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.

 

Has Disgraced Nat Sec Advisor Lt. Gen Michael Flynn Cut A Deal With The FBI?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: GD21D

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

Did someone check Obamas and his staff for ties to foreign countries when he ran for office or was it okay back then?


Were there claims that surrogates within the Obama Admin coordinated with foreign countries to hack RNC communications and leak them to assist in winning the election? Am I missing something?


Comey said that Russia hacked old RNC e-mails, it would be nothing to do with the Trump election per se




posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There are private investigators looking into Trump deals all the time. If Trump does have such deals in Russia, then why has no one leaked it or reported it?


It's common knowledge of Trumps business in Russia. They go back 30 years.


www.usatoday.com...

But making deals with Russia to influence American elections....That's different, Thats Treason!!

Will Flynn rat out Trump. I hope so. But if not Flynn...there are plenty of others just waiting to testify and save their own butts from the coming train wreak known as Russiagate. This investigation is still in it's infancy.

edit on 26-3-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

exactly.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

POST REMOVED BY STAFF


You need to see the T&C's on that, there can be similar posts in different forums within certain boundaries.
edit on Sun Mar 26 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Exactly what?

My OP presents quite a bit more/different material for discussion and it's not in the Mud Pit which should help to ensure that the discussion isn't riddled with desperate attempts at derailment like yours.

Perhaps you could alert the mods to your own post?

It's pretty telling to me that rather than address the content of the OP, you're scrambling to find some reason — any reason — to invalidate my posting of the OP in the first place. What are you so afraid of?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Could you be a cheery good ol bloke and define for us "influence" for us?

Note that just because someone might be buddies with them, if they went and released a hack they did also: is that someones fault?

Of course there's a list of IF's involved, cascades of them, in this whole melodrama.

I mean unless the charge is Trump paid them to hack and release. Good luck with that argument, as I do recall a bunch of noise from Vault 7 release #1 enough in there to show the CIA had the tools and methods to do a paint up doctor job on "establishing" the hacks themselves (note there were multiple on what was it every hack involved?).

Since they face going down was treasonous war criminals, it's not like they haven't had cause for such shady business. They being Hillary, Obama, McCain, Graham, NATO. But I know half of you out there want to avoid that whole discussion like its kryptonite.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: theantediluvian

Okay, say Flynn, better yet say Trump is buddies with some Russian's, owns oil drilling platforms off of Siberia, or whatever it is you guys are so obsessed with harping about...

What difference would this be in comparison to Obama, Bush's, Clinton's etc all being in bed with say Saudi Arabia?

That's one single example (well its several in one I guess)...




Saudi Arabia didn't hack government officials and leak those documents on the eve of an election to swing the election for a clinton...

Worst case scenario what is Saudi Arabia want in return??

They pay hillary, she lets them remain in charge of Saudi Arabia?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Now if only you'd hypothesize and entertain new ideas that wasn't partisan in nature, you'd actually be interesting. But since your bias is always showing it makes your threads very uninteresting.

Such a shame to waste such a clever mind. You are like the anti-xuechen.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

How do you know they didn't? Can you prove it?

Can you prove Russia hacked Clinton? And then they were the ones that handed it off to WikiLeaks?

Heresay!

We know for a FACT those other foreign interests have had sick money tied all up in lobbying and so much more our .gov, hacking our .gov, influencing our elections, US influencing other elections, states side war profiteering, and so on.

So basically everything is on the table, unless hacked corruption files are released? Is that the sum of the story of what pragmatism has become, and everyone even the peons all support it?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
If any of these allegations are true, it would be consoling to know Flynn had a surge of conscience and decided to rescue the government from corrupt treasonous hands. It would be a good deed.

But if he is somehow cooperating and 'snitching' it's more likely he wants to save his bacon from corruption charges, or worse, treason.

There are no absolutes here yet. But one thing is clear, we need an independent investigation and a special prosecutor if it goes that far. Trump should be jumping up and down for one, to quell these rumors of treason and wrongdoing.

Why isn't he?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

From my experience, those who scream they are innocent are likely to be guilty, those who don't say a word are likely to be innocent. If you are innocent, you have nothing to prove, so you don't even bother screaming you are innocent.

As for a private investigator, DNC has lots of cash, I'm sure DNC has hired private investigators to investigate Trump.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This thread has drifted somewhat from its title. "Has Disgraced Nat Sec Advisor Lt. Gen Michael Flynn Cut A Deal With The FBI?"

The discussion around your title is relevant but let me address your titled question.
The answer is I highly doubt it. Unless the hardened general has suddenly developed a new set of principles and wants to confess his evil deeds.

The way that law enforcement agencies "flip" people is to offer the suspect a better deal in exchange for testimony than they would get if they were prosecuted. If this testimony is, as alleged, against the President and/or his people who could possibly offer this suspect (Flynn) a better deal than the President? That deal being a full pardon. Therefore I say no way Flynn cuts a deal with the FBI.


a reply to: theantediluvian

edit on 26-3-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
There was a CNN analyst who made this claim yesterday, and I checked it out about half an hour ago, and she had redacted her claim.

CNN Analyst Drops Claim that Flynn may have Flipped on Trump
edit on 26pmSun, 26 Mar 2017 20:05:33 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
There was a CNN analyst who made this claim yesterday, and I checked it out about half an hour ago, and she had redacted her claim.

CNN Analyst Drops Claim that Flynn may have Flipped on Trump


CNN makes many claims, usually end up redacted or ignored. It's why they are the epitome of Fake News.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate




CNN makes many claims, usually end up redacted or ignored.

More so than Fox?
Ignored may depend upon the audience.
Retracted (what I think you meant)...Napolitano comes to mind.
edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rosinitiate




CNN makes many claims, usually end up redacted or ignored.

More so than Fox?
Ignored may depend upon the audience.
Retracted (what I think you meant)...Napolitano comes to mind.


No, no, Fox news is equally charming.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rosinitiate




CNN makes many claims, usually end up redacted or ignored.

More so than Fox?


Didn't know it was a contest. Is it cable v. Broadcast or everyone?



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot
Please refer to the post to which I replied.
It was quite specific.



edit on 3/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rosinitiate




CNN makes many claims, usually end up redacted or ignored.

More so than Fox?
Ignored may depend upon the audience.
Retracted (what I think you meant)...Napolitano comes to mind.


Lol. My point being none of them are to be trusted.
edit on 26-3-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join