I can't believe you're this out of touch with what's going on. Try to pay attention and maybe read an article.
I can't believe you're this out of touch with what's going on. Try to pay attention and maybe read an article.
"What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
They wanted the truth, an admission of guilt, or a provable falsehood to prosecute him or remove him.
And what exactly is wrong with that goal?
> "What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
They wanted the truth, an admission of guilt, or a provable falsehood to prosecute him or remove him.
And what exactly is wrong with that goal?
The FBI thought he was telling the truth. The 302's were altered by Lisa Page. The FBI wanted to close the case on Flynn after finding nothing wrong and Peter Strzok was having nothing of it. These are facts, and they stink. They had to get rid of a 33 year combat vet because he knew too much about the level of corruption that went on in the Obama admin.
The FBI thought he was telling the truth. The 302's were altered by Lisa Page. The FBI wanted to close the case on Flynn after finding nothing wrong and Peter Strzok was having nothing of it. These are facts, and they stink. They had to get rid of a 33 year combat vet because he knew too much about the level of corruption that went on in the Obama admin.
How is that significant? I think when they question someone suspected of a crime they most certainly try to catch the interviewee in a lie. How do you think the interview/interrogation should have gone? I mean besides the fired part. That's a given if he's lying about national security matters. It's illegal to lie to federal investigators, though I don't know if anyone's taken their charges to the supreme court.