about Flynn because of his interaction with Lokhova.

 

Lokhova, who has sued both news outlets and Halper, said the FBI’s informant “fabricated this story” regarding her and Flynn.

 

Lokhova attended the event along with other students and Cambridge faculty, but has vehemently denied any impropriety with Flynn.

 

She has said that she was never alone with Flynn at the Cambridge event and did not leave with him. She has told the DCNF that her husband, David North, picked her up from the event. North has also told the DCNF that he picked Lokhova up from the seminar.

 

Lokhova has provided the DCNF with photos of Flynn with Andrew and Dearlove, the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar co-conveners.

 

There are several indications besides Lokhova’s denials that nothing improper transpired at the Cambridge event.

 

Dan O’Brien, a DIA official who attended the Cambridge event with Flynn, told the Journal for its March 2017 article that he did not witness any improper interactions between Flynn and Lokhova.

 

The FBI memo also suggests that investigators were not able to verify the CHS’s claims about the Cambridge event.

 

“While a CHS provided some information on [Flynn’s] interaction with [redacted] the absence of derogatory information on [redacted] limited the investigative value of the information,” reads the memo, which was drafted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

 

The office recommended that the FBI close the counterintelligence investigation of Flynn, citing a lack of evidence that he was working wittingly or unwittingly with the Russian government.

“Following the compilation of the above information, the CH team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case,” the memo says.

 

It goes on to say that a review of intelligence databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
918
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
938
Views

938 Views
Message 8 of 39

Here is something for all to think about. The last few days we have seen articles posted to start threads, keep threads going, divert from real news by the Trump supporters. It is panic time for Trump and his leaders so they work the enablers. We all post truth which easily counters the support articles, but some times it takes a few days till we get solid proof of how wrong they were.

 

It was not long ago there were tons of posts on how well Trump was doing in getting supplies to fight the virus for the States. We all posted back that was not true, and in time the enablers were given a new subject to post on. Today we got solid proof on how Trump is getting a lot of the supplies. Here is the story:

Reb. Gov.  of Md. purchased something like 500,000 masks from Korea. They were sent by a Korean Airlines 747 flight to the US. The Reb. Gov. of MD had the Korean Airlines plane land at BWI instead of Dulles airport. It was the first time a Korean Airlines plane ever landed at BWI. When it landed it was greeted by  MD National Guard, and Md State Police who supervised the unloading of the cargo and taking it to a State Storage building where it is under guard by them now. The Reb. Gov told the press he did this to stop Trump (FEMA) from stealing the cargo like he has done a number of times in the past from other States.

NOW WE HAVE PROOF OF WHAT TRUMP DOES, and the enablers can no longer say it is not true.  Truth always wins out.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
938
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
963
Views

963 Views
Message 9 of 39

@jimc91 wrote:

BY:  Gregg Re

 

Internal FBI documents unsealed Thursday indicate that Peter Strzok -- the now-disgraced anti-Trump former head of FBI counterintelligence -- ordered the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to remain open even after it was slated to be closed due to a lack of so-called "derogatory" information.

 


Just like your other posts, absolutely meaningless until a court rules on the motion to see if there is even enough "evidence" there to allow it.  Posting images of heavily redacted documents prove nothing.  An OPINION by Gregg Re is worthless.  I would look at other lawyers for a better informed opinion than believing anything that guy says.

How many times are you going to insist on posting THE EXACT SAME THING as if it somehow proves anything beyond your ability to copy and paste?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
963
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
969
Views

969 Views
Message 10 of 39

BY:  Gregg Re

 

Internal FBI documents unsealed Thursday indicate that Peter Strzok -- the now-disgraced anti-Trump former head of FBI counterintelligence -- ordered the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to remain open even after it was slated to be closed due to a lack of so-called "derogatory" information.

 

The materials surfaced just a day after explosive FBI communications revealed that top bureau officials discussed their motivations for interviewing Flynn in the White House on January 24, 2017 -- and openly questioned if their "goal" was "to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired."

 

Those handwritten notes -- written by the FBI's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, Fox News is told -- suggested that agents planned in the alternative to get Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. The Logan Act has never been used in a criminal prosecution and has a questionable constitutional status; it was enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones, and was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.

 

BOMBSHELL FBI MATERIALS REVEAL FBI DISCUSSED INTERVIEWING FLYNN TO GET HIM TO LIE, GET HIM FIRED

 

In late 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to Strzok and another agent during that White House interview. But he has yet to be sentenced, as his team has sought to withdraw his guilty plea, citing "egregious"FBI misconduct. (The other interviewing agent, most likely Supervisory Special Agent Joe Pientka, has been scrubbed from the FBI website after Fox News asked the bureau about him, and he has largely evaded scrutiny -- despite his key role in both the Flynn probe and Carter Page investigations.)

 

Thursday's document release shows that on January 4, 2017, weeks before the fateful January 24, 2017 White House interview, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn.

 

READ THE NEW FBI DOCUMENTS ON 'CROSSFIRE RAZOR'

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
969
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

September is Emergency Preparedness month.

Do you have an emergency plan in place?

Share or ask questions today.

Emergency preparedness kit

Top Authors