Posted on 06/24/2020 9:07:33 AM PDT by bitt
Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team.
The page of notes was taken by Strzok appears to describe a January 5, 2017 meeting of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and national security officials. This meeting occurred amid accusations that incoming Trump administration officials had colluded with Russian operatives. Strzok was not present at the meeting, and it is unclear what record of the meeting he consulted in taking the notes.
Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”
ALSO JUST IN: Flynn legal team files a page of Strzok's notes, which appear to describe the Jan. 5 meetign with Obama and natsec team
Notes indicate Biden mentioned the Logan Act, but entirely devoid of context. pic.twitter.com/lGsj0DepHm
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 24, 2020
In transcripts of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak released on May 29 of this year, Flynn is recorded asking the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions in response to U.S. sanctions. Those sanctions were implemented by the Obama administration following reports that Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. general election.
Strzok’s notes also indicate that “VP” Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during the meeting, although the context of Biden’s remark is unclear. The Logan Act of 1799 forbids U.S. citizens from intervening in disputes with foreign nations without authorization. The law has been cited only twice in U.S. history in two cases in the 1800’s and no one has ever been found guilty of violating the statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
As always a negative attitude toward anyone decent and trolling away so go ahead and troll away we would expect no less from you just to get a response troll away
What happened to you? I used to respect your posts.
In your haste to criticize me, you forgot to answer the two questions I posted. :-P
“1. If Flynn pleaded guilty to protect his son, then isn’t he now exposing his son to prosecution by reneging on his plea deal?
2. If he pleaded guilty for financial reasons, then why has he spent two and a half years engaged in all these lengthy (and costly) legal proceedings?”
No. The prosecution of his son was based on threats and intimidation, not a criminal case of any sort. So stupid question.
No. Stupid question again. He did not expect to have the opportunity to clear his name when he plead guilty to try to end all this.
I’ve never trusted Michael Flynn.
BTTT
I would be happy with that before the legal system has started...
Looking at this...Flynn has damning evidence in a civil lawsuit. If I were him...I’d figure up the grand total of expenses, the legal cost, and then present the bill to Obama (probably in 5-million range). I’d tell the guy here’s ten days to pay completely, or we drag this into court for 15-million in total damages.
Obama is screwed at this point. The trail leads completely back to him.
Then you have Biden in the middle of this, and Trump will seize and use it in each of the three debates. ‘Treason’ will be uttered and the moderators will freak out.
Too bad. He’s a great American patriot. Sorry you can’t see that.
I heard the same sh!t about John Bolton — and I didn’t trust that @sshole, either.
None of us were that crazy. Not a single one of us ran for that office.
Because we knew.
Consequently, the country would not have benefited from anyone who could actually have taken the wealth of all of these (MSM, Deep State, GOP, DNC) on. We’d have Hillary right now as president and be depressed and mad every day with Clinton II for eight years, followed by 0bama II for eight years, followed by an infinite number of liberals as president, because the Deep State apparatus would ensure all elections turned their way.
Sidney Powell did her legal work for Flynn pro bono SO Flynn did not have to worry about the cost of his legal fees!! These bastards drove Flynn into bankruptcy his first legal team was NOT on his side!!
Why would you bring up Bolton? What does your opinion of him have to do with your opinion of Flynn? What a weird response.
Eric Holder's firm, what could go wrong.
When you run completely out of money AND your son is threatened with the wrath of every government agency coming down on him WHAT WOULD YOU DO!!
Still smells.
The new administration was coming into power.
Seems like the ‘screwing’ part should have been over (you listening Sessions) quickly.
She’s a troll..always throw stuff like this onto free for kind of like throwing up i e d into the road she’s a troll she’s a troll
democrats have put out since Trump was elected.
Fake hate crimes were committed by democrats in the Jim Crow South too... it's how Emmett Til was murdered. A fake hate crime story was put out about him and the white democrat mob killed him.
Trump meets with Obama. Obama mentions TWO people that Trump needs to be wary of. Kim Jong Un and Michael Flynn. That was on November 10, 2016. Trump probably jumped the gun on firing Flynn and throwing him into the ring of fire that resulted, probably partly as a result of Obama’s warning (Trump to the opportunity to remove Flynn and take Obama’s bad advice). Trump was still a bit naïve at that point. So it isn’t like Flynn plead “Guilty” and then he was fired by Trump.
They were not pathetic but evil. His initial law firm, Covington and Burling, is a Washington, DC Democrat fixture at which Eric Holder is a senior partner. The lawyers convinced Flynn to take the guilty plea. He should have dumped them then and there, but took their advice.
Why in the world would he pick a law firm with strong Democrat allegiances? Same reason as Jeff Sessions recusing himself: they trusted the advice of long-time Washington insider lawyers who are corrupt as hell. Why were they both so naive about this? Because they themselves are honest, upstanding citizens who can't imagine anyone being that evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.