Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

 

10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

But Flynn is not a mob boss or drug kingpin. He was the National Security Advisor for the president of the United States. He had been entirely cleared by a months long FBI investigation just weeks earlier

Glad you picked up on that Jeff! HE WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES! Exactly the point! He wasn't some mobster boosting trucks it was FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THE FBI that the clown could whisper Putin's sweet nothings into his ear whilst the Prez is playing with the "football"! Get it? He's supposed to be on our team! Not theirs! Glad you got that finally. That's exactly why when they found out he lied they had to continue!! Even if the justification was the Logan Act. It's legal and it's not unusual or illegal for investigators to use other lesser crimes to pursue other more serious issues. Not new! If that's all they came away with they'd probably pass on it but I'm sure he would have been fired for lying. He's the National Security Advisor to the prez!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

In this DRAFT document, it clearly states without any ambiguity, that they are not closing it out in regards to further information that could come forth. This could be because he was lying to them! Whadya think? That's why "process crimes" are relevant. Either way this was a DRAFT document not the closing papers. The prosecutors didn't accept a draft plea.

A review of Flynn’s prosecution for the DOJ by an appointed counsel had been underway since January.  This is from the Motion To Dismiss:

The Government has concluded that the interview of Mr Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” -end quote

The conclusions reflect that the FBI’s intervention to keep the counterintelligence file open was predicated on the Logan Act, which was an entirely separate legal matter - i.e. investigating Flynn over possible Logan Act violations would require opening a criminal investigation, not piggy-backing onto a counter-intelligence investigation. This distinction is reflected in contemporaneous communications where it is noted the FBI is “morphing” its rationales between a criminal and counter-intelligence investigation. The draft memo describing the closing of Flynn’s counter-intelligence file would have revealed this distinction, and thereby greatly assist Flynn’s Defence.

This also relates to the finding that the alleged misrepresentations themselves had no material relevance to the counter-intelligence investigation - that is, inaccurate or not, Flynn’s conversations about sanctions and UN Security Council votes had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific predicates of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. (However, if Flynn had  in fact been pursued via the Logan Act, then they would have been relevant).  The Logan Act had no chance of success against Flynn, not only because it had never been used in 160 years and was believed to be unconstitutional, but also because he was, in his position as advisor to incoming president during a transition phase, not considered a “private citizen”. (Barr: “he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration.”)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Glad you picked up on that Jeff! HE WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES! Exactly the point! He wasn't some mobster boosting trucks it was FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THE FBI that the clown could whisper Putin's sweet nothings into his ear whilst the Prez is playing with the "football"! Get it? 

But clearly there was no ongoing effort to facilitate Putin exerting influence, certainly not on behalf of Flynn ("no derogatory information"). The transcripts of the phone calls were available - known to Obama even by January 5 - and they did not reveal an influence campaign or any quid pro quo. Nothing illegal or inappropriate occurred because of or during the phone calls.

It's also clear that the FBI could not, in fact, do whatever they wanted, let alone to members of the incoming elected government. This is part of the reason why McCabe and Comey, for example, are now themselves subject to investigation. The leak of classified information to WaPo's Ignatius re: the Kisylak/Flynn phone calls certainly puts one or both of these gentlemen in their own legal jeopardy, if they were responsible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

A review of Flynn’s prosecution for the DOJ by an appointed counsel had been underway since January.  This is from the Motion To Dismiss:

The Government has concluded that the interview of Mr Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” -end quote

The conclusions reflect that the FBI’s intervention to keep the counterintelligence file open was predicated on the Logan Act, which was an entirely separate legal matter - i.e. investigating Flynn over possible Logan Act violations would require opening a criminal investigation, not piggy-backing onto a counter-intelligence investigation. This distinction is reflected in contemporaneous communications where it is noted the FBI is “morphing” its rationales between a criminal and counter-intelligence investigation. The draft memo describing the closing of Flynn’s counter-intelligence file would have revealed this distinction, and thereby greatly assist Flynn’s Defence.

This also relates to the finding that the alleged misrepresentations themselves had no material relevance to the counter-intelligence investigation - that is, inaccurate or not, Flynn’s conversations about sanctions and UN Security Council votes had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific predicates of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. (However, if Flynn had  in fact been pursued via the Logan Act, then they would have been relevant).  The Logan Act had no chance of success against Flynn, not only because it had never been used in 160 years and was believed to be unconstitutional, but also because he was, in his position as advisor to incoming president during a transition phase, not considered a “private citizen”. (Barr: “he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration.”)

Yes. This is what the judge has already shut down. Here's their justification as part of a 951 investigation. Barr knows this and is trying to reframe it for idiots. IOW this is the janitor doing Trump's bidding and resulted in the resignation of Van Grack. He know's it's BS and the judge likely will also.

 

 

flynn-2.jpg

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Yes. This is what the judge has already shut down. Here's their justification as part of a 951 investigation. Barr knows this and is trying to reframe it for idiots. IOW this is the janitor doing Trump's bidding and resulted in the resignation of Van Grack. He know's it's BS and the judge likely will also.

What the Motion To Dismiss is saying is that the question of whether Flynn was “being directed and controlled” etc by the Russian Federation had already been settled by an FBI investigation team, and that the phone calls to Kisylak had legitimate purpose  and so had no relevance to the 951 investigation. The FBI were well aware of this, and so tried to create a predicate based on the Logan Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This also relates to the finding that the alleged misrepresentations themselves had no material relevance to the counter-intelligence investigation - that is, inaccurate or not, Flynn’s conversations about sanctions and UN Security Council votes had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific predicates of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. (However, if Flynn had  in fact been pursued via the Logan Act, then they would have been relevant).  The Logan Act had no chance of success against Flynn, not only because it had never been used in 160 years and was believed to be unconstitutional, but also because he was, in his position as advisor to incoming president during a transition phase, not considered a “private citizen”. (Barr: “he was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration.”)

The FBI is not limited to what they can investigate as long as it's within their authority and germane to their investigation. Considering the transcript apparently includes conversations with Kislyak saying Flynn specifically brought up changes to the Obama administration enacted sanctions as a response to Russia's interference (whether you think that's true or not) and was unknown prior to the PDB it strengthens their case that it should have remained open. It is well within their authority under several different statutes. After the discussions became public he was immediately fired for lying to Pence et al and this was confirmed by Trump. The motion to dismiss is a sham and the only signature on it is Shea's, no other prosecutor would get near this tripe.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

What the Motion To Dismiss is saying is that the question of whether Flynn was “being directed and controlled” etc by the Russian Federation had already been settled by an FBI investigation team, and that the phone calls to Kisylak had legitimate purpose  and so had no relevance to the 951 investigation. The FBI were well aware of this, and so tried to create a predicate based on the Logan Act.

That may be what it is saying but is not true. The case had not been closed. Flynn was his own worst enemy. I suspect now DOJ is covering for Trump directing Flynn to pitch the idea and he's getting rewarded for not saying anything (IMO). Whether they created a predicate with the Logan act or not it doesn't matter. Did you read the part where Flynn agreed with all of the charges the Prosecutors made? Just asking. Maybe you missed that.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

But clearly there was no ongoing effort to facilitate Putin exerting influence, certainly not on behalf of Flynn ("no derogatory information"). The transcripts of the phone calls were available - known to Obama even by January 5 - and they did not reveal an influence campaign or any quid pro quo. Nothing illegal or inappropriate occurred because of or during the phone calls.

It's also clear that the FBI could not, in fact, do whatever they wanted, let alone to members of the incoming elected government. This is part of the reason why McCabe and Comey, for example, are now themselves subject to investigation. The leak of classified information to WaPo's Ignatius re: the Kisylak/Flynn phone calls certainly puts one or both of these gentlemen in their own legal jeopardy, if they were responsible. 

Neither you or I know the exact content of the calls. If Flynn lied about them then Russia would certainly be able to leverage Flynn for that reason alone. The transcripts alarmed several ppl so I don't think they were as benign as you assume. If it were you or I nobody would care. If it's a General acting as an NSA to the president with a TS/SCI that is a different kettle of fish. Sullivan reviewed this issue at least once and put it aside. No dice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Neither you or I know the exact content of the calls. If Flynn lied about them then Russia would certainly be able to leverage Flynn for that reason alone. The transcripts alarmed several ppl so I don't think they were as benign as you assume. If it were you or I nobody would care. If it's a General acting as an NSA to the president with a TS/SCI that is a different kettle of fish. Sullivan reviewed this issue at least once and put it aside. No dice.

Flynn’s entreaties to Kisylak consisted of requesting that the Russian Federation not escalate its response to Obama’s punitive and unprecedented expulsion of 35 Russian diplomatic personnel,  a provocative action based on uncertain and unproven allegations of Russian coordination with Wikileaks. The terms of discussion, as featured in FBI 302, were “not to escalate the situation”, keep “response reciprocal”, and not engage in “tit-for-tat”.  It matters not who may have first broached the issue, as it was the singular major new event in relations between the two countries and was unavoidably a topic of conversation,  At the time of the phone call Flynn was apparently entirely unaware of the scope of the punitive action, as he had been effectively off-the-grid in the Dominican Republic. The FBI’s 302 on the interview confirms this, and establishes that Flynn was entirely equivocal on the issues which he later was subject to legal jeopardy. If you want to split hairs, which the prosecution of Flynn evidently did,  discussion of “sanctions” does not specifically occur, as the discussion as described is limited to the expulsion of diplomats.

As the exhibits attached to the Motion To Dismiss show, interested persons from the Obama administration expressed a heightened interest in monitoring the reaction of both Russia and the Trump transition team to the sanctions / expulsions and had in fact not only anticipated a harsh escalatory reaction but desired such reaction. Considering that the allegations of election interference still remain contested more than three years later, this only highlights the irresponsibility of the Obama administration’s reckless attempt to increase international friction for domestic political reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The FBI is not limited to what they can investigate as long as it's within their authority and germane to their investigation. Considering the transcript apparently includes conversations with Kislyak saying Flynn specifically brought up changes to the Obama administration enacted sanctions as a response to Russia's interference (whether you think that's true or not) and was unknown prior to the PDB it strengthens their case that it should have remained open. It is well within their authority under several different statutes. After the discussions became public he was immediately fired for lying to Pence et al and this was confirmed by Trump. The motion to dismiss is a sham and the only signature on it is Shea's, no other prosecutor would get near this tripe.

Your argument relies entirely on a portrayal of the FBI as good faith actors, but this position is undermined and contradicted by the timeline of events in January 2017:

January 4 - FBI Washington Field Office Crossfire Razor (Flynn) team announces closure of 4 1/2 month investigation due to lack of “derogatory information”. Within 20 minutes, Strzok responds with request to keep file open based on redacted predicate, probably Logan Act, based on Flynn-Kisylak intercepts. Notably, the Crossfire Razor team is from this point not involved with the counter-intelligence investigation, and Comey/McCabe/Strzok assume control.

January 5 - Comey meets with Obama and DOJ’s Yates to discuss Flynn. Comey refers to Logan Act.

January 12 - Flynn-Kisylak conversations leaked to Washington Post. Possible sources are limited to Obama, Yates of DOJ or her deputy, or Comey or his deputy McCabe of FBI. References in article to Logan Act indicates the source was FBI. This leak is directly responsible for media questions to VP Pence and presidential spokesperson Spence which are said to initiate renewed concern within DOJ and FBI over Flynn’s presumed compromised position.

Jan 13-23 - A debate ensues between the DOJ and FBI over procedure with informing the incoming Trump administration of  inconsistencies in the Flynn record. The FBI refuses to accede to established protocol, insisting on keeping Flynn in dark that he is subject to C/I investigation. The C/I investigation is at this point predicated on the Logan Act.

January 24 - The FBI openly defy the DOJ  and send agents to an interview arranged by McCabe, following his active discouragement of Flynn accessing counsel. Long established protocol held that the Flynn interview should have been arranged through White House Counsel. The interviewing agents engage a perjury trap as discussed and anticipated in FBI records from the two days previous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Didn't the judge in Michael Flynn's case directly reproach foreign agent Flynn for "selling out (his) country?"

As for Barr's absurd "case" for dropping the charges, Jeff's arguments get pancaked again... 🤥

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for Barr's absurd "case" for dropping the charges, Jeff's arguments get pancaked again... 🤥

The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-departments-faulty-arguments-flynn-case

 

The Kisylak-Flynn conversations were monitored and reviewed shortly after they happened. It is possible if not likely that the Crossfire Razor (Flynn) Field Office team reviewed these transcripts before closing the file after “no derogatory information” could be found (it was part of their mandate). Either that or the Field Office team was kept deliberately out of the loop for some reason. It is known that Obama administration officials consulted with FBI shortly after the Kislyak-Flynn calls specifically querying if a quid pro quo had been discussed and they were told “there was no deal”. This is one reason why the Logan Act predicate was soon introduced.

Susan McCord, the Asisistant Attorney-General at the time, later told interviewers that the prospective use of the Logan Act originated in the office of DNI James Clapper, “specifically proposed by ODNI’s general counsel Bob Litt.” So Clapper, perhaps Litt, can be added to the very short list of persons in position to initiate the illegal leak of the Flynn-Kisylak conversations to WaPo Ignatius. (note that Niederhut has twice shared Ignatius’ outraged op-ed regarding the withdrawal of charges - Ignatius was a willing co-conspirator in effort to take Flynn out).

Now Niederhut shares yet another partisan opinion piece which he is certain “pancakes” the oppositional position. From the Brookings Institute’s Lawfare blog we learn about “The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case”. This has to be the final word because the author, Robert Litt, was once the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Oh wait… Bob Litt was the guy who “specifically proposed” the use of the Logan Act while kicking around ideas on how to screw Flynn with James Clapper. That’s okay - surely he mentions that in a disclaimer… nope, no disclaimer.

Litt insists that the FBI at the time was “aware of extensive Russian interference in US politics”, but in fact all the FBI had at the time was the Steele Dossier. Flynn himself had been cleared after a 4 1/2 month thorough look-over. Litt’s own boss at the time, Clapper, would testify - also at that time - that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with he Russians to meddle with the election.”  Yet Litt, at the time, was actively participating in an effort to disrupt the incoming administration in general and remove the incoming National Security Advisor in particular.

And yet, according to mainstream opinion, what all Americans should be very very angry about is that Flynn misremembered phone calls about a UN Security Council vote on Israel while speaking to FBI agents during an ambush interview in January 2017. Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This just in...   Ouch, Jeff!   I hope your medical insurance covers gonadal injuries...   🤪

 

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.

The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.
 
 

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publi
 

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.  

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.

Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

 

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.

The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

Mary B. McCord, the former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice, is legal director for Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting law professor.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Game Chat (Star Wars) logs that Comey, McCabe, Strzok and others used to communicate to take out Flynn are being made public. 

Adam Entous at the Wapo was the first to get the leak that Flynn Spoke to Kilsyak.

Imagine that, the FBI / DOJ thought they wer being clever using a Gamebox and Gmail drafts. I guess they weren’t all that clever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Flynn’s entreaties to Kisylak consisted of requesting that the Russian Federation not escalate its response to Obama’s punitive and unprecedented expulsion of 35 Russian diplomatic personnel,  a provocative action based on uncertain and unproven allegations of Russian coordination with Wikileaks.

This is your opinion not the policy of the administration which is the important thing. I'm not going to go through this anymore. It's BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...