Well, nothing "shady" going on here.... lol The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they’ve maintained throughout the case. https://www.nationalreview.com/news...fbi-mistakenly-identified-peter-strzok-notes/ This alone should make it a mistrial and cause the case to be thrown out. Altered 302, mixed up notes, false statements by DOJ officials.....
Pointing to the DOJ or FBI as authoritative sources is dicey business at best. Only in statements of exoneration of Republicans and indictments of Democrats can anything they say be taken at face value. The institutions are corrupt and reek of bias toward all things leftwing, liberal, anti-American, and pro-Democratic Party. Huge percentages of those institutions need to be fired. Clean em out, clean up the corruption, and start over.
Trump admin says it didn’t happen. Who’s lying? You or them? “The interviewing agents repeatedly sought to prompt the defendant to provide a truthful response,” wrote U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who detailed the interaction in the filing. “Such conduct demonstrates that the agents were not in search of a crime, but the truth about what had happened and why — which the defendant failed to provide,” she wrote. “Had they wanted to ‘trap’ the defendant into a false statement charge, they would not have prompted him repeatedly to correct his statements.” And the 302s? The DOJ also dismissed concerns about alleged discrepancies between drafts of the interview notes, calling the changes "largely grammatical and stylistic." “The interviewing agents’ handwritten notes, interview report, drafts of the interview report, and statements are consistent and clear that the defendant made multiple false statements to the agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017,” Liu wrote. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-down-claims-strzok-and-the-fbi-trapped-flynn
Isn’t he the president? Just like Obama was? Who you constantly claim ran the DOJ? Can trump fire anyone he wants in the DOJ?
You mean like Obama using the DOJ as his own personal Nazi hit squad? When they were not too busy running guns to cartels or arranging shipments of cash to terrorists, that is. lol President Trump is the President, yes. How does that fit in with your fake statement about Trump making them lie? Clue: It doesn't because you just made it up.
So Obama ran the DOJ but trump doesn’t. Classic! Lol Can he fire anyone in DOJ? Or was that only Obama?
Yes, I do. Extracting a guilty confession from a father who was threatened is not something I’m comfortable with. I didn’t realize such tactics were acceptable here.
Oh yea? So Obama told his DOJ to run guns to cartels and to spy on Trump and to meet Bill on the tarmac? Glad you identify the Kingpin in all of the criminal activity that went on. lol You crack me up.
Seriously? You don't believe we can indict whomever commits a crime regardless of family relations??? That's not a "tactic" - it's the JOB of prosecutors to indict those who warrant indictments.
what Trump did was a crime, if any other candidate did that, they would be in prison I do oppose Trump, guilty as charged, I will vote for anyone but Trump I would assume you are guilty of opposing Hilary as well, what would you say if asked Trump could have tweeted anything he liked about Bieden, his error was trying to bribe a foreign government to announce an investigation via a meeting\holding up of funds, it got him impeached and rightly so
No, it wasn't. The DOJ currently has an open investigation into Ukraine surrounding the Russian Hoax and Trump has every right as an American President to go after Hunter Biden and his criminal activity in a foreign country. It's his duty to protect the nation from coke snorting drug addicts that knock up strippers and lie about it. lol
no he does not, the FBI or the DOJ could, Trump can not hold up aid or promise meetings in exchange for "announcing" a starting of an investigation into a political opponent - Trump did not even care if he was investigated, he just wanted the "anouncement" Biden's son is like the Trump children that do not work in the white house... nothing more but Trump's children working in the white house making side deals with China and Saudi Arabia should be investigated but anyways, back to Flynn, I got off topic, sorry about that, thought was on a different thread
Yes, the DOJ does. What do you think Durham is pursuing? yes, Trump can hold up aid and he released it within the time frame that was deemed legal.
K. But what did Flynn do that actually warrants punishment (aside from not hating Trump)? His 'lie' was to say that he didn't meet with Russians when the meeting was sanctioned and public knowledge, and he thus likely assumed the question was pertaining to other illicit meetings. so he said no and they charged him with, essentially, falsely presuming the meaning of the question. He's 'guilty' of a technicality (and trying to serve under Trump). A process crime. He didn't actually do anything wrong, just got caught in a 'gotcha' being factually, technically wrong. If he had, instead, muttered 'I don't recall', as others in his situation do out of habit, he'd be off scott free. He's 'guilty' of actually trying to cooperate with the investigation and believing that it was being conducted rationally and in good faith.
If prosecutors have a good case, they shouldn’t have to threaten someone’s children to get a guilty plea.
Trump did not hold it up legally, even his own people knew that, that is why Trump bypassed the normal process and is preventing those witnesses form speaking to congress
working with a foreign government and lying about it - your right, had he said "I do not recall", it would still be a lie, but he woudl of got away with it (only cause how do you prove someone really recalls)
And how was he 'working with a foreign govt' simply by meeting with them? If you're suggesting he was working with them against the US, what evidence is there for it?
The President can appoint an outsider, but what are the chances he'd be confirmed?? I wouldn't trust Sessions as far as I could throw him. Sessions is part of the swamp; and, I'm highly skeptical of Barr. So the head of the institution only matters if he proves he means business, and heads roll out the door. You have thousands of DOJ employees, all committed to destroying Republicans and protecting Democrats. Barr has said some pretty ominous things related to illegality committed by some of the key players in the Russia Hoax, but until he actually indicts some of these guys I'll remain skeptical.
