Charges dropped against General Flynn

[Cope]

The only straw-clutching here, is the attempt to paint a narrative that the President is some kind of a victim. I don't need visual evidence of the President fornicating with a Russian prostitute. The fact that there is reason to believe that the President was involved with Russians, that the President is unco-operative with the investigation, and that we ultimately cannot clear his name from suspicion, is reason enough to make him unfit for office. Among various other things, like his limited intellectual capacity.



Both actions you've mentioned are inherently political acts. One's man crusade is another man's reckoning.



Indeed, we are. And my point is that the result of the impeachment trial is not an indication of how good the legal argument was. A sticky note with the words "Not Guilty" would've been sufficient for Senate Republicans to exonerate him.



That's not a justification for Trump's actions. A sophisticated appeal to hypocrisy doesn't make Trump's actions any less impeachable, or any more relevant to the interests of the State. Spoiler, they weren't, hence why the outrage.



You can claim that it was, yet you have not one the footwork to even begin to justify that statement.

Your denials here are objectively and observably untrue. If you’d like to continue the discussion, you can begin with something that hasn’t already been addressed umpteen times.

[B. W.]

Interesting. Earlier you tried to tie Trump firing Comey to this case, yet, now I'm somehow deficient for not realizing that Trump couldn't have known Comey misled him till now. Interesting. In your short-term attempt at gaining points you have made a trailing mess behind you. Oh, we know for certain that Flynn lied one way or an other. You can't have it both ways. He either lied about his conduct to the FBI, or he lied when he pleaded guilty twice. These clear attempts at childish insults merely belittle your own position. You show us how little merit those positions contain. In reality, there is no new development that suggests Flynn didn't lie at all.

Whats really happening here is quite obvious actually. FBI wanted Flynn similar to how they'd get mafia bosses through tax evasion charges. Similar to how FBI wanted Flynn, attorney general Barr wanted him off the hook. Flynn played his cards well with playing both sides. Hence the twist. So far no document is presented to change what Flynn stated and did. What he stated to the FBI back then, his conduct, continues to be false. No new substance is presented to invalidate that verdict. It's like finding out that explanation of a crime that was caught on tape was found out to be taped illegally, hence, the suspect walks free.

As a result, some people are trying to celebrate this as a win in defense of Trump and his team. They want this as the cake they think it is and they want to eat. That's why we point out the worms and bugs crawling in their rotten cake they feel the need to belittle their opponents not through the logic and facts of their case but through vague insults.

These statements of yours are just more proof of what I have been saying. No matter how much true information is put forward you will default to the media narrative because you are so thoroughly indoctrinated by constant exposure to a lying complicit media.

Flynn clearly did not lie to FBI agents at the White House interview, the 302s prove it. If you want to say that Flynn was lying when he plead guilty, fine; but it had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

Flynn's guilty plead was one of, if anything, noble purpose. He did it to keep his son from being prosecuted for violating a law that was over a hundred years old and had never been enforced. When the FBI originally went after Manafort for the very same reason over 3,000 lobbyists in Washington suddenly rushed out to register as foreign agents.

It should concern you that there are over 3,000 foreign agents lobbying on behalf of their governments over the interests of American citizens, but it doesn't. That's illuminating because it shows where your priorities are.

The same people who prosecuted Flynn under Mueller's investigation are the same people who prosecuted Senator Ted Stephens and withheld exculpatory evidence, the same thing they did with Flynn. The objective with Stephens was to get rid of a political opponent and they were successful. Stephens is such a bad guy that the US Navy is naming a ship after him.

The prosecutors that you are so proud of have a shameful record of injustice and disregard for the Constitution.

Former DOJ official: Department twisted my words in motion to drop Flynn case

That's a funny one there. McCord was the very person who responsibility it was to keep her boss Sally Yates informed on such proceedings. Yates is on record saying she was "dumbfounded" when she learned at a Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with Obama, Comey, Biden, and Clapper that the FBI was listening in on phone conversations of the incoming National Security Advisor (something unconstitutional). It was McCord that had withheld the information from Yates.

[PointOfViewGun]

These statements of yours are just more proof of what I have been saying. No matter how much true information is put forward you will default to the media narrative because you are so thoroughly indoctrinated by constant exposure to a lying complicit media.

Flynn clearly did not lie to FBI agents at the White House interview, the 302s prove it. If you want to say that Flynn was lying when he plead guilty, fine; but it had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

Flynn's guilty plead was one of, if anything, noble purpose. He did it to keep his son from being prosecuted for violating a law that was over a hundred years old and had never been enforced. When the FBI originally went after Manafort for the very same reason over 3,000 lobbyists in Washington suddenly rushed out to register as foreign agents.

It should concern you that there are over 3,000 foreign agents lobbying on behalf of their governments over the interests of American citizens, but it doesn't. That's illuminating because it shows where your priorities are.

The same people who prosecuted Flynn under Mueller's investigation are the same people who prosecuted Senator Ted Stephens and withheld exculpatory evidence, the same thing they did with Flynn. The objective with Stephens was to get rid of a political opponent and they were successful. Stephens is such a bad guy that the US Navy is naming a ship after him.

The prosecutors that you are so proud of have a shameful record of injustice and disregard for the Constitution.

It's no surprise that you'd play the media card over and over again given you have no solid ground to stand on. Otherwise, you'd spend your time better at providing actual information instead of trying to make use of your boogeyman. What we're discussing here is certainly illuminating as you're clinging on vague claims to make personal assumptions about me. Let's start substantiating then. Do provide us with the specific 302 documents and references to the pages on which it is shown he didn't lie to the FBI.

[B. W.]

It's no surprise that you'd play the media card over and over again given you have no solid ground to stand on. Otherwise, you'd spend your time better at providing actual information instead of trying to make use of your boogeyman. What we're discussing here is certainly illuminating as you're clinging on vague claims to make personal assumptions about me. Let's start substantiating then. Do provide us with the specific 302 documents and references to the pages on which it is shown he didn't lie to the FBI.

Incredible. Those 302s you're talking about were discussed in detail in the Trump Impeachment thread which you participated in and now you're saying you have no knowledge of them. There is still a lot of information being withheld by the DOJ, including a lot of info on the 302s.

But you don't have to take my word for it, spend four minutes listening to Flynn's lawyer to find out the answer to your question. Or if you don't want to spend four minutes to hear what Flynn's attorney has to say I'll make it short for you; the FBI 302s were tampered with and there is proof of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuv08K3d2Q

[PointOfViewGun]

Incredible. Those 302s you're talking about were discussed in detail in the Trump Impeachment thread which you participated in and now you're saying you have no knowledge of them. There is still a lot of information being withheld by the DOJ, including a lot of info on the 302s.

But you don't have to take my word for it, spend four minutes listening to Flynn's lawyer to find out the answer to your question. Or if you don't want to spend four minutes to hear what Flynn's attorney has to say I'll make it short for you; the FBI 302s were tampered with and there is proof of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuv08K3d2Q

I didn't really say that I didn't know about them, did I? Why did you just lie about my words? You shouldn't have need to do that. I made a simple request that should have been easy for you to follow up. Yet, you seem to be changing your position from "302s prove Flynn didn't lie" to "FBI tempered with the 302s" which in itself is quite a damning change of arguments. Is that not so? I'm not really gonna watch a YouTube video of Flynn's lawyer. I expected you to link to actual 302 documents since you made a claim based on them. You didn't talk about Flynn's lawyer. Are you unable to show up for what you claimed?

[Infidel144]

The same people who prosecuted Flynn under Mueller's investigation are the same people who prosecuted Senator Ted Stephens and withheld exculpatory evidence, the same thing they did with Flynn. The objective with Stephens was to get rid of a political opponent and they were successful. Stephens is such a bad guy that the US Navy is naming a ship after him.

The prosecutors that you are so proud of have a shameful record of injustice and disregard for the Constitution.

Is it the same judge in the Flynn case now, that it was in the Stevens case?

[B. W.]

I didn't really say that I didn't know about them, did I? Why did you just lie about my words? You shouldn't have need to do that. I made a simple request that should have been easy for you to follow up. Yet, you seem to be changing your position from "302s prove Flynn didn't lie" to "FBI tempered with the 302s" which in itself is quite a damning change of arguments. Is that not so? I'm not really gonna watch a YouTube video of Flynn's lawyer. I expected you to link to actual 302 documents since you made a claim based on them. You didn't talk about Flynn's lawyer. Are you unable to show up for what you claimed?

If you know about the 302s, then you should also know that they were altered by agents who were not at the interview. There are some 302s available on the internet, but they are heavily redacted and according to the FBI some of the original 302s were "lost".

So, once again, the original 302s according to the statements made by the interviewing agents did not reflect that Flynn was lying to them.

Is it the same judge in the Flynn case now, that it was in the Stevens case?

It is exactly the same judge. The DOJ prosecutor's actions in that trial were so outrageous that the judge issued a court order that in any future case they brought before him that any exculpatory evidence they had must be presented to the court and the defendants. Of course, it is obvious that Mueller's prosecutors ignored this court order, which makes them in contempt of court.

There will be more to come, but in the meantime the perps and their cohorts in the media are doing everything they can to muddy the water so that people who have been buying into the false narrative will continue to be bamboozled.

[Infidel144]

It is exactly the same judge. The DOJ prosecutor's actions in that trial were so outrageous that the judge issued a court order that in any future case they brought before him that any exculpatory evidence they had must be presented to the court and the defendants. Of course, it is obvious that Mueller's prosecutors ignored this court order, which makes them in contempt of court.

Yeah, I recall him being burned about the DOJ/FBI misconduct. So no wonder he's on the whole 'fool me once...'.
Thanks for the update, I don't have the time to keep up with this stuff.

[PointOfViewGun]

If you know about the 302s, then you should also know that they were altered by agents who were not at the interview. There are some 302s available on the internet, but they are heavily redacted and according to the FBI some of the original 302s were "lost".

So, once again, the original 302s according to the statements made by the interviewing agents did not reflect that Flynn was lying to them.

That's really not "302s proving Flynn did not lie" as you suggested earlier. Why did you change your argument in such an obvious manner? Even in the way you change your argument, what you present does not support your conclusion.

[B. W.]

That's really not "302s proving Flynn did not lie" as you suggested earlier. Why did you change your argument in such an obvious manner? Even in the way you change your argument, what you present does not support your conclusion.

My argument hasn't changed. You refuse to look at info I present and so your trapped in your present state of indoctrination.

Meanwhile, more evidence is coming out, but it's clear the very moment of when the perps started to panic is way back when the Senate hearings were taking place. You don't have to read the whole article, just scroll down to where you see the transcript of the Strotz/Page conversation. The lines underlined in red are where the worry starts for the FBI 7th floor perps when they hear what Clapper and Yates tell the Senate:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._campaign.html

[PointOfViewGun]

My argument hasn't changed. You refuse to look at info I present and so your trapped in your present state of indoctrination.

Meanwhile, more evidence is coming out, but it's clear the very moment of when the perps started to panic is way back when the Senate hearings were taking place. You don't have to read the whole article, just scroll down to where you see the transcript of the Strotz/Page conversation. The lines underlined in red are where the worry starts for the FBI 7th floor perps when they hear what Clapper and Yates tell the Senate:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._campaign.html

Oh, I have looked in the info you presented. You first said the 302s prove Flynn didn't lie. I tried to find the specific ones that would support your assertion. I asked you for them. Then you moved to 302s being altered by the FBI. A convenient jump. You clearly resorted to deceptive tactics. So, you can acknowledge that you lied about the 302s or somehow produce the documents that you would need to support your claim. Are you able to do that? My "indoctrination" has no relevance to that. The fact you're trying to push such insults every time your claims are challenged tells us that you have no case with merit.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You refuse to look at info I present and so your trapped in your present state of indoctrination.

On a bit of a philosophical tangent, this issue itself has gotten so bad I often think I'm not living in the same reality as the Russia Gate hoax supporters.

[Love Mountain]

On a bit of a philosophical tangent, this issue itself has gotten so bad I often think I'm not living in the same reality as the Russia Gate hoax supporters.

Living in your own bubble does that.

[B. W.]

Oh, I have looked in the info you presented. You first said the 302s prove Flynn didn't lie. I tried to find the specific ones that would support your assertion. I asked you for them. Then you moved to 302s being altered by the FBI. A convenient jump. You clearly resorted to deceptive tactics. So, you can acknowledge that you lied about the 302s or somehow produce the documents that you would need to support your claim. Are you able to do that? My "indoctrination" has no relevance to that. The fact you're trying to push such insults every time your claims are challenged tells us that you have no case with merit.

You're on record as saying you will not look at evidence I present! So according to your own words you haven't looked.

The fact that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn recorded in their original 302s that they didn't believe he was lying has been noted in this forum since last fall and many links and stories have been posted on this very subject. I said earlier that it was odd that you couldn't connect the dots. It's obvious that you have completely ignored any links or stories that contradict the narrative that you believe in.

So here's the progression:

1. FBI agents are on record as saying their original 302s did not reflect evidence of lying.
2. Original 302s are "Lost" by FBI according to freedom of information request.
3. Documents are declassified showing that Page and Strotz altered the submitted 302s.
4. Charges against Flynn are dropped.

That's as condensed as I can put it. If you can't digest it or refuse to look at information from sources you don't consider reliable that's your problem.

The ironic thing here is that the sources the so called legacy media deemed as unreliable are the only sources that have been posting reliable information.

[PointOfViewGun]

You're on record as saying you will not look at evidence I present! So according to your own words you haven't looked.

The fact that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn recorded in their original 302s that they didn't believe he was lying has been noted in this forum since last fall and many links and stories have been posted on this very subject. I said earlier that it was odd that you couldn't connect the dots. It's obvious that you have completely ignored any links or stories that contradict the narrative that you believe in.

So here's the progression:

1. FBI agents are on record as saying their original 302s did not reflect evidence of lying.
2. Original 302s are "Lost" by FBI according to freedom of information request.
3. Documents are declassified showing that Page and Strotz altered the submitted 302s.
4. Charges against Flynn are dropped.

That's as condensed as I can put it. If you can't digest it or refuse to look at information from sources you don't consider reliable that's your problem.

The ironic thing here is that the sources the so called legacy media deemed as unreliable are the only sources that have been posting reliable information.

Sure. I'm on record as saying that I will not look at evidence you present when that "evidence" is not related to your claim about 302s. You claimed that 302s prove that Flynn didn't lie. So, I have no interest in other stuff if you're unable to provide any of the 302 documents showing Flynn to be not lying. If you acknowledge that you just made that claim up then I'd be more than happy to move on to a different point of yours. What we have here is you trying to wish that failure of yours away. What you claimed is simple. What I expect is simple. You can sing this tune all you want.

[B. W.]

Sure. I'm on record as saying that I will not look at evidence you present when that "evidence" is not related to your claim about 302s. You claimed that 302s prove that Flynn didn't lie. So, I have no interest in other stuff if you're unable to provide any of the 302 documents showing Flynn to be not lying. If you acknowledge that you just made that claim up then I'd be more than happy to move on to a different point of yours. What we have here is you trying to wish that failure of yours away. What you claimed is simple. What I expect is simple. You can sing this tune all you want.

I presented evidence that dealt specifically with the 302s, which means you're flat out lying here.

You're prrobably still under the impression that there was something to the Russian hoax. The 53 documents just declassified were testimony of witnesses before Adam Schift's committee and all of them said they had seen no evidence of Russian collusion. In spite of this Schift went on the news multiple times over a vast time period and said he had witnesses that proved Trump colluded with Russia and this was the primary basis for the Mueller special prosecutor appointment. It was all a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKDb4L_NJt8

[Cope]

I presented evidence that dealt specifically with the 302s, which means you're flat out lying here.

You're prrobably still under the impression that there was something to the Russian hoax. The 53 documents just declassified were testimony of witnesses before Adam Schift's committee and all of them said they had seen no evidence of Russian collusion. In spite of this Schift went on the news multiple times over a vast time period and said he had witnesses that proved Trump colluded with Russia and this was the primary basis for the Mueller special prosecutor appointment. It was all a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKDb4L_NJt8

When questioned about why he falsely argued that there was "significant evidence" that Trump/the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, Schiff now claims - also falsely - that he wasn't referring to a criminal conspiracy. Of course, anyone who's been following this scandal, even casually, knows full well that Schiff, Nadler et al. were thirsty to impeach Trump, and they sought to use this fabricated collusion narrative as a basis for doing so.

[Common Soldier]

You're on record as saying you will not look at evidence I present! So according to your own words you haven't looked. The fact that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn recorded in their original 302s that they didn't believe he was lying has been noted in this forum since last fall and many links and stories have been posted on this very subject. I said earlier that it was odd that you couldn't connect the dots. It's obvious that you have completely ignored any links or stories that contradict the narrative that you believe in. So here's the progression: 1. FBI agents are on record as saying their original 302s did not reflect evidence of lying. 2. Original 302s are "Lost" by FBI according to freedom of information request.

It seems a habit of the FBI in losing records. They managed to lose all the text by the FBI agent Strotz as well. (While the FBI claims to have recovered the text by Strotz, we have no way of knowing if that is really true or if the text had been sanitized in the process). Clearly the FBI has an issue with record keeping that has not been fixed.

3. Documents are declassified showing that Page and Strotz altered the submitted 302s. 4. Charges against Flynn are dropped.

Since the missing text the missing text that did manage to be recovered show Strotz openly stating Trump had ro be stopped and his clear bias, you wonder how objective Strotz and the FBI were, and whether their actions could be trusted. The FBI's habit of losing records when it might undermine the FBI's case makes impossible to trust the FBI.

The ironic thing here is that the sources the so called legacy media deemed as unreliable are the only sources that have been posting reliable information.

The media ignored rhe fact that the FBI agent Strotz who showed such a strong anti-Trump bias and pro Hillary bias was rhe same FBI agent that led the investigation of Clinton's email scandal, and nor surprisingly whitewashed her, giving her only a mild rebuke of "extremely careless" instead of the "grossly negligent" the report originally said. Clinton clearly broke the law, but the same people who complain that Flynn is getting off say it is ok when one of their own breaks the law with impunity.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

I'm finding Flynns links to Russia to be simultaniously overblown and underblown at the same time.

Am I the only one that recalls his frequent appearances on Russia Today? Maybe its because I'm the only one that read that news site.

[PointOfViewGun]

I presented evidence that dealt specifically with the 302s, which means you're flat out lying here.

You're prrobably still under the impression that there was something to the Russian hoax. The 53 documents just declassified were testimony of witnesses before Adam Schift's committee and all of them said they had seen no evidence of Russian collusion. In spite of this Schift went on the news multiple times over a vast time period and said he had witnesses that proved Trump colluded with Russia and this was the primary basis for the Mueller special prosecutor appointment. It was all a lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKDb4L_NJt8

Yet, you were unable to provide the 302s that you claimed to be proving that Flynn didn't lie. In fact, when I plainly asked for them you changed course and tried to argue that 302s were altered anyways. Will you acknowledge that after all?