FBI agents told McCabe if the case went to grand jury they would testify on Flynn’s behalf

originally posted by: neo96
It is a RIGHT to have a lawyer present.

Flynn did not.

Now this farce has been outted for what it is.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Every one gets a get out of jail free card.

Flynn,Bannon,Manafort.

They can not use illegal means to 'GETCHA'.

So, he was denied counsel?
Or he chose not to have counsel?

I guess if you had used some sense, you would not have been able to join in the delusional fun fest.

Are YOU willing to make a bet that Flynn, Gates and Manafort DO NOT get out of jail free?

And why would you include Bannon? Has he been indicted?

MTUBY

originally posted by: ParkerCramer

originally posted by: neo96
It is a RIGHT to have a lawyer present.

Flynn did not.

Now this farce has been outted for what it is.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Every one gets a get out of jail free card.

Flynn,Bannon,Manafort.

They can not use illegal means to 'GETCHA'.

So, he was denied counsel?
Or he chose not to have counsel?

I guess if you had used some sense, you would not have been able to join in the delusional fun fest.

Are YOU willing to make a bet that Flynn, Gates and Manafort DO NOT get out of jail free?

And why would you include Brannon? Has he been indicted?

MTUBY

Here.

originally posted by: Pyle
Shouldnt the Title of this thread be "Trump supporting twitter users make claim". It is amazing to see people who decry anonymous sources switch to loving them.

I guess to total fool and you sir are no total fool. Strawman in a way but no total fool.

This is yet another thing that should be checked out, cause if its true its yet another black eye for the agency.

Not to mention some more proof that we need to take a long hard look at the way people get into those positions where they can screw up big investigations.

a reply to: ClovenSky

How long do we have before it will become apparent that nothing will come from this? The division between the Rs and Ds is merely illusion in the swamp. They are simply taking their agreed upon terms between the good cops and bad cops.

Yep I forsee lots of Harsh language used but no prosecution just like congress did with the CEO bailouts abuse of money to get their 50 M+ bonus and the Clinton investigation by the Federal Bureau of Inquiry.

The GOP and the DNC candidates are equal rats , just one of them has the spotlight on them for the time being for the show.

Like I have said before I won't declare any of this a victory or reason to celebrate until I see the arrest, eitherwise its just more of the same show.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Grambler
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that at some point he didn't request council. Maybe he was playing them by knowing this could cause them a problem down the road although I think that would be a risky gamble.

My understanding is that the FBI called Flynn's scheduler and scheduled the meeting, but they did not indicate that it was anything other than a regular meeting. In Flynn's capacity for the administration, meeting with the FBI would not have been an unusual thing, so seeing a meeting with teh FBI on his schedule would not have raised any red flags; it would have been a common occurrence for his job.

However, when the agents showed up. They then turned it into an interview over the investigation. Had they revealed what they were doing ahead of time, Flynn likely would have had counsel present.

Flynn must be an idiot then. First answer to first question should have been, my lawyer should be present. Everyone here reading this is probably smart enough for that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Had they revealed what they were doing ahead of time, Flynn likely would have had counsel present.

But why didnt he end the meeting or call for counsel when he saw how it was progressing? That is the question.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
Had they revealed what they were doing ahead of time, Flynn likely would have had counsel present.

But why didnt he end the meeting or call for counsel when he saw how it was progressing? That is the question.

Maybe they didn't tell him or maybe there weren't any real signals and maybe the accusations of altered records are very real?

Or maybe he was going by the old saying, "If you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to fear."

Oops!

originally posted by: ketsuko
Maybe they didn't tell him or maybe there weren't any real signals...

I find that hard to believe that if the line of questioning being discussed here in the thread is accurate that he didn't pick up on where they were taking the interview.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A better question is - was that discussion really of the nature portrayed by the FBI?

Since Pete Strzok was one of the 2 agents involved in that interview, for all we know it could have actually been a very light, non-threatening chat, which did not concern Flynn enough to think he needed counsel.

Then Strzok creates a distorted 302 of his own creation in order to satisfy his own agenda. We already know that Strzok was corrupt and biased. He made it his personal mission to take down Trump, per his text messages.

Perhaps the other agent in the interview is one of the ones who agreed to testify on behalf of Flynn.

a reply to: Grambler

what i don't understand how they allowed to use interviews to throw charges against people with out reading people miranda rights. i garuntee if they had flynn would have said nothing till his attorney arrived.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
A better question is - was that discussion really of the nature portrayed by the FBI?

Since Pete Strzok was one of the 2 agents involved in that interview...

...

Perhaps the other agent in the interview is one of the ones who agreed to testify on behalf of Flynn.

I suppose we will need to let this play out to find what actually transpired.

unless And until some of these Actions are flat out called criminal and arrest are made this is all just BS to keep everyone busy pulling for their political team.

I just heard a republican congressman on meet the press say he didn’t want to see anyone get charged with a crime as a result of the memo even though he believed it was true. Charging people would “Go too far”.

The White House is saying this should stop the investigation into the administration “fruit of the poisonous tree”. But their own party is saying every day the Mueller investigation should go on.

Both sides hate trump and the media that is corrupted hates him too because he represents change and someone that is less easily controlled. If Hillary was president now she would do anything she was told with all the dirt they have on her.

Charge someone already with a real crime not lying to the FBI. There is enough evidence today for charges but everyone is scared to charge a brother in government.this is all BS.

a reply to: proteus33

Miranda rights are not required unless the subject is both in custody (under arrest or not free to leave) and being interrogated. A+I=M. Arrest plus Interrogation equals Miranda. If a subject is free to leave and not under arrest, then he need not be mirandized. Also, if the subject is under arrest, but is not being interrogated, then he need not be mirandized and any spontaneous utterance he makes is fair evidence to be used against him.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Grambler
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that at some point he didn't request council. Maybe he was playing them by knowing this could cause them a problem down the road although I think that would be a risky gamble.

My understanding is that the FBI called Flynn's scheduler and scheduled the meeting, but they did not indicate that it was anything other than a regular meeting. In Flynn's capacity for the administration, meeting with the FBI would not have been an unusual thing, so seeing a meeting with teh FBI on his schedule would not have raised any red flags; it would have been a common occurrence for his job.

However, when the agents showed up. They then turned it into an interview over the investigation. Had they revealed what they were doing ahead of time, Flynn likely would have had counsel present.

I heard the same.

I still believe Flynn can also get his conviction overturned simply because his lie was based on an illegal wiretap. Of course some of the libtard idiots here in ATS laughed at me for posting a thread on it. Seems they believe political opposition spying is no big deal. Lol...if all this is allowed to slide I wonder if they’d give the green light for the Trump administration to do the same in 2020.

originally posted by: smurfy

I would steer very clear of this boyo, he is disinfo, and acted in large fake news propaganda possibly orchestrated by Russian sources and may have friends in other [Trump friendly] countries.
He was lieutenant junior grade naval intelligence officer, in August 2017 his security clearance was revoked.

roflmao...another moronic claim that "the Russians are behind it all"?... Grow the hell up. If you have EVIDENCE demonstrating your claims post it. Otherwise stfu if you are going to write such false and asinine claims.

originally posted by: Assessor
I still believe Flynn can also get his conviction overturned simply because his lie was based on an illegal wiretap. Of course some of the libtard idiots here in ATS laughed at me for posting a thread on it. Seems they believe political opposition spying is no big deal. Lol...if all this is allowed to slide I wonder if they’d give the green light for the Trump administration to do the same in 2020.

Naa, we don't know for certain what happened. It is very possible that Flynn was asked several times the same question, deviating just a bit from his original statement could be sufficient for Strzok to claim "Flynn lied"... Deviating just a bit from his original statement doesn't equal to lying. Flynn could have said it differently, or he might even have remembered something he had forgotten earlier and Strzok could have used that to claim Flynn lied...

This is why having a lawyer present is very important. It also says a lot that the interview was not recorded and we only have Flynn's word against Strzok's word...

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Your sources really suck.

Good luck with this.