>>15185529 pb
>I was looking for video anon
>had the screenshot.
>>15185538 pb
>go find that press conference
>not a nerd just genX finding out pedos run the world..
don't need to be a nerd to do an internet search. just unlazy. but since youre genx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-says-he-would-consider-bringing-michael-flynn-back-into-the-administration/2020/04/30/48899816-4042-400a-b20d-f8d4eac6f7ad_video.html
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-says-he-would-consider-bringing-michael-flynn-back-into-the-administration/2020/04/30/48899816-4042-400a-b20d-f8d4eac6f7ad_video.html
Q4025 linked video
Fake News Wapo related story for context was a release of documents forced by Flynn legal team proving FBI entrapment.
The Fix Analysis The Michael Flynn revelation: Bombshell or business as usual?
By Aaron Blake
Senior reporter
April 30, 2020
After years of President Trump and his allies claiming that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was a witch hunt and that federal law enforcement systematically targeted Trump and those around him, Wednesday brought what many of them labeled a bombshell.
2021 Election: Complete coverage and analysis
New documents turned over by the legal team of former national security adviser Michael Flynn show an unnamed official preparing for the interview in which Flynn lied to the FBI by musing about whetherthe goal was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
Flynn’s legal team labeled the documents a“smoking gun” that indicate this was a perjury trap, and however likely Trump was to pardon Flynn, he appears even likelier now.
But just how truly damning are the new documents?
First, let’s walk through what they show. Basically, they indicate there was an internal debate about whether to present Flynn with evidence against him in that Jan. 24, 2017, interview. Exactly what type of evidence is redacted, but it seems logical to believe it was transcripts of Flynn’s December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which is what Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying about.
On calls, Flynn and Kislyak discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had just imposed on Russia for its 2016 election interference. This risked running afoul of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United States. Flynn was due to be Trump’s national security adviser, but this was during the transition period between Trump’s election and inauguration, so he wasn’t yet a government official.
In the handwritten notes from an unidentified official, that official indicates being previously opposed to showing Flynn the evidence but rethinking that decision.
“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [redacted] if he didn’t admit," the official says. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”
The official goes on: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
That right there is what Flynn’s defenders are labeling the long-suggested “perjury trap” — i.e. the idea that the officials entrapped Flynn into lying.
moar
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/30/michael-flynn-revelation-bombshell-or-business-as-usual/