Declassified Transcripts of Flynn-Kislyak Calls Released (1 Viewer)

[Termn8or]

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.

Not that facts will get in your way, the FBI found zero evidence that Flynn was a Russian agent, an utterly ridiculous lie Obama officials spread to the MSM, or that he had committed crime regarding Russia.

The investigation was closed.

But because of a paperwork error, Strzok kept it open on a pretext because of a request "from the seventh floor," i.e. Comey and/or McCabe, now under criminal investigation and likely to be indicted.

Tell everyone again how three US Attorney's aren't really investigating criminal activity.

that's so freaking funny!

 

[dixon01767]

You brought up Ukraine, I didn't. But I'm so glad you did because ……...

you can abandon your previous BS and move onto the next bucket of it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.

Once again, you can't understand simple ideas. Decisions regarding legal actions are almost always opinions until decided by the judicial. Facts are the contents that make the decisions and Barr has been bringing facts that were unknown until now to the table in making his decisions.

He simply has more information at his disposal.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

It doesn't matter if it is possible that there are thousands of different reasons why someone might lie to investigators.

It's still a crime to make false statements to investigators.

The reason for this is very simple. Making false statements to investigators impedes the ability of investigators to investigate a case.

And prosecutors don't have to prove someone's motive (although it helps to persuade a jury). They only have to prove that a defendant "knowingly and willfully" made a false statement.

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 only logical conclusion any reasonable person could come to is Flynn hadn't lied to them.

That it was stupid for Flynn to make false statements to the FBI doesn't mean that Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI. The arguments you are putting forward are a good defense strategy -- DURING A TRIAL -- intended to convince a jury that Flynn did not "knowingly and willfully" give false statements to the FBI. But the fact this argument can be made in some hypothetical trial does not mean the prosecution of Flynn's case itself was somehow fatally flawed. This is how our legal system works. The prosecutors make an argument. The defense tries to counter an argument.

But, you see, Flynn relieved every one of the burdens of having to go through a trial by admitting his guilt, under oath, in open court, before a judge...TWICE.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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

That's the stupidest post yet. You argue appeal to authority and then you post...an appeal to authority.

 

[digitusmedius]

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

This is what comes from getting all your disinformation from the vast rightwing pukefunnel. Here's the content of one of the calls between Kislyak and Flynn:

Flynn asked that Russia's response be a measured one — "because I know you have to have some sort of action" — emphasizing that Moscow should "make it reciprocal."


"Don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate ... on a tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?" he continued.

Kislyak then responded to Flynn by highlighting how "sentiments ... are raging in Moscow.”

Flynn indicated that he understood, but he continued to push that he didn't want this back-and-forth to turn into "something bigger" where "everybody's got to go back and forth and everybody's got to be the tough guy here."

Flynn urged Russian diplomat to have 'reciprocal' response to Obama sanctions, new transcripts show | TheHill

Flynn then lied to the FBI about having had any such conversations with Kislyak and he also lied to several members of the Dirtbag administration, in particular, Pence which is what got him fired.
Here's a link (I hope) to the indictment of Flynn by Mueller's investigators for that lie (starting on p. 2 of 6) which specifies the lying on that very point--i.e. the conversations with Kislyak:
Michael Flynn's plea statement of offense

I don't know why you people make it so easy to prove your lies but I'm always grateful for your help.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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.



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.

My argument is if the investigation was justified there was no need for deliberate bad faith actions to move it along, but they occurred. You don't seem to understand how easily a prosecution is wrecked by even ONE bad faith action by investigators or litigators. There are multiples all over Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller's SC investigation.

Horowitz largely did his job, but he isn't investigating to change the agency, he is largely trying to investigate to minimalize damage to the agency. He is still a member of the DoJ, despite being an IG, so he doesn't want to wreck the strongest tool the DOJ has for investigation, the FBI.

 

[OpportunityCost]

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

You done with your tantrum yet? Circle back around to the topic whenever you are ready. I enjoy verbally eviscerating you.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

Read this statement:

Flynn did not propose any kind of deal, nor did not say or imply that the sanctions would be lifted or scaled back.

Then read this statement:

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.

One more time...

Read this statement:

Flynn did not propose any kind of deal, nor did not say or imply that the sanctions would be lifted or scaled back.

Then read this statement:

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.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It doesn't matter if it is possible that there are thousands of different reasons why someone might lie to investigators.

It's still a crime to make false statements to investigators.

The reason for this is very simple. Making false statements to investigators impedes the ability of investigators to investigate a case.

And prosecutors don't have to prove someone's motive (although it helps to persuade a jury). They only have to prove that a defendant "knowingly and willfully" made a false statement.



That it was stupid for Flynn to make false statements to the FBI doesn't mean that Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI. The arguments you are putting forward are a good defense strategy -- DURING A TRIAL -- intended to convince a jury that Flynn did not "knowingly and willfully" give false statements to the FBI. But the fact this argument can be made in some hypothetical trial does not mean the prosecution of Flynn's case itself was somehow fatally flawed. This is how our legal system works. The prosecutors make an argument. The defense tries to counter an argument.

But, you see, Flynn relieved every one of the burdens of having to go through a trial by admitting his guilt, under oath, in open court, before a judge...TWICE.

Current filings by the DoJ reveal the questions supposedly asked of Flynn appeared nowhere in the agents' handwritten notes. What they can't do is fabricate evidence. It certainly appears that they did.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You are ignorant about the new subject matter despite it being linked and quoted to you.

I agree. I am ignorant about the specific court document you posted. I haven't read it yet.

However, I have read nearly every other document linked to in this thread.

Not only that, but I have also done far more work than you to support my arguments by linking to and quoting from the source material.

The reason why you're mad is that Trump critics in here are writing better arguments than you, that lays waste to your worldview of there being some sort of Deep State conspiracy against Trump.

You are belligerent in your responses to others.

It's not my job to cater to your ego. I don't have to characterize your posts as wonderful and amazing or respond to you in a way that makes you feel better.

In fact, I can say things like, "I don't agree."

I can say things like, "This doesn't make any sense."

I can say things like, "I think the argument you proposed is stupid."

All of this is fine and within the forum rules.

You are a big boy. You should be able to handle someone criticizing the things you write, and you should be able to handle someone criticizing your posts without overacting in the overtly emotional way you've been responding.

If you need to. Just take a break.

If you can't react to the contradictory information I am posting without reacting emotionally, then just put me on ignore.

If you want a safe space. Go to a forum where the only contributions allowed are pro-Trump conspiracy theories.

If you want to have your ideas challenged, and intelligently debated by forum contributors who actually do their homework, then keep posting here.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I agree. I am ignorant about the specific court document you posted. I haven't read it yet.

However, I have read nearly every other document linked to in this thread.

Not only that, but I have also done far more work than you to support my arguments by linking to and quoting from the source material.

The reason why you're mad is that I am writing better arguments than you, that lays waste to your worldview of their being some sort of Deep State conspiracy against TRump.

You are writing more quantity, not quality. And the things you kept calling CT over and over and things I couldn't prove etc etc are spelled out in the filing. So quit posting for a while and skim it. Don't post uninformed bull****. Read Sullivan's filing too, he is making a fundamental constitutional mistake in his filing, lets see if you can find it.

It's not my job to cater to your ego. I don't have to characterize your posts as wonderful and amazing or respond to you in a way that makes you feel better.

In fact, I can say things like, "I don't agree."

I can say things like, "This doesn't make any sense."

I can say things like, "I think the argument you proposed is stupid."

All of this is fine and within the forum rules.

Shhh, no talking about moderation.

You are a big boy. You should be able to handle someone criticizing the things you write, and you should be able to handle someone criticizing your posts without overacting in the overtly emotional way you've been responding.

LOL, I tend to react actively to stupid ****. Quit posting stupid ****.

If you need to. Just take a break.

Don't bait.

If you can't react to the contradictory information I am posting without reacting emotionally, then just put me on ignore.

Just post on topic and quit concern trolling, you act like a give a **** what your personal opinion of me is, I sure the heck don't.

 

[digitusmedius]

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.

Nope. Horowitz never said any of the FiSA warrants were illegal. In fact, he testified exactly the opposite that the warrants had a "proper predicate," i.e. were justified.

Illegal spying earlier than FBI officials testified before Congress.

Nope.

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

And, NOPE.

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

Bonus NOPE

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Engaging in diplomacy, absolutely...

Flynn did not have the authority to engage in diplomacy, no matter how helpful he thought he was being.

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.

When Flynn communicated to the Russian government to not retaliate because it would make it harder for the Trump administration to deal with the Russian government on other issues, it had the effect of undermining the effectiveness of the punishment the Obama administration was trying to inflict on Russia. It conveyed to the Russian government that the Trump administration would not care as much about the Russian government's attempt to help get Trump elected. And it worked. Flynn got exactly what he wanted, and more.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That statement alone tells me that all you give a damn about is pushing you political agenda..

I am absolutely posting for political reasons. I am absolutely a partisan. But you do not understand the reason why...because you are too knee-deep in pro-Trump cultish propaganda.

Trump critics have to be political with respect to the legal issues we've been discussing.

Trump is holding the Rule of Law hostage, for political purposes.

When the law and the truth become pawns of the schemes of someone like Trump, the support of the Rule of Law itself becomes a political act.

This is now the main reason why I oppose Trump, politically.

I believe in the system the Framers of the Constitution put in place. It is abundantly clear Trump is trying to dismantle this system.

Since our Republic is based on the Rule of Law, supporters have made it abundantly clear they are willing to sacrifice the Republic itself to further their political goals. And this is now the main reason why I hold Trump supporters in such little regard.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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

So what? The FBI was curious about why Flynn apparently lied to Trump White House officials. The FBI is allowed to investigate people. It's the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It's not the Federal Bureau of Let's Find a Reason Not to Investigate People.

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

Again, with the assumptions. There is no indication they "faked" the 302s. There is no evidence suggesting they altered the 302s to make it looked like he lied. This is something you cannot prove. This is something nobody has been able to prove.

So why are you stating this as if it were a fact, and not the assumption it is?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

500 search warrants. 2 of them had mistakes. We can, therefore, assume that 99.6% of the warrants were valid.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The investigation was closed.

But because of a paperwork error, Strzok kept it open on a pretext because of a request "from the seventh floor," i.e. Comey and/or McCabe, now under criminal investigation and likely to be indicted.

It doesn't matter. The FBI is allowed to open investigations that were closed, or to keep cases open that are about to close.

You have invented a procedural hurdle that does not exist in the real world.

 

[Termn8or]

So what? The FBI was curious about why Flynn apparently lied to Trump White House officials. The FBI is allowed to investigate people. It's the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It's not the Federal Bureau of Let's Find a Reason Not to Investigate People.

Under Obama it should have been called,"We make up excuses as we investigate our political enemies" Dept.

Obama weaponized every agency of government against Americans.

Brennan Lied About Not Including Steele Dossier In Intelligence Community Assessment On 2016 Russian Election Interference
DECEMBER 9, 2019 By Madeline Osburn
The new report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress about whether the dossier authored by Christopher Steele was used in the Obama administration’s Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).'
Brennan Lied About Not Including Steele Dossier In IC Assessment On 2016 Russian Election Interference

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That's the stupidest post yet. You argue appeal to authority and then you post...an appeal to authority.

I am glad we now both agree that your previous point was nothing more an appeal to authority.

And you implied my posts were not persuasive!

 

[Termn8or]

Not that facts will get in your way, the FBI found zero evidence that Flynn was a Russian agent, an utterly ridiculous lie Obama officials spread to the MSM, or that he had committed crime regarding Russia.

The investigation was closed.

But because of a paperwork error, Strzok kept it open on a pretext because of a request "from the seventh floor," i.e. Comey and/or McCabe, now under criminal investigation and likely to be indicted.

Tell everyone again how three US Attorney's aren't really investigating criminal activity.

that's so freaking funny!

It doesn't matter. The FBI is allowed to open investigations that were closed, or to keep cases open that are about to close.

You have invented a procedural hurdle that does not exist in the real world.

It absolutely matters. As Jensen noted, there must be a criminal predicate for the FBI to do so.

Them's the rules. Got a criminal predicate handy, Mr. Mueller Report Expert?

Jensen made the decision to dismiss charges, not Barr as you lied.

 

[Termn8or]

Not that facts will get in your way, the FBI found zero evidence that Flynn was a Russian agent, an utterly ridiculous lie Obama officials spread to the MSM, or that he had committed crime regarding Russia.

The investigation was closed.

But because of a paperwork error, Strzok kept it open on a pretext because of a request "from the seventh floor," i.e. Comey and/or McCabe, now under criminal investigation and likely to be indicted.

Tell everyone again how three US Attorney's aren't really investigating criminal activity.

that's so freaking funny!

500 search warrants. 2 of them had mistakes. We can, therefore, assume that 99.6% of the warrants were valid.

500 searches has nothing to do with anything, but that's a lie, too.

At least two out of four FISA warrants were obtained illegally, no "mistake" about it. Many lies and lies of omission were told as well.

And newly released documents show that illegal spying was far, far broader than first known.

As Horowitz reported some time back, though not in so many words, cautious bureaucrat that he is.

So get your Democrat Talking Point Lies ready for that.:2wave:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

My argument is if the investigation was justified there was no need for deliberate bad faith actions to move it along, but they occurred. You don't seem to understand how easily a prosecution is wrecked by even ONE bad faith action by investigators or litigators. There are multiples all over Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller's SC investigation.

And, yet, the 2 invalid Page-warrants don't matter because Page was never prosecuted. No one else's convictions have been overturned. Your accusations that the 302s were manipulated isn't actually founded on anything but an assumption. You have a bucketful of assumptions, nothing more.

Horowitz largely did his job, but he isn't investigating to change the agency, he is largely trying to investigate to minimalize damage to the agency. He is still a member of the DoJ, despite being an IG, so he doesn't want to wreck the strongest tool the DOJ has for investigation, the FBI.

Yeah, okay. Horowitz is part of the conspiracy theory too.

:roll:

And you are irritated I don't take the things you say seriously?

 

[Termn8or]

you implied my posts were not persuasive!

Speaking of not being persuasive, you ridiculously claimed that the FBI hadn't committed any crimes.

Is tampering with evidence in order to get two illegal FISA warrants a crime?

 

[Termn8or]

And, yet, the 2 invalid Page-warrants don't matter because Page was never prosecuted.

Oh, so it's okay to grossly violate someone's Constitutional rights, smear them in the news and destroy their career and their life if they aren't prosecuted?

That sounds quite fascsitic.

Weren't you the guy who lied that Trump is a fascist?