Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Nick Danger on March 30, 2017, 04:01:03 PM
-
Here we go !
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wsj-mike-flynn-willing-to-testify-in-exchange-immunity-deal
-
"When you're given immunity that probably means you've committed a crime." - Michael Flynn
-
Jack Langer, Spox for Chmn Nunes at House Intel: "No, Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity."
Statement from Flynn's lawyer acknowledging discussions w/ House and Senate Intel Committees, no mention of FBI.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8M_BfcUAAALffV.jpg:large (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8M_BfcUAAALffV.jpg:large)
-
BREAKING: Spokespeople for both Rs and Ds on House Intel Committee disagree with @WSJ rpt, sying Flynn did NOT offer testimony for immunity.
-
BREAKING: Spokespeople for both Rs and Ds on House Intel Committee disagree with @WSJ rpt, sying Flynn did NOT offer testimony for immunity.
Plz link source. Almost every other outlet is going with the immunity angle, even conservative ones.
-
Jack Langer, Spox for Chmn Nunes at House Intel: "No, Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity."
Statement from Flynn's lawyer acknowledging discussions w/ House and Senate Intel Committees, no mention of FBI.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8M_BfcUAAALffV.jpg:large (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8M_BfcUAAALffV.jpg:large)
The statement in your post sounds like it's confirming immunity talks:
No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.
Also, from Fox News:
However, Langer did not say whether or not Flynn had spoken to committee members about a possible deal.
A congressional aide confirmed to the Associated Press that discussions with the Senate intelligence committee involved immunity. The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
-
When you are given immunity, that means that you probably committed a crime
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/mar/31/michael-flynn-immunity-committed-crime-video
-
BREAKING: Spokespeople for both Rs and Ds on House Intel Committee disagree with @WSJ rpt, sying Flynn did NOT offer testimony for immunity.
So Fake news?!
-
One can understand him.
Trump sacked him under pressure from media. It was not mandatory thing to do.
Flynn probably feels betrayed.
-
So Fake news?!
If you're a Republican and you don't like it? Yes.
That's the new rule.
-
A lot of conflicting information being thrown around by the different alphabet media companies.
Hope his testimony isn't private (i.e. Huma, Cheryl Mills, etc.)
-
(https://i.redd.it/1m7ikklebqoy.jpg)
-
A lot of conflicting information being thrown around by the different alphabet media companies.
Hope his testimony isn't private (i.e. Huma, Cheryl Mills, etc.)
Not really much conflicting information. It's overwhelmingly consistent with a few straws strategically mixed in for grasping.
-
Good the truth needs to come out....
Wish all you guys felt the same way about Lois Lerner, he could be taking the 5th like that shit head.
-
Good the truth needs to come out....
Wish all you guys felt the same way about Lois Lerner, he could be taking the 5th like that shit head.
Right?
I haven't seen anything to show Flynn did anything illegal. His crime was not telling VP Pence about his meetings and letting Pence vouch for him in public.
Regarding him taking the Fifth, when you see what liberals have done with Sessions and that absolutely ridiculous perjury allegation, I have no doubt those same dummies would try and parse words into some phantom crime.
-
The next person taking the Fifth might be the person who unmasked Flynn.
Report: Private Citizens in Trump Campaign 'Unmasked' in Nunes Spy Data
By Todd Beamon | Friday, 31 Mar 2017
Numerous private citizens connected with President Donald Trump's campaign team were "unmasked" in intelligence information swept up in "incidental collection" that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes secretly viewed last week, according to news reports on Friday.
The names were exposed by an individual who is not in the FBI, but is "very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world," a source told Fox News.
Nunes, the California Republican who is under fire for seeing the information but not sharing it with his committee, now knows who the individual is, the source told Fox.
"The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia's interference in the U.S. election," a congressional source told Fox.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act only allows for individuals to be revealed in data collected incidentally when it is critical to the intelligence — and such information is only collected on U.S. residents who communicate with foreign targets.
But in this case, according to Fox, the names of private citizens connected to the Trump campaign were revealed — and it was not out of national security concerns.
"Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes . . . specifically of Trump transition team members . . . is highly suspect and questionable," an intelligence source told the network. "Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong.
"After Trump was elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by one."
In addition, the incidental collection began before Trump became the Republican presidential nominee at last summer's national convention last July.
Nunes has known about the unmasking of the private citizens since January, before Trump kicked off the controversy with his March 4 tweets alleging that former President Barack Obama had ordered wiretaps on his telephones in New York during the campaign last year.
Two intelligence sources approached Nunes about the unmasking, Fox reports, telling the congressman who was responsible and at least one of the names that had been exposed.
The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.
But when the congressman asked intelligence agencies to see the reports, he was "stonewalled," Fox reports.
Nunes finally viewed the information last week, but only at one location that would not compromise the identities of the sources: the Old Executive Office Building on the White House grounds.
The location has a secured area where classified or similar information can be viewed, according to the report.
The White House did not tell Nunes that the reports existed, only helping him get access to them, the sources told Fox.
In addition, they were not the individuals named in a report by The New York Times on Thursday as helping Nunes obtain the information, according to Fox.
On March 22, Nunes told reporters that information was "incidentally collected" by U.S. spy agencies on Trump's transition team — and those names were included in various intelligence reports.
He then briefed President Trump on the data, drawing fire from Democrats that included Vice Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, also of California for not first providing the information to panel members.
Nunes apologized the next day, saying that he briefed Trump because the data had no connection to Russia or its investigation of Moscow's role in the election.
Schiff was expected to view the information in a classified setting at the White House on Friday.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/private-citizens-trump-campaign/2017/03/31/id/781923/
-
Right?
I haven't seen anything to show Flynn did anything illegal. His crime was not telling VP Pence about his meetings and letting Pence vouch for him in public.
Regarding him taking the Fifth, when you see what liberals have done with Sessions and that absolutely ridiculous perjury allegation, I have no doubt those same dummies would try and parse words into some phantom crime.
1-Flynn may not have done anything illegal but because YOU haven't seen it ? Get real ! YOU also have no idea why he was finally fired after 17 days from the time of his admission.
2- Perjury is not covered by immunity.
Liberal or conservative, I think most Americans are more interested in the truth.
-
1-Flynn may not have done anything illegal but because YOU haven't seen it ? Get real ! YOU also have no idea why he was finally fired after 17 days from the time of his admission.
2- Perjury is not covered by immunity.
Liberal or conservative, I think most Americans would just like the truth.
You people ::)
The next thread you'll post about Nunes being a complete fool due to no evidence. Hypocrisy at its best.
-
You people ::)
The next thread you'll post about Nunes being a complete fool due to no evidence. Hypocrisy at its best.
'You people' ?? You don't know anything about me.
"The next thread you'll post about Nunes being a complete fool due to no evidence. Hypocrisy at its best."
You're calling me a hypocrite based on what you believe I'll post in future. Stupidity at its best !
-
1-Flynn may not have done anything illegal but because YOU haven't seen it ? Get real ! YOU also have no idea why he was finally fired after 17 days from the time of his admission.
2- Perjury is not covered by immunity.
Liberal or conservative, I think most Americans are more interested in the truth.
1. No I haven't seen it. Neither have you. He was fired for not telling Pence the truth. But go on with your nutty "seedy ties to Russia" conspiracy theory.
2. What perjury are you talking about?
A substantial number of liberals are pushing that faked moon landing-like Russia conspiracy theory, because they still have not come to grips with the election results.
This whole thing is as stupid as that birther crap.
-
Liberal or conservative, I think most Americans are more interested in the truth.
Not that i think reps are any better but where were the dems criticizing Lerner for taking the 5th?
Did obama tell her to ask for immunity so she'd could testify?
-
Not that i think reps are any better but where were the dems criticizing Lerner for taking the 5th?
Did obama tell her to ask for immunity so she'd could testify?
Lerner was transparently trying to protect herself from potential legal action. People aren't criticizing Flynn because asking for immunity is in bad taste. People are pointing out that the smoke around this administration indicating fire gets thicker practically every day. Flynn himself has stated that asking for immunity means you've likely committed a crime. People are pointing out that if he has committed a crime, it's not unlikely that it was in collusion with trump, in some form or another.
Yet despite these HUGE, BILLOWING streams of smoke, you still have partisan hacks spewing nonsense like "I haven't seen Flynn do anything illegal. This is all a liberal conspiracy." Rs have the house and the senate and the head of the investigative committee is basically trump's mouthpiece who is trying to derail the investigation. The two situations aren't comparable at all.
-
Lerner was transparently trying to protect herself from potential legal action. People aren't criticizing Flynn because asking for immunity is in bad taste. People are pointing out that the smoke around this administration indicating fire gets thicker practically every day. Flynn himself has stated that asking for immunity means you've likely committed a crime. People are pointing out that if he has committed a crime, it's not unlikely that it was in collusion with trump, in some form or another.
Yet despite these HUGE, BILLOWING streams of smoke, you still have partisan hacks spewing nonsense like "I haven't seen Flynn do anything illegal. This is all a liberal conspiracy." Rs have the house and the senate and the head of the investigative committee is basically trump's mouthpiece who is trying to derail the investigation. The two situations aren't comparable at all.
LMFAO yea i never heard anybody say those things about Lerner...
Actually there are a lot of similarities, sorry you cant see them. The main difference is she wasn't encouraged to testify.
-
LMFAO yea i never heard anybody say those things about Lerner...
Actually there are a lot of similarities, sorry you cant see them. The main difference is she wasn't encouraged to testify.
Still doing a great job of completely missing every point, huh? ::)
-
Meanwhile, it looks like immunity is off the table, for now, at least. We'll see how this plays out. Spicey weighed in to "clarify" trump's statements on Flynn seeking immunity:
Here's the exchange, in pieces:
GARRETT: When the president says Mike Flynn should get immunity, is he suggesting to Congress that it grant immunity?
SPICER: I think Mike Flynn and his legal counsel should do what's appropriate for Mike Flynn.
Deflection No. 1.
GARRETT: Right, but they cannot obtain immunity; it must be granted. Is the president recommending — either to the FBI or to Congress — that it grant immunity? Because that's the only way it can happen.
SPICER: I understand that. But again, he didn't say, 'Congress should grant.'
So he doesn't think it should be granted?
GARRETT: That's why I'm asking. What does he mean by that?
SPICER: What he means is he supports Mike Flynn's attempts to go up to Congress and to be very clear with everything they ask and everything that they want.
Deflection No. 2/3.
GARRETT: Right. But he could have just said, 'Testify.' He said he should get immunity. … For the president to even lightly indicate that he is in favor of that, it seems to me, is a significant development. And I'm trying to find out if that's what the president was trying to accomplish.
SPICER: And I'm trying to answer the question, which is that I think what the — not that I think, I've talked to the president … and the president's very clear that he wants Mike Flynn to go and be completely open and transparent with the committee. And whatever it takes to do that, he's supportive of.
That didn't answer the question, really.
-
'You people' ?? You don't know anything about me.
"The next thread you'll post about Nunes being a complete fool due to no evidence. Hypocrisy at its best."
You're calling me a hypocrite based on what you believe I'll post in future. Stupidity at its best !
Touched a sore point I guess.
Unless you are different in person then online I know you enough. You lie, you twist, you are hypocritical, etc. or you could just be dumb. Either morally bankrupt, dumb, or blind. Not good choices.
You've already done it on several subject matters hence the pattern is easy to predict.
-
Touched a sore point I guess.
Unless you are different in person then online I know you enough. You lie, you twist, you are hypocritical, etc. or you could just be dumb. Either morally bankrupt, dumb, or blind. Not good choices.
You've already done it on several subject matters hence the pattern is easy to predict.
Unless you are different in person then online I know you enough.
It's "than" Einstein...