ABC News retracts Flynn bombshell story

[TalkRadio]

During the frenzy yesterday over the Flynn plea deal, ABC dropped a bombshell report that Michael Flynn told Special Counsel Bob Mueller that he was prepared to testify that it was Trump who told him to contact the Russians. ABC News later not only retracted that statement but corrected it with information supporting Trump’s account and contacts with Russians. With the story today of an FBI special agent removed from the Russian investigation due to anti-Trump tweets, the “clarification” by ABC plays into the narrative by Trump supporters that the Russian investigation is politically motivated.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/02/abc-news-retracts-flynn-bombshell-story/#more-132211

 

[Rightguide]

...and that much of what we hear is fake news.

 

[about_average]

Yup, Trump logic.
The immediate firing of someone for being partisan is proof that the investigation is partisan.


I wonder how that fits with the fact that Trump knew he lied yet didn't fire him for weeks.
Or with Trump's plan for "extreme vetting" of immigrants when he can't even vet his own political appointees. Even when he's given a clear warning about them.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Has any proof of Russian collusion emerged?

 

[Hypoxia]

Has any proof of Russian collusion emerged?

Emerged? Not quite. More like, "galloped on-stage." Tromps Sr and Jr blurted it out. And then there's the email trail. Ah, but the indictments will tell.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Emerged? Not quite. More like, "galloped on-stage." Tromps Sr and Jr blurted it out. And then there's the email trail. Ah, but the indictments will tell.

You still have nothing. No proof; only your hopes and dreams.

 

[Adder4321]

Emerged? Not quite. More like, "galloped on-stage." Tromps Sr and Jr blurted it out. And then there's the email trail. Ah, but the indictments will tell.

Does this mean that I'm losing my bet on him being assassinated?

 

[WoundedKnee]

Does this mean that I'm losing my bet on him being assassinated?

lmao.

 

[about_average]

Has any proof of Russian collusion emerged?

Proving collusion isn't the purpose of the investigation.

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein today announced the appointment of former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel

But to your question, do you think the campaign's attempt to collude with the Russian government at Trump Tower was the only time they tried to?

 

[Hypoxia]

Proving collusion isn't the purpose of the investigation.

And providing proof isn't the job of LIT posters. Team Mueller are gathering evidence and building criminal cases. 'Proof' emerges in trials, not on discussion boards.

 

[Aglaopheme]

And providing proof isn't the job of LIT posters. Team Mueller are gathering evidence and building criminal cases. 'Proof' emerges in trials, not on discussion boards.

But, these cats on lit seen all of the evidence, they've said so themselves.

 

[Hypoxia]

But, these cats on lit seen all of the evidence, they've said so themselves.

They're still revved on Pizzagate. And NASA sending kidnapped youths to Mars. And man-killing lesbian gangs armed with pink .45 ACPs. And the flatness of Earth. They saw it online so it's true.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Proving collusion isn't the purpose of the investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel

But to your question, do you think the campaign's attempt to collude with the Russian government at Trump Tower was the only time they tried to?

Bullshit. Part (c) of Rosenstein's memo clearly states:

(c)...If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Do you actually think that authorization is merely coincidental? The Assistant AG Rosenstein could not ASSUME criminal activity had taken place, but what in God's name would be the "purpose" of the Department of Justice conducting an investigation into that which had been previously "confirmed" if the prospect of criminality was not at least viable?

That would equate to being the colossal waste of taxpayer time and money that Trump insists the investigation IS. And it isn't and it hasn't been -- even if Mueller DOES come up empty handed on the President's guilt which he almost certainly WILL.

But don't give us this claptrap about what the 'purpose' of the investigation ISN'T. It makes you look as stupid as the President, and that ain't easy.

As for any alleged ADDITIONAL "attempts" of campaign surrogates to "collude" with Russia, would that also be the "purpose" of the investigation -- to speculate about any other unsubstantiated behaviors for which there is apparently not a shred of evidence? Is that the FBI you want?

I personally favor the one that investigates EVIDENCE leading to the possible COMMISSION OF A CRIME for the PURPOSE of CONVICTION IN A COURT OF LAW.

But, hey, I'm just funny that way.

 

[about_average]

Authorizing the prosecution of any crimes found during the investigation doesn't mean that that is the purpose of the investigation. It's one of the "related matters" that might (has) come out of the investigation.

LEO investigation of a suspicious death doesn't mean the purpose of the investigation is to prove the person was murdered, but if they find evidence a person committed murder I damn well want them prosecuted.
I'm sure if you dig you'll find a document somewhere stating authorization to prosecute crimes found during such an investigation.

As for other attempts at collusion, yes, if evidence of them comes to light during the course of the investigation I'd want them to see if they were successful attempts.

 

[Unabatable]

Proving collusion isn't the purpose of the investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel

But to your question, do you think the campaign's attempt to collude with the Russian government at Trump Tower was the only time they tried to?

Remember, first of all: there exists no criminal charge of "collusion" that can possibly be applied to this entire situation; ie, every time you read/hear anyone cite "collusion" as having any legal/criminal bearing whatsoever regarding Trump or anyone on his transition team and Russia, they're either intentionally or ignorantly lying.

That is not any wannabe opinion - it is pure legal fact.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88386146&postcount=1

, wannabe.

 

[Unabatable]

Authorizing the prosecution of any crimes found during the investigation doesn't mean that that is the purpose of the investigation. It's one of the "related matters" that might (has) come out of the investigation.

LEO investigation of a suspicious death doesn't mean the purpose of the investigation is to prove the person was murdered, but if they find evidence a person committed murder I damn well want them prosecuted.
I'm sure if you dig you'll find a document somewhere stating authorization to prosecute crimes found during such an investigation.

As for other attempts at collusion, yes, if evidence of them comes to light during the course of the investigation I'd want them to see if they were successful attempts.

Remember, first of all: there exists no criminal charge of "collusion" that can possibly be applied to this entire situation; ie, every time you read/hear anyone cite "collusion" as having any legal/criminal bearing whatsoever regarding Trump or anyone on his transition team and Russia, they're either intentionally or ignorantly lying.

That is not any wannabe opinion - it is pure legal fact.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88386146&postcount=1

again, wannabe.

 

[Rightguide]

Authorizing the prosecution of any crimes found during the investigation doesn't mean that that is the purpose of the investigation. It's one of the "related matters" that might (has) come out of the investigation.

LEO investigation of a suspicious death doesn't mean the purpose of the investigation is to prove the person was murdered, but if they find evidence a person committed murder I damn well want them prosecuted.
I'm sure if you dig you'll find a document somewhere stating authorization to prosecute crimes found during such an investigation.

As for other attempts at collusion, yes, if evidence of them comes to light during the course of the investigation I'd want them to see if they were successful attempts.

 

[about_average]

again, wannabe.

, wannabe.

No idea what you're going on about.