Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,730,613 Views | 49406 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Garrelli 5000
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ProgN • 4:56p, 4/30/20
Prognightmare said:
Listening to Sidney just now on Hannity, without saying it, I get the impression that Durham is zeroing in on Brennan.

I hope they indict that sorry SOB.
Above all the others, Brennan is the one who needs to be behind bars.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
17
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 4:57p, 4/30/20
Carolin_Gallego said:

Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?
Not really relevant. He plead guilty on advice of counsel to save his son from prosecution, with the understanding he would be pardoned/minimal sentence. No one contested anything...until Judge Sullivan blew up & said he was guilty of treason, & then the ball game changed, including Flynn firing his counsel (Covington & Burling) & hiring Sydney Powell.
Reply Quote
12
ProgN
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to drcrinum • 5:05p, 4/30/20
drcrinum said:
Carolin_Gallego said:

Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?
Not really relevant. He plead guilty on advice of counsel to save his son from prosecution, with the understanding he would be pardoned/minimal sentence. No one contested anything...until Judge Sullivan blew up & said he was guilty of treason, & then the ball game changed, including Flynn firing his counsel (Covington & Burling) & hiring Sydney Powell.
I'm not an attorney, but I've been nothing but impressed with Sydney Powell every time I hear her being interviewed.
Reply Quote
4
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 5:05p, 4/30/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
WatchOle said:
Do we know the actual verbiage of Flynn's supposed lie? Is there a transcript of his interview with the FBI? My understanding was that the agents that interviewed him thought - at the time - that while Flynn might have answered inaccurately, they thought he was trying to be truthful.

Per the FD-302 report summarizing the FBI's interview,
Quote:
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a "tit-for-tat." FLYNN responded, "Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
Of course, that's not the original 302. That's the 302 Mccabe approved of. The original is "missing."
Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?


Flynn submitted an affidavit in which he says he didn't lie to the FBI agents.

What he told the VP has nothing to do with the charges against him.
Reply Quote
5
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SeMgCo87 • 5:08p, 4/30/20
SeMgCo87 said:
richardag said:
benchmark said:
aggiehawg said:
But in terms of leaking the Flynn/Kislyak call to the press, DOJ doesn't seem inclined to enforce those laws since James Wolfe was caught red handed with leaking an even higher classified document, a FISA application and he got off.
On Wolfe, one has to wonder. He struck a plea deal after his lawyers notified every SSCI senator they may be called to testify in his criminal trial. House of cards.
Could you explain further? Are you
saying there could be criminal referrals against SSCI senators being considered? Or the SSCI senators were being protected by corrupt DOJ personnel?
Pardon my ignorance.
I think it was the threat of them being called as witnesses in a trial...which, obviously, COULD besmirch their Senate "careers", but if divulged facts/evidence can implicate them, it's even more of a mess because then the ugly heads Impeachment pop up like whack-a-mole.

Not for WARNER obviously, he of the pristine Democrat heritage, but for Burr and 7 other Republicans...
Thank you for the response. Some how my mind wandered and began thinking Wolfe could have been flipped and had become a cooperating witness against the other corrupt Senators and others involved.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VegasAg86 • 5:11p, 4/30/20
AG
VegasAg86 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
WatchOle said:
Do we know the actual verbiage of Flynn's supposed lie? Is there a transcript of his interview with the FBI? My understanding was that the agents that interviewed him thought - at the time - that while Flynn might have answered inaccurately, they thought he was trying to be truthful.

Per the FD-302 report summarizing the FBI's interview,
Quote:
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a "tit-for-tat." FLYNN responded, "Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
Of course, that's not the original 302. That's the 302 Mccabe approved of. The original is "missing."
Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?


Flynn submitted an affidavit in which he says he didn't lie to the FBI agents.

What he told the VP has nothing to do with the charges against him.
And Pence was asked about Flynn today and said given what he knows now, he doesn't think Flynn was intentionally misleading to him either. Just saw that on The Five.
Reply Quote
11
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VegasAg86 • 5:15p, 4/30/20
VegasAg86 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
WatchOle said:
Do we know the actual verbiage of Flynn's supposed lie? Is there a transcript of his interview with the FBI? My understanding was that the agents that interviewed him thought - at the time - that while Flynn might have answered inaccurately, they thought he was trying to be truthful.

Per the FD-302 report summarizing the FBI's interview,
Quote:
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a "tit-for-tat." FLYNN responded, "Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
Of course, that's not the original 302. That's the 302 Mccabe approved of. The original is "missing."
Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?


Flynn submitted an affidavit in which he says he didn't lie to the FBI agents.

What he told the VP has nothing to do with the charges against him.

Yes, in that affidavit he said,
Quote:
I still don't remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak nor do I remember if we discussed details of a UN vote on Israel.
His current position does not contradict the statements documented in the 302.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
1
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:32p, 4/30/20
Reply Quote
3
ProgN
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:36p, 4/30/20
Reply Quote
13
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:38p, 4/30/20
AG
Well that just sucks! If it is a consent motion, that doesn't take judicial resources other than the time it takes Sullivan to sign the order attached to every motion. What a crock!
Reply Quote
7
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 5:51p, 4/30/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
VegasAg86 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Of course, that's not the original 302. That's the 302 Mccabe approved of. The original is "missing."
Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?


Flynn submitted an affidavit in which he says he didn't lie to the FBI agents.

What he told the VP has nothing to do with the charges against him.

Yes, in that affidavit he said,
Quote:
I still don't remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak nor do I remember if we discussed details of a UN vote on Israel.
His current position does not contradict the statements documented in the 302.
If by documented, you mean edited until McCabe approved of it, sure.
Reply Quote
1
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VegasAg86 • 5:58p, 4/30/20
VegasAg86 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
VegasAg86 said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Of course, that's not the original 302. That's the 302 Mccabe approved of. The original is "missing."
Okay, but has Flynn contested that particular quote? Or the one were he lied to the VP about the same topic?


Flynn submitted an affidavit in which he says he didn't lie to the FBI agents.

What he told the VP has nothing to do with the charges against him.

Yes, in that affidavit he said,
Quote:
I still don't remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak nor do I remember if we discussed details of a UN vote on Israel.
His current position does not contradict the statements documented in the 302.
If by documented, you mean edited until McCabe approved of it, sure.
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
akm91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VegasAg86 • 6:01p, 4/30/20
AG
Just ignore the troll that's been around a month.
Reply Quote
10
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 6:03p, 4/30/20
AG
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview is a massive problem??
Reply Quote
23
1 edit
benchmark
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to richardag • 6:05p, 4/30/20
AG
richardag said:
benchmark said:
On Wolfe, one has to wonder. He struck a plea deal after his lawyers notified every SSCI senator they may be called to testify in his criminal trial. House of cards.
Could you explain further? Are you saying there could be criminal referrals against SSCI senators being considered? Or the SSCI senators were being protected by corrupt DOJ personnel? Pardon my ignorance.
Wild ass guess ... prosecution knew it would open a can or worms if SSCI Senators were cross examined ... CIPA or no CIPA. Leaks almost guaranteed. Not the hill DOJ wanted to die on ... hence the plea.
Reply Quote
Carolin_Gallego
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:10p, 4/30/20
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview??
Not in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flynn is saying he doesn't remember, as documented in the 302, and the Feds are saying that's a lie. The facts presented in the 302 are not being contested by Flynn.
We believe progress is made through MORE discussion, not LESS, and we believe that to be true even if the topics are uncomfortable and we occasionally disagree with one another. - TexAgs
The name-calling technique making false associations is a child's game. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject a person and their argument on this false basis.
Reply Quote
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to akm91 • 6:14p, 4/30/20
AG
akm91 said:
Just ignore the troll that's been around a month.

As long as someone replies to him, he'll keep trolling.
Reply Quote
8
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to benchmark • 6:18p, 4/30/20
AG
Quote:
Wild ass guess ... prosecution knew it would open a can or worms if SSCI Senators were cross examined ... CIPA or no CIPA. Leaks almost guaranteed. Not the hill DOJ wanted to die on ... hence the plea.
Swamp protects itself. But they know they will be protected so there is no dissuasion nor deterrent for bad conduct.

I'm of an age where I remember ABSCAM where the FBI actually went after crooked members of the House of Representatives for bribery among other things.

If Wolfe's attorneys threatened to call Senators, they could move to quash the subpoenas or take the 5th. Their choice.
Reply Quote
8
EKUAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 6:18p, 4/30/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview??
Not in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flynn is saying he doesn't remember, as documented in the 302, and the Feds are saying that's a lie. The facts presented in the 302 are not being contested by Flynn.


The 302 was doctored. But you don't care about that.
Maroon and White always! EKU/TAMU
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 6:19p, 4/30/20
AG
Carolin_Gallego said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview??
Not in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flynn is saying he doesn't remember, as documented in the 302, and the Feds are saying that's a lie. The facts presented in the 302 are not being contested by Flynn.
You are wrong but I'm done with you.

Have a pleasant evening.
Reply Quote
18
EKUAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26p, 4/30/20
AG
The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he didn't lie. Lisa Page directed the modifications to the 302 that got used as evidence. No one can produce the original 302 done by the agents.
Maroon and White always! EKU/TAMU
Reply Quote
14
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 6:27p, 4/30/20
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EKUAg • 6:29p, 4/30/20
EKUAg said:
The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he didn't lie. Lisa Page directed the modifications to the 302 that got used as evidence. No one can produce the original 302 done by the agents.


Am I mistaken that it didn't hit the system, or was "draft" for a month(or more) while Lisa Page made corrections to it?
Reply Quote
2
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:34p, 4/30/20
Just a reminder, lib trolling of this thread is not allowed by the mods.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
11
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:34p, 4/30/20
AG
will25u said:
EKUAg said:
The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn said he didn't lie. Lisa Page directed the modifications to the 302 that got used as evidence. No one can produce the original 302 done by the agents.


Am I mistaken that it didn't hit the system, or was "draft" for a month(or more) while Lisa Page made corrections to it?
Text messages reveal that McCabe was the editor and his approval was required before entry to Sentinel, the computer system the FBI uses.

Those texts were between the love birds. But even the McCabe "approved" 302 hasn't been produced, that I have seen. Only an early August 2017 302 by Strzok that I have seen.

Reply Quote
10
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:45p, 4/30/20
Reply Quote
8
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Carolin_Gallego • 6:46p, 4/30/20
Carolin_Gallego said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview??
Not in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flynn is saying he doesn't remember, as documented in the 302, and the Feds are saying that's a lie. The facts presented in the 302 are not being contested by Flynn.
Flynn was ambushed. Of course he doesn't remember specifically. He was deliberately caught off guard by all of it. And now we know the 302s were changed, evidence was withheld, and he committed no crimes. It's time for the hunters to become the hunted.
Reply Quote
11
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:47p, 4/30/20
AG
Is Sullivan fixin to throw a hissy?
Reply Quote
2
Claverack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 6:55p, 4/30/20
Ellis Wyatt said:
Carolin_Gallego said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Does Flynn dispute the facts documented in the 302? If Flynn does not, and the affidavit makes no mention of it, I don't see how the editing is relevant to the argument.
Really? You don't see how a person who was not even present at the interview being able to edit the only record of that interview??
Not in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Flynn is saying he doesn't remember, as documented in the 302, and the Feds are saying that's a lie. The facts presented in the 302 are not being contested by Flynn.
Flynn was ambushed. Of course he doesn't remember specifically. He was deliberately caught off guard by all of it. And now we know the 302s were changed, evidence was withheld, and he committed no crimes. It's time for the hunters to become the hunted.
The FBI was going to close this case...until Stzroker Ace inserted himself into the process.

What took place between 01/04/17 and 01/24/17 that changed a routine closure of an investigation into an multi-faceted entrapment project ending with the standard Team Mueller legal lynching?

And what was changed to facilitate that process?



Reply Quote
12
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 4/30/20
Reply Quote
9
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:06p, 4/30/20
AG
From Dan Bongino (who is interviewing Trump on his YouTube/podcast tomorrow):

Law enforcement doesn't investigate citizens in an effort to find crimes against them, and "police-state liberals" need to understand that, Bongino tweeted:
Quote:
"I spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. We investigate crimes in search of the people who committed them. We DO NOT investigate people in search of crimes to charge them with. I wish police-state liberals were able to understand this."
But, liberals' defensive response to the mounting evidence of FBI maleficence "is all the proof you need" that they are "dangerous Soviet-style tyrants" so, Americans shouldn't be surprised they'd support police-state tactics to achieve their political goals, Bongino wrote in separate posts:
Quote:
"The Flynn case, and the liberal response, is all the proof you need that liberals are police-state supporting tyrants who would destroy you and your family in a moment if you step on their tyrannical goals. They're dangerous Soviet-style tyrants, nothing more."
....
"Of course liberals are siding with police-state tyranny and FBI political targeting. Why would anyone be surprised? Liberals are Soviets and they're ALWAYS on the wrong side of civil liberties. They hate civil liberties & anyone paying attention knows it. Liberalism is a cancer."
Thus, Bongino added, it's no use presenting liberals with evidence, because they are driven by emotion and an unprincipled quest for power:
Quote:
"It's a waste of time to argue with liberals about the exploding Flynn/FBI scandal, or the Biden sexual assault allegations, because liberals have NO principles. They don't care. Not one bit. They're Soviet-style police-state supporters who will do, or say, anything to hold power."
Reply Quote
11
ProgN
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:09p, 4/30/20


Don't know the source.
Reply Quote
5
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:46p, 4/30/20


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/04/30/additional-11-pages-of-fbi-documents-unsealed-biggest-surprise-president-obama-implicated/

Sundance has again done some outstanding sleuthing regarding the recently released Flynn material. Dates are important; what we have just learned regarding Flynn occurred on January 4, 2017. Sundace provides additional relevant dates in his article as well.

Remember Susan Rice's memo to herself the day of Trump's inauguration, January 20, 2017? It's where Obama made the "by the book" statement. An important paragraph was fully redacted. See her letter along with a letter of inquiry Grassley sent to her on February 8, 2018, here:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-08%20CEG%20LG%20to%20Rice%20(Russia%20Investigation%20Email).pdf

Then, Rice responds via her attorney, Kathryn Ruemmler -- Obama's former White House Counsel, on February 23, 2018; see the letter embedded in this article here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-lawyer-responds-to-grassley-graham-on-2017-russia-meeting-2018-2

Here are the important parts in her response (Note the reference to Gen. Flynn -- that had to relate to the redacted paragraph -- Flynn is not mentioned otherwise):

Quote:
... The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation's security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.....


While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey's subsequent public testimony. Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office.....


Sundance's concluding remark:

Quote:
...How could Ms. Susan Rice be aware of a "national security compromise", "particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn" after a "briefing by the FBI", if she was "not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation"? With all of this information, these stories are falling apart.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14p, 4/30/20





Lokhova fills in the blanks of the redacted Flynn memo where Halper lied about her & Flynn; Halper wasn't even present at the event.
Reply Quote
6
Claverack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28p, 4/30/20
Well put together information from Kim Strassel based on what we knew and what we've just learned over the last couple of days...











Reply Quote
7
2 edits
First Page Last Page
Page 1065 of 1412 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.