W. Niederhut Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 Jeff, With your salty, convoluted rebuttals of the Flynn facts, you continue to live up to your nickname, "The Russian Pretzel." Your argument that Flynn simply failed to recall his December 29, 2016 phone call to Kisylak, and what was discussed, is ridiculous, as is your pretzel logic regarding Flynn's work for Kremlin-affiliated agencies since in 2015, and for the Erdogan government. Your pretzels don't pass the sniff test. They remind me of your claims about the GRU not meddling in our 2016 elections, or influencing the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 Donald Trump’s Defense of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone Is a Giant Gaslight This is how a cover up works. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/donald-trumps-defense-of-michael-flynn-and-roger-stone-is-a-giant-gaslight/ by Dan Friedman May 2, 2020 A full-on freakout on the right over the revelation that the FBI planned for the prospect that then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would lie in a January 2016 interview, has, inevitably, drawn in political operative Roger Stone. President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested he may pardon both Flynn and Stone, each of whom was found to have lied to federal investigators about the Trump Russia scandal. “What they did to Gen. Flynn, and by the way, to Roger Stone and to others, was a disaster and a disgrace, and it should never be allowed to happen in this country again,” Trump said when asked about pardoning Flynn. Notably, Trump and his backers, by and large, are not saying that Flynn and Stone didn’t lie to federal investigators. Instead they are implying that lying to investigators doesn’t matter. Trump and his backers start with the premise that the Trump-Russia scandal was a “hoax,” a claim premised on the failure of special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional Democrats to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. As a result, Trump and company say, the investigations into their conduct were unfair, with any resulting perjury the product of overzealous prosecution. This is Trump’s fundamental gaslight. Flynn and Stone’s lies, and those of Trump himself, helped to prevent investigators from learning what really happened with the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, benefiting first and foremost Trump, who falsely proclaimed exoneration. In pardoning Stone and Flynn, the president would reward them for that service, and use the pandemic and the volume of his supporters to drown out anyone noting the con. The argument that Flynn and Stone were railroaded, long popular talking points on the right, got a boost Wednesday, when federal prosecutors in Flynn’s case disclosed handwritten notes that Bill Priestap, then the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, made prior to FBI agents interviewing Flynn at the White House in January 2016. The agents knew that Flynn had spoken in December 2016 to Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the US, about sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama on Russia, an apparent violation of the Logan Act. Preistap wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” “Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” While conservative pundits have treated these notes as smoking gun evidence that Flynn was framed, legal experts have noted that the FBI’s tactics with Flynn were not unusual. Federal agents often try to catch targets in situations where they will admit crimes or lie, opening themselves to prosecution. In a guilty plea, Flynn admitted to knowingly lying to the FBI agents. (He also said under oath that he did not believe the FBI entrapped him.) Flynn’s lawyers are trying to switch his plea to not guilty, and are also asking for the case to be thrown out. The judge overseeing the case has not ruled on those requests. Trump has also seized on arguments by Stone’s lawyers that the self-described dirty trickster was unjustly convicted because the forewoman of the DC jury in social media posts criticized Trump; the judge in the case rejected this argument. Stone and Flynn’s lies were part of a pattern. Mueller’s report, despite its muddled conclusions, indisputably revealed that the president and his advisers reacted to revelations of the campaign’s ties to Russia with epic dishonesty. Some lies were public: Trump claimed to have no business in Russia. In fact, at the time his employees were seeking Kremlin help advancing a Trump-branded project there. Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said in November 2016 that “there was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.” Mueller noted more than 100 contacts by campaign with Russia alone. Along with Stone and Flynn, former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen and former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos went to prison for lying to federal agents or lawmakers. Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and campaign chairman Paul Manafort were found to have lied to investigators, among other crimes. The Justice Department said in February that it was looking into whether Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder and a Trump campaign adviser, lied to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 testimony. Reliable Trump boosters like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rush Limbaugh, and Alan Dershowitz have derided perjury charges as “process crimes,” implying these were charges prosecutors brought because they couldn’t find anything more serious. Mueller and his prosecutors, however, have repeatedly said that lies by Trump associates handicapped their efforts. “The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters,” Mueller wrote. “Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Trump was no passive observer of this. He actively encouraged associates to stonewall Mueller and Congress, dangling the prospect of pardons for aides who refused to cooperate. Mueller’s report examined 10 instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice to thwart the probe. Those include Trump pressuring then-FBI director James Comey to stop investigating Flynn in 2017. And one of Trump’s lawyers, John Dowd, left Flynn’s lawyer a voicemail in late 2017 suggesting Trump would remain supportive of Flynn if he did not give prosecutors evidence about Trump. (Dowd denies that this was an explicit offer of a pardon in exchange for silence. Trump himself refused to be interviewed by Mueller. And as Mother Jones has reported, the president appears to have lied in written answers he gave Mueller in which he claimed not to recall communications with Stone in 2016 about WikiLeaks. Testimony at Stone’s trial by Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon revealed that Trump spoke during the campaign with Stone about WikiLeaks, and that campaign officials viewed Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks. Flynn and Stone’s lawyers have argued that because prosecutors have not proved that their clients conspired with Russia, their lies to investigators should be set aside. “So much of this case deals with the question: So what?” Stone attorney Bruce Rogow said in his concluding remarks at Stone’s trial. Prosecutors and judges in those cases have repeatedly dismissed those claims. Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in sentencing Stone, spoke at length on the impact of Stone’s dishonesty, noting he thwarted a key part of the House’s Russia investigation. “His pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions,” she said, “to the very foundation of our democracy.” “He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president,” Jackson said. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted May 5, 2020 Share Posted May 5, 2020 2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: With your salty, convoluted rebuttals of the Flynn facts, you continue to live up to your nickname, "The Russian Pretzel." Your argument that Flynn simply failed to recall his December 29, 2016 phone call to Kisylak, and what was discussed, is ridiculous, as is your pretzel logic regarding Flynn's work for Kremlin-affiliated agencies since in 2015, and for the Erdogan government. Your pretzels don't pass the sniff test. How is my argument ridiculous when I am quoting directly from the FBI’s own record of the interview? How and why does this fail “to pass the sniff test”? I have established my understanding of these events using the primary documents. For the most part, you and others respond with partisan commentary which highlight partisan talking points which often contradict or seriously misrepresent these same primary documents. Please respond to the primary documents. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISYLAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISYLAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprical, or not to engage in a ‘tit-for-tat’. FLYNN responded “Not really. I don’t remember.” “The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISYLAK in which KISYLAK told him the Government of Russia had taken into account the incoming administration’s position about the expulsions, or where KISYLAK said the Government of Russia had responded, or chosen to modulate their response, in any way to the U.S.’s actions as a result of a request by the incoming administration. FLYNN stated it was possible that he talked to KISYLAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so.” It has also been established that, on their return to headquarters, the interviewing agents expressed the opinion that Flynn did not seem to be lying, and that his failure to remember details was a genuine expression of simply failing to remember. This opinion was also expressed at the time to DOJ officials. Obama DOJ officials privately told Mueller they were alarmed by FBI treatment of Flynn https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/yates-other-obama-doj-officials-sounded-alarm-about-fbis-treatment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2020 Share Posted May 5, 2020 Yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 6, 2020 Share Posted May 6, 2020 23 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: Way to contribute Ray. You have earned my respect. Anyone who claims that Michael Flynn "could not recall" his illegal December 29, 2016 phone call with Kisylak-- and their discussion about the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions against Russia-- is not worthy of respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted May 6, 2020 Share Posted May 6, 2020 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: Anyone who claims that Michael Flynn "could not recall" his illegal December 29, 2016 phone call with Kisylak-- and their discussion about the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions against Russia-- is not worthy of respect. Why do you say that? The person who “claimed” no recollection was Flynn himself. He was more equivocal than you allow. The phone call itself was not illegal nor inappropriate. This is all in the primary record. The FBI agents had all the transcripts and knew everything that had been discussed. They knew that nothing illegal or inappropriate had transpired. The content of the phone calls is still unavailable, and the FBI/Mueller descriptions of them may yet be shown to be skewed. The lame-duck Obama administration sanctions were designed to trigger reactions from both Russia and the Trump transition team. The expulsion of thirty-five diplomatic personnel, along with other harsh measures, was a hostile and punitive gesture without modern precedent. It was an act of sabotage directed at the publicly stated foreign policy intentions of an incoming administration who campaigned on the issue and won the election. The sanctions were premised on the concept that Russia had deliberately interfered with the 2016 election by obtaining Democratic Party emails and transferring them to Wikileaks. Both Russia and Wikileaks strenuously deny it was the case. Three and a half years later, the “Russia hacked” theory remains hotly contested and is nowhere near settled fact. So the Obama sanctions were imposed without investigation or conclusion, and stand as an act of petty vindictiveness intended to disrupt Trump’s transition team. That Flynn or someone else from the team would find it necessary to reassure the Russians that Trump’s policy intentions remained active was anticipated by the Obama team and advantage taken to leak information to the press (the one certain illegal act this matter produced) and create a “sanctions controversy” which soon got the incoming National Security Advisor removed. Russiagate is probably the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, and a sizeable portion of the population remain in utter denial of the facts based on partisan bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Berube Posted May 6, 2020 Share Posted May 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The sanctions were premised on the concept that Russia had deliberately interfered with the 2016 election by obtaining Democratic Party emails and transferring them to Wikileaks. Both Russia and Wikileaks strenuously deny it was the case. Three and a half years later, the “Russia hacked” theory remains hotly contested and is nowhere near settled fact. Hear, hear! This is especially obvious with the democratic (and republican) non reaction to the real election interference by Israel. It is now and always was a veneer. Until Seth Rich's murder is solved at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Two critical references documenting the 2016 Russian op to sabotage Hillary Clinton and put Donald Trump in the White House. 1) Key Findings from the Mueller Report https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ACS-CREW-Final-Mueller-Report-Highlights.7.19.pdf 2) Bipartisan Senate Intel report backs intelligence assessment of 2016 Russian interference https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-intelligence-committee-report-2016-russian-interference-assessment/?fbclid=IwAR2UByv2EF-tzXCwak9Nnosb9zN6qAin_g6q3OvoU_7AokCZYgOcxEPhBLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Rob, How can you continue to make these bogus Trump/Barr/GOP propaganda claims about the Mueller Report and the Steele Dossier when you haven't even read them? Bob Ness is right. It's a waste of time to discuss these issues with you and Jeff. You both persist in ignoring the data, while repeating your bogus Trump/GOP "talking points." I do agree with you about Rod Rosenstein's dubious handling of Trump's Russiagate chicanery-- especially after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG by that fateful, disastrous 53 GOP Senate vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Justice Department dropping the charges against Flynn https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/breaking-justice-department-dropping-criminal-case I can see the spinning heads of numerous bloggers and think tank senior fellows. waiting for the bitter recriminations... but the data dump last week clearly demonstrated an operation undertaken in absolute bad faith. The Lawfare blog (also Brookings) published last weekend a defence of FBI tactics which was jaw-dropping for its casual support of clear violations of due process. The use of federal power to criminalize political opponents is being exposed here, and there has been a significant effort to convince people that it was all legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 45 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: Justice Department dropping the charges against Flynn https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/breaking-justice-department-dropping-criminal-case I can see the spinning heads of numerous bloggers and think tank senior fellows. waiting for the bitter recriminations... but the data dump last week clearly demonstrated an operation undertaken in absolute bad faith. The Lawfare blog (also Brookings) published last weekend a defence of FBI tactics which was jaw-dropping for its casual support of clear violations of due process. The use of federal power to criminalize political opponents is being exposed here, and there has been a significant effort to convince people that it was all legit. Absolutely hysterical! Barr rides in to the rescue... what a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 It hinged on the "material" relevance of inconsistencies ("lies"). Both the FBI and the Mueller prosecutor who handled the indictment insisted that Flynn's misrecollection of discussions pertaining to Obama's sanctions and a UN Security Council vote were somehow material to an investigation of potential Russian election interference, and that his incomplete answers harmed the investigation. The belated revelation that an FBI team had conducted a fairly thorough review of Flynn's activity and gave an all-clear signal, only to be quickly overruled by Strzok under the apparent direction of senior FBI leadership broke this particular camel's back. Still important information not known publicly. McCabe has suggested that the Kisylak conversations only became known after the FBI team had cleared Flynn, thus prompting more review. But he qualified that by saying "known to FBI leadership". I suspect that the Kisylak conversations were in fact reviewed by the first FBI team. On what predicate did Strzok insist the Flynn file remain open? It is redacted, but I believe it will be revealed as the Logan Act. So - the FBI had conducted a thorough and complete review of Flynn and found no reason for suspicion. The closing on his file was overruled by others in FBI who, it has been established, carried a particular animus or partisan bias. They continued an investigation on Flynn based on an extremely flimsy pretext, interviewed him after deliberately by-passing established protocol, and then prosecuted him based on immaterial inconsistencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 41 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: It hinged on the "material" relevance of inconsistencies ("lies"). Both the FBI and the Mueller prosecutor who handled the indictment insisted that Flynn's misrecollection of discussions pertaining to Obama's sanctions and a UN Security Council vote were somehow material to an investigation of potential Russian election interference, and that his incomplete answers harmed the investigation. The belated revelation that an FBI team had conducted a fairly thorough review of Flynn's activity and gave an all-clear signal, only to be quickly overruled by Strzok under the apparent direction of senior FBI leadership broke this particular camel's back. Still important information not known publicly. McCabe has suggested that the Kisylak conversations only became known after the FBI team had cleared Flynn, thus prompting more review. But he qualified that by saying "known to FBI leadership". I suspect that the Kisylak conversations were in fact reviewed by the first FBI team. On what predicate did Strzok insist the Flynn file remain open? It is redacted, but I believe it will be revealed as the Logan Act. So - the FBI had conducted a thorough and complete review of Flynn and found no reason for suspicion. The closing on his file was overruled by others in FBI who, it has been established, carried a particular animus or partisan bias. They continued an investigation on Flynn based on an extremely flimsy pretext, interviewed him after deliberately by-passing established protocol, and then prosecuted him based on immaterial inconsistencies. Has Sullivan ruled yet? I can't find anything about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Bob Ness said: Absolutely hysterical! Barr rides in to the rescue... what a joke. It's outrageous, almost surreal... Crooked Bill Barr, GHWB's CIA-trained Iran-Contra-Pardoner and Trump's Russiagate Cover Up AG, creates a bogus pretext to drop charges against a paid foreign agent who pled guilty to lying to the FBI about violating the Logan Act. And the lead prosecutor in the case, apparently, resigned in disgust. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole crooked Trump/Barr cabal belongs in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: It's outrageous, almost surreal... Crooked Bill Barr, GHWB's CIA-trained Iran-Contra-Pardoner and Trump's Russiagate Cover Up AG, creates a bogus pretext to drop charges against a paid foreign agent who pled guilty to lying to the FBI about violating the Logan Act. And the lead prosecutor in the case, apparently, resigned in disgust. I'm not a lawyer, but the whole crooked Trump/Barr cabal belongs in prison. We'll see what Sullivan says... they're so crooked it's unbelievable. Hey W! Have you found out what Jeff's excuse is for the flying doctors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now