Mueller Seeks White House Documents on Flynn

wait for it ......

according to people close to the investigation

The NYT keeps pounding and pounding.


There was enough "sources" stories yesterday.


I like this one though.


Mueller Seeks White House Documents on Flynn

Investigators working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently asked the White House for documents related to former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, and have questioned witnesses about whether he was secretly paid by the Turkish government during the final months of the presidential campaign, according to people close to the investigation.

Though not a formal subpoena, the document request is the first known instance of Mr. Mueller’s team asking the White House to hand over records.

In interviews with potential witnesses in recent weeks, prosecutors and F.B.I. agents have spent hours poring over the details of Mr. Flynn’s business dealings with a Turkish-American businessman who worked last year with Mr. Flynn and his consulting business, the Flynn Intel Group.

I think Mueller may be as dull-minded and showboaty as Comey. He can get those documents from the Senate Intel Committee. Flynn turned them over to that committee in early June.

thehill.com...

Birds of a feather...

a reply to: xuenchen

The special counsels office is leaking like a sieve...

originally posted by: carewemust
I think Mueller may be as dull-minded and showboaty as Comey. He can get those documents from the Senate Intel Committee. Flynn turned them over to that committee in early June.

thehill.com...

Birds of a feather...

Chain of custody is my guess. A lawyer could question the validity of any documents turned over to Congress that are in turn used against a suspect. Easier to avoid that argument by getting them from the original source.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: xuenchen

The special counsels office is leaking like a sieve...

Probably intentional. When these committees request a document or appearance from former Obama officials, nothing is leaked.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
I think Mueller may be as dull-minded and showboaty as Comey. He can get those documents from the Senate Intel Committee. Flynn turned them over to that committee in early June.

thehill.com...

Birds of a feather...

Chain of custody is my guess. A lawyer could question the validity of any documents turned over to Congress that are in turn used against a suspect. Easier to avoid that argument by getting them from the original source.

Did the Senate Intel Committee give them back to Flynn? Mueller probably wants ORIGINALS.

a reply to: xuenchen

It is time to investigate Mueller, and his investigators.
This reflects very poorly on him.

Also, does this compromise the process?

Seems the leaks open the entire team up to
blackmail, and illegality!

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: xuenchen

It is time to investigate Mueller, and his investigators.
This reflects very poorly on him.

Also, does this compromise the process?

Seems the leaks open the entire team up to
blackmail, and illegality!

I think we have Russian interference in the investigation itself.

a reply to: xuenchen

Robert S. Mueller III is a full fledged anti-American tyrant.
When the people fear the government (F.B.I. Fat Bureaucratic Idiots), there is tyranny.

If Mueller was to truly request important documents the F.B.I. would cave in on itself.

The NYT and WAPO reporting has been pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but close to it.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If the leaks aren't real, there's no reason for Sessions to be "cracking down on leakers."

If the leaks are real, then you're "unverified sources" critique is old. Which it is.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The NYT and WAPO reporting has been pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but close to it.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If the leaks aren't real, there's no reason for Sessions to be "cracking down on leakers."

If the leaks are real, then you're "unverified sources" critique is old. Which it is.

It's the "The leaks are real but the news is fake!" or whatever.

It's extreme cognitive dissonance. You see this with cult members like Heaven's Gate, Scientologists or some straight up Jim Jones stuff.. Ever try arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool Scientologist about their "religion"? Just. Don't.

When you've invested so much of your personal identity, who you "are as a person" into Trump being successful....his failures are personally felt as if they were your own failures.

And in the minds of his followers, this simply is unacceptable. So the reaching gets more and more crazy, desperate and extreme. The horses become mangled hunks of unrecognizable meat. The contradictory statements and conflicting statements become more and more commonplace.

The doublespeak starts, as its one of the only effective tools available to combat the rising cognitive dissonance.

It's like watching a house burn down and the family not wanting to admit it, because it means they'll be homeless. That reality is simply to scary to deal with, so they'll willingly believe their own lies about the house being fine.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The NYT and WAPO reporting has been pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but close to it.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If the leaks aren't real, there's no reason for Sessions to be "cracking down on leakers."

If the leaks are real, then you're "unverified sources" critique is old. Which it is.

it's as if he's been paid to go on message boards and make a point of highlighting anonymous sources, now who said they don't like anonymous sources?

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The NYT and WAPO reporting has been pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but close to it.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If the leaks aren't real, there's no reason for Sessions to be "cracking down on leakers."

If the leaks are real, then you're "unverified sources" critique is old. Which it is.

it's as if he's been paid to go on message boards and make a point of highlighting anonymous sources, now who said they don't like anonymous sources?

It sounds to me like he believes anonymous sources are just made up. I guess Sessions was talking BS then.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The NYT and WAPO reporting has been pretty damned accurate. Not perfect, but close to it.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If the leaks aren't real, there's no reason for Sessions to be "cracking down on leakers."

If the leaks are real, then you're "unverified sources" critique is old. Which it is.

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong. The other issue are the number of stories they refuse to cover in order to protect Democrats.

I mean, what if one of the Anonymous hackers dropped a bunch of leaked documents. No one really knows "who" that person is.

Alternate scenario: What if an Anon hacker worked in White House and passed along their personal observations?

Something tells me that this would be fine and dandy if it was a Hillary White House....

Funny how that would work, right?

a reply to: Kettu

In your scenario i could claim you molest little children and beat women all the while remaining anonymous and only relaying my personal observations.

Which story do you think they will run with?
The above if you are an elected official or not running it if you are an elected official?

Unnamed sources have gotten out of hand and the number of wrong reports using unnamed sources has hit a level that is now dangerous to our country.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I can't think of any "wrong reports" using unnamed sources off the top of my head. Do you have any well-known examples that support your opinion/feelings?

a reply to: Kettu

You mean support the facts - yes -

* - A Costly Retraction for CNN and an Opening for Trump
* - Another Day, Another Russia Retraction — This Time From Maggie Haberman At NYT
* - New York Times, Associated Press Correct Claims That All 17 Intelligence Agencies Agreed on Russian Interference
* - A rather large New York Times correction
* - Vice Media group issues not one but two Trump retractions
* - Media errors give Trump fresh ammunition
* - The media will do anything to bash Trump — and now they’re hurting

Well known? WTF is wrong with you? A wrong story is still wrong, regardless of whether its large or small. Giving passes is the other side of the problem.

I wonder will anyone request FBI documents from Mueller's time in charge there? - like that time when he tried to coerce the Finnish govt into helping to frame Julian Assange...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Doesn't sound like Mueller is quite the upstanding guy the establishment politicians told us he was. He was also the FBI director four much of Obama's presidency, the most scandal ridden in history, and stood by doing nothing.

It's revealing that Mueller is going after documents that have already been produced - must not have anything new to look into, so is another go at Flynn the fall back position?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition?

I'd think you would know, since right wing outlets make note of every retraction, big or small, knowing guys like you will swallow it whole because it helps you defend yourself against the truth.

The few stories that qualify as "wrong" were retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

And much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.