drcrinum said:

---

https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-flynn-transcripts.html#more

Quote:

---

...In the Flynn prosecution the actual false statements were made by the prosecutors, a prosecutorial technique spearheaded over preceding years by the likes of Mueller, Comey, and Weissmann....

.....
The DoJ is not merely "awaiting judgment." Sullivan's response to Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus directed to Sullivan is due Monday. DoJ was invited by the DC Circuit panel to submit its own response--and the DoJ spokeswoman has stated that there will be a response. What interests me is whether DoJ will reference these now released Flynn Transcripts. Will they point out that these transcripts, which give the lie to Team Mueller's own false statements, were withheld from the Flynn defense team by Sullivan?

Here we have the spectacle of a "judge" enlisting outside counsel in an attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of false statements made, not by the defendant, but by the prosecution. Was there any reason that Sullivan could not have demanded to see those Flynn Transcripts? No. This should prove shocking to the Court of Appeals.....

---

Good overview on the significance of the Flynn transcripts. Now, will the DOJ address this issue as well? My guess is that is exactly why the transcripts were released before June 1.

---

Sullivan needs to be ****ting his pants

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/30/boom-dana-boente-removed-fbi-chief-legal-counsel-forced-to-resign/

Sundance's take on the firing of Boente -- good read.

Wray obviously needs to go, but maybe it's better not to fire him until after the Election. Instead, make him suffer the embarrassments that are continually being directed at him. Everybody knows that he's a Deep State, Swamp protector, & now that he is becoming more and more isolated, his authority and influence are close to the ignore level.

Rapier108 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

...Fox News host Lou Dobbs said on April 27 that, "Shocking new reports suggest F.B.I. General Counsel Dana Boente day was acting in coordination with F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray to block the release of that evidence that would have cleared General Flynn."...

---

Another black hat gone.

---

And the media is blaming Fox News for him being fired.

---

Of course, and the analogy......blaming a fork for making you fat.

That is how illogical and ridiculous the msm is and does not appear to be the interested in contrition regarding the narrative they were fed and pushed on Lt Gen Flynn.

benchmark said:

---

Pretty much sums it up ...

John Solomon: Declassified transcripts add to evidence that FBI had no legal basis to interview Michael Flynn

Quote:

---

The long-awaited release of the transcripts by new Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe adds to a growing body of evidence that shows the FBI had no basis to interview Flynn, a retired general, in January 2014 or to continue investigating him at the start of the Trump presidency, experts told Just the News.

"Bottom line: the phone call was a foreign policy discussion on behalf of an incoming president. It is of zero counter intelligence interest or any legitimate concern for the FBI," former FBI assistant director for intelligence Kevin Brock said.

"The fact that Flynn later misrepresented to the VP [Mike Pence] what he said about sanctions during the call is immaterial to the question of whether the FBI had any legal right to interview him in the first place," he added. "It appears that the FBI interviewed Flynn because he signaled that the new administration might go in a different policy direction than the outgoing administration. That is not the FBI's role."

---

---

We've gone past "was it right to interview him" and reached "they have no business asking these questions".

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1266760889887158277.html

This is an absolutely fascinating thread. Everyone has been overlooking the significance of the key segment in the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, something which even the FBI, DOJ/Yates & Team Mueller did not comprehend at the time as it figured in activities outside their realm. (Obama/Brennan & their key aides knew though.) Everyone interpreted Obama's 'sanctions' as symbolic because they involved Russian military (GRU) figures with no US assets (in contrast to the expulsions); however, there was a hidden purpose of these 'sanctions' about which few were aware. This all goes back to something poorly understood by the public: Obama's policies regarding ISIS & his arming of 'rebels' in Syria, a point of major contention between Obama & Flynn when he was Obama's head of the DIA. The 'sanctions' that Obama imposed upon Russia were specifically directed at the leadership of the GRU, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces. Flynn was keen on eliminating ISIS from Syria & wanted to work with Russia in this regard when he became Trump's NSA -- as discussed in the Kislyak calls. Flynn's counterpart to work together against ISIS though was the GRU. Obama's 'sanctions' were intended to sabotage Flynn's ability to work with the GRU. After Flynn became NSA, he eventually would have discovered that the DNC server hack attributed to members of the GRU was totally bogus...& Obama & his accomplices would have been exposed. Until Flynn discovered the latter though, just imagine if he had attempted to work with the GRU against ISIS -- he would have been breaking US 'sanctions', which would have been a mess unless Trump cancelled Obama's 'sanctions', another mess in the face of the prevailing Muh Russia narrative.

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

Quote:

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

---

Crossfire Razor was opened in August of 2016. The Kislyak calls were in late December.

The expulsions were the sanctions.

I can see it in the Jumbo Stmt thread.

VegasAg86 said:

---

richardag said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1266760889887158277.html

This is an absolutely fascinating thread. Everyone has been overlooking the significance of the key segment in the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, something which even the FBI, DOJ/Yates & Team Mueller did not comprehend at the time as it figured in activities outside their realm. (Obama/Brennan & their key aides knew though.) Everyone interpreted Obama's 'sanctions' as symbolic because they involved Russian military (GRU) figures with no US assets (in contrast to the expulsions); however, there was a hidden purpose of these 'sanctions' about which few were aware. This all goes back to something poorly understood by the public: Obama's policies regarding ISIS & his arming of 'rebels' in Syria, a point of major contention between Obama & Flynn when he was Obama's head of the DIA. The 'sanctions' that Obama imposed upon Russia were specifically directed at the leadership of the GRU, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces. Flynn was keen on eliminating ISIS from Syria & wanted to work with Russia in this regard when he became Trump's NSA -- as discussed in the Kislyak calls. Flynn's counterpart to work together against ISIS though was the GRU. Obama's 'sanctions' were intended to sabotage Flynn's ability to work with the GRU. After Flynn became NSA, he eventually would have discovered that the DNC server hack attributed to members of the GRU was totally bogus...& Obama & his accomplices would have been exposed. Until Flynn discovered the latter though, just imagine if he had attempted to work with the GRU against ISIS -- he would have been breaking US 'sanctions', which would have been a mess unless Trump cancelled Obama's 'sanctions', another mess in the face of the prevailing Muh Russia narrative.

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

---

Crossfire Razor was opened in August of 2016. The Kislyak calls were in late December.

The expulsions were the sanctions.

---

There were financial ones on the GRU. They were helping with......
ISIS.

richardag said:

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

---

Different time frame & purpose. Crossfire Hurricane began July 31, 2016 as a counterintelligence investigation reputedly related to Russian collusion/potential interference regarding the upcoming 2016 Election; the initial purpose behind this investigation was to prevent Trump from being elected, although later it expanded to include potential options for the possibility Trump won the Election. Crossfire Razor (CR) was the individual counterintelligence investigation on Flynn that was part of Crossfire Hurricane. CR was in the process of being closed down in late December 2016 as nothing was found on Flynn, this being after the Election. Post Election, though, Flynn represented a major threat to The SpyGate plotters since as NSA, he would soon learn about the illegal spying on the Trump Campaign which had now morphed into taking out Trump as well, not to mention the shenanigans related to Obama's Iran deal, the Iraq pullout & the ISIS mess. So to take out Flynn, the Kislyak call became a means to pursue the Logan Act as well as the FBI perjury/lying trick, & in the background was the Turkey FARA issue.

Flynn never mentioned 'sanctions' in either the December 23 or the December 29, 2016 telecoms with Kislyak; he only spoke about 'expulsions' which were separate from the 'sanctions'. Kislyak only mentioned 'sanctions' in that the latter applied to leaders of the GRU who would be the individuals whom Flynn would be communicating with should the US & Russia form a combined front to pursue ISIS in Syria. Also, even in the edited F302 on Flynn from February 2017, 'sanctions' were never mentioned, only 'expulsions'. This is in sharp contrast to the Mueller Team complaint against Flynn wherein 'sanctions' were prominently mentioned.

That is what I figured.

YGTBFKM

benchmark said:

---

Pretty much sums it up ...

John Solomon: Declassified transcripts add to evidence that FBI had no legal basis to interview Michael Flynn

Quote:

---

The long-awaited release of the transcripts by new Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe adds to a growing body of evidence that shows the FBI had no basis to interview Flynn, a retired general, in January 2014 or to continue investigating him at the start of the Trump presidency, experts told Just the News.

"Bottom line: the phone call was a foreign policy discussion on behalf of an incoming president. It is of zero counter intelligence interest or any legitimate concern for the FBI," former FBI assistant director for intelligence Kevin Brock said.

"The fact that Flynn later misrepresented to the VP [Mike Pence] what he said about sanctions during the call is immaterial to the question of whether the FBI had any legal right to interview him in the first place," he added. "It appears that the FBI interviewed Flynn because he signaled that the new administration might go in a different policy direction than the outgoing administration. That is not the FBI's role."

---

---

Did Flynn lie to Pence or did he tell the truth and that didn't align with potentially altered transcripts that Pence was briefed on regarding the conversation? I'm not saying this happened but so much wrong was done to Flynn in all of this.

4stringAg said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Pretty much sums it up ...

John Solomon: Declassified transcripts add to evidence that FBI had no legal basis to interview Michael Flynn

Quote:

---

The long-awaited release of the transcripts by new Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe adds to a growing body of evidence that shows the FBI had no basis to interview Flynn, a retired general, in January 2014 or to continue investigating him at the start of the Trump presidency, experts told Just the News.

"Bottom line: the phone call was a foreign policy discussion on behalf of an incoming president. It is of zero counter intelligence interest or any legitimate concern for the FBI," former FBI assistant director for intelligence Kevin Brock said.

"The fact that Flynn later misrepresented to the VP [Mike Pence] what he said about sanctions during the call is immaterial to the question of whether the FBI had any legal right to interview him in the first place," he added. "It appears that the FBI interviewed Flynn because he signaled that the new administration might go in a different policy direction than the outgoing administration. That is not the FBI's role."

---

---

Did Flynn lie to Pence or did he tell the truth and that didn't align with potentially altered transcripts that Pence was briefed on regarding the conversation? I'm not saying this happened but so much wrong was done to Flynn in all of this.

---

That is an excellent question. Most definitely need to address this for a full exoneration of Lt Gen Flynn.

will25u said:

---

---

C'mon Adam, and I say that as he's usually pretty good. Possibly accountable?

Quote:

---

To understand the background, specifically as it pertains to why AG Barr had to make this move now, is complex. A sequence of previous articles that CTH presented in/around the Dana Boente issue(s) have merged within this decision.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

-June 2019 Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].
-April 24, 2020 Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents. AG Bill Bar intervenes. This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]
-April 26, 2020 CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid. The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious, and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO's that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that's the final straw? Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting "spygate" and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon. Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller's team reported to Boente, including David Archey.

Dana Boente is enmeshed in all of it: the Wolfe case and cover-up, the Assange case and cover-up, and the hiding of documents in the Flynn case and cover-up. Boente's role as a manipulative fixer to protect the ongoing corrupt action of the Mueller probe was exactly why FBI Director Chris Wray hired him.

Taking out Boente now exposes the complicit nature of FBI Director Chris Wray; who, it appears, AG Bill Barr is being forced -by new discoveries- to leave Wray naked to his enemies.

In a June 2019 interview Nunes said "someone at the FBI" appears to have been "determined to hide" then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec's notes from both the FISA court and Congress. Our research identified that "someone" as Dana Boente a year before the Nunes remarks.

If you followed closely, and accept that Rosenstein was part of the problem, then you see how FBI Director Christopher Wray came into office; and, more importantly how/why Wray selected former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente to shift from main justice to be legal counsel for the FBI.

Boente took over for former chief legal counsel James Baker, after the discoveries around Baker and McCabe could no longer be hidden. After being removed from responsibility eventually Baker resigned and went to work with the Lawfare group. Boente's job at FBI was/is to bury information, block congressional inquiry, and protect the crew.

---

Zemira said:

---

Hmm. Looks like Wray will hopefully be out of a job soon.

Do we know anyone who might be looking for a job? Someone for just a 3 month stint as acting Director to start clearing the **** out? And then the Senate might be desperate to get anyone else in the role considering he might have just come off a job as the acting Director of National Intelligence and might know some doors to open and files that need to be uncovered to expose the snakes?

---

After firing someone like Comey you'd think Trump would have made sure Comey was replaced with someone who could reform the FBI. Hiring Wray makes no sense. How did that happen? After the election is probably when a change will be made. Hopefully it's a good one this time.

Quote:

---

After firing someone like Comey you'd think Trump would have made sure Comey was replaced with someone who could reform the FBI. Hiring Wray makes no sense. How did that happen? After the election is probably when a change will be made. Hopefully it's a good one this time.

---

If the Senate committee questions Wray, and Wray is caught lying about his role in the coverup of Flynn's exculpatory documents, Trump will have no choice but to fire him.

Graham probably won't call him as a witness, though.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Quote:

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

---

Crossfire Razor was opened in August of 2016. The Kislyak calls were in late December.

The expulsions were the sanctions.

---

Thanks for the reply, I must be getting old and senile.

drcrinum said:

---

richardag said:

---

I am confused, everything I read has been saying Flynn never discussed sanctions only expulsions. Is this a different conversation from the one supposedly used to open the Flynn investigation, Crossfire Razor?

---

Different time frame & purpose. Crossfire Hurricane began July 31, 2016 as a counterintelligence investigation reputedly related to Russian collusion/potential interference regarding the upcoming 2016 Election; the initial purpose behind this investigation was to prevent Trump from being elected, although later it expanded to include potential options for the possibility Trump won the Election. Crossfire Razor (CR) was the individual counterintelligence investigation on Flynn that was part of Crossfire Hurricane. CR was in the process of being closed down in late December 2016 as nothing was found on Flynn, this being after the Election. Post Election, though, Flynn represented a major threat to The SpyGate plotters since as NSA, he would soon learn about the illegal spying on the Trump Campaign which had now morphed into taking out Trump as well, not to mention the shenanigans related to Obama's Iran deal, the Iraq pullout & the ISIS mess. So to take out Flynn, the Kislyak call became a means to pursue the Logan Act as well as the FBI perjury/lying trick, & in the background was the Turkey FARA issue.

Flynn never mentioned 'sanctions' in either the December 23 or the December 29, 2016 telecoms with Kislyak; he only spoke about 'expulsions' which were separate from the 'sanctions'. Kislyak only mentioned 'sanctions' in that the latter applied to leaders of the GRU who would be the individuals whom Flynn would be communicating with should the US & Russia form a combined front to pursue ISIS in Syria. Also, even in the edited F302 on Flynn from February 2017, 'sanctions' were never mentioned, only 'expulsions'. This is in sharp contrast to the Mueller Team complaint against Flynn wherein 'sanctions' were prominently mentioned.

---

Thanks for the reply, so sanctions were mentioned just not in the context the Special Council argued. I just remember a Bongino podcast where he mentioned sanctions were not discussed, only the expulsions, so the argument to investigate/indite Flynn was faulty.

Regardless, even if Flynn mentioned sanctions he would have every right to as part of the incoming administration.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Quote:

---

After firing someone like Comey you'd think Trump would have made sure Comey was replaced with someone who could reform the FBI. Hiring Wray makes no sense. How did that happen? After the election is probably when a change will be made. Hopefully it's a good one this time.

---

If the Senate committee questions Wray, and Wray is caught lying about his role in the coverup of Flynn's exculpatory documents, Trump will have no choice but to fire him.

Graham probably won't call him as a witness, though.

---

The senate must figure out how to move forward and fix the FBI. How do they do that without calling Wray?

Rescuing thread from pg 3 dumpster ....

John Soloman: Nine developments to watch in the Russia and Ukraine scandals

Quote:

---

1.) Will Rosenstein admit to failures and talk about the 25th Amendment fiasco?

2.) Will the ODNI declassify more documents, including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' secret report to the CIA Inspector General highlighting flaws in the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 elections?

3.) What will the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do in the Flynn dismissal case?

4.) Who else will Graham's committee interview or subpoena?

5.) Will any congressional committees zero in on former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden's conduct in the Russia case?

6.) Will Attorney General William Barr and the special prosecutors he named, like U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, to investigate the Russia case investigators bring any criminal charges?

7.) Will the Democratic strategy firm Blue Star Strategies comply with a subpoena in the Senate investigation into Hunter Biden's Ukrainian business dealings?

8.) Who else might Johnson subpoena in the Ukraine probe?

9.) Will Johnson's committee issue an interim report this summer on the evidence it has already uncovered about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Burisma?

---

benchmark said:

---

Rescuing thread from pg 3 dumpster ....

---

That's just wrong.

Quote:

---

3.) What will the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do in the Flynn dismissal case?

---

I guess everyone (Judge and DoJ) is waiting until tomorrow to file? Sure was looking forward to reading those arguments.

benchmark said:

---

Rescuing thread from pg 3 dumpster ....

John Soloman: Nine developments to watch in the Russia and Ukraine scandals

Quote:

---

1.) Will Rosenstein admit to failures and talk about the 25th Amendment fiasco?

2.) Will the ODNI declassify more documents, including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' secret report to the CIA Inspector General highlighting flaws in the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 elections?

3.) What will the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do in the Flynn dismissal case?

4.) Who else will Graham's committee interview or subpoena?

5.) Will any congressional committees zero in on former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden's conduct in the Russia case?

6.) Will Attorney General William Barr and the special prosecutors he named, like U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, to investigate the Russia case investigators bring any criminal charges?

7.) Will the Democratic strategy firm Blue Star Strategies comply with a subpoena in the Senate investigation into Hunter Biden's Ukrainian business dealings?

8.) Who else might Johnson subpoena in the Ukraine probe?

9.) Will Johnson's committee issue an interim report this summer on the evidence it has already uncovered about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Burisma?

---

---

Quote:

---

Tune in next week to another exciting episode of...

Lindsey Unchained!

Witness first-hand Sen. Graham questioning the Rodster!! Right here, on this channel...

DON'T MISS IT!!

---

Grand delusion.

RUSSIANS!!!!!

Hope aggiehawg will be around to translate the filings in layman's term today. Should be an interesting day.