Stocks fall on report that Michael Flynn was directed by Trump to talk to Russians

Stocks fall on report that Michael Flynn was directed by Trump to talk to Russians:

FBI- Michael, we know you were lying to us about not doing that thing you did that we can’t prove that you did, and we’re going to send you to jail for it.

Flynn- Jail, oh no. Is there anything I can do to get out of that?

FBI- We need you to rat on Trump.

Flynn- So, five minutes ago you thought I was a liar and would swear to false things if it would help me avoid punishment; but now you’re willing to use me as a key witness. What has changed your mind about me?

FBI- Absolutely nothing.

This post was last modified on December 1, 2017

Kip Hooker:

View Comments (13)

    • And the White House is claiming Obama approved the contacts. No wonder all they could get Flynn for was lying to the FBI. There's no underlying crime here. Once again.

    • Good, they should. There's no excuse for that level of incompetence. I would think ABC might actually be sued by people who lost money on the stock market yesterday.

      • Check and see if Soros or some of the Kennedys shorted stocks. Then see if there’s a connection back to Ross. The so called investigative reporter is nothing but a true dumb ass. A rookie reporter could’ve done much better. Remember when the dumbass tried to tie Tea Party members to the shooting in Colorado to only to have to eat a shit sanwhich

        • Yeah, it was dumb. The timeline of when all this happened was the tail end of December. If he's supposed to be a top-notch "investigative reporter" how can he think Trump was still a candidate at the end of December? I think you hit the nail on the head, they need to look at short action and who made money on that one-day stock market crash.

  • The article claims that the Flynn story is now causing "uncertainty" about Trump's future among stock market investors. The rest of the media will now do it's best to provoke a stock market panic which they can blame on Trump.

      • Can you put anything past a group of people that will use a fake dossier as reasoning for spying on a rival political campaign? Mueller has got to "find" something, or else people might begin to ask what he knew and when he knew about the DNC crimes occurring on his watch.

  • Read his full statement he gave in open court. It is nothing more than what they got Stewart on. Its the same damn thing that should be used against the hildabeast along with all the other cronies from the crime family.

    Flynn meet did exactly what any other person coming into his position would have done for any new administration. Where he jammed himself up was trying to baffle and dazzle.

    • Excellent point. Martha Stewart was sent to jail for "lying" when she told the FBI that she wasn't involved with insider trading. Why, you may ask, didn't she go to jail for insider trading? Because nobody could prove she was guilty of insider trading.

      I'm tempted to suggest that is the height of corruption. But we shouldn't forget Scooter Lib -IIRC Mueller was in on that too. They went after the man for being the Plame leaker even though they knew without a doubt that he was absolutely innocent of what they were investigating him for; and then he got sent to jail (almost, IIRC the sentence was commuted by GWB) for "lying" to them.

      • No, you're not quite right on the Martha Stewart thing. She could not possibly be guilty of insider trading because she was not an insider, plain and simple. If an outsider gets information from an insider and makes a stock market profit from that information, that is not against the law (as long as the outsider doesn't give a kickback to the insider). That's essentially how Wall Street works, everybody trying to get information other people don't have. You can't outlaw that. Martha simply didn't know that, so she got nervous and tried to lie. She should have told the truth and told them to go fuck themselves, or clammed up and asked for a lawyer.

        Scooter Libby's conviction was even worse than Martha's. Essentially, he and a journalist remembered something that happened years earlier somewhat differently. As people are prone to do. There's no way to tell which remembered it correctly. Naturally they assumed the Republican guy was lying because that's the result they wanted. Biggest crock of bullshit in the history of jurisprudence.