'The Buck Stops Here'

Obama did surely know how to run a tight ship. I give him that.

It's adorable how you guys don't seem to understand the implications of your own conspiracy theories.

Did Obama target Flynn, or did his administration unmask him in legal filings? Only one of these things can be true, and if it's the latter, it not only precludes the former, but justifies it as well.

It was used as a pretext to get Flynn fired because Flynn was preparing to make substantial changes to the Intelligence community. He was removed from his position as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency because he knew too much of the wrongdoing that was going on. Admiral Mike Rogers also was alarmed by numerous illegal activities being done by contractors in order to circumvent the law.

How is it a pretext to get Flynn if they didn't know who Flynn was until unmasking? The cognitive dissonance at the heart of this conspiracy theory is stunningly obvious.

He was never fired because he "knew too much" - he was fired because he was being openly sympathetic to a hostile foreign power occupying an ally and refused to disclose his interactions with members of the GRU. That this was seen as an asset and not a liability by Trump transition team and later administration likely explains why they ignored the prior administration's warnings and hired him.

General Flynn was a 33-year military veteran who honorably served his country. The Russian collusion scenario has been investigated ad nauseam and was found to be a liberal wet dream. You can't make up FACTS, CtrlFreq.

Everyone charged with anything with the Mueller investigation should be released seeing it was a sham and hoax investigation led by someone who knew for a year they had nothing yet continued.

Flynn has been fired by two separate administrations for refusing to document his interactions with Russian actors within the GRU and lying to his superiors about it - those are the FACTS.

I suggest we let the information that's coming out now tell us what the facts are.

The point is moot. They were abusing their power to illegally spy on a citizen. That's like saying it was ok to break into Watergate because they didn't know who would be speaking on the phones they were tapping (even though they knew perfectly well who they were targeting).

You don't seem to understand what unmasking is - when there are intelligence reports they anonymize the names of American citizen in them.

If Flynn was unmasked, it wasn't because they said "show us what you have on Flynn", but rather because they asked "who is the American citizen in this report illegally interacting with hostile foreign actors?"

You just proved YOU don't understand what masking is when you said "intelligence reports" and not intercepts of foreign communications with non-targeted Americans also in the recordings. If it was just an intelligence report there would be no need to withhold any names.

They absolutely knew that there was nothing illegal about that call, and they said as much as early as a year before. It was a concerted witch hunt, which sums up the whole FISAgate, Russiagate and Obamagate fiasco.

What the hell do you think intercepts are? Our intelligence agencies are, by law, restricted from monitoring the communications of Americans unless they're to foreign actors, at which point they are required, again by law, to provide anonymity to the American actors UNLESS THEY'RE UNMASKED.

There is no reverse version of that where officials can say "give me all the reports that include Flynn" - his own actions exposed his illegal activities.

You are WRONG. The FBI itself said there was no illegal activities.

President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.

Dunce. One does not preclude the other. Nice fake tautology. As if Obama would personally file for unmasking. There were multiple high-ranking Obama administration officials who filed for the unmasking. Are they all mutually exclusive as well? Your attempt to sound smart is pathetic.

Again, your ignorance of the fundamentals of how unmasking works and why it's done is clear.

Yawn. You have nothing.

Here - let's see if an illustration of your ignorance helps you understand what you clearly don't know.

In a intelligence report, we have the following:

Individual #1
Individual #2
Individual #3
Named Russian 1
Named Russian 2

Tell me if one is Flynn and which one he is.

Everyone knows what unmasking is you twat. Condescending prick.

Clearly, you do not.

Your fake tautology is a fart in a stiff wind:

President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released Thursday as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case.

Obama’s unexpectedly intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn’s calls, which the FBI acknowledged at the time were not criminal or even improper, raised eyebrows because of his own history with Flynn — and because top FBI officials secretly discussed whether their goal was to “get [Flynn] fired” when they interviewed him in the White House on January 24, 2017.

By "his own history with Flynn" you mean when he had to fire Flynn as DIA because he refused to document his interactions with members of the GRU shortly after Russia had invaded and occupied an ally?

It's hardly surprising he knew the details after unmasking - not sure what you believe is the conspiracy here.

As for the contemporaneous notes on the goal behind their investigations of Flynn, you've latched onto a single phrase cherry-picked from its context and construed it to mean what you already believe - a hallmark of conspiracy theories everywhere.

Your response is a hallmark of coverups everywhere. Claiming a valid fact is out of context and unrelated. The whole thing has been exposed, even Comey admitted he sent FBI agents to the WH against procedure, misrepresented themselves to Flynn, and now there is ample evidence he was targeted to be framed and intimidated, even threatening his family over what they knew was a nothing-burger phone call (ring any bells?). It went all the way to the top of the FBI, and now we see it went to the top of the administration as well.

Utter and complete nonsense - not only were the investigation and interview properly predicated (regardless of what the corrupt AG claims now), but this was hardly the first time he lied about his contacts with GRU agents, and he pled guilty to two lesser charges not because he was threatened, but because the DOJ offered him leniency for cooperating - a completely normal everyday occurance, and something he also lied about.

You might try picking better examples than when the President illegally withheld funding to an occupied ally in order to force them to hand over dirt on his opponent in the election - the fact that the GOP refused to do their duty doesn't make him remotely innocent.