What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (10 Viewers)

Secret intelligence exists that ‘would cast Trump in very negative light’, warns ex-FBI chief

‘It’s almost incomprehensible to me that he would want that information out,’ says Andrew McCabe

Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe has warned that classified intelligence from bureau’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign ties to Russia could contain information that would “risk casting the president in a very negative light”.

Mr McCabe has been at the centre of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in which a Republican-controlled panel is reviewing the FBI’s recision to initiate the investigation.

He testified before the panel on Tuesday and told lawmakers that officials had a “duty” to carry out the investigation due to the information they had collected. Mr McCabe personally approved the decision to investigate Mr Trump for possible obstruction of justice.

In an interview with CNN on Friday night, Mr McCabe was asked what the risks were if more information from the Russia investigation was to be declassified.

CNN anchor Andrew Cuomo said Mr Trump was told by Devin Nunes, a close ally of the president’s and former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, that if more previously unreleased information comes out, the more it will appear that the president was “framed”.

“From your knowledge, is there anything that could come out that people would look at and say, ‘wow, I can’t believe they ever included the president in this analysis, he and his people clearly did nothing’?” asked Mr Cuomo.

Mr McCabe replied: “There is some very, very serious, very specific, undeniable intelligence that has not come out, that if it were released, would risk compromising our access to that sort of information in the future.

“I think it would also risk casting the president in a very negative light - so, would he have a motivation to release those things? It’s almost incomprehensible to me that he would want that information out, I don’t see how he spins it into his advantage, because quite frankly, I don’t believe it’s flattering.

Asked if Mr McCabe thought there was more “bad stuff” about Mr Trump that wasn’t already publicly known, he replied: “There is always more intelligence, there is a lot more in the intelligence community assessment than what is ever released for public consumption.

“The original version of that report was classified at the absolute highest level I have ever seen. We’re talking about top secret, compartmentalised code word stuff, and it would be tragic to American intelligence collection for those sources to be put at risk.”

The FBI has been accused by the Senate Judiciary Committee of going “rogue” with the Russia investigation, with one senator describing it as the “biggest scandal in the history of the FBI” on Tuesday.

Mr Trump has repeatedly railed against the FBI for the investigation and maintained there was “no collusion” between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

In 2019, after a report by former FBI director Robert Mueller concluded that Mr Trump’s campaign did not conspire with Russia during the 2016 election - but did not clear him of obstruction of justice - Mr Trump tweeted: “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mr McCabe pointed out that Mr Trump fired then-director James B Comey in 2017 after Mr Comey refused to close an investigation into the president’s national security at the time, or say publicly that Mr Trump himself was not under investigation.

Mr McCabe said: “It became pretty clear to us that he did not want us to continue investigating what the Russians had done.

“We had many reasons at that point to believe that the president might himself pose a danger to national security and that he might have engaged in obstruction of justice, if the firing of the director and those other things were geared towards elimination or stopping our investigation of Russian activity.”
Click to expand...

 
Declass everything!

Its interesting that McCabe seems to recall more information in a CNN interview than he did in front of the panel. 

 
What's going in the Mike Flynn case? I've lost track. The full panel reversed the Rao-Henderson writ ordering dismissal, so the case went back to Judge Sullivan to schedule a hearing, and then I don't remember hearing anything after that.

 
Godsbrother said:
The dude wants the President to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution and give control of elections to the military.

I am really proud of Trump for pardoning such a great American.
Click to expand...
I wonder what he thought when he was in the military and he swore an oath to the constitution. 

 
Godsbrother said:
The dude wants the President to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution and give control of elections to the military.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
I guess it was a retweet but I am not sure.  I'm not on twitter but if I were I wouldn't retweet something unless I agreed with it unless I was making fun of it.  Maybe Flynn has a LOL afterwards, I don't know.

 
The Z Machine said:
I wonder what he thought when he was in the military and he swore an oath to the constitution. 
Click to expand...
1) What branch did you serve in so we can get your thoughts from a military perspective?

2) I think as US Citizens we all have an oath to the constitution, no?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
I guess it was a retweet but I am not sure.  I'm not on twitter but if I were I wouldn't retweet something unless I agreed with it unless I was making fun of it.  Maybe Flynn has a LOL afterwards, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.
Click to expand...
Google news.

Is it your opinion that Flynn was opposed to declaring martial law and suspending the constitution and was retweeting for other reasons? 

It is possible I guess but I think it is generally safe to say that typically if someone retweets something it is usually because they support it or are making fun of.  
 

Given his support of the president I assume it wasn’t the latter.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Godsbrother said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.
Click to expand...
Google news.
Click to expand...
OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.
Click to expand...
This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 
JAA said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Godsbrother said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.
Click to expand...
Google news.
Click to expand...
OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.
Click to expand...
This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...
No it's not hard, people can read the actual tweet and think for themselves.

Or you can make it hard by choosing to read false headlines ABOUT the tweet and then post misinformation in forums.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
JAA said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Godsbrother said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.
Click to expand...
Google news.
Click to expand...
OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.
Click to expand...
This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...
No it's not hard, people can read the actual tweet and think for themselves.

Or you can make it hard by choos
Click to expand...
You asked for a link, I just gave you 2.  What is the problem?  Are you saying those articles are wrong?  What facts do they have wrong?

 
JAA said:
You asked for a link, I just gave you 2.  What is the problem?  Are you saying those articles are wrong?  What facts do they have wrong?
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for a link, I read Flynn's tweet myself. Did you read the tweet? Did you read my description of the tweet?  Do you disagree with anything I wrote? 

Someone saying they got their info from "Google News" is sort of like saying they got it "from the internet". 

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
NorvilleBarnes said:
I didn't ask for a link, I read Flynn's tweet myself. Did you read the tweet? Did you read my description of the tweet?  Do you disagree with anything I wrote? 

Someone saying they got their info from "Google News" is sort of like saying they got it "from the internet". 
Click to expand...
What's your contention? That Flynn retweeted this just for the sake of conversation? We are not to intuit that he approves of what's written there?

 
Gr00vus said:
What's your contention? That Flynn retweeted this just for the sake of conversation? We are not to intuit that he approves of what's written there?
Click to expand...


NorvilleBarnes said:
I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
I see, and him captioning the retweet ""Freedom never kneels except for God" - we are to gather no meaning from that?

I think your read on this is either convenient or naive. It seems he is forwarding their manifesto, and that he approves of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I see, and him captioning the retweet ""Freedom never kneels except for God" - we are to gather no meaning from that?

I think your read on this is either convenient or naive.
Click to expand...
:shrug: What I wrote was accurate and based on my direct observation. What Godsbrother wrote wasn't and blamed on Google news.

I mean, it's a public twitter account, people don't have to rely on articles ABOUT the tweet when they can simply read the tweet.

If you think Godsborther post was accurate, then realize the same could be said of you for the exact same reason.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
:shrug: What I wrote was accurate and based on my direct observation. What Godsbrother wrote wasn't and blamed on Google news.

I mean, it's a public twitter account, people don't have to rely on articles ABOUT the tweet when they can simply read the tweet.

If you think Godsborther post was accurate, then realize the same could be said of you for the exact same reason.
Click to expand...
I posted the link to manifesto contained in Flynn's tweet. I'm talking about the tweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's tweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the tweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I posted the content of the retweet. I'm talking about the retweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's retweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the retweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.
Click to expand...
It's technically not a retweet. He tweeted a link to a press release. I know... semantics but there is a difference. He made an effort to post that link instead of just pressing the retweet button. It is clear that he is supporting it. If he wasn't supporting it, he would have posted as such in his tweet. I would never post a tweet to a manifesto that I don't support without adding commentary that I did not support the manifesto. 

 
tymarsas said:
It's technically not a retweet. He tweeted a link to a press release. I know... semantics but there is a difference. He made an effort to post that link instead of just pressing the retweet button. It is clear that he is supporting it. If he wasn't supporting it, he would have posted as such in his tweet. I would never post a tweet to a manifesto that I don't support without adding commentary that I did not support the manifesto. 
Click to expand...
Of course he supports it.   Despite Flynn's pardon we know that he believes the rules of law don't apply to him and his buddy Trump.

 
Gr00vus said:
I posted the link to manifesto contained in Flynn's tweet. I'm talking about the tweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's tweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the tweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.
Click to expand...
That's fine but try to understand first I was talking to Godsbrother, and then Jaa, and now you. Everything I wrote is accurate and if you look even casually at Flynn tweet habit you'll see the same pattern. If you disagree or come to a different conclusion that's perfectly fine. Posting a link to something, as you yourself demonstrate, does not necessarily mean you endorse the content of the link - especially if it's part of a repeated pattern. 

 
There are rumors out there that Trump is pardoning Julian Assange today. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know we're all Coolio with it now, but Treasury confirms that Manafort was passing polling data and Trump campaign strategy info to Russian Intelligence:

The Treasury Department on Thursday for the first time said an associate of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's passed “sensitive” campaign polling information to Russian intelligence in 2016.

The revelation came as the Biden administration imposed new sanctions on Russia, including Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik, in response to both the SolarWinds hack and the Kremlin's efforts to influence U.S. elections.

“During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy,” the Treasury Department wrote in announcing the sanctions.

“Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Kilimnik, a Russian national who used to run the offshoot of Manafort’s former consulting business in Ukraine, was a key figure in the federal investigation into Manafort during the Trump administration.

Manafort was convicted on eight different charges in connection with the Mueller probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election. He was later pardoned by former President Trump during his final days in office.

Manafort and Kilimnik met twice in the U.S. during the campaign, where Manafort shared information.

U.S. prosecutors working for former special counsel Robert Mueller in 2019 accused Manafort of sharing polling data with Kilimnik in court filings. However, Mueller identified Kilimnik only as a person the FBI suspected of having ties to Russian intelligence.

A Senate Intelligence Committee investigation report released in August went a step further by identifying him as a Russian intelligence officer.

"The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight [into] the Campaign," the Senate panel wrote in its report.
Click to expand...
Just imagine the scandal if it later turned out that Trump himself took wide-ranging steps to assist and protect Russia.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is back again???

I have been assured countless times that this thread is 2300+ pages of lies, hoaxes and nothingburgers. Moreover, it is readily used as an excuse to share, promote and disseminate every kind of misinformation and propaganda from every single right wing source, as the mere presence of this thread and those that may at one time have believed even a shred of information in it, makes all other sources of news and information perfectly legitimate. 

Since this thread is the root of all evil, I suggest we let it die, and never speak of it again.

 
Herb said:
This thread is back again???

I have been assured countless times that this thread is 2300+ pages of lies, hoaxes and nothingburgers. Moreover, it is readily used as an excuse to share, promote and disseminate every kind of misinformation and propaganda from every single right wing source, as the mere presence of this thread and those that may at one time have believed even a shred of information in it, makes all other sources of news and information perfectly legitimate. 

Since this thread is the root of all evil, I suggest we let it die, and never speak of it again.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is.  Nothing has changed on that.  :shrug:

 
Dickies said:
How do you think he got the campaign's sensitive information?
Click to expand...
I don't know.  How?  If you have proof, you should come forward with it to the FBI.

Unless I read the article wrong?  The OP said it was Manafort who was passing it, but the article doesn't say that at all.

 
BladeRunner said:
I don't know.  How?  If you have proof, you should come forward with it to the FBI.

Unless I read the article wrong?  The OP said it was Manafort who was passing it, but the article doesn't say that at all.
Click to expand...
My memory may be wrong, but I thought it was known via the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Mueller Report that Manafort passed sensitive campaign information to Kilimnik, but they could not definitively say that Kilimnik passed the information on to Russian Intelligence.

 
Will the public ever get to see an unredacted Mueller report? Isn't Barr responsible for the redacting? Can the new AG just "unredact" and air the laundry?

Seems like at the first mention of the special investigator Trump's exact words were, "now I'm ####ed!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Mammy said:
Will the public ever get to see an unredacted Mueller report? Isn't Barr responsible for the redacting? Can the new AG just "unredact" and air the laundry?

Seems like at the first mention of the special investigator Trump's exact words were, "now I'm ####ed!"
Click to expand...
Eh, it would probably just enrage  people and inflame things.  Let the guy go away in peace.

Now, if he decides to run again? That's a different story. 

 
Probably should have created separate threads for all of the Trump Gang's convicted criminals.  This one is already big:

Brad Heath @bradheath

The DOJ filed a lawsuit today against ex-Trump adviser Roger Stone saying he owes nearly $2 million in unpaid taxes and penalties and that he and his wife used an LLC to "shield their personal income from enforced collection and fund a lavish lifestyle."
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
197
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top