FlynnFlammed

Trump is the gift that keeps on giving to Putin.

I have a one word response: Venezuela!

I have a one word response: Venezuela! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Must have been an honest omission. Or lack of knowledge.

Any change yet? Flynn hasn't been exonerated yet, has he?


Everybody see trump drop to his knees over the collapse of his wall?

Not $5 plus billion dollars.

Priceless.

They unmasked Flynn before his so called lies. That’s a felony. As TM would say, “you don’t know your stuff”. Originally Posted by bambino

Actually you might need to read up on wtf really happened and not rely on Donnie Trump as your only source. Nothing illegal about what was done in this regard.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/polit...als/index.html

I have a one word response: Venezuela! Originally Posted by LexusLover

7 words in a one word response.

Also we are taking diplomats out of Venezuela per the Russian backed president orders...

You lose credibility by the post.
Wtf didn't say he was sitting in the courtroom or claim he recorded it
Glad we got to see what makes you so "interesting" and "insightful"
You're a shit-house lawyer at best, just like every other poster on here. You have no legal background and don't know the difference for the burden of proof between criminal and civil cases.
You copy and paste a mean statute but are not legally qualified to interpret or apply them.
And while we're on it, stop pretending you can read minds. You aren't any better at it than the people you complain about who do it.

Remember it's okay to point out the truth.

WTF was sitting in the courtroom, didn't you know?

He even recorded what the Judge said so back up his claim! Ask him! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually you might need to read up on wtf really happened and not rely on Donnie Trump as your only source. Nothing illegal about what was done in this regard.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/polit...als/index.html Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe you should go to law school. It was illegal.


https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...llegal-but?amp

Thanks for helping to clear this mess up.

The link you included clearly states no laws were broken obtaining the information.

"The legality of monitoring Flynn's conversations with Kislyak is not in question, because Flynn was not the target. While the NSA is not supposed to eavesdrop on American citizens, collecting intelligence on foreign citizens and diplomats operating in the United States is standard practice"

Also,

"The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978 as a compromise between those who wanted to maximize judicial oversight of wiretapping, and the legitimate national security need for a nimble, quick and practical tool to collect foreign intelligence. Thus, FISA protects U.S. citizens from unconstitutional surveillance while allowing America's spy services to listen to the communications of foreigners.

However, it is inevitable that some Americans will get caught up in foreign surveillance when they're on the other end of the phone line or email. In those situations, "minimization" procedures are in place to protect the identity of the American - "unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance."

There is no question Flynn's identity was necessary for intelligence officers who were analyzing the phone calls with Kislyak to understand their significance."

And

"But while identifying Flynn internally was legal (and there is no evidence that minimization procedures weren't followed), leaking his name to the media was not. The Espionage Act prohibits the disclosure of information "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government."

Also from your link.

"Leaking national security intelligence should never be taken lightly. It could have unforeseen circumstances that put future operations, or even American lives, in danger. But in these extraordinary circumstances, it was justified."

See? We do agree some times.


So what we have here is that Flynn was legally recorded speaking with the Russian ambassador. He then lied to the investigators and made several public statements repeating the lies (which isn't illegal).
In one of your earlier posts, you pointed out he had been outed before his interview with the FBI. I believe it was the 22nd of Jan (date of the NYT article).
So even after being forewarned the FBI knew he had spoken with the Russians, he lied anyway.


From the CNN article.

"For her part, Rice had been called to the House Intelligence Committee to testify partly over what Nunes and other Republicans believed was an abuse in the practice of "unmasking" -- or revealing the identities of Americans who were communicating with foreign officials under surveillance by the US intelligence community. Simply unmasking the names of individuals in classified reports does not mean that their identities will be revealed publicly, and Rice denied to the committee that she leaked classified information to the press, sources familiar with the matter said."

And,

"Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press."

And,

"Nunes was forced to step aside from running the Russia investigation amid a House ethics inquiry into whether he improperly disclosed classified data. The ethics inquiry came in the aftermath of his bombshell comments that Obama administration officials had improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates, a revelation that Trump used as cover for his unsubstantiated claim that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the election to spy on him. The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday that the DOJ and the FBI have no evidence to support Trump's claims.
But on Tuesday, the Republican who took over the investigation from Nunes said there was no reason to bring Rice in for further questioning.
"She was a good witness, answered all our questions," Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican now running the House Russia probe, told CNN. "I'm not aware of any reason to bring her back."

So it looks like there may have been a civil rights violation or not. But the house repubs saw no need to investigate the leak. It was probably nunes himself, the little weasel. Being leaked doesn't affect or excuse his crime.
Mainly it settles the non-FISA issue. For the exact reason I stated when all this nonsense first came up a year ago.

Maybe you should go to law school. It was illegal.


https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...llegal-but?amp Originally Posted by bambino

For an added bonus here is a link that should take you into the first flynn furball.
There are some links to fox contributors that will kill you.


https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1060558509

Have the charges against Flynn been dropped? The Judge asked him if he wanted to change his plea, has he done so yet?. Who starting all this nonsense about Flynn being innocent? Whoever it is they don't know their stuff.

Thanks for helping to clear this mess up.

The link you included clearly states no laws were broken obtaining the information.

"The legality of monitoring Flynn's conversations with Kislyak is not in question, because Flynn was not the target. While the NSA is not supposed to eavesdrop on American citizens, collecting intelligence on foreign citizens and diplomats operating in the United States is standard practice"

Also,

"The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978 as a compromise between those who wanted to maximize judicial oversight of wiretapping, and the legitimate national security need for a nimble, quick and practical tool to collect foreign intelligence. Thus, FISA protects U.S. citizens from unconstitutional surveillance while allowing America's spy services to listen to the communications of foreigners.

However, it is inevitable that some Americans will get caught up in foreign surveillance when they're on the other end of the phone line or email. In those situations, "minimization" procedures are in place to protect the identity of the American - "unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance."

There is no question Flynn's identity was necessary for intelligence officers who were analyzing the phone calls with Kislyak to understand their significance."

And

"But while identifying Flynn internally was legal (and there is no evidence that minimization procedures weren't followed), leaking his name to the media was not. The Espionage Act prohibits the disclosure of information "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government."

Also from your link.

"Leaking national security intelligence should never be taken lightly. It could have unforeseen circumstances that put future operations, or even American lives, in danger. But in these extraordinary circumstances, it was justified."

See? We do agree some times.


So what we have here is that Flynn was legally recorded speaking with the Russian ambassador. He then lied to the investigators and made several public statements repeating the lies (which isn't illegal).
In one of your earlier posts, you pointed out he had been outed before his interview with the FBI. I believe it was the 22nd of Jan (date of the NYT article).
So even after being forewarned the FBI knew he had spoken with the Russians, he lied anyway.


From the CNN article.

"For her part, Rice had been called to the House Intelligence Committee to testify partly over what Nunes and other Republicans believed was an abuse in the practice of "unmasking" -- or revealing the identities of Americans who were communicating with foreign officials under surveillance by the US intelligence community. Simply unmasking the names of individuals in classified reports does not mean that their identities will be revealed publicly, and Rice denied to the committee that she leaked classified information to the press, sources familiar with the matter said."

And,

"Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press."

And,

"Nunes was forced to step aside from running the Russia investigation amid a House ethics inquiry into whether he improperly disclosed classified data. The ethics inquiry came in the aftermath of his bombshell comments that Obama administration officials had improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates, a revelation that Trump used as cover for his unsubstantiated claim that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the election to spy on him. The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday that the DOJ and the FBI have no evidence to support Trump's claims.
But on Tuesday, the Republican who took over the investigation from Nunes said there was no reason to bring Rice in for further questioning.
"She was a good witness, answered all our questions," Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican now running the House Russia probe, told CNN. "I'm not aware of any reason to bring her back."

So it looks like there may have been a civil rights violation or not. But the house repubs saw no need to investigate the leak. It was probably nunes himself, the little weasel. Being leaked doesn't affect or excuse his crime.
Mainly it settles the non-FISA issue. For the exact reason I stated when all this nonsense first came up a year ago.





For an added bonus here is a link that should take you into the first flynn furball.
There are some links to fox contributors that will kill you.


https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1060558509 Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Your analysis is bullshit and lies. You left out the part where Odumbo changed the rules just days before he left office allowing full disclosure of intel to any and all intelligence agencies without regard for any necessity requiring such sharing. And the fact that Flynn's name was leaked is de facto evidence that minimization process wasn't being followed. Oh, and there's the Woods Procedures requiring the FBI to validate the information they use to secure a FISA warrant. Ohr has now testified -- under oath -- that the Steele Dossier was never corroborated and that it was created by a partisan actor in the pay of the hildebeest campaign. None of that information was shared with the FISA judges.

Your analysis is bullshit and lies. You left out the part where Odumbo changed the rules just days before he left office allowing full disclosure of intel to any and all intelligence agencies without regard for any necessity requiring such sharing. And the fact that Flynn's name was leaked is de facto evidence that minimization process wasn't being followed. Oh, and there's the Woods Procedures requiring the FBI to validate the information they use to secure a FISA warrant. Ohr has now testified -- under oath -- that the Steele Dossier was never corroborated and that it was created by a partisan actor in the pay of the hildebeest campaign. None of that information was shared with the FISA judges. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Really? How come you are the only one on Earth who knows about this? Is this some more Iran nonsense IB. Bambino is giving you bad info. He doesn't know his stuff

Really? How come you are the only one on Earth who knows about this? Is this some more Iran nonsense IB. Bambino is giving you bad info. He doesn't know his stuff Originally Posted by themystic

That you imagine that I am the only one who knows that the FBI violated its own Woods Procedures shows how badly misinformed you are.

You lose credibility by the post. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Are you concerned about "your credibility" on a pussy board?

I respect your goal setting, even if it is remarkably anemic.

And the next question is ... do you think I give a rat's ass about your opinion of my "credibility"? Even more remarkable if you do!

How come you are the only one on Earth who knows about this? Originally Posted by themystic

I guess your overzealousness demands an explanation from you as to hoe "on Earth" you would remotely have a clue as to what the rest of the people on Earth know or don't know? Socialist-Liberals engage in such fantasies regularly. Are you one?

I guess your overzealousness demands an explanation from you as to hoe "on Earth" you would remotely have a clue as to what the rest of the people on Earth know or don't know? Socialist-Liberals engage in such fantasies regularly. Are you one? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I do think about a wall being built on the Border . Where the fantasy comes in is that Mexico will pay for it.

The fantasy gets interrupted when Nancy appears and says

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! !!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!