Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo which in turn was based on the illegal leak of the Flynn call to the Russian Ambassador.

"Curious" that Mueller has not investigated that felony...

"curious" indeed.

Might explain another reason why Bobby recommended zero jail time.
 
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo which in turn was based on the illegal leak of the Flynn call to the Russian Ambassador.

"Curious" that Mueller has not investigated that felony...

"curious" indeed.

Might explain another reason why Bobby recommended zero jail time.

Evidence. Do you have any evidence he DIDN'T investigate it?

You are making a claim that he hasn't. Back it up or retract it.

Jk, you won't do either
 
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo which in turn was based on the illegal leak of the Flynn call to the Russian Ambassador.

"Curious" that Mueller has not investigated that felony...
"curious" indeed.

Might explain another reason why Bobby recommended zero jail time.

What makes you think he hasn't?

Ninja'd by the Plague..:thumbsup:

I think it's absurd to think Mueller hasn't. My guess is Mueller and Comey's investigation of Flynn was more thorough than any exam performed by the best proctologist. Keep in mind that Flynn's actions that led to the wider Russia investigation.

That we don't know is simply a demonstration of Mueller's professionalism.
 
Last edited:
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo [...]

No it doesn't. It says that the article was published days before Flynn's first interview, and that other members of Trump's transition team had made public statements on the same subject.

The first series of false statements occurred during an interview with the FBI on January 24, 2017. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald J. Trump. Days prior to the FBI’s interview of the defendant, the
Washington Post
had published a story alleging that he had spoken with Russia’s ambassador to the United States on December 29, 2016, the day the United States announced sanctions and other measures against Russia in response to that government’s actions intended to interfere with the 2016 election (collectively, “sanctions”).
See
David Ignatius,
Why did Obama Dawdle on Russia’s hacking?
,

W
ASH
.

P
OST
(Jan. 12, 2017). The Post
story queried whether the defendant’s actions violated the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from corresponding with a foreign government with the intent to influence the conduct of that foreign government regarding disputes with the United States.
See
18 U.S.C. § 953. Subsequent to the publication of the
Case 1:17-cr-00232-EGS Document 46 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 7


-3-
Post
article and prior to the defendant’s FBI interview, members of President-Elect Trump’s transition team publicly stated that they had spoken to the defendant, and that he denied speaking to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions.
See, e.g.
,
Face the Nation transcript January 15, 2017: Pence, Manchin, Gingrich
,

CBS

N
EWS
(Jan. 15, 2017). When the FBI interviewed the defendant on January 24 about his interactions with the Russian ambassador, the defendant falsely stated that he did not ask the Russian ambassador to refrain from escalating the situation in response to the sanctions, and falsely disclaimed any memory of his subsequent conversation with the ambassador in which the ambassador stated that Russia had acceded to the defendant’s request.
See
SOF at ¶ 3. In addition, the defendant made false statements to the FBI about his prior interactions with the Russian government in December 2016 concerning a pending United Nations Security Council resolution.
See id.
at ¶ 4. The defendant’s false statements to the FBI about (i) his contacts with a Russian government emissary, (ii) the requests he conveyed to the Russian government through that emissary, and (iii) Russia’s response to those requests, were material to the FBI’s investigation into the nature of any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Sorry, but I can't be arsed to fix the formatting. Here's the memo
 

Golly, did you have some information that it was the subject of an investigation? Because one would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the sentencing report, because Flynn was in fact the victim of that felony.

I assume given your post that you have a layer of substantive evidence that has thus far eluded us.

As such regale us with the facts, regale away!
 
What makes you think he hasn't?

Ninja'd by the Plague..:thumbsup:

I think it's absurd to think Mueller hasn't. My guess is Mueller and Comey's investigation of Flynn was more thorough than any exam performed by the best proctologist. Keep in mind that Flynn's actions that led to the wider Russia investigation.

That we don't know is simply a demonstration of Mueller's professionalism.

TBD is just repeating Trump's debunked line of "why isn't he investigating the other side?!?!"

Which the obvious answer is, "He's investigating anything in relation to the Russia investigation, no matter who that happens to be or their political affiliation."

Mueller wasn't tasked with Hillary's emails. Why would he investigate them?

Sorry, but I can't be arsed to fix the formatting.

Deal. No arsing Squeegee. Check
 
"Curious" as to why sensible people don't use the ignore function on trolls.

Golly, did you have some information that it was the subject of an investigation? Because one would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the sentencing report, because Flynn was in fact the victim of that felony.

I assume given your post that you have a layer of substantive evidence that has thus far eluded us.

As such regale us with the facts, regale away!

LoL wut?
 
Hmm, the in-curiosity of who in the Obama administration leaked the surveillance tapes to WaPo.

I wonder why Mueller graced the sentencing memo with a reference to waPo's article, which was based on a leak, without mentioning it was leaked....

Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
We are now in the "Why are you pulling me over for running a red light when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets?" level of apologetics.
 
We are now in the "Why are you pulling me over for running a red light when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets?" level of apologetics.

Wait, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Given that we are talking about the sentencing recommendation?

Walk us through your thought process.
 
Given that you have not acknowledged that Flynn committed a crime, and you even went so far as to misrepresent your own sources to enhance your denial, yeah, that's a bad thing.

Oh dear, whether or not I have acknowledged that it was a crime (it wasn't) surely your post could not possibly have meant that... lets break it down:

"Why are you pulling me over for running a red light" hmmm I am the Scum that statement right there assumes that a crime was indeed committed.

Perhaps you want to reignite those engines and start again (and also leave the false claims about misrepresenting sources in the trash where it belongs, not only because it is false, but also because has **** all to do with your claim)

Waiting with anticipation!
 
We are now in the "Why are you pulling me over for running a red light when there are murderers and rapists roaming the streets?" level of apologetics.
Not quite:

We are now in the "Why are you hassling me for potentially selling out the country when there are people who might have illegally let you know that I am potentially selling out the country?" level of apologetics.
 
Oh dear, whether or not I have acknowledged that it was a crime (it wasn't) surely your post could not possibly have meant that... lets break it down:

Yikes. We have regressed to "Flynn pleaded guilty to an activity that is not actually illegal" apologetics. This is getting rough.
 
Yikes. We have regressed to "Flynn pleaded guilty to an activity that is not actually illegal" apologetics. This is getting rough.

Ah, not going to defend your earlier silly statement? Good idea.

Now we are at a new position, and we have regressed to "deliberately misrepresenting my position" apologetics.

Super.
 
One thing that is notable about the Mueller document is that it mentions that the FBI began investigating Flynn based on an article in the WaPo which in turn was based on the illegal leak of the Flynn call to the Russian Ambassador.

"Curious" that Mueller has not investigated that felony...

"curious" indeed.

Your obvious whataboutism is obvious
 
Hmm, the in-curiosity of who in the Obama administration leaked the surveillance tapes to WaPo.

I wonder why Mueller graced the sentencing memo with a reference to waPo's article, which was based on a leak, without mentioning it was leaked....

Hmmm.

Maybe he did, and its been redacted.
 
Ah, not going to defend your earlier silly statement? Good idea.

Now we are at a new position, and we have regressed to "deliberately misrepresenting my position" apologetics.

Super.


Its hard not to misrepresent your position when you either change it willy-nilly or don't represent it at all. Your continual whataboutism makes it near impossible, but I guess that's the idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom