Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

[sanman]

All of this could be easily and quickly resolved with a very short conversation with two FBI agents (where the person being interviewed is not lying his *** off).

Those conversations will likely happen - as part of an investigation that is currently unfolding.

 

[dixon01767]

It's sad really. This poster you're responding to thinks there was some grand conspiracy theory to frame Flynn, despite no evidence offered by either themselves or the DoJ.

Biden provided the best evidence, "they asked for an investigation" in a meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and Rice.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Which doesn't allow the courts and investigative agencies to violate his rights or those operating in his administration and THAT is what you are advocating.

Which, again, not the question I asked.

How do Trump supporters validate supporting someone whose public record paints him to be the man of great character deficiency he so obviously is?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

LOL putting it in red and bolding it isn't going to make me answer a loaded question in which you only give two options when there are a spectrum of answers. Care to rephrase for a more open ended response?

I asked it again, even rephrasing it for you:

How do Trump supporters validate voting for a man whose public record paints him as he man of great character defect he so obviously is? Do they just not care?

 

[OpportunityCost]

I asked it again, even rephrasing it for you:

How do Trump supporters validate voting for a man whose public record paints him as he man of great character defect he so obviously is? Do they just not care?

Because voters base their votes on who they believe will better their own life. If votes were based on character, Dole would have beat Clinton in 96.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It came out YESTERDAY.

I like learning stuff about this topic, but no, I'm not reading stuff within 24 hours of publication.



Is this a personal attack, OpportunityCost?

Shame, shame, shame.

Why can't you just stick to the topic?

You are ignorant about the new subject matter despite it being linked and quoted to you. You are belligerent in your responses to others. You have decided to stay uninformed about new information even though it has been given to you on a silver platter, and worse, you refuse to budge from invalidated talking points from the new material.

Its about your posting.

 

[OpportunityCost]

To know a thing for sure, with respect to some criminal or counterintelligence issue, oftentimes they have to....do any investigation. That's the whole point of doing investigations.

So far you have argued both things. That they knew and they needed to find out. You are just talking smoke.

It is silly, given the huge amount of evidence, to think that the FBI should not have initiated Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI would have been negligent in its duty to protect the U.S. had it ignored all the indications that the Russian government was interfering in the election, and the evidence indicating suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign.

The "huge" amount of evidence? Flynn was set up, the dossier was crap, Carter Page is taking the FBI to the civil woodshed and they are going to pay him a lot of money for their malfeasance, Papadopoulos was convicted for a bar rumor, and throw the book at Manafort and Gates, everyone hates lobbyists.

It is inaccurate to say the investigation was based on faulty, falsified, or incorrect information. You need to read the Special Counsel's report. That report details a wide array of evidence indicating interference on the part of Trump and also indicates conspiracy or collusion on the part of the Trump campaign in various ways (although there was never enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt).

Dude I read every page of it and the footnotes, the DOJ keeps showing more and more information to be faulty and improper. LOL not enough evidence means not guilty, pay attention to what is actually legal not the conspiracy theory malarkey the media has been calling fact the last 3 years.

It's just not true there was not enough evidence to justify the investigation or the evidence was bad. You really need to go back and read the Special Counsel's report. There was a ton of evidence.

Yet the DOJ keeps undermining that with actual document releases and court filings that show Mueller couldn't find what he was looking for and refused to back down.

And, heck, some of it was even public, like when Trump was begging the Russian government to hack Clinton's servers.

Get a sarcasm detector, you really, really, really need it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

They did for 2 out of the 500 warrants.

And Horowitz looked into it.

Horowitz said Crossfire Hurricane was adequately predicated.

Barr disagrees, guess who gets to decide?

 

[NWRatCon]

I asked it again, even rephrasing it for you:

How do Trump supporters validate voting for a man whose public record paints him as he man of great character defect he so obviously is? Do they just not care?

It takes a great deal of effort to look up to Trump, considering how low he is to the ground.

 

[Grim17]

...And they could have cut things off at the pass by not actually engaging in the activity they were trying to HIDE!

When you say "activity they were trying to hide", the implication is that something nefarious or improper was discussed between Flynn and the ambassador, when you know for a fact there was nothing that was even the least bit suspicious about their discussion.

You demonstrate exactly my point with every post you make on the subject.

It is was not a requirement for the FBI to have known for certain what Flynn did or did not do. The FBI has the ability to make assumption and to have suspicious, and then investigate things based on those suspicions. The FBI is not obligated to research all the reasons why they shouldn't interview someone. What they do in practice...is just work of some fact or logical train of thought and then interview people.

Again, here you are trying to defend the FBI's conduct by concocting theories about their motive for interviewing Flynn, when their motive for that interview has already been established through an FBI document written by Bill Priestap... a document that you like to ignore because it doesn't jibe with what your saying.

And keep in mind this was a voluntary interview.

I am quite aware of that, but there's some things about that interview you don't seem to take into account... Some of which don't require any research or reading, just an average amount of common sense and an ability to apply reasoning.

It's reasonable to assume that Flynn, or any person for that matter, might lie to federal investigators regardless of their motives for doing so. There are a thousand different reasons why a person might choose to lie to authorities, but there is one underlying reason that every person who has ever done so, all have in common... Other than not wanting to incriminate themselves, every one of them believed that there was at least a chance that their lie would be believed. If they knew for a fact that there was indisputable evidence that proved they had engaged in something they did not want to admit to, with the exception of "life sentence" caliber criminal activity, most wouldn't bother even trying to lie knowing that in doing so, it would only make their situation worse when it came time to face a judge.

Here's where the common sense and reasoning comes into play... General Flynn, being the former Director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) knew that his conversation with the Russian ambassador had been recorded, because he knew that every conversation that involves the ambassador is monitored as a matter of policy. Flynn even said so to Andy McCabe, when McCabe called to inform him he was sending agents to the WH to interview him. Flynn didn't understand why they wanted to question him about a conversation that he knew had been monitored and recorded.

So tell me, what possible sense would it make for General Flynn to knowingly lie to the FBI about about the details of a conversation that he knew was monitored and recorded, especially considering that nothing they discussed on the call was improper, nefarious, or criminal?

The truth is, it makes no sense at all... and when you also take into account that the 2 agents who conducted the interview judged that Flynn hadn't lied, the only logical conclusion any reasonable person could come to is Flynn hadn't lied to them.

This is not true. Flynn most certainly implied they would make things easier on Russia in pursuit of common goals...

That's absolutely false. Flynn did not propose any kind of deal, nor did not say or imply that the sanctions would be lifted or scaled back. Flynn simply recommended that when they responded to the sanctions, to make it a reciprocal response rather than escalating the situation, because escalating things would make it very difficult for the 2 countries to work together in the fight against Middle Eastern terrorism.

Flynn asked Russia do refrain from doing something so the Trump administration would not be boxed in.

No, he simply said not to escalate the situation... He never even suggested they not retaliate, because he wasn't offering anything that would entice them not to respond. If Russia escalated the situation, diplomatic relation would dissolve and would make it impossible to work together to fight our common enemy... Middle Eastern terrorists.

He was doing more than being nicey-nice on the phone and introducing himself. Flynn was engaged in diplomacy and interfering in the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Engaging in diplomacy, absolutely...

Interfering or subverting US policy, absolutely not.

That statement alone tells me that all you give a damn about is pushing you political agenda... You've made it quite clear that the truth hold no meaning for you.


.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is not correct and I challenge you to prove it.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0N4s50FhEAZBJC23N8Bv_q&cshid=1591185742148

Clappper-- page 87 and 88
Lynch - page 64 and 65
McCabe- 208-210
Rice- page 72
Yates- page 24-26

As a bonus, Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike said he had no concrete evidence that Russia had hacked the DNC - page 75 and 76. In other words, it was known two years ago it couldn't be proven in a court of law that Russia had hacked the DNC, never mind being unable to thus prove a conspiracy had taken place.

 

[dixon01767]

Flynn and Kislyak were discussing how to mitigate the (very appropriate) Obama sanctions on Russia for its meddling before taking over. .

The transcript of the call has been released. They didn't discuss any such thing.

 

[dixon01767]

They were all dismissed because Trump thinks he is above the law and doesn't like anyone looking into his ****. Trump wants a world in which there are no consequences for his behavior. .

He is above fabricated by the Russian and paid for by the DNC Dossiers consisting of Russian disinformation. And what the Obama administration did with that Dossier certainly didn't have anything to do with the law.

 

[dixon01767]

Unfortunately for that pitiful argument, Flynn gave the FBI reason to suspect something when he lied to them. .

Actually the FBI agents who interviewed him didn't think he had lied

 

[digitusmedius]

Actually the FBI agents who interviewed him didn't think he had lied

Well, that's a new line of BS for us.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So far you have argued both things. That they knew and they needed to find out. You are just talking smoke.

All I'm doing is describing the investigatory process. Some things are known. Some things are unknown. Some things are in between. The goal of an investigation to make as much known as possible, with the greatest certainty possible, with respect to the theory of the case. With respect to the events immediately preceding the Flynn interview, they were fairly certain he lied, and they wanted to find out for sure he lied, and also then, why he lied.

You apparently suffer from the delusion that investigators must have solved the case before they conduct an investigation. That's not how investigations work.

Flynn was set up

That the FBI could accurately predict Flynn would lie, and that Flynn decided, of his own volition to lie, does not mean in any way that Flynn was mistreated or treated differently than other witnesses or suspects.

All Flynn had to do was simply tell the truth. That's it.

the dossier was crap

This is not true. The dossier was a collection of raw intelligence material, and it was treated appropriately as such.

Also, the FBI did not rely on the dossier for the vast majority of other aspects of the investigation.

Carter Page is taking the FBI to the civil woodshed and they are going to pay him a lot of money for their malfeasance

That's okay. The differences in the Page-related warrants do not invalidate the investigation as a whole.

Papadopoulos was convicted for a bar rumor

Let's recap:

George Papadopoulos Stipulation and Plea Agreement - Lawfare

Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying about the FBI about his attempts to conspire with the Russian government.

This wasn't a "bar rumor", and your attempts to minimize the misdeeds of Trump's associates is quite telling.

throw the book at Manafort and Gates, everyone hates lobbyists.

Let's recap:

Trial in Virginia

On August 21, their fourth day of deliberation, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account.[90][91][92] Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges.[93][94] The jury consisted of six men and six women.[95] According to one juror, it was a single juror who prevented conviction on the remaining 10 counts. The holdout, a female, reportedly said that she harbored reasonable doubt.[9]

Trial in District of Columbia

The jury selection process began on September 4, 2018;[108] voir dire was due to start on the 17th. During this time, the parties negotiated a plea deal,[109] and on September 14, during what was technically his second trial, Manafort pleaded guilty to two charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering.[10][11][12] He also admitted to most other charges against him, both in DC and those for which there was a hung jury at his first trial in Virginia; those charges will be dropped if prosecutors are satisfied that he has fully cooperated with them.[14] As part of the plea bargain, Manafort agreed to the forfeiture of three bank accounts, a life insurance policy, and five New York properties estimated to be worth $22 million. Two of the properties were purchased with offshore funds as a form of money laundering, according to prosecutors.[13] Manafort further agreed to "testify fully, completely and truthfully before any and all Grand Juries in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and at any and all trials of cases or other court proceedings in the District of Columbia and elsewhere".[14]

Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

 

[digitusmedius]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0N4s50FhEAZBJC23N8Bv_q&cshid=1591185742148

Clappper-- page 87 and 88
Lynch - page 64 and 65
McCabe- 208-210
Rice- page 72
Yates- page 24-26

As a bonus, Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike said he had no concrete evidence that Russia had hacked the DNC - page 75 and 76. In other words, it was known two years ago it couldn't be proven in a court of law that Russia had hacked the DNC, never mind being unable to thus prove a conspiracy had taken place.

From Mueller Report: The Trump campaign coordinated and cooperated with various Russian elements to get dirt on Clinton:

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion” - Just Security

The fact that all of that "coordination and cooperation" fell just short of a conspiracy is hardly a thing to brag about. It's that "just the tip" excuse which makes up so much of the corruption of Donnie Dirtbag.

 

[digitusmedius]

The transcript of the call has been released. They didn't discuss any such thing.

So you can't actually bring yourself to read the transcript, eh? So your excuse for technically not lying would be ignorance, then?

 

[digitusmedius]

He is above fabricated by the Russian and paid for by the DNC Dossiers consisting of Russian disinformation. And what the Obama administration did with that Dossier certainly didn't have anything to do with the law.

I'll give this to you: You do follow the Cult of Dirtbag lie dissemination protocol very well. Just for ****s and giggles why not give us the source for your claim the FBI agents who interviewd Flynn didn't think he was lying.

 

[OpportunityCost]

All I'm doing is describing the investigatory process. Some things are known. Some things are unknown. Some things are in between. The goal of an investigation to make as much known as possible, with the greatest certainty possible, with respect to the theory of the case. With respect to the events immediately preceding the Flynn interview, they were fairly certain he lied, and they wanted to find out for sure he lied, and also then, why he lied.

You apparently suffer from the delusion that investigators must have solved the case before they conduct an investigation. That's not how investigations work.

First off, don't accuse me of being delusionary. Second, they already had the transcript.

That the FBI could accurately predict Flynn would lie, and that Flynn decided, of his own volition to lie, does not mean in any way that Flynn was mistreated or treated differently than other witnesses or suspects.

They faked 302s. To make it look like he lied.

All Flynn had to do was simply tell the truth. That's it.

We now know he did tell the truth, the transcripts and his initial interview with the FBI are consistent. The heavily edited ones given to the court----not so much.

This is not true. The dossier was a collection of raw intelligence material, and it was treated appropriately as such.

False, the FBI hid its provenance from the FISA court through 4 warrants. The FBI knew where it came from, knew it wasn't good information, they used it anyway. That's the very definition of acting in bad faith.

Also, the FBI did not rely on the dossier for the vast majority of other aspects of the investigation.

There were no warrants on Page without them, as admitted by Congressional testimony.

That's okay. The differences in the Page-related warrants do not invalidate the investigation as a whole.

Actually they poison nearly everything the FBI did in the investigation because they hid material facts over and over.

Let's recap:

George Papadopoulos Stipulation and Plea Agreement - Lawfare

Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying about the FBI about his attempts to conspire with the Russian government.

Convicted for a bar rumor.

Let's recap:

Trial in Virginia



Trial in District of Columbia



Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

**** Manafort, he actually committed crimes.

 

[Termn8or]

All I'm doing is describing the investigatory process.

All you're doing is spreading disinformation while denying the mountain of evidence against the real criminals.

Not one single word you write can be believed.

Former CIA Operations Officer: DOJ IG’s FISA Abuse Report Provides Concrete Evidence that Russia Hoax Was a “Deliberate Covert Attempt to Overthrow the Democratic Process”
Joe Hoft by Joe Hoft
Charles S. (Sam) Faddis, Senior Partner – Artemis, LLC is a former CIA operations officer with thirty years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations. He claims the recently released FISA Abuse report clearly shows that the Russia Hoax was a planned and executed covert operation.

Faddis says –

The essence of a coup, which some might refer to as covert action, is the hidden hand. One does not announce that a foreign power is overthrowing the government and installing a new government. One pulls strings as if from behind a curtain, making events that are all part of a carefully orchestrated plan appear disconnected, spontaneous and serendipitous.


As I read through the recently released IG report for the second time, as someone with a great deal of experience in military and intelligence matters, I see that hand everywhere.


Per the IG report, a single report is delivered to the FBI in the summer of 2016. It concerns a meeting between a cooperative contact of a foreign intelligence service and a junior level employee of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos. The report relates what are frankly very amorphous comments by Papadopoulos concerning the Russian government and its alleged possession of information on Hillary Clinton.


On any other day this report would command no attention whatsoever. The source in question has no track record of any kind with the FBI. Papadopoulos has been employed by the Trump campaign for perhaps 90 days at this point, and there is no reason to believe he has contacts of significance in the Kremlin.


Not on this occasion. This one report from a foreign intelligence service goes directly to the top of the FBI. The Director himself, James Comey is briefed. A full investigation is launched. Multiple confidential human sources are tasked. Wiretaps are ordered. A task force is organized. Crossfire Hurricane is born.

Former CIA Operations Officer: DOJ IG's FISA Abuse Report Provides Concrete Evidence that Russia Hoax Was a "Deliberate Covert Attempt to Overthrow the Democratic Process"

 

[Athanasius68]

From Mueller Report: The Trump campaign coordinated and cooperated with various Russian elements to get dirt on Clinton:

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion” - Just Security

The fact that all of that "coordination and cooperation" fell just short of a conspiracy is hardly a thing to brag about. It's that "just the tip" excuse which makes up so much of the corruption of Donnie Dirtbag.

Lot of couldas, wouldas and wantas with Mr. Mueller.
But nothing of substance-- which isn't surprising. He simply confirms what the aforementioned Obama guys have said.

Meanwhile, it continues to be true that the only campaign that actually received information from Russia was the Clinton campaign.

 

[digitusmedius]

First off, don't accuse me of being delusionary. Second, they already had the transcript.



They faked 302s. To make it look like he lied.



We now know he did tell the truth, the transcripts and his initial interview with the FBI are consistent. The heavily edited ones given to the court----not so much.



False, the FBI hid its provenance from the FISA court through 4 warrants. The FBI knew where it came from, knew it wasn't good information, they used it anyway. That's the very definition of acting in bad faith.




There were no warrants on Page without them, as admitted by Congressional testimony.




Actually they poison nearly everything the FBI did in the investigation because they hid material facts over and over.




Convicted for a bar rumor.





**** Manafort, he actually committed crimes.

It's actually quite amazing that you people can pretend admitted criminals who actually plead guilty are really innocent. And the **** you invent to do that is hilarious to behold.

 

[digitusmedius]

Lot of couldas, wouldas and wantas with Mr. Mueller.
But nothing of substance-- which isn't surprising. He simply confirms what the aforementioned Obama guys have said.

Meanwhile, it continues to be true that the only campaign that actually received information from Russia was the Clinton campaign.

Nothing of substance from the Cult of Dirtbag's blinkered point of view---sure. People who haven't drunk the Kool Aid don't have that disability, however.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nothing of substance from the Cult of Dirtbag's point of blinkered view---sure. People who haven't drunk the Kool Aid don't have that disability, however.

And from Mr. Mueller point of view as well. He is the one who said that he couldn't establish coordination.