>>9909863, >>>9909366, >>9909501 All PBs

There is one human race and humankind is two-sexed.

Oh, and the nature of marriage is two-sexed and procreative in kind.

On the other hand, a relationship, sexual or not, that excludes the other sex is sex-segregative. Maybe that can be a good thing or a bad thing or a neutral thing. But it is a fact that male-only or female-only twosomes (or moresomes) lack the nature of marriage which integrates man and woman and provides for responsible procreation.

There's one human race. Humankind is not a series of subspecies. The nature, or essence, of the marital type of relationship demonstrates this for all of society. Marriage is not segregative by sex nor by "race".

There are other kinds of relationships, of course. And the essence of this or that type may be meritorious, sure. Just as this or that type of association amongst people be that based on any human characteristic may be meritorious. Or not. But there are different types of human relationships as their are different types of human associations.

That's life.

>>9910728

>https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Flynn%20Transcripts%29.pdf

Not a word about sanctions. Only about the expulsion of some personnel.

If FLYNN did not speak about sanctions, and if the FBI agents did not ask about sanctions, then, there was no actual substance to the accusation of telling a falsehood, whether deliberately or mistakenly.

Does the 302 bear this out?

>>9910750

Noice, Anon.

>>9910918

"Revenue generators"

Kek

>>9910914 (me)

There was deliberate attempt to confuse. The "FLYNN 302" was actually a report written about the interview of PS - who had interviewed FLYNN. It was not the 302 of the meeting with FLYNN. That is very significant, natch. A charge of telling a falsehood to the FBI would be based on the word of the interviewing agent, that is, the agent's report or 302. Second-hand is a very poor substitute. That it was palmed-off as THE 302 is very shady and prolly criminal. Anons know all that.

Here is reminder from Byron York:

"there are still things – important things – the public needs to know about the case. Like, what, precisely, was said during that fateful interview at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017?"

https://www.djournal.com/opinion/byron-york-what-we-still-dont-know-about-the-michael-flynn-case/article_a779a6f0-9b3c-5a6b-8262-d4caadf809f8.html

Was FLYNN asked about sanctions? Nope. Prolly not. If sanctions did not come up, then, the motivations of the Mueller gang goes on trial. Enough rope?

>>9911378 (me)

That the subject of sanctions did not come up in FLYNN's call with the RUS AMB is significant because what, then, would the FBI have to contradict FLYNN's account of that call?

John Solomon:

No actual denial. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn indicated in a draft report that Flynn did not directly deny talking to Kislyak about sanctions, as he was accused by Mueller. Instead they noted he couldn't remember, wasn't sure and even conceded it was possible. Here's a direct quote from the draft interview memo. "FLYNN stated it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so." That's a far cry from a direct denial.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/dirty-dozen-12-revelations-sunk-muellers-case-against

Is it just me or does it start to appear that FLYNN played his part in reversing the tables on the FBI? Let us suppose that the report that he did not recall is true, well, then, the (dirty playas involved from the) FBI would be tempted re-arrange with a bit of editing. And it appears they did do that.

But if they never brought up sanctions and FLYNN's reported answer was not about sanctions? Oops.