• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI arrests Steele dossier sub-source as part of Durham investigation

So what we know about Flynn is that while he was working as NSA he was working for at least tow other clients … one of them foreign…
A citation please?

Because:

National Security Advisor​


Trump administration transition​


On November 18, 2016, Flynn accepted Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor.[127] During their meeting in the Oval Office two days after the election, Obama expressed "profound concerns" about placing Flynn in a sensitive, high-level national security post, and warned President-elect Trump against hiring Flynn.[128] On January 4, 2017, Flynn informed transition team counsel Don McGahn, soon to become the White House Counsel, that he was under federal investigation for secret lobbying work he had done for Turkey during the campaign. Trump later questioned in May 2019 why he had not been told Flynn was under investigation so he could have removed Flynn from his team.[129][130][131] Sean Spicer questioned why the Obama administration, if they believed Flynn to be a national-security risk, had failed to revoke Flynn's security clearance.[132]​
Prior to his appointment, media sources including The Washington Post and Associated Press had criticized his alleged close relations with Russia,[98][100][133][134] and his alleged promotion of anti-Clinton conspiracy theories and fake news during the 2016 presidential campaign.[114][135]​
In December 2016, Flynn met with Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), at Trump Tower in New York.[136]​
Ten days before the inauguration of Donald Trump, Flynn told then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice not to proceed with a planned invasion of Raqqa using Kurdish People's Protection Units.[137] Flynn's decision would delay the campaign—which had taken seven months to plan—for several more months, but was consistent with Turkish objections to working with Kurdish troops.[138]​
Flynn had a consulting firm prior to be appointed NSA, but there doesn't seem to be an overlap.

It's also interesting to note that prior to Flynn's FBI interview at the White House the first few days of the Trump administration, where the alleged crime of lying to the FBI took place, Flynn was already under investigation, and that this was also after Flynn had disagreed with Obama on foreign policy, possibly jeopardizing the Iran nuclear deal.
Extraordinary stuff from the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo -- a well-sourced, solid reporter who nevertheless leans very heavily on unnamed sources to piece together this scoop. What he's hearing is that a cabal of hardcore supporters of President Obama's reckless and unpopular Iranian nuclear deal set their sights on Gen. Michael Flynn months ago, moving behind the scenes to kneecap someone they've long viewed as a threat to the future of their signature accord. There are a few holes in the tidy narrative of a Machiavellian plot, which we'll get to, but here are the alleged details:​
Also

Although the president has argued that this deal is good for national security, retired lt. general Michael Flynn argues just the opposite: "I don't think President Obama looks at the long term of what is best for our national security versus what looks best on some report card. For the past forty years it did not matter if a Republican or Democrat was in power; they followed a strategic policy. Tehran is developing increasingly sophisticated missiles, improving the range and accuracy of its other missile systems, and is also acquiring advanced naval and aerospace capabilities. This is just insane."​
Looks far more likely that Obama's politicized FBI was wielded against a political enemy, Flynn and Trump.
now normally we would find that behavior to be bad… but this is a new world.

So just maybe his son was in on these two two deals. One to extradite someone to Turkey and the other to sell Nuclear tech to the Middle East.
 
No… he hasn’t proved it.

He got an indictment.

The indictments are lame.

The indictment demonstrates that:
1. Sussman thought his concerns about that computer traffic to be inconsequential, yet reported it anyways in hopes of creating a political issue against Trump.
2. Danchenko was feeding Steele stuff he was getting from a long time Clinton ally.
The above facts are not in dispute.

Sussman and Danchenko have been indicted for misleading the FBI about the above-- a charge that requires Durham to prove that the misleading was intentional and relevant to his investigation.
Maybe he won't be able to prove the former (the latter should be rather easy to prove). But that won't change the facts as laid out--- that the Trump/Russia collusion theory was hatched as a political weapon and has no basis in reality.
 
So what we know about Flynn is that while he was working as NSA he was working for at least tow other clients … one of them foreign… now normally we would find that behavior to be bad… but this is a new world.

So just maybe his son was in on these two two deals. One to extradite someone to Turkey and the other to sell Nuclear tech to the Middle East.

Flynn had resigned from his work with foreign clients prior to officially starting as NSC director.
 
Danchenko was feeding Steele stuff he was getting from a long time Clinton ally.
Sounds spooky.

According to the indictment, what information did he get from the long time Clinton Ally?
 
A citation please?
While Flynn was secretly working for Turkey he was also secretly working for IP3, which was working to transfer nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia to build power plants.

The thing is that the Saudis wanted this transfer of tech without the normal safeguards and since there was a ton of money involved, Flynn worked to remove those barriers.

Normal people would call that a bad thing.
 
Doesn't contain a citation.
While Flynn was secretly working for Turkey he was also secretly working for IP3, which was working to transfer nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia to build power plants.

The thing is that the Saudis wanted this transfer of tech without the normal safeguards and since there was a ton of money involved, Flynn worked to remove those barriers.
Yes, this was included in the citation:
Normal people would call that a bad thing.
The transfer of that technology never happened, so it is unknown how it would have been executed.
 
I could be reading the indictment wrong... and I will gladly be corrected if I am... but to me it looks that Durham is claiming that lies told in an interview in 2017 had material impact on a FISA warrant that was issued in 2016.
That sounds about right for the right.
 
The transfer of that technology never happened, so it is unknown how it would have been executed.
Yeah... it didn't... part of the reason was because Flynn got fired.

But he was working on doing that before and while he was NSA. He wasn't working in the interests of the US... but in the interests of IP3 expecting a good payout when the term is over.

Kind like Rick Perry and his term as Energy Secretary. How the heck did Perry get away with having close allies get entrenched in Ukrainian gas interests and have no one really question it?
 
Last edited:
Something in the link provided in the OP is not making sense to me. The article says "Durham is charging Danchenko, a Russian citizen residing in Virginia, with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. The charges stemmed from statements Danchenko made relating to the sources he used in providing information to an investigative firm in the United Kingdom." However other reporting says the indictment is sealed and the charges are unknown.

(CNN) - Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was a source for the 2016 dossier of allegations about Donald Trump, was arrested Thursday as part of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation, a law enforcement official told CNN.

Danchenko will appear in the Eastern District of Virginia later Thursday. The charges are still under seal."
Notice how the gop has no qualms about arresting people they want to talk to. Dems need to take a page out of Durham's actions starting with bannon.
 
You don't have to be sure of anything, or even understand it. The information you're working with is minimal. You can't even make the claim that Barr lied. The reason will be made more evident at some point.
That's hilarious.
 
Doesn't contain a citation.

Yes, this was included in the citation:

The transfer of that technology never happened, so it is unknown how it would have been executed.
Lol, oh. The transfer of tech never happened, so no biggie? Bank robber enters bank, hands a teller a note saying I'm robbing the bank. A cop walks in, robber runs out with no money, no big thing or does cop run out after him?
 
Yeah... it didn't... part of the reason was because Flynn got fired.
And yet not a single citation. The citations provided are a substantive dispute of your premise above.
But he was working on doing that before and while he was NSA. He wasn't working in the interests of the US... but in the interests of IP3 expecting a good payout when the term is over.
And yet not a single citation.
Kind like Rick Perry and his term as Energy Secretary. How the heck did Perry get away with having close allies get entrenched in Ukrainian gs interests and have no one really question it?
Irrelevant to the topic.
 
And yet not a single citation. The citations provided are a substantive dispute of your premise above.

And yet not a single citation.

Irrelevant to the topic.
This is the part where we are supposed to pretend that because Flynn failed that it is no big deal that he WAS WORKING ON THIS WHILE HE WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR!!!!!

How people don't see that as a big deal is astounding.
 
Lol, oh. The transfer of tech never happened, so no biggie? Bank robber enters bank, hands a teller a note saying I'm robbing the bank. A cop walks in, robber runs out with no money, no big thing or does cop run out after him?
Flawed analogy.
More like someone thinking about robbing a bank walks in, looks around, decides not to and walks out.
In your mind a crime was committed?
 
This is the part where we are supposed to pretend that because Flynn failed that it is no big deal that he WAS WORKING ON THIS WHILE HE WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR!!!!!
Is this the part where we get to pretend that you have sources and citations to substantiate your claims?
How people don't see that as a big deal is astounding.
All you've offered is opinion, so far. 🤷‍♂️
 
Is this the part where we get to pretend that you have sources and citations to substantiate your claims?
So... is it now that Flynn wasn't working for the interests of IP3? Is that what is being asked here?
 
Flawed analogy.
More like someone thinking about robbing a bank walks in, looks around, decides not to and walks out.
In your mind a crime was committed?

Prison logic. One can figure why it's commonly employed.

"They didn't catch me in the act! They caught me thinking about it!"

Sure.
 
So... is it now that Flynn wasn't working for the interests of IP3? Is that what is being asked here?
You've made some claims, fine. You've not substantiated any of them, not so fine.

Yeah... it didn't... part of the reason was because Flynn got fired.
How about substanciating this claim?
But he was working on doing that before and while he was NSA.
And this one, especially the 'while' part. The cited wiki article shows no overlap, and this has been pointed out to you by another poster.
 
Flawed analogy.
More like someone thinking about robbing a bank walks in, looks around, decides not to and walks out.
In your mind a crime was committed?
Lol, very nice, completely taking out the part of hands the teller a note saying I'm robbing the bank. As far as I'm concerned you can walk in think about killing everyone in the bank, take all the money and live happily ever after, no crime committed.
 
Lol, very nice, completely taking out the part of hands the teller a note saying I'm robbing the bank. As far as I'm concerned you can walk in think about killing everyone in the bank, take all the money and live happily ever after, no crime committed.
Except that's not what I posted, is it?
Even so, it's still a flawed analogy anyway you want to look at it, and doesn't accurately describe the situation it is claimed to be analogous to.
 
Back
Top Bottom