Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

[DivineOb]

Based on the newly discovered evidence, Democrat and civil-libertarian legal scholar Turley here argues that justice demands that the case against Flynn be dismissed.

Why don't you quote the part from that article you find strongest and we can explore it? I read it just now and it's long on the red meat and short on substance. But maybe I missed something.

[Mountain Man]

That's I'm just dumb, MM.

[Mountain Man]

Why don't you quote the part from that article you find strongest and we can explore it? I read it just now and it's long on the red meat and short on substance. But maybe I missed something.

[DivineOb]

Back up to the beginning and remember the fact that they were going to close the case against Flynn

From here



So to say "They were going to close the case" is quite a stretch.

because there was literally nothing there to charge him with.

You don't know that! We do know that there is redacted information. You're just asserting that that information carries no weight.

So this isn't a matter of "We have evidence of a crime, and we're pretty sure he did it, but we need a confession to close the deal."

It actually is *exactly that*. Otherwise there would have been no reason for Flynn to lie!

This is a matter of "There was no crime, but we're going to conceal that fact and squeeze him anyway to elicit either a false confession or trick him into admitting perjury so we can charge him with that instead."

Let's pretend what you're saying is true. It would still be a crime to lie! Cops do stuff like that all the time! Again, get CP to tell me I'm wrong and I'll stop insisting that.

[Mountain Man]

So to say "They were going to close the case" is quite a stretch.

It is not a stretch, it is an indisputable fact. FBI agents say they want to close the case because there's no evidence Flynn broke the law. Stzork says, "No, wait!" and he and Comey hatch a scheme. The next day, Comey briefs Obama who gives the go ahead. They then trick Flynn by making him think he may have committed crime and threatening his son, at which point Flynn pleads guilty to perjury, which was Plan B according to Preistap's notes.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ma-implicated/

So to summarize, again, the FBI interrogated a man they knew was innocent and tricked him into confessing to lying about a crime that he never committed.

And you're really okay with this? This is how you think law enforcement should behave?

[JimL]

It is not a stretch, it is an indisputable fact. FBI agents say they want to close the case because there's no evidence Flynn broke the law. Stzork says, "No, wait!" and he and Comey hatch a scheme. The next day, Comey briefs Obama who gives the go ahead. They then trick Flynn by making him think he may have committed crime and threatening his son, at which point Flynn pleads guilty to perjury, which was Plan B according to Preistap's notes.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ma-implicated/

So to summarize, again, the FBI interrogated a man they knew was innocent and tricked him into confessing to lying about a crime that he never committed.

And you're really okay with this? This is how you think law enforcement should behave?

Duh! Violating the Logan act, a private citizen negotiating with the Russians in an attempt to undermine the present administration, is a violation of the law.

[mikewhitney]

Duh! Violating the Logan act, a private citizen negotiating with the Russians in an attempt to undermine the present administration, is a violation of the law.

You are right Jim. There never is supposed to be an organized transition from one President to the next. Never have any of those becoming the new President's staff ever start working in advance of the inauguration. NOT!!

Flynn, as part of the incoming staff, was not the concept of private citizen envisioned by Logan's Act, nor was the timing of his behavior inappropriate.

Jim, you are simply endorsing the use of the FBI to interrupt the transition of the Presidency and his staff.

[Mountain Man]

Duh! Violating the Logan act, a private citizen negotiating with the Russians in an attempt to undermine the present administration, is a violation of the law.

That never happened.

[DivineOb]

It is not a stretch, it is an indisputable fact. FBI agents say they want to close the case because there's no evidence Flynn broke the law. Stzork says, "No, wait!" and he and Comey hatch a scheme. The next day, Comey briefs Obama who gives the go ahead. They then trick Flynn by making him think he may have committed crime and threatening his son, at which point Flynn pleads guilty to perjury, which was Plan B according to Preistap's notes.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ma-implicated/

So to summarize, again, the FBI interrogated a man they knew was innocent and tricked him into confessing to lying about a crime that he never committed.

And you're really okay with this? This is how you think law enforcement should behave?

You're just dishonestly representing the information we have. Stzork had information not available to the case agent, information which was sufficient to keep the case open once I was provided to the case agent.

How did they trick Flynn? What did they tell them they had and what lie did he tell?

Where is your evidence that the FBI knew Flynn was innocent? That is not supported by your links.

What did Obama mean by "by the book" if the FBI was engaging in behavior which is the opposite of "by the book"?

Does the fact that your article misstates the date of Steele deleting his files cause you any concern?

[Mountain Man]

You're just dishonestly representing the information we have. Stzork had information not available to the case agent, information which was sufficient to keep the case open once I was provided to the case agent.

Where's your source that Stzork had additional information? He didn't. He and Lisa Page even texted back and forth about what a stroke of luck it was that the case hadn't been closed yet. Why was this lucky? Because according to FBI records, once a case is closed, it would require new information to open it back up again. Stzork obviously didn't have that kind of information, which is why he and Page were giddy over the fact that they were able to sneak in before the case was closed.

How did they trick Flynn? What did they tell them they had and what lie did he tell?

They lied and told him they had evidence that he violated the Logan Act when, in fact, they knew that no crime had been committed.

Where is your evidence that the FBI knew Flynn was innocent? That is not supported by your links.

Then you obviously haven't been reading my links. It's right here: "The FBI Washington Field Office says they are going to close the investigation of General Flynn because there is 'no derogatory information' as a result of multiple investigative inquires."

What did Obama mean by "by the book" if the FBI was engaging in behavior which is the opposite of "by the book"?

We don't actually know what Obama said. That's what Susan Rice claimed in her suspicious last-minute email to herself as she was on her way out the door on inauguration day. It was obviously meant to give cover to the conspirators, and until these latest revelations, that's pretty much all we had to go on. Now we know that it was less "by the book" more "by hook or by crook".

Does the fact that your article misstates the date of Steele deleting his files cause you any concern?

It doesn't. Do you find it at all suspicious that Steele's emails were wiped ("Like, with a cloth? Yuk yuk yuk!") during the period that the traitors were scheming against General Flynn? I do.

[DivineOb]

Where's your source that Stzork had additional information? He didn't. He and Lisa Page even texted back and forth about what a stroke of luck it was that the case hadn't been closed yet. Why was this lucky? Because according to FBI records, once a case is closed, it would require new information to open it back up again. Stzork obviously didn't have that kind of information, which is why he and Page were giddy over the fact that they were able to sneak in before the case was closed.

The sixth text from Stzork says "Youre case agent right? Going to send you [redacted] for the file."
Also second to last text reads "Did DD send that material over?"
Also fourth from the bottom has something really important redacted which probably explains a lot about everything else.

They lied and told him they had evidence that he violated the Logan Act when, in fact, they knew that no crime had been committed.

You are trying to combine these two things. Don't do that.

1) Did they lie in a way inappropriate for a law enforcement action? Where is your evidence of this?
2) Did they *know* that no crime had been committed? Where is your evidence of this?

Then you obviously haven't been reading my links. It's right here: "The FBI Washington Field Office says they are going to close the investigation of General Flynn because there is 'no derogatory information' as a result of multiple investigative inquires."

Don't call me a liar. I have read this carefully because, shocking as it might sound to a Trumper, *I care about the truth*! I want to know, if for no other reason than for the sake of truth itself, what is real and false about the world.

I'm not challenging the idea that some FBI agents had found nothing and were prepared to close the file. That does not establish that the FBI *in totality* did not know of potential wrongdoing.

And the problem with a bluff like you're suggesting the FBI engaged in is it only works when the bluffee believes it. That is, it only works if Flynn thought their claimed evidence might actually exist. That only happens if he *did* what they are describing.

You can't have it both ways that Flynn is simultaneously innocent and falling for the ruse you're claiming.

We don't actually know what Obama said. That's what Susan Rice claimed in her suspicious last-minute email to herself as she was on her way out the door on inauguration day.

Hey, we agree :D. We *don't* know what was said. The great scholar Farrell Till points out that we should always favor the plain reading of a text absent evidence that it should be read differently. You have no provided a scintilla of evidence that the plain reading is unwarranted.

It was obviously meant to give cover to the conspirators, and until these latest revelations, that's pretty much all we had to go on. Now we know that it was less "by the book" more "by hook or by crook".

But the ruse only works if Flynn falls for it and he only falls for it if he thinks they actually have damning evidence of his misdeeds!

It doesn't. Do you find it at all suspicious that Steele's emails were wiped ("Like, with a cloth? Yuk yuk yuk!") during the period that the traitors were scheming against General Flynn? I do.

I have no idea about why Steele wiped his files. If you have evidence (actual evidence, not conjecture or musings) that he did it for improper reasons then I'd love to hear it. I do know he didn't wipe his files on the 6th and likely did it on the 4th which messes up your timeline. And that your "credible" news site has the wrong date and hasn't fixed it!

[Mountain Man]

The sixth text from Stzork says "Youre case agent right? Going to send you [redacted] for the file."

Also second to last text reads "Did DD send that material over?"

Also fourth from the bottom has something really important redacted which probably explains a lot about everything else.

Except there is no evidence that Flynn committed a crime. Now which is more likely: That it got lost on the way over from Stzork's office? Or that he never had any such evidence in the first place?

And the problem with a bluff like you're suggesting the FBI engaged in is it only works when the bluffee believes it. That is, it only works if Flynn thought their claimed evidence might actually exist. That only happens if he *did* what they are describing.

You can't have it both ways that Flynn is simultaneously innocent and falling for the ruse you're claiming.

I would like to know your basis for suggesting that it is impossible to trick an innocent man into believing he may be guilty of a crime.

[DivineOb]

Except there is no evidence that Flynn committed a crime. Now which is more likely: That it got lost on the way over from Stzork's office? Or that he never had any such evidence in the first place?

Your claim was that there was no evidence. I pointed to texts from your own source which indicate that is at least a reasonable possibility. Thus, we cannot conclude that there was "no evidence" and instead a grand conspiracy involving the entire government up through Obama! Dear lord you are gullible.

I would like to know your basis for suggesting that it is impossible to trick an innocent man into believing he may be guilty of a crime.

Let's break this down a bit then. Why don't you suggest

1) What Flynn actually did
2) What the FBI might have had evidence of
3) What the FBI might have told Flynn they had

And then we can see how likely the innocent Flynn could have been tricked right under his lawyers noses.

Also, since you forgot to answer these questions I'll just paste them here for you. Biden's dementia must be rubbing off on you ;).

1) Did they lie in a way inappropriate for a law enforcement action? Where is your evidence of this?
2) Did they *know* that no crime had been committed? Where is your evidence of this?

[lilpixieofterror]

Take it up with Starr and Gingrich. They really fouled up by not getting Clinton on an actual criminal charge then.

Not all illegal acts, are impeachable. Having sexual relations, with your subordinate is a violation of the very laws Clinton himself signed into law.

You asked me if I was familiar with the term. In fact I did google it and the example I saw was this one which clearly wouldn't apply in Flynn's case.



The issue Flynn lied about was directly germane to the investigation into possible FARA / Logan crimes. So clearly not a perjury trap akin to the example above.

Ok, we'll pretend he is nothing more than a person of average intelligence (clearly he's much smarter than that if he's a general). How did he commit perjury as part of a "trap"?

[lilpixieofterror]

Duh! Violating the Logan act, a private citizen negotiating with the Russians in an attempt to undermine the present administration, is a violation of the law.