Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To FBI: Flynn's Obama Connection Exposed

 Who Is Michael Flynn, has anyone researched his past, and why he was linked into the Trump AdministrationMichael Thomas Flynn (born December 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General, who served in the Army for 33 years until 2014. He was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

 President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has turned himself in to the FBI. He pleaded guilty  in federal court to a charge of making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Russia.

 According to the special counsel’s charge, Flynn made the false statements to the FBI on Jan. 24, two days after he was sworn in as national security adviser.

RT reports: The charge was detailed in court documents unsealed on Friday. The document accuses Flynn of making “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements” to law enforcement about a phone call he had with former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. The statements were made on January 24, four days after Trump was inaugurated.

Flynn, 58, pleaded guilty to the charge during a Friday morning hearing in Washington, DC.

https://twitter.com/JennaMC_Laugh/status/936602180911591424/photo/1...

 Flynn resigned less than a month into Trump’s term, after the acting Justice Department head – who was subsequently fired for refusing to enforce a travel ban executive order – warned that he could be subjected to blackmail because his dealings with Russians hadn’t been disclosed.

  At issue was the phone call between Flynn and Kislyak at the end of December 2016, after President Barack Obama ordered a number of Russian diplomats to leave the US and closed two Russian diplomatic properties.

 Flynn is specifically accused of falsely claiming that he did not ask Kislyak to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.” He is also accused of falsely telling agents that he “did not recall the Russian ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

 Flynn also told the FBI that he “did not ask the Russian ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution,” according to court documents.

 US intelligence services listened in on the phone call. Information about it was leaked to the media in January, after Trump’s inauguration. Flynn resigned in February.

 In a statement on Friday, Flynn said he was falsely accused of treason and other outrageous acts, and that he made the decision to cooperate with the special counsel in the best interests of his family and the country.

 The plea “clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the special counsel investigation, White House attorney Ty Cobb said on Friday, according to Reuters.

 Flynn’s false statements to the FBI “mirror the false statements to White House officials” that prompted his resignation in February, Cobb said.

Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To FBI

Views: 325

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is a threat and will be reported as such!

Flynn Intel Group is a lobbying group established by Michael Flynn. Flynn registered the company from the home of his friend Stanley A. McChrystal, a "fellow general-turned-consultant."

Kamil Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman close to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey's leader, is a client of Flynn Intel Group. Inovo, a company owned by Alptekin, paid the Flynn Intel Group $530,000 to investigate Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-resident cleric who is wanted by the Turkish government.

Subsidiaries of the Flynn Intel Group include FIG Cyber Inc and FIG Aviation. They are headed by Timothy Newberry and Mike Coomes.

The group's House Identification number is 433680001 and Senate Identification number is 401104161.


Intel Group With George Soros:  International Institute for Strategic Studies which was funded by Soros' Open Society Foundation and another Soros-financed group.

Panama Papers Reveal George Soros' Deep Money Ties to Secretive ...

https://www.infowars.com/panama-papers-reveal-george-soros-deep-mon...
May 16, 2016 - Panama Papers Reveal George Soros' Deep Money Ties to Secretive Weapons, Intel Investment Firm ... Mossack Fonseca law firm's efforts to help politicians, celebrities and criminals shield their money from taxes, contain links to Soros, who funds the journalism group that is disseminating the information.

Hey Jea9,

 It also down he get a grip!!!!!!

Michael Thomas Flynn (born December 1958) is a retired United States Army Lieutenant General who served in the U.S. Army for 33 years, from 1981 until 2014. In January 2017 he briefly served as National Security Adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump. In December 2017 he was convicted of lying to the FBI, a felony, about contacts he had with the Russian government during Trump's presidential transition.

Flynn's military career included a key role in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy and dismantling insurgent networks in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was given numerous combat arms, conventional, and special operations senior intelligence assignments. He was appointed by President Barack Obama as the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, serving from July 2012 to his retirement from the military in August 2014. After leaving the military, he established Flynn Intel Group, which has provided intelligence services for businesses and governments, including ones in Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

Once again you PROVE your foolishness in your choices of resources. 

Schools tell their students not to use it as a resource for some of these very reasons, which I'm sure will just ZIP right over your head....

You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.  Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are  who wrote this?  and WHY did they write it? On sites with anonymous authors like Wikipedia, you can't find this information.

The contributor with an agenda often prevails.  In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

In March 2009, Irish student Shane Fitzgerald, who was conducting research on the Internet and globalization of information, posted a fake quotation on the Wikipedia article about recently deceased French composer Maurice Jarre. Due to the fact that the quote was not attributed to a reliable source, it was removed several times by editors, but Fitzgerald continued re-posting it until it was allowed to remain.

Fitzgerald was startled to learn that several major newspapers picked up the quote and published it in obituaries, confirming his suspicions of the questionable ways in which journalists use Web sites, and Wikipedia, as a reliable source. Fitzgerald e-mailed the newspapers letting them know that the quote was fabricated; he believes that otherwise, they might never have found out.

Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.  Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.

Furthermore, in 2007, a new program called WikiScanner uncovered individuals with a clear conflict of interest that had written or edited some Wikipedia entries. Employees from organizations such as the CIA, the Democratic National Party and Diebold were editing wikipedia entries in their employers' favor. 

Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.  Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries. Though in many instances reviewers quickly delete this “vandalism,” occasionally false information can remain on Wikipedia for extended periods of time.

For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.

Get back to us when you know how to do REAL research...

Mrs. Morgan,

 You are correct in the information, I find most of their comments, (Voided of a bearing) having the central area cut away so as to show the field. I as well as you have shown proper Text.

 Stay on topic, and the supplied info will case search and support it. Do you want to know more?

ID# 11680 - Figure Laughing and Pointing - PowerPoint Animation

prove it

Alex Jones: Mueller Indicting Flynn is a Giant HOAX to Cover for Hillary & Himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tqQYzR1CC0

==

Hey man how the hell are you? I will check it out in a few, the video, we are thinking Flynn was a inside job by the DNC to destroy Trump, and to spy on him.

Image result for dog rolling around animation

You may have something in common.

LMAO

I will follow up on this in a while, there seems to be more and more DNC connections showing up in the scandals.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service