It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Reportedly Will Not Pursue Charges Against "Cooperative And Truthful" Mike Flynn

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The FBI had no problem letting Hillary Clinton off the hook despite numerous attempts to hide the truth.. and from what it seems now, Flynn didn't even do that.
www.zerohedge.com...

The issue may now prove to be a non issue and Trump simply having lost trust in Flynn wishing to distance himself from him resulting in his dismissal...

Also for those who may believe seperate charges of purgery or lying initially to the FBI are ill founded as FBI statements conclude that Flynn spoke truthfully...

Its also becoming more apparent that a certain side
continues to lose any traction they have to attack Trump...

And that Trump and his actions and bold statements has angered his enemy's deeply entrenched with the power to move on him from the inside... Many would suggest Trump should not be stupid and be careful and keep his mouth shut to not allow things to be revealed...
But I'm starting to think Trump knows exactly what he's doing and that those who oppose him are the ones who need fear being revealed...

I wonder how fast one of ATS's newest members ExVoto could draw Mike floating above an FBI panel with Angel wings and a halo while he is being question by them...

edit on 16-2-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word




posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Shame on you for using the word truth in the same op with that woman's name in it .All threads with her name in them should be moved to the RATS forum with the other unspeakable s ....S&F



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Did you even read your own source material?


the FBI now adds that investigators "believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said."


So no, they don't believe he told them the truth, whole truth, and nothing but. They believe he was not entirely forthcoming, and/or that he wasn't intentionally misleading them.

That's nowhere near the same as "truthful."
edit on 16-2-2017 by Shamrock6 because: Masons were bugging me



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Jim Sciutto ✔@jimsciutto
More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers
4:47 PM - 15 Feb 2017



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Your own source material:

the FBI now adds that investigators "believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said."


CNN -

Flynn initially told investigators sanctions were not discussed. But FBI agents challenged him, asking if he was certain that was his answer. He said he didn't remember. The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say.


Flynn's story changed

So...your guy is tweeting, yesterday, what the author of my article told him. And now my article has been updated today, about an hour ago. Your source material was written today. The article I cite from CNN was updated an hour ago. Your tweet is from yesterday.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Lol but its CNN.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

As the FBI determined he was not intentionally misleading them then he was being truthful...

And its the FBI who has made the claim of his truthfulness...

edit on 16-2-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Lol that's not how it works. You can still be misleading and factually incorrect and not do it on purpose dude.

"Telling the truth" and "not intentionally lying" are not one and the same.

And no, it's not. It's a reporter saying that the guy that wrote my article told him that's what the FBI said. The guy that wrote my article says, now, that the FBI had to challenge him on his responses and then he said he just didn't remember. Your guy is citing the guy that wrote my article. Your guy that you're trotting out now conflicts with what you decided to use as your source material.

Bottom line: they won't charge him right now because they don't think, and more importantly can't prove, that he intentionally lied to them about anything. That doesn't mean that he was a paragon of virtue and spilled the beans on everything. It means his "not remembering" isn't something they can take him to court over.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Well this is what all your supposition means...
Laking any burden of proof by what you must clearly see as the Incompetence of the FBI who being unable in said incompetence to find any misleading statements made by Mike Flynn the FBI can only make the claim he has been truthful...

It really is that easy...
edit on 16-2-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I guess I am in the middle on this.

The intelligence community has the goods on anybody. Flynn made no friends while there. This really looks like payback and rice bowl protection at the leaf-eater echelons.

However, I'm sure Flynn was not without sin and should be smarter. The WH was probably cutting losses and playing the longer game. Smart but unusual from what I have seen thus far.

The bigger, scarier sub-plot here is how we as a nation have let the unelected and uncountable IC grow to such a power. Makes you wonder who is really running the show then.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




"Telling the truth" and "not intentionally lying" are not one and the same.


Sounds like the same pass they gave the unspeakable woman. So what is the problem?



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Shamrock6




"Telling the truth" and "not intentionally lying" are not one and the same.


Sounds like the same pass they gave the unspeakable woman. So what is the problem?


So we should base decisions on whether or not to file charges against someone not on the merits of the evidence but on whether or not another political figure who we disagree with was or was not charged in a similar scenario?

Why bother having laws period if nobody is beholden to them? Just toss out the Constitution and embrace anarchy is essentially what you're suggesting.

F# that. If the evidence is there, file the charges and give them their day in court. Are we no longer considered innocent until proven guilty under Trump's Age of Apocalypse? Or does thst only count for people we agree with politically these days?

This right here is the problem with our country. We have become so polarized, so partisan in our myopic little world views, thst nobody sees reason anymore. The left calls Trump and his supporters fascists, nazis and racists while the right demonizes the left as liberal snowflakes who need a safe space when triggered. Meanwhile both sides are so wrapped up in the confirmation biases of their own ignorance thst they can't see that they are as much a part of the problem as everyone they're pointing fingers at. It's pathetic. We have laws, if someone breaks them and there's enough evidence to file charges, give them their day in court and let all the facts be known. I don't care of you're Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or anyone in between. Once we start selectively prosecuting people only when they disagree with us then we really have crossed that Orwellian threshold and crossed back in time to the dawn of the Great Depression and the rise of European extremism in the guise of Fascists and a Communists.

Well done America! You've managed to backtrack an entire century of social progress.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I think this is progress...

The shadow government is playing a dangerous game with an opponent who knows them and their deeds which seems to underestimate his guile...

I believe Trump is going to continue with his method of baiting and exposure of those who hide and manipulate from the shadows and in doing so accomplish what JFK had such great aspirations of himself...



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I am not disagreeing with you. But you have to know that the women's transgression were far greater than anything they can pin on Flynn. He mentioned sanctions. Not against the law.

Do you even know or acknowledge all the things she did.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Shamrock6




"Telling the truth" and "not intentionally lying" are not one and the same.


Sounds like the same pass they gave the unspeakable woman. So what is the problem?


Not the same... The FBI report stated that Hillary did do wrong. But she wasn't playing with a full mental deck. So Comey gave her a break, based on incompetence.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I agree she wasn't playing with a full deck but that was never mentioned. It is an assumption. i recall a list of things she did wrong but other than the list to the oversight committee, I saw no report.

Or maybe you jest and I am too dense to see.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
But this was" bigger than watergate!"

This was finally going to bring down Trump and his entire staff!


edit on 16-2-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

JFK only wanted to dismantle the CIA. Trump has gone to war with our entire intelligence community. That didn't work out so hot for Kennedy and he didn't have anywhere near the far reaching agenda Trump thinks he has. An as incompetent as Trump is, the only thing scarier than him as POTUS is Mickey Pence reigning over the Oval Office.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You sound like Bill Kristol saying the deep state is better than Trump.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: peter vlar

I am not disagreeing with you. But you have to know that the women's transgression were far greater than anything they can pin on Flynn.


The severity of the crime of one person should have no bearing whatsoever on the filing of barges and prosecution of another persons completely unrelated crimes. You're rationalizing that it's not a big deal because Clinton got away with no charges. She also should have her day in court to address the charges against her. If there is evidence, then bring it before a grand jury and get an indictment. Why is that a bad thing?



He mentioned sanctions. Not against the law.


What he mentioned isn't the issue. It's the fact that he had the conversation in the first place. He very likely violated the Logan Act. It's a felony and carries a sentence of 3 years.

How did he violate the Logan Act? I'm glad you asked. The Logan Act makes it a crime for a private citizen to communicate with a foreign government without proper authority in an attempt to influence the actions of the foreign government. President John Adams signed the Logan Act in 1799 in response to the actions of a state legislator (George Logan) who apparently went behind Adams' back and traveled to France to try and negotiate peace with that country during the undeclared Quasi War.

Flynn is guilty of violating the Logan Act if he (1) had communication with a foreign government; (2) with the intent to influence that foreign government, (3) while being a U.S. citizen without the authority to engage in diplomatic discussions on behalf of the United States.

So what do we know? Flynn admits to making the phone calls. He admits he did not brief Pence on the full content of those calls. He is guilty of part 1. Part 2. Is questionable. It's difficult to prove his intent but given the fact that he did not have the authority to communicate with representatives of any foreign governments during the transition period, it's difficult to come up with a legitimate reason for him to call if he weren't trying to influence the Russians. And part 3. He was a private citizen at the time. He was not a part of a sitting government. Trump had yet to take office and he was not working for the Obama administration. He was therefore a private citizen.

It looks like there is at least enough to go to trial for violating the Logan Act. Federal law also prohibits someone from making a false statement when discussing a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government if there is an intent to deceive a government agency about an important matter. Making a false statement is a felony that carries up to five years in prison. Unlike the Logan Act, prosecutions under the false statements statute occur all the time. By telling Pence that the conversation with the Russian ambassador didn't include the topic of sanctions, he is guilty of making false statements.

We simply can not arbitrarily charge, or fails to file charges against, people based solely on the convenience or inconvenience of the situation. The law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. Be ceasing to be diligent and lapsing into complacency in these matters, we have failed ourselves as a society and the principles this nation were founded upon. It's not rocket science.


Do you even know or acknowledge all the things she did.


I'm well aware of all of the allegations. Hence my desire for her to have her day in court where the government can lay out its case and We the People can see the evidence for ourselves. That's how our legal system is supposed to work. I fail to see why equal application of the law to everyone is such a frightening proposition.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join