Posted on 05/26/2020 2:12:28 PM PDT by CaptainK
Right now everything about this story is speculation until the authenticated transcript is released to the public.
If it exists.
The actual “Russia collusion” was always with the DEMOCRATS: Hilary’s “Uranium One” deal; Obama shutting down US oil production (which benefited Russia, which depends on oil exports), etc.
Then I came to this:
"It’s unlikely the government surveilled Kislyak
This author is an idiot.
I have wondered about this possibility myself. time, or unredacted, accurate transcripts might reveal more.
It’s at least, or more, believable than the official narrative, which always gets tagged on to any reporting on this matter.
If Kislyak was in contact with the Obamites to collude in the “get Trump” plan, then there should be a record of those calls that compare the timelines between his calls to them and his calls to Flynn. But without some miracle, then we will never know if they exist or not.
Flynn’s alleged “lie” was failing to rememember that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. This supposedly occurred in the hastily arranged interview, where the FBI failed to warn Flynn that he was being investigated, and that lying to the agents was a crime, among other irregularities.
In any event, it is undisputed that both FBI agents who interviewed Flynn left the interview with the impression that Flynn genuinely failed to remember discussing the subject of sanctions with Flynn, and both had the distinct impression he was not lying.
The prosecution NEVER came forward with specific evidence of exactly what was actually discussed in the Flynn Kislyak call, or what exactly he supposedly said as recorded in the 302 (that had been extensively massaged by Strzok and his girlfriend after Plientka’s initial cut at it) that is supposedly inconsistent with what happened in the call.
Although we know it once existed, the prosecution has since lost/refused to produce Plientka’s original draft of the 302. And it has never produced a transcript of the Flynn Kislyak call.
So, just like there was never any evidence brought forward that “the Russians” accessed the DNC’s server, there has never actually been any evidence made public showing that Flynn and Kislyak actually discussed sanctions, much less that what they discussed is actually inconsistent with what Flynn told Plientka and Strzok in their little meeting.
Sidney Powell is linking this article on her twitter feed, so she doesn’t think the author is an idiot.
Fair question. The answer was revealed in one of bongino’s videos over the last two or three days, of course I am referring to last weeks’ episodes.
Logically, it is sort of a piece of triangulation. We know that there were 29 requests to unmask Flynn.... by the usual Clapper, Brennan, Biden, Comey Etc but also by the Secretary of Energy and I think the Secretary of the Interior. I can’t find you the exact spot where this was revealed. But I will look and see if I can.
In essence, the claim has been made that Flynn lied about discussing *sanctions* with kislyak on the telephone call which led to the multiple unmasking requests. That means that Flynn was masked prior to that date.
Now it may be true that at this moment in time the transcripts of Flynn’s call has not been released. However, I believe there is testimony to the effect that sanctions were not discussed nor mentioned in any way on the phone call that generated all those unmasking requests. Keep in mind, the sanctions that Obama imposed were not news at that point...... they had been imposed a few months earlier. This is kind of a subtle point, but the point is is that Flynn has been accused of lying about having discussed sanctions with kislyak. When the sanctions where the product of the Obama Administration. And it is certainly plausible that kislyak might have wanted to have those sanctions relaxed or removed. What WAS news, was the expulsion of the diplomats ordered by Obama. The Salient Point here is that Flynn is being accused of lying about sanctions, when sanctions were not mentioned in the call that generated all the unmasking requests. So it is kind of a case that if kislyak was concerned about sanctions, and presumably he would be, he didn’t talk to Flynn about that any earlier then the call he placed to Flynn when Flynn was in the Dominican Republic. To me it just seems quite a bit more logical that kislyak’S call to Flynn occurred as an immediate reaction to the expulsions, NOT over the sanctions which were old news at that point.
I will try to find you the spot in bongino’s episode where to my way of thinking this conclusion can be fairly safely reached.
If you folks are interested, I posted a thread a few days ago with a timeline you might find useful. There is a link to download a PDF of my collation of events with some contextual commentary, links to documents and articles, and ordered chronologically.
Here is the thread: Timeline of the Political Persecution of Michael Flynn (VANITY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLYh4jljkaM
start ~~25:51
Flynn is i'viewed by the FBI (Strzok and Priestap) inside the White House. The notes from that meeting are to be placed upon the fabled "302" form.
We do not have the original 302. Instead, we have a Strzok-edited 302, created weeks later. We don't have the i'view transcript but we have that "post dated" 302.
The accusation of Flynn lying about [whatever] MUST originate from conclusions based upon one or the version of the Flynn 302. Would you agree? Stated differently, that interview is the time and situs of Flynn alleged lying to the FBI and thus the basis of bringing up of charges against Flynn.
Original 302 or not;
The notes taken by the FBI DO NOT MENTION THE WORD SANCTIONS. Not once. SO HOW CAN FLYNN BE ACCUSED OF LYING ABOUT SANCTIONS WHEN THE TOPIC OF SANCTIONS WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE INTERVIEW?. Riddle me that.
Answer: It never happened. Do you honestly believe that if there was a belief within the FBI that Flynn had lied about discussing "sanctions" with K, (something he has denied multiple times) that he would not be asked DIRECTLY AND POINTEDLY about same? Impossible to believe.
Sidney Powell knows we surveil the Russian ambassador as a matter of course.
If she's linking to this drivel maybe she thinks her followers are idiots.
Michael McFaul is a sleazy POS on Twitter.
ALWAYS attacking Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.