Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Worth repeating, "Then when the Obama administration took over a few months later, Eric Holder dismissed the case despite the conviction.
Worth repeating. LOL
You just gave the Fox News version leaving out a few details like obvious prosecutorial misconduct and the fact that Stevens was a republican prosecuted under the Bush administration.
Quote:
Mr. Holder announced this week that he would ask a judge to drop all charges against Mr. Stevens, a Republican, because of prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Holder should ensure that the Justice Department gets to the bottom of what went wrong and subject other cases that have raised red flags to similar scrutiny.
Mr. Stevens was convicted of making false statements on Senate disclosure forms to hide an estimated $250,000 in home renovations and gifts, many from Bill Allen, an old friend with close ties to his state’s oil industry. The Justice Department says that prosecutors failed to turn over to the defense notes from an interview with Mr. Allen, a prime witness in the case, which conflicted with parts of his trial testimony.
I'm sorry TEPLimey, i realize its hard to follow reality sometimes...
Let me help you.
Michael Flynn was the INCOMING National Security Advisor. He was not "caught" talking to the Russian Ambassador. Flynn being part of the SpecOps and Intelligence Communities knew full well that the United States was actively listening to all of the Russian Ambassadors conversations AND RECORDING THEM.
Flynn, by the position he held at the time (Incoming National Security Advisor to the President), had every right and indeed the responsibility to talk to the Russian Ambassador.... along with a large number of other world leaders and representatives of world leaders.
As a comparison, when Mr. Obama was elected, and before he was sworn in as President, during his transition, he sent a team to Russia to hold high level discussions with the Russian government.
This is called NORMAL BUSINESS.
Furthermore, there is ZERO evidence that the call with the Russian Ambassador contained anything that would be illegal or wrong or would point to any collusion between Trump and the Russians.
How do i know this? Because among those who SAW the transcript of the phone call, were a number of individuals who worked for Barak Obama, and who testified in congress that they had NO EVIDENCE of collusion.
NO EVIDENCE.
Additionally, Jude Sullivan who was in charge of the Flynn trial, asked the Mueller team for the transcript of the call. They said no. They would not give it to Sullivan, and argued that it was irrelevant to the charges. If that transcript contained an illegal act, then it would have been used against Flynn and he would have been charged with a crime related to the call itself.
THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.
NO EVIDENCE
Evidently as best as i can understand what happened, the transcript was reviewed. It was deemed to be irrelevant. Then Comey sent 2 people (Peter Struck was one of them) to interview Flynn.
He basically stated (Evidently but we don't know for sure) that he wasn't sure exactly what was said during the call. That was taken as accurate at the time..... then Mueller and his team decided to use that, force Flynn into bankruptcy defending himself, then threaten to ruin his family with further legal harassment. He pled guilty.
There was no evidence at all of any wrong doing on Flynns part in the transcript of the call. The FBI interviewed him with a plan to trap him into a charge of lying to the FBI with full knowledge that Flynn had not committed any crime at all.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED> These are the facts. Flynn didn't 'get caught' talking to the Russians.
Excellent job of putting it all together. Thank you.
Going back to the court hearing on Flynn's actions lobbying Turkey he also made false statements that are on the record as stating that he didn't now the extent to which the Turkish Government was involved in his lobbying. Another false statement that wasn't in the charging document but Judge Sullivan indicated would be part of the consideration in sentencing.
And the FBI agents DOING the investigation wanted to CLOSE the case on Flynn and stated he did NOT lie.
I just do not understand why Flynn is dragging this out when he would have only served a few months in jail. They could have charged him on other counts but did not, this isn't about salvaging his reputation after he attempted to assist Turkey in extraditing Gulen.
"I just do not understand why Flynn is dragging this out"
You MUST be a dem!
Do the 39 unmasking requests only apply to Flynn? How would they know to request only Flynn unmaskings if his name is redacted? Could there be unmasking requests for other individuals in Trump campaign? I would like to see the total number of unmasking requests from these officials for this period of time. This whole thing does not make sense to me.
They wouldn't. That is the point. There are 20-30 unmasking requests daily by the Executive. Its routine.
When the White House is given an NSA report that says "American citizen John Doe had a suspicious call with Russian contact close to Putin discussing undermining American sanctions" the White House can then request the identity of American citizen John Doe from the NSA for foreign policy reasons. If John Doe turns out to Michael Flynn, that's on Flynn, not the White House.
By law, the NSA cannot entertain targeted requests (for example, "please send us all reports where Michael Flynn is John Doe").
That's why the whole "Joe Biden/Barack Obama unmasked Michael Flynn" narrative is nothing more than a red herring. I get the impression Grenell intended it to be so.
Each person that put in the paperwork for this FISA SIGNIT had to say WHY they wanted it, WHAT they were going to do with it, PLEDGE they would not disclose ANY name of any US Person and that they understand it it a Federal Felony Office to reveal anything.
They can "deny" certainly that they spent an hour or so filling out the paperwork and WHY they filled it out and THEN they can claim ...... I didn't bother to look at it. I dunt no nuttin. They can and probably will have that discussion with US Attorneys.
This is not a joke - this is serious business.
So what is "unmasking"?
Somebody fills out the paperwork, include the reason they want the information on a Foreign communication - known as a FISA Warrant (ordered in secret by a FISA Judge) -- keep in mind that it is ILLEGAL to surveil a US Citizen without a warrant.
The name "Michael Flynn" show up in the reports that acting DNI turned over today as "unmasked".
The queries were NOT about "Michael Flynn" (that would be Illegal) they were about somebody else - the answer "unmasked" turned out to be "Michael Flynn".
The list of Obama administration officials who requested the unmasking of General Michael Flynn during the transition period between the November 2016 election and President Donald Trump's January 20, 2017 inauguration has been released. Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the list late last week and it has been released by Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson.
Here are some of them:
Vice President Joe Biden - One request January 12, 2017
FBI Director James Comey - One request December 15, 2016
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper - Three requests
CIA Director John Brennan - Two requests - December 14-15, 2016
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations - Samantha Power - 7 requests
Obama Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough - One request January 5, 2017
U.S Ambassador to Russia John Tefft - December 16, 2016
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ambassador Barr - December 28, 2016
It is not a crime to ask for an unmasking of an American individual on a phone call with a foreign actor. It is illegal to leak the name of the unmasked American to the media, which is what happened with Flynn. It is also illegal to unmask Americans for political purposes.
OK -- these 39 requests were NOT about "Michael Flynn" -- he was the result of the Un-Masking.
SO .... in view of that -- exactly WHO (FISA Warrants) were all these Obama people wanting the SIGNIT on? Keep in mind that they were NOT allowed to ask about Michael Flynn, they had to ask about somebody who was under a FISA Warrant OR caught up in the 2 Hop Rule of a FISA Warrant.
1). Susan Power (US Ambassador to the United Nations requested SIGNIT on 7 people and her "Un-Mask" in all cases was Michael Flynn. what are the odds of that?
2). What is the deal with allowing Foreign Powers to tap our NSA system to request information on FISA Warrants and SIGNIT?
3). It's a pile of Legalese (which I hate) but it turns out that a new E.O. by TeamObama and a new "guidance " on requests for SIGNINT was signed by James Clapper on December 15, 2016.
4). Most of these "requests" for FISA SIGNIT were well BEFORE the famous/infamous Telephone call between Incoming NSA Director General Michael Flynn and Ambassador Kisliak. That should make everyone pause - and think about WHO the TeamObama was asking for FISA SIGNIT on, that produced the name Michael Flynn. Everyone should wonder why Ambassador Powers requested almost 300 FISA SIGNIT's .. she denied it of course, but they have the paperwork and you have no idea how much the Federal Government LOVES their paperwork.
We know there were FISA Warrants on some US Citizens, like Carter Page and PapaGeorge. Clearly there were more.
WHO - and WHO was on the Two Hop Rule, which would also show up just as thought it was a Legitimate FISA Warrant ... except it's not. .
Look at the dates for all those requests -- most of them bunch up around those dates.
Classified material is strongly "compartmentalized". Meaning ONLY those for a specific "need to know" can be approved to have access to said material.
Just before Trump took office, obama OPENED UP ALL CLASSIFIED MATERIAL to be available to ANYONE with a clearance even though they did NOT have reason to have access.
Classified material is strongly "compartmentalized". Meaning ONLY those for a specific "need to know" can be approved to have access to said material.
Just before Trump took office, obama OPENED UP ALL CLASSIFIED MATERIAL to be available to ANYONE with a clearance even though they did NOT have reason to have access.
Uh huh. Do you have a credible link to support that claim?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
