One iteration of his 302.

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.

---

Charging documents: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents

He was charged with lying about what he said to the Russian ambassador.

The FBI doesn't do transcripts. Interviews aren't recorded. Agents fill out a 302 to document the interview.

You're right that the agents said they didn't think he was lying. Comey testified to that in Congress.

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.

---

Yes, he was charged with making false statements to the FBI agents about violating the Logan act when he spoke with Kislyak.

Quote:

---

The new material also explores how the Justice Department might "get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act," a law dating from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.

There was nothing illegal in Flynn as the national security adviser to president elect Trump meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law against the incoming national security adviser was utterly absurd (although other figures like then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it). Nevertheless, the FBI latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army general.

---

Their notes of the interview (302's, well, the finally edited and Andrew McCabe approved versions) and the transcript (which they already had) of his discussion with Kislyak are what was used to indict him.

WatchOle said:

---

Do we know the actual verbiage of Flynn's supposed lie?

---

No, because it was completely fabricated. Maybe Andrew McCabe can answer what they made up.

It's time for perp walks.

To add, this is what the good dr posted that explains what mc cabe did.

Secolobo said:

---

To add, this is what the good dr posted that explains what mc cabe did.

---

So who ratted out McCabe on his "first we **** Flynn, then we **** Trump" statement? Is this the same person that said McCabe was involved in the 302 alterations?

VaultingChemist said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

To add, this is what the good dr posted that explains what mc cabe did.

---

So who ratted out McCabe on his "first we **** Flynn, then we **** Trump" statement?

---

I don't remember. That's been out there for at least a couple of years.

nortex97 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.

---

Yes, he was charged with making false statements to the FBI agents about violating the Logan act when he spoke with Kislyak.

Quote:

---

The new material also explores how the Justice Department might "get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act," a law dating from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.

There was nothing illegal in Flynn as the national security adviser to president elect Trump meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law against the incoming national security adviser was utterly absurd (although other figures like then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it). Nevertheless, the FBI latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army general.

---

Their notes of the interview (302's, well, the finally edited and Andrew McCabe approved versions) and the transcript (which they already had) of his discussion with Kislyak are what was used to indict him.

---

This is what popped red flags way back when it was first reported. Flynn HAD to know his phone conversation with Kislyak was being recorded so there was absolutely no reason to make any statements that might violate the Logan Act and certainly no reason to lie to federal agents after the fact.

I'm sure the phone call was Flynn reassuring him that Trump would review the ridiculous sanctions Obama placed on his way out the door but I seriously doubt he would reveal any private policy discussions.

Of course with the dirty cops they could use wide latitude of the Logan Act statutes to try to scare him into a perjury trap.

This whole thing is a travesty and multiple people need to swing.

aggiehawg 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.

---

There is no transcript, nor a recording of the interview with Flynn. FBI doesn't work that way. They send two agents (typically) one to ask the questions and one who takes handwritten notes. Then from those notes a report called a 302 is typed up and filed.

But that's not what happened with Flynn. In fact the government now claims the original 302 doesn't exist. (Insert Church Lady "How conveeeenient"). What we do know from Strzok/Page text messages is that the 302 went through modifications and had to be "approved" by Andy McCabe, a person who wasn't present at the interview.

IOW, the only evidence of what happened during that interview is itself tainted.

---

They wont interview if you demand a lawyer and recording, because they are trained to write down incriminating notes and rely in 'we're the fbi we wouldnt lie in our notes' to dupe grand juries and juries into convicting based in part on notes designed for use as conviction evidence rather than truth seeking. This is unfortunatly standard practice even when the fbi was a law enforcement agency instead of a leftist political tool.

BTW, speaking of multiple people swinging, how much trouble is James Baker (DODONA) in, and will he be tried by the military, or by us civilians?

As you can see, I'm 100% convinced he's guilty of recording and leaking the Kisylak-Flynn phone call, among many other things he had access to. I celebrate those who serve, but when they use that service and access for corrupt purposes, believe justice should be more severe.

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW, speaking of multiple people swinging, how much trouble is James Baker (DODONA) in, and will he be tried by the military, or by us civilians?

As you can see, I'm 100% convinced he's guilty of recording and leaking the Kisylak-Flynn phone call, among many other things he had access to. I celebrate those who serve, but when they use that service and access for corrupt purposes, believe justice should be more severe.

---

Civil servants are not tried by the military. It would be Federal Court.

Gracias!

It was my assumption Baker is a serving colonel, or even light colonel. However, I didn't' check out his current status at the Office of Net Assessment.

Correction - There are 2 different James Bakers - one at DOD and another at FBI.

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW, speaking of multiple people swinging, how much trouble is James Baker (DODONA) in, and will he be tried by the military, or by us civilians?

As you can see, I'm 100% convinced he's guilty of recording and leaking the Kisylak-Flynn phone call, among many other things he had access to. I celebrate those who serve, but when they use that service and access for corrupt purposes, believe justice should be more severe.

---

He won't be tried by the military, first off.

If anything, he might enter into a cooperation in lieu of prosecution agreement. Not exactly immunity but he walks if he fully cooperates and testifies. But for that type of offer to be useful, there would need to be a higher target, namely Comey or perhaps Brennan and Clapper.

Does Durham and Barr have large enough cojones to indict someone as high as Comey, Clapper and/or Brennan? That's the real question here.

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.

Secolobo said:

---

.......

---

[url=https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti][/url]

Quote:

---

Renato Mariotti

This isn't unusual at all.

Michael Flynn was treated like thousands of other subjects who were interviewed by FBI agents.

If you don't like how Flynn was treated, change the rules for everyone. Because this is how it works

---

I guess thousands of others may have grievances.

OMG, Hawg! Citing Wolfe in lieu of Baker's crime of leaking the Flynn/Kisylak phone call just completely sucks.

I wrote that post because I thought the gravity of anyone leaking a a phone call from a President's National Security Advisor would be severe, and I couldn't wait for one of y'all to say "well, here's the statute, and it's a minimum of 1000 years", or some such.

That backfired!

Oh, if Barr/Durham found enough to indict, I just assumed they would. It NEVER occurred to me either of them would falter if the offenders were high office holders. I could see Barr/Durham lessening the charges, but not ignore them entirely. Obama is the only one I thought Barr/Durham would keep away.

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Yup!

---

That is an excellent point. Why is Wrey still running the FBI?

---

---

I wonder if that includes insider trading?

texaggierm said:

---

There are 2 different James Bakers - one at DOD and another at ONA.

---

One was at the FBI. The other at DOD Office of Net Assessment

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.

fasthorse05 said:

---

OMG, Hawg! Citing Wolfe in lieu of Baker's crime of leaking the Flynn/Kisylak phone call just completely sucks.

I wrote that post because I thought the gravity of anyone leaking a a phone call from a President's National Security Advisor would be severe, and I couldn't wait for one of y'all to say "well, here's the statute, and it's a minimum of 1000 years", or some such.

That backfired!

---

Sorry. Guess that was a bummer post. My point being that I think that the focus of Durham and Barr is on the bigger picture and not on the myriad of "smaller" for lack of a better term, crimes.

That having been said, if those "smaller" crimes are instrumental in obtaining a bigger and better target, they would be employed.

IOW, my belief is that Durham and Barr are conducting a more precise surgical type of focus instead of a scatter shot. Prosecutions for conspiracies this large are the most valuable when you get the folks at the top of the conspiracy food chain. But that course is also a minefield in this case, because after all, none of that would have happened without Obama's knowledge and approval.

aggiehawg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW, speaking of multiple people swinging, how much trouble is James Baker (DODONA) in, and will he be tried by the military, or by us civilians?

As you can see, I'm 100% convinced he's guilty of recording and leaking the Kisylak-Flynn phone call, among many other things he had access to. I celebrate those who serve, but when they use that service and access for corrupt purposes, believe justice should be more severe.

---

He won't be tried by the military, first off.

If anything, he might enter into a cooperation in lieu of prosecution agreement. Not exactly immunity but he walks if he fully cooperates and testifies. But for that type of offer to be useful, there would need to be a higher target, namely Comey or perhaps Brennan and Clapper.

Does Durham and Barr have large enough cojones to indict someone as high as Comey, Clapper and/or Brennan? That's the real question here.

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.

---

Wolfe had a lot of leverage against the senate intel. committee (both D/R). I don't think McCabe is particularly threatening to anyone right now in office, so it's a bit different (although I chuckle at how ostracized Wolfe probably is from all the vermin he worked with/lobbyists etc. nowadays.)

He also had authority to share info with the press if it was in the 'public interest,' but I don't think that did extend to the Kislyak call. I suspect he pawned that task off on an underling anyway, and he's been known to have disciplined/documented misbehavior of those who worked for him when he in fact was the guilty party who ordered it, after all.

I was going to ask this to Hawg on my reply, but was so stunned by her bringing up the Wolfe incident, I forgot.

Barr assigned EDMO Tom O'Shea to oversee the Flynn case, does anyone know if something similar has happened to the Wolfe investigation? I''m asking due to my extreme dislike of the people who run SSCI, and the deal they made with the judge on Wolfe.

If you are a Sirius/XM subscriber, Sidney Powell will be on the Wilkow Majority in the 12 o'clock hour on the Patriot channel To discuss the Michael Flynn case

fasthorse05 said:

---

I was going to ask this to Hawg on my reply, but was so stunned by her bringing up the Wolfe incident, I forgot.

Barr assigned EDMO Tom O'Shea to oversee the Flynn case, does anyone know if something similar has happened to the Wolfe investigation? I''m asking due to my extreme dislike of the people who run SSCI, and the deal they made with the judge on Wolfe.

---

EDMO US Attorney's name is Jensen, IIRC. Tim O'Shea is the Acting USA for DC district.

But to answer your question I think the horse already left the barn on prosecuting Wolfe, at least for the leaking of the FISA. No telling what else he had leaked before and other mishandlings of classified information, however.

Lots more old info he's been retweeting trying to figure out who Priestap met with.

aggiehawg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

OMG, Hawg! Citing Wolfe in lieu of Baker's crime of leaking the Flynn/Kisylak phone call just completely sucks.

I wrote that post because I thought the gravity of anyone leaking a a phone call from a President's National Security Advisor would be severe, and I couldn't wait for one of y'all to say "well, here's the statute, and it's a minimum of 1000 years", or some such.

That backfired!

---

Sorry. Guess that was a bummer post. My point being that I think that the focus of Durham and Barr is on the bigger picture and not on the myriad of "smaller" for lack of a better term, crimes.

That having been said, if those "smaller" crimes are instrumental in obtaining a bigger and better target, they would be employed.

IOW, my belief is that Durham and Barr are conducting a more precise surgical type of focus instead of a scatter shot. Prosecutions for conspiracies this large are the most valuable when you get the folks at the top of the conspiracy food chain. But that course is also a minefield in this case, because after all, none of that would have happened without Obama's knowledge and approval.

---

I wonder if the black hats last ditch strategy is to simply point all fingers to Obama and dare Barr/Durham to go after him as the optics would be EXTREMELY bad.

Secolobo said:

---

Lots more old info he's been retweeting trying to figure out who Priestap met with.

---

Priestap went to London in May 2016:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/999971153811857408.html

Quote:

---

I wonder if the black hats last ditch strategy is to simply point all fingers to Obama and dare Barr/Durham to go after him as the optics would be EXTREMELY bad.

---

Exactly. But one additional point is Biden's complicity. He was at the January 5, 2017 meeting with Obama, Comey and Susan Rice, according to Susan Rice's email to herself on January 20, 2017 as Trump was inaugurated. Subject of that meeting was Comey's intent to brief Trump about the Steele Dossier the following day.

Susan Rice and Samantha Powers are as high as they will go, theoretically, into the Obama cabinet. (Brennan/Baker/Comey as well), even under a best case scenario. No one will rat on how Valerie Jarrett, using Obama's signature, directed all of this for 8 years.

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.

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW, speaking of multiple people swinging, how much trouble is James Baker (DODONA) in, and will he be tried by the military, or by us civilians?

As you can see, I'm 100% convinced he's guilty of recording and leaking the Kisylak-Flynn phone call, among many other things he had access to. I celebrate those who serve, but when they use that service and access for corrupt purposes, believe justice should be more severe.

---

He won't be tried by the military, first off.

If anything, he might enter into a cooperation in lieu of prosecution agreement. Not exactly immunity but he walks if he fully cooperates and testifies. But for that type of offer to be useful, there would need to be a higher target, namely Comey or perhaps Brennan and Clapper.

Does Durham and Barr have large enough cojones to indict someone as high as Comey, Clapper and/or Brennan? That's the real question here.

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.

---

Wolfe had a lot of leverage against the senate intel. committee (both D/R). I don't think McCabe is particularly threatening to anyone right now in office, so it's a bit different (although I chuckle at how ostracized Wolfe probably is from all the vermin he worked with/lobbyists etc. nowadays.)

He also had authority to share info with the press if it was in the 'public interest,' but I don't think that did extend to the Kislyak call. I suspect he pawned that task off on an underling anyway, and he's been known to have disciplined/documented misbehavior of those who worked for him when he in fact was the guilty party who ordered it, after all.

---

The answer to gray mail is a trial conducted under CIPA.