4stringAg said:ruddyduck said:
The media is disgusting and as corrupt as those who perpetrated this fiasco. They'll never view this with anything but their lying bias.
ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
Specifically for suspected cyber attacks against the DNC. WHICH WE NOW KNOW FROM CROWDSTRIKE'S PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUE. No evidence.
Stlkofta said:EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
Specifically for suspected cyber attacks against the DNC. WHICH WE NOW KNOW FROM CROWDSTRIKE'S PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUE. No evidence.
The fact they were so brazen and careless about it, probably the consequence of the lack of oversight from a Praetorian Guard media and a bedwetting GOP leadership in Congress, makes one wonder just what else they were able to get away with that we don't know about.
Two men who made a nice living for themselves carrying water for the Democrats when their help was absolutely necessary.EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
Specifically for suspected cyber attacks against the DNC. WHICH WE NOW KNOW FROM CROWDSTRIKE'S PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUE. No evidence.
The fact they were so brazen and careless about it, probably the consequence of the lack of oversight from a Praetorian Guard media and a bedwetting GOP leadership in Congress, makes one wonder just what else they were able to get away with that we don't know about.
There were plenty of Republicans more than willing to help. McCain and Burr come to mind immediately.
EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
Specifically for suspected cyber attacks against the DNC. WHICH WE NOW KNOW FROM CROWDSTRIKE'S PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUE. No evidence.
ccatag said:EKUAg said:Stlkofta said:ccatag said:
I am trying to remember what it was the Russians did at and around that time (Nov.-Dec. 2016) that Obama would send 35 Russians home?
There was the invasion of Georgia, the coup to take The Crimea from Ukraine, the shooting down of the passenger jet during the Ukrainian fighting, the entrance into Syria and the middle east.
And there was what we all know now was a lie and a hoax, that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama and his admin had to know that was a lie and farse, as well.
Okay and finally, Lt.General Flynn was going to be joining the incoming Trump administration and there was really fear about that.
Is there something I'm missing? What was it or what is it that would cause the Obama Admin to send home 35 Russians? That is a major thing to have done. I just don't get it? Why?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
Sent home for hacking, promoting the narrative Trump colluded with the Russians to rig the election.
Put simply: they were plotting to overthrow the incoming POTUS through a combination of media, intelligence, and prosecutorial assets at their disposal.
Specifically for suspected cyber attacks against the DNC. WHICH WE NOW KNOW FROM CROWDSTRIKE'S PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUE. No evidence.
Yeah, it's all made up. A big lie. Makes no sense.
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.....
I'm good with all of that...until they ask where I got that "latest information". TexAgs and Twitter won't satisfy most people.MouthBQ98 said:
I suggest being well informed, and simply prepared be assertive, and yet also ask those still leveling false accusations to back Up their assertions and pointing out their false data and ask them if they are aware of the latest information? I think the hard part is simply being willing to challenge the false narratives and endure the possibly idiocy that might result with calm resolve.
Never mind there wasn't much in the conv worth lying about or that Flynn knew it was recorded ... without the original 302 and subsequent edits, how can anyone's false statement be certain? The entire 302 procedure is 10 x's more corruptible than even FISA.drcrinum said: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.Quote:
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.....
MooreTrucker said:I'm good with all of that...until they ask where I got that "latest information". TexAgs and Twitter won't satisfy most people.MouthBQ98 said:
I suggest being well informed, and simply prepared be assertive, and yet also ask those still leveling false accusations to back Up their assertions and pointing out their false data and ask them if they are aware of the latest information? I think the hard part is simply being willing to challenge the false narratives and endure the possibly idiocy that might result with calm resolve.
I did not read the twitter thread. From Crinum's summary, this might explain (not justify) Judge Sullivan's rant about treason. The GRU had been declared the "enemy" by BHO and Flynn was walking that back before Trump's inauguration.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.
At long last! We finally know what Obama was trying to accomplish with the sanctions, cut Flynn off entirely to protect ISIS!Quote:
remember that Flynn's own intelligence background was in military intelligence DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) where his direct contacts would be GRU. So the Obama admin sanctions didn't merely sabotage intelligence cooperation in general, but Flynn's contacts in particular
Agree.VegasAg86 said:
"working in coordination with Wray" means Wray needs to go.
And the media is blaming Fox News for him being fired.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.
VegasAg86 said:
"working in coordination with Wray" means Wray needs to go.
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."
