« There may be no vaccine. What then? | Main | The NSA list of people asking that a name be unmasked which turned out to be Michael Flynn »

13 May 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jack

Larry,

It would appear that Flynn was under surveillance well before he joined the Trump campaign. What do you believe was the rationale for that? I’m surprised that Flynn who is an intelligence officer wouldn’t know or suspect he was under surveillance. Additionally what do you make of his apparent deal to help Erdogan extricate Gulen from the US?

I’m curious what attorneys on this committee have to say about Judge Sullivan soliciting briefs from known TDS infected people? What is the purpose? Can a judge force the government to prosecute? It doesn’t seem that is possible as the purpose of the judiciary is to adjudicate.

Jack

Larry,

A puzzlement I have with the chronology of events around the call with Kislyak is the following:

Flynn apparently requested that the Russian government not escalate but only respond in kind to the Obama sanctions based on the allegations that the Russians interfered in the elections.

It is reported he did discuss his call and specifically that the Russians would consider not escalating with Bannon and Kushner.

Why did Pence and Spicer throw Flynn under the bus? Shouldn’t Trump also be held responsible for bankrupting Flynn?

BillWade

So I'm reading that Sec of State Hillary Clinton negotiated a deal with Vladimir Putin over the sale of some uranium whilst her hubby was paid 500K for a speech he gave in Russia , certainly no problems with that scenario. I'm also reading that the then Dir of CIA John Brennan had credible intelligence that Russia would have preferred Madame Secretary to be President in 2016 cause they had no idea what to make of Donald Trump and Hillary had been quite cordial (just takes a few bucks kinda gal). Seems reasonable to me.

It also seems reasonable to me that we should be entertained while our economy is torn to shreds with some trials. I am hoping.

Diana Croissant

A person tries to forget bad memories.

Now, by discussing McCabe, you've reminded me of the financial support Hillary--oops! I mean Terry McAuliffe (though what's the difference?)--gave McCabe's wife in her run for office.

That absolutely couldn't have been a factor at all in the decisions McCabe made at his time then in the FBI. Poor guy, he may be sinking into dementia. It must be in the water--or Kook AId--the Democrats are drinking.

As the lovely Emily Latella would say: "Never mind."

LA Sox Fan

The whole case against Flynn was a sham. Flynn told his FBI questioners that he knew from his time in intelligence that his phone call with the Russian Ambassador was recorded and the agents questioning him had most likely read the transcript.

Obviously, knowing the FBI agents had a transcript of his call, Flynn had zero motivation to “lie” to them about his conversation with the Ambassador. He knew the FBI agents had indisputable evidence of what was said during that conversation. Any lie he told would be both useless, pointless and completely ineffective. No one would bother lying is such a situation.

Additionally, the agents who read the transcript of his call and then questioned Flynn wrote in their report they did not believe her was lying.

As Flynn had zero motivation to lie and the agents who questioned him believed he didn’t lie to them, why was he charged with the crime of lying to FBI agents? Obviously, some FBI higher ups made that decision. It was a political decision and a sham prosecution.

Deap

What do you think about Conservative Treehouse latest analysis and perhaps even Sally Yates own testimony that no unmasking of Flynn's name was necessary, since he was already an official target?

Intelligence community was already tracking Flynn based upon their own "predicated" suspicions he was a Russian agent, or compromised by the Russians.

Therefore, everyone Flynn was talking to including candidate and later President Trump, according to the CT analysis. They claim Flynn was not an incidental harvest, but already a prime suspect.

The clip between Lindsey Graham and Sally Yates in testimony give the impression she is trying to tell Congress this is the case. Graham keeps cutting her off and does rightly demand .. who leaked the telephone call regardless. But the "unmasking" of Flynn might be a red herring according to this analysis.

Your thoughts, please as this story curiously keeps unfolding - mutating even more than the covid-19 virus.

Per/Norway

Why/how would they need to unmask him if he was the focus of the fake investigation?
The conservative treehouse have written a lot about this, i admit i have no clue yet his arguments the last 2-3 years sounds plausible. And after the last weeks of released papers his arguments sounds entirely plausible.

Per/Norway

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/11/prepare-to-discover-that-michael-flynn-was-not-unmasked-but-everyone-else-was/
"Prepare to Discover That Michael Flynn WAS NOT Unmasked – But Everyone Else Was…"
I forgot to paste the link in my previous comment😣

Jack

Apparently these are the people who requested the unmasking of Flynn.

https://twitter.com/cbs_herridge/status/1260635048967094272?s=21

JJackson

Larry where is your Honey Badger in all this, still in the thick of it or has she one on to pastures new?

turcopolier

JJacksom

For Larry as interim response. She IS a big Texas sized girl and still deeply involved.

blue peacock

The Honey Badger must be busy. Judge Sullivan wants to know if Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury and to get a second opinion on the DOJ decision to not prosecute Flynn. He has appointed John Gleeson as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss.

The Twisted Genius

Barr has not released the transcripts of the Kislyak-Flynn phone calls although he referenced them heavily in the DOJ request to drop charges. The gist of those calls is now common knowledge, why not release them? Clearly Barr is authorized to declassify them. Wouldn't that prove that the calls were not only proper, but innocuous as well?

Fred

blue,

Yep, drag this out a couple weeks longer to provide cover for the initial entrapment of Flynn and the democratic destriction of the economy in multiple states. Multiple grounds for appeal if Sullivan doesn't agree to the dismissal of charges. Sullivan is destroying a lot of respect for the judicial branch, and doing it faster than the fool who locked up the hair dresser in Dallas.

blue peacock

Fred,

John Gleeson wrote an oped criticizing Barr for withdrawing from prosecuting Flynn. If Judge Sullivan couldn't choose a more biased amici, he could have had Comey or Sally Yates do that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/11/flynn-case-isnt-over-until-judge-says-its-over/

Fred

Blue,

He also worked with Andrew Weisman before he was made a judge.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad