DNI Grenell To Declassify Obama Flynn Unmaskers!

4 Likes

SpunQ -



Excellent

1 Like

Can you guys explain what is meant by the Flynn "unmasking".   Do they mean they will reveal all who were involved in the set up?

SpunQ -



This is the problem. I have zero faith that any of them will get anything more than a stern lecturing. I hope I'm wrong, but history says otherwise.

Bodies are about to pile up . Servers destroyed. Operation hilldog is a go. 

1 Like

MahomesIsYourDaddy - 
SpunQ -



This is the problem. I have zero faith that any of them will get anything more than a stern lecturing. I hope I'm wrong, but history says otherwise.


I imagine before any of the above individuals got in real trouble, a deal would be made with Trump to back off in exchange for immunity.

Soup and Beer -

Can you guys explain what is meant by the Flynn "unmasking".   Do they mean they will reveal all who were involved in the set up?

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has de> a list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, a senior U.S. official tells ABC News.


Grenell, who remains the U.S. ambassador to Germany along with being the acting DNI, visited the Justice Department last week and brought the list with him, according to the official.



His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, specifically allegations that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn's identity from intercepts of his call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.


 


They unmasked him so they could leak it to the MSM, so it would play out in public. A big no no.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/trey-gowdy-challenges-media-who-unmasked-flynn

Chomas -

OP get a life man, I truly feel sorry for you.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

5 Likes
SpunQ - 
Soup and Beer -

Can you guys explain what is meant by the Flynn "unmasking".   Do they mean they will reveal all who were involved in the set up?

officials improperly unveiled Flynn's info from intercepts of his call. You know, illegally wiretapping, listening in ... Spying.


 


Ah thanks.


Looks like some pants are about to be shit.


 

Chomas -

OP get a life man, I truly feel sorry for you.

I don't think there's much to feel sorry about.  We are going to see some fireworks in the next couple weeks. 

2 Likes

Chomas - 

OP get a life man, I truly feel sorry for you.


ROFL! Now that things aren't looking too hot for your team you want people to shut up about it. Not likely going to happen after the 3 year shit show and Russian disinformation you guys pushed. 

4 Likes

SpunQ - 
Chomas -

OP get a life man, I truly feel sorry for you.

Biggest political scandal of all time. These threads are a part of history in the making and you cannot even see it. It's such a shame.


Thta's the problem. His side will be the losing side and he hates it.

1 Like

FYI there were REPUBLICAN members of Congress privy to all the information in the sealed-until-recently testimony while Schiff and others were selectively leaking, and they just instead let this shitshow go on for years.

Also, not a single Obama-era official is going to be prosecuted or even charged for anything, even if they committed crimes.

Naming names is catnip for conservative media, but the rest of the country is focused on the China Virus.

The Flynn stuff was barely in the news cycle. People are not talking about it.

 

This would be a huge victory lap for Trump if it happened a year ago. Right now, people are more focused about when the next government stimulus is going to hit their accounts.

 

From the WSJ editorial board:

Barack Obama on Michael Flynn

The lawyer President misstates the crime and the real threat to justice.

Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama’s spokeswoman to the Washington Post and other outlets. Mr. Obama added: “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

Even discounting for Mr. Obama’s partisan audience, this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.

As for “scot-free,” that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate. We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn’t bring that up.

We doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday’s Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution. If he does ever read it, he’ll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether “our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” though not for the reasons he claims.

Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn’t think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.

Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview. The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case. James Comey’s FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then national security adviser and perhaps trap him into a lie.

All of this was moved along politically by leaks to the media about Mr. Flynn’s phone call with the Russian. The U.S. eavesdrops on foreign officials as a routine, but names of innocent Americans on those calls are supposed to be shielded from review to protect their privacy. Yet senior Obama officials have had to acknowledge that they “unmasked” Mr. Flynn’s name and others in their last months in power. Then, what a surprise, news of Mr. Flynn’s call and its contents pop up in the Washington Post. Did someone say “institutional norms”?

All of this raises questions about the role the Obama Justice Department and White House played in targeting Mr. Flynn. We already know the FBI had opened up a counterintelligence probe into Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign officials, yet it had come up with no evidence of collusion.

Donald Trump’s victory increased the chances that this unprecedented spying on a political opponent would be uncovered, which would have been politically embarrassing at the very least. Targeting Mr. Flynn—and flogging the discredited Steele dossier—kept the Russia collusion pot boiling and evolved into the two-year Mueller investigation that turned up no evidence of collusion.

This among other things is what U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr. Maybe that’s why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-on-michael-flynn-11589148648

“That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

Is he making a threat with this statement? It sounds to me like he's saying "if I go down, I'm taking everyone I can with me"

DFW3 - 

“That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”


Is he making a threat with this statement? It sounds to me like he's saying "if I go down, I'm taking everyone I can with me"


I didn't take it that way. I thought he was saying we will become a banana republic... if we hold him accountable for behaving like he was the leader in a banana republic...

LMAO @ get a life OP. Like this is just some regular ol' news story. hahaha. theyre in panic full blown panic mode.

Trump 3rd term incoming...

BrckNoHitBk - 

LMAO @ get a life OP. Like this is just some regular ol' news story. hahaha. theyre in panic full blown panic mode.


haha...all of a sudden the usual suspects on the left aren't as interested and think OP is just obsessed.

Of course, all those guys that are "right down the middle" and arent "sheep that choose a team" are not the ones I'm referring to...even if they only side with the left.