Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released

[digitusmedius]

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.

Always the go-to Cult evasion-- Massive Projection -- every time. (Pssst: you know it doesn't work no matter how massive it is or often you use it, right? In fact, the more you do it the more pathetic you look and that's hard to do).

 

[digitusmedius]

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

You people just cannot get it right (i.e., refuse to get it right). Mueller's report said it couldn't establish enough evidence for a CONSPIRACY but found dozens of examples of coordination and cooperation as you've been shown time and time again. Why don't you just admit that you people are fine with Dirtbag's fondness for trying to use foreign help for his domestic political gain. He did it again with Ukraine and he'll do it yet again before this year's campaign is over.

 

[Athanasius68]

YOu people just cannot get right (i.e., refuse to get it right). Mueller's report said it couldn't establish enough evidence for a CONSPIRACY but found dozens of examples of coordination and cooperation as you've been shown time and time again. Why don't you just admit that you people are fine with Dirtbag's fondness for trying to use foreign help for his domestic political gain. He did it again with Ukraine and he'll do it yet again before this year's campaign is over.

It would seem that actually receiving information from Russia about a political opponent would be the greater evil than wanting to receive information from Russia.
If the outrage is genuine, that is.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know it's work.

Now we can analyze what you referenced. This is where the rubber meets the road

--

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jc7.pdf

Clappper -- page 87 and 88

Q: Now, it's been your repeated testimony today, as I understand it, that there was no -- you're not aware of any direct evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during your service as DNI. Is that correct?

CLAPPER. That's right.

--

You are confused about the difference between direct evidence, which requires no inference, and indirect or circumstantial evidence which requires an inference:

Direct evidence - Wikipedia.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia

--

Your claim was that all Obama-era officials said there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy.

So, in your first example, you've already failed to prove your point...in fact, you've disproven it due to your appalling ignorance of the difference between direct and indirect evidence.


Let's look at the other quotes you claim to represent examples of Obama-era officials saying there was "no evidence" of a conspiracy.

--

Lynch - page 64 and 65

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ll32.pdf

Q: Did you ever receive any specific information as Attorney General to show that there was a demonstrable level of collusion between the Russian Government and its affiliates and Trump and Trump candidacy for President?

LYNCH: You know, I think that - again, I was not asked to draw that conclusion, and so I would not have done that level of analysis. [-- REDACTED --] But at that time, you know, you would not have been looking to draw a legal conclusion at that point in time because you were still seeing things happen. So I don't think that you would be able to say - you certainly should not say: My legal conclusion in the middle of this is X. You certainly may have a view or a concern, but I would not have drawn that legal conclusion because things were still occurring.

Lynch doesn't even answer the question...

The questioning continues:

Q: And did you ever draw a legal conclusion, taking you up to January 19, 2017, on the matter?

Lynch: Well, certainly I agreed with the lntelligence Community assessment. Based on everything that had been presented to me, I agreed with the assessment that came out in October, I agreed with the assessment that was released in I think early January. I agreed with those conclusions, and they were - they were based on things that had been presented to me in the PCs, and I thought that they were wellfounded conclusions and concerns.

And again, Lynch's response, and even the question posed to Lynch, does not in any way support your conclusion.

You are 0 for 2.

--

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/am33.pdf

McCabe - 208-210

MR. GOWDY: The hacking of the server, the accessing of Podesta's email. Do you have any evidence regardless of whether or not you believe it and regardless of whether or not it comes from a source that would be admissible in any court, so l'm giving you free rein to use hearsay, and even if you say I heard it like with the stuff with DOJ, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, heard it, read it, maybe didn't believe it, Donald Trump colluded, conspired, confederated with anyone to hack the DNC server.

MR. MCCABE: Do I personally have -

MR. GOWDY: Or have you seen evidence?

MR. MCCABE: Right, have I personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump's involvement in the DNC hack?

MR. GOWDY: Yes.

MR. MCCABE: No, sir

--

MR. GOWDY: All right. Well, let me ask it differently. ls there any evidence, do you have any evidence that Donald Trump himself participated in the decision to disseminate or the timing of the dissemination of the information gleaned during either of those two criminal acts, the hacking of the server and the hacking of Podesta's email?

MR. MCCABE: I personally haven't seen information that would indicate that, that would indicate Donald Trump's personal involvement in those criminal actions

McCabe's responses deal with very specific questions by Gowdy, about specific incidents.

It can be true that the answers to these two, specific questions are "no", and also true that there was other evidence that made McCabe suspicious.

The best resource for this other publicly available evidence is the Special Counsel's report:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You are now 0 for 3.

 

[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.

There was nothing "coulda, wanta, woulda" about Donny Dirtbag, Jr.'s setting up the June 9, 2016 meeting with two Russians who were offering dirt on Clinton ("If it's true, I love it," said Dirtbag, Jr. in an email). Manafort and Jared "Wonder Boy" Kushner were also in attendance. If that isn't seeking cooperation and coordination with foreign agents (one of the Russians is a lawyer very close to Putin) then nothing could be.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.

The kind of **** that's in the DoJ filing to the Writ of Mandamus backing up everything I have been posting, yep, hilarious.

Day 2 of all the Democrats on this post playing Srg Schultz because they have all day to post but no way to read 30 pages of PDF.

 

[Termn8or]

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know it's work.

Now we can analyze what you referenced. This is where the rubber meets the road

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Didn't you claim that those nice Obama officials at FBI hadn't committed any crimes?

Is altering evidence in order to illegally obtain a FISA warrant a crime?

Unraveling the Criminal Web at Comey's FBI and Beyond
.By Charles Lipson
The way to unravel a criminal conspiracy is to begin with the weakest links, the ones already doomed by convincing evidence. Knowing they face serious jail time, these “weak links” have powerful reasons to cooperate with law enforcement. Flipping on their fellow conspirators is the best way, perhaps the only way, to lessen their own sentences....


Horowitz presents evidence that Clinesmith not only altered official documents, he completely changed their meaning. The altered documents painted Carter Page as a foreign spy; the originals said there was no evidence for that. The exculpatory evidence was hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts. The lies helped gain a secret warrant to spy on Page....


The FISA court was told Carter Page was a foreign agent when the FBI, DoJ, and CIA knew he was not. The court was told Russians had offered Page billions of dollars in an oil-and-gas deal to pay for his help. The FBI, DoJ, and CIA knew there was no such offer.


How important was the Steele dossier to gaining the warrant? The FBI’s own legal counsel said, in internal documents, “this is essentially a single source FISA” (p. 132). That source was the Steele dossier. (Remember when Comey and all the Democrats denied that? There was lots more evidence in the applications, they said. There wasn’t.)...


Clinesmith, for one, has compelling incentives to say who knew what and when. He was apparently caught red-handed changing official documents. His lawyer ought to be seeking ways to lessen the criminal consequences. The only way to do that is to come clean.


Anybody who worked with Clinesmith should be thinking the same thing. It would be good for them and it would be good for the country.
Unraveling the Criminal Web at Comey's FBI and Beyond | RealClearPolitics

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Rice- page 72

Rice's transcript:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sr44.pdf

MR. ROONEY: But I don't know who to believe in the news anymore. So my question to you is, like, in your official capacity, with regard to what you had been briefed by actually the lntelligence Community, was there anything that came across your desk that was official documentation which showed coordination - you referred, I think, to - I forget the guy's name -- But was there anything official that you saw in your capacity in the prior administration that showed actual coordination between the campaign? Not what we've been seeing in the news, not what we've heard about at cocktail parties, but in your official capacity.

MS. RICE: To the best of my recollection, there wasn't anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause

And again, your lie that Obama-era officials said that there was "no" evidence is proven wrong.

You are now 0 for 4.

Yates- page 24-26

Yates:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sy57.pdf

MR. GOWDY: Who aren't earning their paychecks. Wilh respect to that pivot point, did you, while you were at Justice, have any evidence, collusion, conspiracy, coordination, coincidence, contact, any of them, that the candidate himself had any involvement in the intrusion into the DNC server and/or the Podesta email?

MS. YATES: lf you're asking me, did I reach the conclusion that he - he had had that, the answer to that would be no. lf your question is, were there facts that would be relevant to whether he had had some involvement in that, that's going to kind of depend on how you define the relevancy there, in terms of were there facts that there were individuals who were -- how would I describe this - well, let me back up. Certainly, there was a conclusion on the part of the lntel Community that the Russian Government at the highest levels - in fact Putin had directed that those intrusions occur. And so then there were facts that were beginning to develop about whether or not there were individuals associated with the campaign that were having communications about the dissemination of that information. That's where I remember the fact pattern being at that point.

You are now 0 for 5.

Your assertion is nothing more than a pathetic propagandistic attempt to defend Trump.

Your assertion that "all" Obama-era officials said there was "no" evidence is a flat-out lie, and you should admit it and then apologize to lying to me and everyone else.

 

[digitusmedius]

It would seem that actually receiving information from Russia about a political opponent would be the greater evil than wanting to receive information from Russia.
If the outrage is genuine, that is.

So, you do admit that Dirtbag did receive aid from Russian IRA hackers (who would order that, I wonder?) right after Your Dear Dirtbag made his "Russia, if you're listening..." appeal for the "missing emails" and later that very night the DNC was hacked. We tired of having to remind you people how your heads would have exploded if there's was even a rumor that a Dem did something like that but we'll keep throwing your massive hypocrisy back in your faces for however long (i.e., eternity) as you continue to deploy it.

 

[digitusmedius]

The kind of **** that's in the DoJ filing to the Writ of Mandamus backing up everything I have been posting, yep, hilarious.

Day 2 of all the Democrats on this post playing Srg Schultz because they have all day to post but no way to read 30 pages of PDF.

Every time you post something it reads as though it comes directly from the Lie Vault of the Cult of Dirtbag.

 

[dixon01767]

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

Reality only seems to be BS from within your delusions.

 

[Termn8or]

You are now 0 for 4.

You are now 0 for 5.

I won't bother pointing out how many 0-fors you are.:lol:

Didn't you lie that Horowitz didn't believe there was any bias in the FBI's work?

IG report shows Russia hoax a coup attempt
By Miranda DevineDecember 11, 2019 | 10:34pm
Inspector General Michael Horowitz finally damned the FBI during his testimony Wednesday when he said he would be “skeptical” that there was anything accidental in the egregious catalog of errors the FBI committed in its spying operation on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.


It took five hours of questioning about the FBI’s motivations but Horowitz, prudent and impartial as he is, finally delivered the money shot.


Asked by Republican Sen. Mike Crapo if the 17 “significant errors or omissions” he found in the FBI’s surveillance operation could possibly be “accidental,” Horowitz said: “I would be skeptical.”


He went on to explain “the answers we got were not satisfactory [so] we’re left trying to understand how could all these errors have occurred over a nine-month period on three teams hand-picked, on . . . the highest-profile case of the FBI, going to the very top of the organization, involving a presidential campaign.”


Horowitz described the conduct of the FBI as “inexplicable” when its operatives bent the rules to try to prove Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia.


But sadly the FBI’s conduct is all too explicable. It can be explained by the proven anti-Trump bias of its personnel, hand-picked to run Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI operation to spy on the Trump campaign using salacious opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.


Horowitz’s testimony confirms suspicions that the Russia-collusion hoax amounted to an attempted coup against Trump and laid the groundwork for impeachment.
IG report shows Russia hoax a coup attempt: Devine

 

[digitusmedius]

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, if you'd only stopped there it would have been the most intelligent comment you'd ever made but you had to spoil it with your usual BS taken from the usual rightwing pukefunnel.

 

[dixon01767]

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.

Muellar didn't find any evidence of coordination or cooperation with Russia to effect the election. That's why the house quickly switched to Ukraine.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

the DOJ keeps showing more and more information to be faulty and improper.

This is not true. The DOJ keeps revealing that the investigation as a whole was done largely correctly despite a few mistakes. The Horowitz report is a good example of this as it largely demolished the ridiculous claims of pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. I recall everyone kept saying ooooh just wait for the Horowitz report. ooooh he's gonna blow the lid off the Deep State. What a huge let down that was for them, wasn't it? All these dumb pro-Trump conspiracy theorists felt so stupid the Horowitz report did not reveal some idiotic Deep State conspiracy. Not a peep from them.

LOL not enough evidence means not guilty

I accept this. It's not my argument that Trump and/or his campaign was CERTAINLY guilty of conspiring with Russia.

The argument in this thread by many Trump supporters is that the investigation was not justified.

My argument is that the investigation was justified.

 

[digitusmedius]

Reality only seems to be BS from within your delusions.

I accept your surrender--as that comment clearly indicates you've abandoned your quest to keep posting lies.

 

[dixon01767]

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

Actually I did. Flynn didn't as much as even use the word sanctions in the entire conversation. That's why none of you in the peanut gallery has yet even offered a quote from the transcript to demonstrate your point. You cant.

 

[dixon01767]

I accept your surrender--as that comment clearly indicates you've abandoned your quest to keep posting lies.

Im still here challenging your delusions.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

What matters is the logic of the argument and the supporting facts.

This appeal to authority on your part -- yet another logical fallacy -- does not in any way persuade me of the veracity of your assertions.

For every Barr and Trump stooge, there are thousands of prosecutors who disagree:

DOJ Alumni Statement on Flynn Case - DOJ Alumni Statement - Medium

 

[Termn8or]

This is not true. The DOJ keeps revealing that the investigation as a whole was done largely correctly despite a few mistakes. The Horowitz report is a good example of this as it largely demolished the ridiculous claims of pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. I recall everyone kept saying ooooh just wait for the Horowitz report. ooooh he's gonna blow the lid off the Deep State. What a huge let down that was for them, wasn't it? They felt so stupid the Horowitz report did not reveal some idiotic Deep State conspiracy.

Yeah, little mistakes like at least two illegal FISA applications and 17 so called "mistakes" that deceived the FISA court.

Altering key evidence in order to get the illegal FISA warrants.

Illegal spying earlier than FBI officials testified before Congress.

Illegal spying not only on a presidential campaign but two years of an actual presidency,.

"All by the book!" claim the Democrats' corrupt dissemblers.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Barr disagrees, guess who gets to decide?

I am shocked that you would display an authoritarian sort of attitude with this comment Totally not like a Trump supporter!

Barr has the authority to make executive and policy decisions on behalf of the DOJ as an organization.

Barr does not have the authority to alter the facts or make the facts disappear.

All the executive authority in the universe cannot change the facts. Whatever decisions are made, the facts remain.

 

[digitusmedius]

Muellar didn't find any evidence of coordination or cooperation with Russia to effect the election. That's why the house quickly switched to Ukraine.

You brought up Ukraine, I didn't. But I'm so glad you did because Dirtbag's attempt to involve another foreign government (or any entity connected to a foreign government) in our elections is now a pattern of criminality (and, yes, it is a federal crime to seek or allow foreign interference in U.S. elections). His Ukraine attempt actually reinforces the the evidence of what Dirtbag allowed to go on in the 2016 campaign. Thanks for bolstering the case against your Dear Dirtbag. Donnie Dirtbag makes the mistake many criminals do: if they get away with it they'll always keep doing it. Eventually, they get caught.

 

[digitusmedius]

I am shocked that you would display an authoritarian sort of attitude with this comment Totally not like a Trump supporter!

 

[digitusmedius]

Im still here challenging your delusions.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

When you say "activity they were trying to hide", the implication is that something nefarious or improper was discussed between Flynn and the ambassador,

Here's the thing: the FBI did not need to know with certainty if Flynn was trying to hide something nefarious or improper in order to justify its interview with Flynn. They only needed to suspect that Flynn was trying to hide something.

when you know for a fact there was nothing that was even the least bit suspicious about their discussion.

The FBI decided to interview Flynn AFTER Flynn apparently lied about it to Pence.

Again, here you are trying to defend the FBI's conduct by concocting theories about their motive for interviewing Flynn

I am not concocting theories about their motives for interviewing Flynn. Please read the interviews the FBI conducted with McCord and Strzok.

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.

I don't care about Priestap writing down his strategy for the interview. The FBI has pre-interview strategy sessions all the time. The FBI knew Flynn would likely lie to the FBI because Flynn lied to White House officials. It would be ordinary for the FBI to want Flynn to be fired if Flynn were a security threat. It's the job of the FBI to identify and eliminate threats to U.S. national security.

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.

You are suffering from the delusion that investigators must first prove their theory of the case before conducting their investigation.

That is NOT how investigations work.