James DiEugenio Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) Grenell's point is interesting about Flynn. Who got NSA to give up the identities on the Flynn call and why? Especially since the inquiry was about to be closed. Edited May 12, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 38 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said: Now figure out how to post a link with a descriptive title instead of just a long URL and we're getting somewhere. I thought Steve had a pretty descriptive title with Disinfectant Don. Remember back a few weeks like the picture illustrates so well? Go ahead Beto, grab a couple or three bottles from under the sink or the cleaning closet. Mix a cocktail or several. You'll be virus proof. BTW, all you have to do is click on the long url's to get the Full story. Unlike reading your long distracting from the topic posts, usually with many links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 This is the best analysis of the Flynn dismissal I have read. They threatened his son, they buried the first draft of the 302, and they had a lawyer not at the interview finish it almost two weeks later. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/497064-why-dismiss-the-flynn-case-because-the-fbi-cant-prove-it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 The Flynn dismissal is in legal trouble. It's not about partisan politics but legal procedure because the Flynn dismissal document is defective. https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/michael-flynn-stunt-is-already-unraveling/28470/?fbclid=IwAR1KEzBi22C3x5isFA6nZLZj_IcIMo1eUUaSFdMxT3jjFztlByQZ-cIN3uI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I was wrong about the Schiff depositions, there were actually 57 of them, not 53. The number of denials that Ray McGovern and Patrick Lawrence and others have adduced from those depositions is kind of stunning. When asked directly about the evidence of collusion between the White House and Moscow and if they had seen any direct evidence of it, person after person says no, or if there was, I was not briefed on it. This includes Rice, Power, Clapper, Lynch. The worst might be the guy who ran Crowdstrike. McGovern's article on him should be read by everyone. HIs testimony indicates that it was a leak and not a hack. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/05/09/ray-mcgovern-new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc/ To think that the media spent over two years on this pile of bird droppings. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: They threatened his son, they buried the first draft of the 302, and they had a lawyer not at the interview finish it almost two weeks later. For those Mike Flynn moments, when you've just gotta beat an FBI 302: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Dave: The FBI guys did not tell Flynn about 1001. But further, most of the time, its one guy who does the interview, one guy takes the notes. Neither one took notes. This is why the 302 is key. Usually the 302 is done within five days. This one took almost two weeks and it was completed by Page, the lawyer, who was not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Dave: The FBI guys did not tell Flynn about 1001. But further, most of the time, its one guy who does the interview, one guy takes the notes. Neither one took notes. This is why the 302 is key. Usually the 302 is done within five days. This one took almost two weeks and it was completed by Page, the lawyer, who was not there. I can read, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: I was wrong about the Schiff depositions, there were actually 57 of them, not 53. The number of denials that Ray McGovern and Patrick Lawrence and others have adduced from those depositions is kind of stunning. When asked directly about the evidence of collusion between the White House and Moscow and if they had seen any direct evidence of it, person after person says no, or if there was, I was not briefed on it. There are two definitions of the word “collusion”: “secret cooperation” and “criminal conspiracy.” “Collusion” is not a legal term of art. Was there criminal conspiracy in RussiaGate? Mueller said he couldn’t prove criminal conspiracy given the stonewalling of witnesses and documents by Trump. Was there secret cooperation between Trump operatives and Russian state actors? The top Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — passed internal polling to a long-time Russian operative, Konstantin Kilimnik. At one meeting they all took separate exits. That’s secret cooperation. The infamous Trump Tower meeting was initiated with an e-mail: Re: Russia -Clinton — private and.confidential That’s the operative definition of secret cooperation! 34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: There are two definitions of the word “collusion”: “secret cooperation” and “criminal conspiracy.” “Collusion” is not a legal term of art. Was there criminal conspiracy in RussiaGate? Mueller said he couldn’t prove criminal conspiracy given the stonewalling of witnesses and documents by Trump. Was there secret cooperation between Trump operatives and Russian state actors? The top Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — passed internal polling to a long-time Russian operative, Konstantin Kilimnik. At one meeting they all took separate exits. That’s secret cooperation. The infamous Trump Tower meeting was initiated with an e-mail: Re: Russia -Clinton — private and.confidential That’s the operative definition of secret cooperation! Then we have the contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russians. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/427082-trump-and-associates-had-over-100-contacts-with-russians-before-taking How many Trumpers lied about their contacts with Russians? Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Kushner, Gates, Sessions, Papadop, Prince. It's intellectually dishonest to use only one definition of a word that has no force in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: The worst might be the guy who ran Crowdstrike. McGovern's article on him should be read by everyone. HIs testimony indicates that it was a leak and not a hack. That’s a stretch. Quote https://consortiumnews.com/2020/05/09/ray-mcgovern-new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc/ Here’s the money quote: Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made. In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.” Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike’s “belief” that Russia hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the — what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.” Quote To think that the media spent over two years on this pile of bird droppings. Wow. We know that Seth Rich had nothing to do with any of this. How do we know this as a fact? Because Julian Assange brought up the name Seth Rich, unprompted. There’s no way Assange names his source. No way Edited May 13, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, David Andrews said: I can read, OK? Excuse me Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 In rereading that fine article--and i advise everyone to do so--I see I made a mistake. It did not take two weeks to finish up the 302. It actually took a day over three weeks. And it went through the hands of maybe as many as five people. When, in fact, only two people were at the interview. And no one has seen the various drafts leading up to it and the FBI did not even want to give up the last draft. In other words, at any perjury trial, Sidney Powell would have had a laugh riot in front of a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: In rereading that fine article--and i advise everyone to do so--I see I made a mistake. It did not take two weeks to finish up the 302. It actually took a day over three weeks. And it went through the hands of maybe as many as five people. When, in fact, only two people were at the interview. And no one has seen the various drafts leading up to it and the FBI did not even want to give up the last draft. In other words, at any perjury trial, Sidney Powell would have had a laugh riot in front of a jury. And yet Flynn twice pleaded guilty of lying and had to sit through the judge taking a huge dump on him for his actions. Team Fascist is trying to get Flynn off on a technicality that 2000 former prosecutors don’t buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 This gets worse. I just found out the probable reason that Flynn fired his law firm, and replaced them with Powell. Mueller made the agreement not to prosecute Flynn's son behind his back with Covington and Burling. C and B agreed to this. And they did not tell their client. They then failed to include this silent agreement in the court filing. Which is a violation of precedent, its called the Giglio case. Sydney Powell also uncovered this. So it appears that not only did Mueller violate Brady, that is the precedent that says one must disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence the prosecution has, but they also violated Giglio. Read about it here if you don't believe me. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/495366-something-seems-rotten-in-flynns-case-and-maybe-others-too This is getting worse all the time. And I have not even gotten to the big meeting at the White House. With the outraged Sally Yates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts