Jump to content

How can you lie about sanctions if you are never asked?


Recommended Posts

If Flynn lied about sanctions how come the word sanctions does not appear in the amended 302 and the FBI can not produce the original?

 

They discussed the expulsions but the separate executive order concerning sanctions is never mentioned or discussed.  
 

Here is the 302.  
 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-special-counsel-releases-flynn-302

 

if you can find the word sanctions and what was asked let me know.

 

Hat tip Dan Bongino

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huey said:

If Flynn lied about sanctions how come the word sanctions does not appear in the amended 302 and the FBI can not produce the original?

 

They discussed the expulsions but the separate executive order concerning sanctions is never mentioned or discussed.  
 

Here is the 302.  
 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-special-counsel-releases-flynn-302

 

if you can find the word sanctions and what was asked let me know.

 

Hat tip Dan Bongino

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, roadkill said:

Interesting.

Yes.  Part of the DOJs filing is the FBI and the prosecution can’t show or prove the lie about sanctions.  Talk about discreet...lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Huey said:

Yes.  Part of the DOJs filing is the FBI and the prosecution can’t show or prove the lie about sanctions.  Talk about discreet...lol!

I'm sure it was just an oversight.   😏

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, slideman said:

Why would you confess in writing under penalty of perjury and then in open court twice if you didn't do it?

Because it was coerced.  But can you answer the question in the OP?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Huey said:

Because it was coerced.  But can you answer the question in the OP?

It was coerced? Flynn had representation and he is not an infant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's right there in the 302. You didn't read it did you? They questioned him as to whether he discussed with kislyak sending home of diplomats etc. Those were retaliatory for the sanctions.you may be correct that the word sanctions does not appear but they did discuss it as the 302 makes clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slideman said:

You folks are hilarious. You hit on the darndest things thinking you've got a gotcha and you never do.

 

One day they will finally wake up and realize that they don't understand things they think they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, slideman said:

It's right there in the 302. You didn't read it did you? They questioned him as to whether he discussed with kislyak sending home of diplomats etc. Those were retaliatory for the sanctions.you may be correct that the word sanctions does not appear but they did discuss it as the 302 makes clear.

No it’s not.  You did not read the OP:

 

 

They discussed the expulsions but the separate executive order concerning sanctions is never mentioned or discussed
 

The claim is he lied because he said he did not discuss sanctions.  He did discuss expulsions.  It’s right there in the 302.  Sanctions were never discussed
 

try harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess @icebergslim has decided caution is the better part of valor considering he has been embarrassed quite often this week.

 

he has been invited.  He has declined.  No need to do what he does and hammer him with 20 plus tags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...