Leaked Email Shows KT McFarland Knew About Flynn-Kislyak Call, Lied to Congress

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't know where you established that lying to Congress isn't a crime but you might want to check your sources. See the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't know where you established that lying to Congress isn't a crime but you might want to check your sources. See the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

Damn you truly are avoiding the Strzok threads like the plague. Interesting.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Thanks for playing. Next?" BWAHAHAHAAHAHA.

An unnamed source from the White House fed some vague bull# line to Jim Acosta an I care why? I wish I could draw this out in crayon for you. Even if that almost certainly false claim is true in some form, it doesn't have any bearing on Flynn lying to the FBI. It wouldn't have any bearing on KT McFarland lying to the FBI or Congress either.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't know where you established that lying to Congress isn't a crime but you might want to check your sources. See the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

Damn you truly are avoiding the Strzok threads like the plague. Interesting.

Do you expect me to follow you around pointing out all the things you falsely believe? How about when you think you know something, you U2U me and I'll let you know.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't know where you established that lying to Congress isn't a crime but you might want to check your sources. See the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

Damn you truly are avoiding the Strzok threads like the plague. Interesting.

Do you expect me to follow you around pointing out all the things you falsely believe? How about when you think you know something, you U2U me and I'll let you know.

Just an observation that's all. It's just weird that you have nothing to say to the whole Strzok deal. You claimed to be bipartisan and not me.

Well it is not good thing that she lied, she, like all others that lie to Congress, will just say she didn't recall it.

Sadly this is the norm for both sides.

It would be a far bigger deal if she lied to the fbi.

Not to downplay tjis, but it seems to me like this whole russia investigation is a farce.

Now the big ticket items are people lying about perfectly legitimate meetings with russia, probably because they were trying not to have a bad I.age because Obama the dems and the media were smearing anyone who ever talked with a Russian as evil.

But fine, throw the book at MacFarlane for lying.

Same with hillary And anyone else that lied to Congress.

Now on to these investigations being a witch hunt. We now know a anti trump pro Hillary guy was spearheading just about every event of significance in both investigations.

Lets see about what the dnc funded dossier was used for.

Why was Flynn interactions post election even being looked at. Who leaked it?

Why is it looking more and more like the fbi and Mueller were just another extension of hillary and obama?

All of this is far more important than yet any other person lying to Congress.

But the prevdent is now set.

All communications from the next President elects team and foreign entities is now to be recorded, unmasked, and leaked to the media.

Then we must have investigations into all of them, and anyone who tells any lie must have the book thrown at them.

In fact, let's go back and do this for obama and his team.

Why not right?

a reply to: Grambler

Now on to these investigations being a witch hunt. We now know a anti trump pro Hillary guy was spearheading just about every event of significance in both investigations.

No we don't. Strzok was not the reason that the FBI opened an investigation. Strzok didn't start the Senate or House investigations. Strzok is not the reason why Mueller was appointed. And Strzok was kicked off the Mueller investigation 4 months ago.

This notion that because Strzok signed the document that opened the official investigation, that without Strzok there'd be no Russian investigation is wishful thinking.

Now the big ticket items are people lying about perfectly legitimate meetings with russia, probably because they were trying not to have a bad I.age because Obama the dems and the media were smearing anyone who ever talked with a Russian as evil.

Logic would dictate that lying to the FBI is not "the big ticket items" as you and I both know that in all likelihood, Mueller could have charged him with far more than that just based on his lobbying for Turkey.

They didn't cut Flynn a deal because they couldn't have prosecuted him for more. They flipped Flynn. And who really believes that Mueller would flip Flynn if this investigation wasn't going somewhere? Would Mueller have flipped Flynn just so he could charge KT McFarland with lying to the FBI? Doubtful. McFarland was Flynn's subordinate. Unless they have her on something worse, she's a smaller fish so that wouldn't make sense unless McFarland is expected to lead to something else.

As for the rest. Trump appointees lead all the agencies now. Congress is controlled by the GOP. They can launch whatever investigations they want. In fact, there are ongoing investigations into some of this already as I'm sure you know.

And afaik, Congress can get access to FISC records if there is some genuine concern over how the FISA warrants were obtained. Why hasn't this been done already? It just seems like they're juggling a bunch of quasi-aborted counter-narratives.

Speaking of investigating Clintons, the most popular of GOP hobbies, do you remember what crimes Bill Clinton was impeached for? It wasn't for having consensual sex with an adult. It was for perjury and obstruction. So wouldn't it be observing equal standards to expect the same level of accountability from this President and his administration?

That said, I think we can stipulate both the "what about Clinton" or "what about Obama" responses as well as my own response, "sure, go ahead."

Assuming that the reason for all the lying after the fact was optics, why not avoid the optics altogether and not call up Kislyak, undercut the sitting President, and tell him that Trump was going to take care of any sanctions imposed by Obama in the first place?

I suppose Strzok's texting his mistress in 2016 about the debates is also why, under this cloud of election meddling, Team Trump acted exactly like one might expect if there was collusion and then made it worse by lying about it?

What it looks like to me is that the best case scenario is that out of a nauseating concern for the optics of Trump's "legitimacy" the Trump team has embraced a fiction of no meddling and decided to conduct foreign policy in that alt-reality.

I'll repeat what I said when Trump was elected and when he as inaugurated. Trump could have supported the investigation into Russian meddling from day one and done a lot to remove suspicion. Instead, he and his team/administration have done everything they could to thwart it. Nobody makes them act guilty af. THEY keep doing it.

And BTW, I still think that it's quite possible that in the case of Manafort at least, there was some level of coordination with the Russians. Have you considered the possibility that what motivates Trump is a fear that maybe Manafort or somebody else in the campaign was coordinating with Russia, even if he himself had no direct knowledge of it?

a reply to: theantediluvian

On strzok.

He did far more than start the investigation as you know.

The double standard alone for his interview with hillary vs Flynn is mind blowing, and you know it.

But I like the admittion that one guy doesn't make the investigation, I agree.

Tell that to those on the left that think firing comey was obstruction. The investigation still went in, didn't it.


On big ticket.

Well so far lying is all we have. Oh and manafort working with Russians and the podestas while hillary was SOS, but nevermind that.

So you believe if they cut a deal with someone like flynn, the must be going afte bigger fish.

Funny, look at all of the immunity deals the fbi gave hillary people, and yet no one was charged.

But yep, the fbi with an agent leading the way discussing his liking of hillary and hatred of trump is nothing to worry about.

You know Damn well of the shoe was on the other foot, and the person that interviewed both hillary and Flynn was a pro trump anti hillary person, and they let Flynn be interviewed without being recorded with others accused in the room, but they interviewed Hillary in a surprise without even her lawyer present, you and others would be outraged.

But fine, we shall see

What will you say if there turns out to be only charges like lying delivered? Will you question this if this was all just a witchunt then?


On why undermine Obama by calling kislyak.

What utter garbage!!! Why did Obama undermine the incoming president by sabotaging relations with russia?

This is the double standard I am talking about.

Screw Obama. He was on the way out. When he was coming in, he was allowed to have his team talk to foreign leaders.

But oh, it was such a big deal to go against dear leader that there had to be investigations and unmasking and leaks and Obama has to tell other world leaders that trump may be comprmised before any investigation showed that.

Trump and Flynn had every Damn right to contact Russians as president elect.

It seems more and more everyday that Obama weoponised the Intel agencies, much as he did the irs and doj, and that's what has led to all of these investigations.

Sure, if someone lied to the fbi, charge them. But every Obama person and Democrat should face the exact we level of investigations and scrutiny and you know most will be found to be guilty of something.

More below.

a reply to: theantediluvian

On Congress being Republican.

As you know, many of these republicans aren't exactly trump supporters. I would guess many don't want investigations that run too deep, or else they too may get caught.

I think sessions is a tool, I think McCabe and rosenstrien are still carrying water for comey and Obama.

But yeah, I hope there are new investigations into all of them, including the corrupt and biased fbi.


On finding out about fisa warrants.

Well the house has tried. And the were stonewalled over and over and over again.

Just like the fbi and Mueller wouldn't for over 4 months discuss why strzok was demoted.

Now if Mueller is trying to be unbiased, why not admit the truth? Instead it had to be leaked.

You talked to me on another thread about a potential trump action ripping up the constitution.

How about the fbi and Mueller refusing to cooperate with Congress?

But sure, nothing to see here. Those fbi agents sending anti trump pro Hillary messages granting all Hillary's people immunity and giving her light interviews while at the same time raiding trumps people in the middle of the night and giving hard interviews with no lawyers, no need for them to be held accountable to Congress.


On election meddling.

Yeah, that story that changes everyday. Can we see proof russia hacked the emails yet?

Nope, the fbi still hasn't gotten around to looking at that server yet. But there were Facebook ads and Pokemon!!!!!!

Yes, we know many are scared of the Russian boogeyman that with mere social media posts and thousands of dollars managed to have more effect than Hillary's billions and having almost every msm outlet be her personal mouth piece.

Oh, but let's not worry about the dnc paying a company to have a foreign spy dog up dirt on trump. That Russian influence was noble and ok, because trump is evil.


On the what about hillary stuff.

Sure you agree that they should be looked into again, I agree.

But the other point is that it is starting to seem like the people that looked into hillary were at best incompetent, and at worst biased as we are now seeing.

So why in God's name are they now running the investigation into trump? Especially given the obvious double standards we are seeing.

As I have told you, I want the Mueller investigation seen through. But now, no matter what it finds, due to there stonewalling and double standards, there is going to have to be an investigation of the investigation. Its absurd.


On acting guilty.

You show me the president that was going to say Yep this election was handed to me by outside agents, we should look into it.

Yes, trumps mouth should cause him some grief.

But never before has a president been treated like this.

Show me the candidate that had their team wiretapped, then unmasked, the spread that info as far as possible, then had it leaked, then had the sitting president telling foreign leaders details of the ongoing investigation.

The establishment was out to get trump from day one. And yes he has slipped up, and if he broke the law, should be held accountable.

But every single politician should have to face the same scrutiny then.

You know deep down that both establishment republicans and democrats wanted to get trump at all costs, and its been a huge double standard.


On more coming with manafort.

Who knows. I hope they have solid proof though, cause the fbi and Mueller teams word is garbage at this point.

I am sure at the very least there is much more to do with his time lobbying Hillary and the podestas, that seems evident.

If he sought to illegally get help from russians, I hope he gets what he deserves.

Same for trump.

But trump has already done what I wanted him too, showed how corrupt the establishment is, and every day ends up proving to more and more.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Perfectenemy

I don't know where you established that lying to Congress isn't a crime but you might want to check your sources. See the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996.

Damn you truly are avoiding the Strzok threads like the plague. Interesting.

Do you expect me to follow you around pointing out all the things you falsely believe? How about when you think you know something, you U2U me and I'll let you know.

Just an observation that's all. It's just weird that you have nothing to say to the whole Strzok deal. You claimed to be bipartisan and not me.

Huh? I have never claimed to be "bipartisan." First off, I'm not even sure that's a thing a person can be and if it is, it's definitely not a way in which I would use the word. It's absolutely no secret that I lean Left. I certainly don't deny it.

I didn't claim any such thing, you made it up.

a reply to: neo96

No proof?

Please. Ignorance may be bliss but it won't last.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The former admin has no house of cards. The house of cards is trumps.
And just look at how dirty that filthy family is leaving it.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Funny the FBI is saying that they have nothing to indicate that Mrs Clinton was anything but completely forthcoming in their interview. There is nothing to indicate that she lied to them.
Well what do you know... another #ing trump LIE. What a loser.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

What lies? Please provide examples of the lies. Because the FBI said she didn't.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

No his testimony didn't bring those names. Some idiot who thinks it's important on trumps side did.
More conspiracy theories to muddy the water.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So now you're worried about a lie ?okay /sarc

a reply to: Perfectenemy

It's not important. It's a smoke screen. They got you sucked in though I see.