Sorry Trumpists, You Lose

It appears that all the noise about crimes committed by former president Obama and former vice president Biden is just that -- a lot of noise, and no substance.

Attorney General Barr said today that based on what he knows so far, the Justice Department investigation into the Russia investigation, will NOT lead to criminal charges against either gentleman. No information of crimes committed by either man.

Sorry to disappoint all you conspiracy theorists, but apparently there is no "there" there.


  • I believe Barr is taking this position in order to save the office of the Presidency and similarly the Vice Presidency and the country.

    I also believe that investigations regarding Obama and Biden personal roles will continue--so that records will be compiled and made public in the future for all to see.

    I think this is the right approach: the number of their staff to be indicted will reflect Obama/Biden's guilt. In short, they will be proven guilty but will not be charged because they were holding the offices of President and Vice President. It's not going to go away. That's my projection.
  • Wake Up, Marc! You're Dreaming! Wake Up!

    Now that you are awake, do you have any proof of any crime by Obama, or by Biden, or by any Obama staff? McCabe wasn't prosecuted. Comey hasn't been prosecuted. Gregory Craig was indicted for work he did with Manafort involving Ukraine, and he was acquitted. No cabinet secretaries, not even Hillary Clinton, have come close to indictment. Almost four years since the Liar-in-Chief left office, and only one indictment? Really?

    So other than self-delusion, what evidence do you have to support your "beliefs"?

    Except maybe this. Barr chooses not to bring charges against Obama and Biden because he has a pretty good idea that Republicans will be the minority party after the upcoming elections, and he is trying his hardest to keep Trump, and himself, from jail after they are both thrown out of their jobs. How is that for a theory?
  • Your theory makes sense, SC.

    Trump has pardoned many criminals during his three years in office. But once he is out of office, he will not be able to pardon himself or his criminal friends.
  • So let's wait and see what additional documents are declassified by acting intelligence people. As President Trump says, "more to come".

    Just two week or so ago--and it seems forever--we were told by the media and the former Obama key officials (Brennen, Clapper, Samantha, etc.,) on the tv saying that there were evidences of Trump's relationship with Russia; or collusion.

    Now, after the affidavit documents from Schiff's hearing have been declassified, the same people, under oath, said that there were evidence of collusion that they were aware of.

    In short, Trump is being accused by Obama people of different things; and the media went along. So let's wait and see what else the Obama people did that were illegal or outside the bound of acceptable procedures.

    Somebody did leak the name of Flynn as a result of unmasking. That person should be tried and if found guilty, will go to jail. And all Obama officials who unmasked and shared the names of other people to the media, they should be charged also. It'll be interesting to hear what they say about the roles that President Obama and VP Biden did. We'll see.
  • Who leaked Flynn’s name and when? Was it Don McGahn when Sally Yates told him about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak on January 24, 2017? What leak to the media are you talking about? Do you even know when Flynn’s contacts with the Russians even became public information?

    And what “things” have Trump been accused of by “Obama people”? You just shoot your mouth off with your accusations of a conspiracy. But you can’t even come up with one fact. Just another bullshit artist.
  • marc, Flynn lied to the FBI and he confessed to that lying. He voluntarily pleaded guilty and is now awaiting his sentencing.

    Do you agree with Trump and his Attorney General that Flynn is innocent, despite his guilty plea, and deserves no punishment for his crime?


    Do you believe that no one should be above the law?
  • It appears that marc and all the other Trumpist conspiratists have their knickers in a twist about an article in the Washington Post written by David Ignatius and published on January 12, 2017. As far as I can tell that was the first time that Flynn's calls with Kislyak were made public. I have an ad blocker on my computer, so I don't have access to Ignatius article, so in some respects I am flying blind, not knowing exactly how Ignatius outed Flynn. But I found out about the Ignatius article from an NPR article which seemed to say that the Ignatius article is the source of all of this "leak" kerfuffle.

    So who could have done such a horrible thing. Leaking information about possible treason to a reporter? Heaven forbid. It could have been anyone, but the Trumpists all seem convinced it was someone in the Obama administration, and since Biden requested unmasking of an NSA intelligence report, and the unmasking revealed Flynn's name, and since Biden is running against the cult's Great Leader, the best person to accuse would be Biden. Except that a lot of the Trumpists in here think Biden is senile, and senile people don't think very clearly, so it might not have been Biden.

    Wait a minute. Didn't David Corn write an article in Mother Jones on October 31, 2016 about, among other things, Trump's relationships with Russia? And wasn't that article the first time that the Steele Dossier was ever mentioned in public? And didn't Christopher Steele have a lot of connections in Russia who provided him intel from his time as an MI-6 secret agent? And wasn't Steele so upset about what he was learning that he disclosed information, including a copy of the "dossier" to John McCain? And didn't Lindsay Graham also get a copy of the dossier from Someone at Fusion GPS or from Steele himself? And isn't it possible that any of these people may have learned of Flynn's Russia contacts and told David Ignatius about it in time for Ignatius' January 12, 2017 article that mentioned Flynn's contacts with Kislyak for the first time.

    And what about this? There is no dispute that it was the NSA which monitored phone calls made and received by Kislyak, as well as calls, and texts, and emails from and to Kislyak and God only knows how many other foreign persons that the NSA considers to be security risks. Does anyone think it is possible that David Ignatius has sources within the NSA who could have shared information with Ignatius without even needing to "unmask" NSA intelligence reports, but rather knew it was Flynn before the Intelligence Reports were completed and Flynn's name was masked?

    And what about this. Didn't BuzzFeed publish the first article that contained the entire Steele "Dossier"? And does anybody think that the author of the BuzzFeed article did NOT have sources inside the NSA, or Senator Graham's Office, or Senator McCain's office, who also had contacts with the NSA, and learned of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak without the participation of anyone with the Obama administration?

    And what about Kislyak? He knew Flynn had lied to the vice president about his contacts with Kislyak. Kislyak knew as much about Flynn and Flynn's contacts with Russia as anyone, as he was running whatever operation the Russians were running in the US. If the "unmasking" requests are accurate there were possibly as many as 14 different NSA Intelligence Reports that were "unmasked" as a result of requests which were made between the election and the change of administration. Isn't it possible that Ignatius' "source" was Russian Intelligence, which had been running election interference efforts in the US for over two years?

    Since all of those NSA Intelligence Reports initially referred to Flynn as a "US Person" rather than by name, and since the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee probably had access to the raw data as part of their function, how many people in the Congress could have disclosed information to Ignatius?

    But I guess it must have been Biden. Except for one thing. The article by David Ignatius was published in the Washington Post on January 12, 2017. That was the date that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were first published in the news media. And in order to make deadline, Ignatius had to have the information before January 12.

    But a review of the unclassified list of "unmasking" requests which became public last week shows that then Vice President did not submit his "unmasking request" of a "US Person" until January 12, 2017. His request for unmasking was not submitted to the NSA for processing until the day Ignatius published his article. I would sincerely doubt that the NSA could process an "unmasking" request so quickly that the information would get to the requestor before the request was made.

    I guess maybe it wasn't Biden after all. Maybe all of the Trumpists are looking in the wrong place. Check with British Intelligence. Check with Steele. Check with Fusion GPS. Check with Lindsay Graham's office, and the translators at the NSA. Biden appears to be in the clear.
  • Only a democrat would pass verdict before the investigations have concluded. lol. Just because such corrupt politicians did not commit the crime doesn't mean they are righteous for inciting and instigating the crimes committed by their subordinates.
  • Poor <zero. He really wanted the leaker to be Biden, but the truth got in the way of his fantasies. I guess <zero is going to tell us about how Obama and Biden incited and instigated their unnamed subordinate to commit these heinous crimes.

    Don’t forget to let Attorney General Barr know about how these crimes were instigated and incited, <zero. I’m sure he would love to learn about your findings!
  • SC, I have access to WAPO and I searched the archives. The only piece about Michael Flynn written by David Ignatius I could find is very recent....May 7, 2020 ....titled "If Michael Flynn did nothing wrong, why didn’t he tell the truth?" In this article, he mentions his January 12, 2017 article:

    "With the Justice Department’s move Thursday to drop its case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, it’s useful to go back to a basic question: If Flynn did nothing wrong when he called the Russian ambassador on Dec. 29, 2016, the day President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the presidential election, why did he conceal it?

    One issue from the beginning was whether Flynn’s call to Ambassador Sergey Kislyak violated the Logan Act, which bars private U.S. citizens from trying to influence another country about “disputes” with the United States. But that was always a somewhat shaky legal argument. As I noted in my Jan. 12, 2017, column, which first disclosed Flynn’s call, the Logan Act has never been criminally enforced.

    I wrote on Feb. 11, two days before he resigned: “Michael Flynn’s real problem isn’t the Logan Act, an obscure and probably unenforceable 1799 statute that bars private meddling in foreign policy disputes. It’s whether President Trump’s national security adviser sought to hide from his colleagues and the nation a pre-inauguration discussion with the Russian government about sanctions that the Obama administration was imposing.”

    In that column, I quoted a question posed to me by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee chairman who would later lead the impeachment investigation of Trump. “Why would [Flynn] conceal the nature of the call unless he was conscious of wrongdoing?”

    There was always a deeper problem, one that still isn’t resolved. Why was the Trump administration so eager to blunt the punishment Obama gave to Russia for what we now know was gross interference in our presidential election? In his Dec. 29 expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, Obama was trying to impose costs on an adversary. The evidence shows that Flynn wanted to reassure this same adversary and to avoid confrontation.

    How do we know that was Flynn’s intention? Because he said so in his Nov. 30, 2017, guilty plea admitting he had made false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. The “statement of the offense” that accompanied the agreement states that on Dec. 29, 2016, after discussions with another transition team official, Flynn “called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.”

    Was Flynn improperly tricked in his Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI into misstating what he had told Kislyak? If so, why did he resign and later plead guilty?

    In Flynn’s Feb. 13, 2017, resignation letter, he admitted that he had made misleading statements to Vice President Pence about the Kislyak call. Here’s how he put it: “Because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding phone calls with the Russian ambassador.” That’s not the FBI talking, it’s Flynn. And the question, again, is why he misstated the facts.

    On the day he resigned, Flynn offered a more revealing account in an interview with the Daily Caller. He explained that the talk with Kislyak “was about the 35 guys who were thrown out. . . . It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ 

    Why does this matter? Because the issue Flynn was discussing with Kislyak was so serious. Russia had secretly subverted our democratic elections. Obama, who had delayed sanctions far too long, finally took action with the Dec. 29 expulsions. He did so on behalf of the nation, whose election system had been attacked.

    The intelligence community had first disclosed Russia’s meddling on Oct. 7, 2016, in a statement that charged that “Russia’s senior-most officials” had conducted a cyberattack “intended to interfere with the US election process.”

    That initial damning assessment was amplified in a Jan. 6, 2017, report, in which the intelligence community said Russia had tried to “denigrate” the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and “harm her electability and potential presidency” and that Moscow had a “clear preference” for Trump.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by a Republican, spent the past three years investigating whether our spy chiefs’ finding was correct. Its judgment: “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”

    We know the FBI made some serious mistakes in the Russia investigation. The misstatements and omissions by FBI officials in their applications for surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page were egregious. The recent disclosures about how they prepared to question Flynn in 2017 should trouble anyone who worries about abuse of power by federal investigators seeking damning information from a suspect.

    But none of that addresses the fundamental question that got this story rolling in the first place: Why was the incoming national security adviser telling the Kremlin’s man in Washington not to worry about the expulsion of 35 of his spies, because when the new administration took office, “we’ll review everything”?

    That was the wrong message to be sending in December 2016. And with the accumulation of evidence since then about the scope of Russian subversion, it’s even more troubling."

  • There is nothing wrong with a government official talking with officials of other governments. It's done all the time. Kerry talk to Iranians--to ignore Trump administration, etc. Many government officials have done the same in the past. It's not a big deal.
  • So if it's "not a big deal," why did Flynn lie about it to the FBI?

    Innocent people don't lie under oath.
  • FM, Flynn did not lie. Comey sent FBI agents to interview him--to get him to lie so that he can be prosecuted or be fired. His statements turned out to be accurate; not lies. The FBI agents mentioned this. So this is why on Jan. 4, the investigators decided to drop the case against Flynn. But Strock, upon hearing this, told them not to drop the case. Then, on Jan. 5, he and the other intelligence people (Clapper, Brennan, Yates, Comey and others) with President Obama at the oval office. After that, more actions were taken against Trump campaign people. So Flynn did not lie. He was forced to say things--to be used to against him--if he did not rat against Trump. That's how it went--according the news.
  • Marc doesn't read very well, and he gets his arguments from his handlers at FOX News. That said, what the Trumpists seem to be arguing that it was the source of the information that Ignatius disclosed -- Flynn's call to Kislyak -- who committed the crime, and that if Ignatius had not found out about the call, then Flynn never would have committed any crime, because nobody would have found out about his contacts with the Russians about sanctions and his lie to the vice president about that call. The Trumpists are not very bright, but I would like to know what Ignatius wrote in that January 12, 2017 article that has their knickers in a twist.

    FM, you may be able to get to Ignatius's article through the link in the NPR article, and find what Ignatius did not quote out of his January 12 article in his more recent article you quoted from (if that makes any sense at all). Knowing how Ignatius introduced the subject into the media might be helpful in understanding this Trumpist angst. Here is the link to the NPR article:

    Scroll down and you will find a link to Ignatius' article. I can't get to it because of my add blocker. There must be something in that January 12 article that you didn't quote above, which is the first media disclosure of Flynn's December 29, 2016 calls to Kislyak. It is this information which the Trumpists claim Obama disclosed to make life difficult for Trump.
  • What You Need To Know About The Flynn, Biden And 'Unmasking' Story
    May 14, 20208:53 AM ET by PHILIP EWING






    What is it?




    Certain officials of sufficient stature can ask for "person 1's" identity to be "unmasked" to more fully understand what's taking place in the reporting. As the intelligence community has now revealed, one of those "U.S. Persons" appearing in reports in late 2016 and early 2017 was Flynn.

    Was the government spying on him?





    Why was Flynn talking with targets of U.S. spying?




    There are more than 30 names in the directory.

    What did all those people want to know?










    Was this "unmasking" illegal?



    Will anyone be charged?




  • Maybe marc can help me out. As far as I can tell, it is the fact that some senior government official disclosed to David Ignatius that Flynn had telephone conversations with Kislyak about sanctions on December 29, 2016 which constitutes a crime. Apparently everyone is upset that the disclosure occurred, and no adminstration official is being prosecuted.

    What I don't understand, and maybe marc can explain to me, is how this crime of unauthorized disclosure, if it is criminal, excuses Flynn's crimes of lying to the vice president and later to the FBI about those calls. How does the disclosure of those calls make the lies about them any less criminal? How does this disclosure entitle Flynn to a get out of jail free card?

    Any thoughts, from anyone?
  • SC, it's not a crime for anybody to talk to Russians or anybody else in foreign country or government. Kerry and others do it all the time. It's not a big deal.

    Second, request for unmasking is done all the time if there is good reason for it; but releasing the name of an American who is caught during an intercepted call is a crime. Americans have certain rights under the Constitution.

    It's not clear at this time who outed Flynn's name to a newspaper after he was unmasked. I am sure it'll come out one of these days. We'll see.
  • In the U.S., it's a crime to lie to the FBI in an official national security investigation.

    Flynn lied....more than once, actually. And Flynn even admitted that he lied. He pleaded guilty to lying.

    Innocent people don't lie.

    What is so difficult about that to understand?

    Twisting and spinning the facts in this case changes nothing.
  • Many things are much more complex than they appear at first glance. Without a lot of research, it is really difficult to know who said what and when, and whether, for example, knowledge of Flynn's calls to Kislyak on December 29, 2016 (as far as I can tell there were five separate calls that day between Flynn and Kislyak) became known as a result of leaked information unmasked by Obama administration officials, or from some other source.

    On February 14, 2017, after the publication by the Washington Post of the David Ignatius article, which appeared to be the publication which revealed Flynn's calls to Kislyak, the Atlantic published a report which set out a timeline of Flynn's calls with Kislyak. The article was entitled "Flynn's Calls With Russia's Ambassador: Who Knew What, and When?" It can be found here:

    Regarding Flynn's contacts with Kislyak on December 29, the Atlantic states:

    December 29: President Obama announced measures, including sanctions, on Russia for its interference in the U.S. election. The sanctions are in addition to those imposed on Moscow following its invasion in 2014 of Ukraine’s Crimea region. Flynn and Kislyak speak that day, The Washington Post reports, citing a Trump transition official. The official says sanctions weren’t discussed. Additionally, CNN reports the Russian ambassador texted Flynn on December 28.

    if this report made on February 14, 2017 is accurate, and there is no reason to disbelieve it, as it has not been challenged as far as I can tell, The Washington Post first learned of Flynn's conversation(s) with Kislyak on December 29, 2016 from "a Trump transition official". The article in the Atlantic links to the Washington Post article reporting the contact, which requires a subscription. Because I do not subscribe to the Post (I am too cheap), I cannot determine the date of the Post article, but it was either December 29 or December 30. Maybe FM can find out when the Post first made this report.

    If this is true, and as I said there is no reason to disbelieve it, then the fact that Flynn was in contact with the Russians on December 29, 2016 was not disclosed as a result of Flynn's name being "unmasked" by Obama administration officials, but rather that fact was disclosed by "a Trump transition official" on the day the calls were made. The Trump transition official falsely reported to the Washington Post that "sanctions weren't discussed."

    The Atlantic article also clarifies the role that the Op Ed by David Ignatius played in providing information about Flynn's contacts with Kislyak:

    January 12: David Ignatius, the Post columnist, wrote that Flynn and Kislyak spoke several times on December 29, the day the sanctions were announced. “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Ignatius wrote. He added a Trump transition official told him the calls, which occurred before the U.S. sanctions were announced, did not cover that topic. Ignatius added:


    So it appears that Ignatius also learned about the December 29 calls between Flynn and Kislyak from a Trump transition official, and that he was also told, as the Washington Post was told on December 29, possibly by the same Trump transition official, that the calls "did not cover the [U.S. sanctions].

    Again, it appears clear that knowledge of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak originated from statements by one or more Trump transition officials, and NOT from "unmasking" Flynn's name from NSA Intelligence Reports.

    It might be that Flynn lied to the vice president, and to the FBI, because the Trump administration had already told the world, on December 29, 2016, that Flynn had spoken to Kislyak on that day, and that the communications did not include the subject of sanctions. He apparently just wanted to keep the stories straight.

    If this is all true, and there does not appear to be any dispute about the Atlantic article, or the initial Washington Post report of the calls, or David Ignatius Op Ed, then what exactly is all of this hyperventilation by Trumpists about "unmasking" really about?

    Possibly just misdirection, diversion, and lies to implicate Democrats. That is all I can think of.
  • So who was the "Trump transition official" who told the original lie about Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak, that the calls did not include discussions about the sanctions imposed on December 29, 2016? If I had to hazard a guess (because I certainly don't know for sure), my guess would be K.T. McFarland. She knew all about the calls, because she was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump while Flynn was in the Dominican Republic exchanging multiple calls with Kislyak.

    Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about McFarland:

    Here is the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article, to whet your appetites:

    Kathleen Troia "K. T." McFarland (born Kathleen M. Troia[1] on July 22, 1951) is a former U.S. government official, and political commentator. She served as Deputy National Security Advisor under Michael Flynn for the first four months of the Trump administration.[2] She was asked to step down by Flynn's successor H. R. McMaster; news of her pending nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Singapore was reported at the same time.[3] President Trump nominated her in May 2017; she withdrew it in February 2018 due to concerns around her answers related to links between Trump associates and Russian officials, in particular about discussions between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.[4]

    The article goes into much greater detail about her knowledge of the contacts between Flynn and Kislyak.
  • Good information, SC.

    But facts do not matter to the Trumpists who have drunk his poison kool-aid.
  • True my friend, but I do not do this research and writing to try to change the Trumpists' minds. I do it to provide you, and visafree, and Red Snapper, and Iron Youth, and others who may not participate but read this Forum for the information it can provide, with true information, in the hope that it will convince those with open minds that the truth does matter. Thanks for the kind words.
  • Sarem chuuk it will not work but thank you for trying image image
  • SC, sometime I get so annoyed had to drop some bombs but anyways, I couldn't have agreed more! truth dose matter and Facts dose matters. cheers on the MAGA failed to the core.. SMH LOL!
  • If today's reporting from Vanity Fair is true, it should make Republicans stick their heads up their asses so nobody can really see how stupid they are.

    It must have become apparent to someone other than me that of the requests for unmasking which were submitted from the election to the inauguration, none were submitted on December 29 or December 30 or December 31, even though the calls that the Republican's are screaming about were made on December 29. Surely the NSA would have monitored those calls between Kislyak and Flynn, and if Obama administration officials were out to get Flynn, they would have sought unmasking of the NSA Intelligence Report which covered those communications between Flynn and Kislyak on December 29.

    But that would only be true if Flynn's name in the NSA Intelligence Report covering those calls had been masked in the first place.

    Vanity Fair reports today that the reason there were no "unmasking requests" covering the December 29 communications is that Flynn's name was not masked at all in the NSA Intelligence Report produced for those calls. Flynn was named in that report. Front and center. No masking.

    This will also help in explaining why the Trump transition official told the Washington Post about the calls on December 29, and why the Trump transition official told David Ignatius the calls had happened. It wasn't important to the transition that the public knew Flynn had contacts with Kislyak. Everybody knew those type of conversations between foreign ambassadors and incoming administrations were perfectly legal and above board. Everybody did it. What they lied about was whether the Obama sanctions were discussed. They had to lie about that because of, among other things, the Logan Act prohibited private citizens getting involved in government matters.

    According to Vanity Fair, nobody asked to have the NSA Intelligence Report "unmasked" was because everybody could see who was involved in the communications. Flynn's name was front and center. Good God, you would think that some Republican would be smart enough to have obtained a copy of that particular NSA Intelligence Report before everybody shot their mouths off about Flynn being a target of the Obama administration. Republicans are, as a group, really stoopid idiots.
  • Apparently, pretty high ranking politicians from both sides of the political spectrum are calling for the Director of National Intelligence to declassify and make public the transcript of Flynn's calls with Kislyak on December 29, 2016, as well as the NSA Intelligence Reports for those contacts. They also seem to be calling for the declassification of the other NSA Intelligence Reports referenced in the now declassified list of "unmasking requests" made by Obama administration officials in the period between the election and the inauguration.

    The list of those calling for declassification and public release of the reports and transcripts include Senator Grassley on the right, and Chairman Schiff on the left.

    Would declassification and public release of these reports and transcripts be OK with you, marc? After all, you said in one of your posts above that Flynn did nothing wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.