Remember this name: E.W. Priestap

[Rotadom]

Were you dropped on your head?

They have "proof" which they don't bother to pursue, deciding to entrap him into a process crime instead? Genius!



Another genius.

Given that they never told him he was being formally interviewed or even under investigation for anything, why would he even suspect he needed to "save his ass" which a non-material misstatement would not do?

This really isn't your best one, by the way. You should start another alt, something with numbers, maybe. "666" is catchy.

. . .and the FBI agents sent to set him up know what that standard needs to be and they reported back that he did not perjure himself. A minor, immaterial misstatement from a subject of an investigation, who is not aware he is a target and has not been advised he is bring actually interviewed under penalty of perjury cannot be prosecuted.

Perjury requires intent. Being wrong is not perjury. Not remembering correctly is not perjury.

Interestingly, saying "I don't recall" dozens of times about things that strain credit that you don't recall, rather than invoking your right not to testify if it would tend to incriminate yourself as protected by the fifth amendment is actual perjury. Just hard to prosecute it.

When and if Flynn is exonerated, these nitwits will claim he "got off" on a "technicality" ignoring the fact that this entire exercise in prosecutorial misconduct was based on a misconstrued technicality and used a bastardization of a law that is never been used to prosecute anyone to curse him to plead guilty do something that he did not actually do. You cannot even ask for, mich less coerce a guilty plea if you know the person is not guilty. You also cannot accept such an elocution if you know that the person is not actually guilty.

You're talking in absolutes which doesn't make sense because you know as much as I do about what is really going to go down. Me and the other guy were talking in hypotheticals and not really even regarding this particular case, more of a "what could happen."

 

[Rotadom]

That's the only valid part of your post.

You do realize that movies are not legal primers, right?

Ah, you're just attempting to be a mean troll. Good luck with that.

 

[Conager]

You're talking in absolutes which doesn't make sense because you know as much as I do about what is really going to go down. Me and the other guy were talking in hypotheticals and not really even regarding this particular case, more of a "what could happen."

Since you know nothing about even the publically available portion of what is known, I fo know "as much as you" do, and quite a bit more. I was not speculating, you were. I was speaking about what is known about what was done, what was said by Flyn, what was said by the initial FBI agents, what was said in emails about the prosecution, all of it.

None of what you speculated happened. We know this because what happened, what the FBI talked about, what they thought he had (or in this case knew he had not) done is known. You not knowing any of this is fine. You pretending that zero knowledge about this case, or really any case is equivalent to having actually read about it is silly. That's ok too. You are allowed to look silly, just as I am aloud to point out not just that your scenarios are silly, but that 5hey do not match the known facts.

QUOTE=Rotadom;92265647]Ah, you're just attempting to be a mean troll. Good luck with that. [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry you felt that pointing out that you quite obviously have no.idea what you are talking about was "mean."

The playground is down the hall, second door on your right, your Royal "Dom"liness.

 

[Rotadom]

Ah, you're just attempting to be a mean troll. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry you felt that pointing out that you quite obviously have no.idea what you are talking about was "mean."

The playground is down the hall, second door on your right, your Royal "Dom"liness.

You're on the wrong side of the spectrum.

 

[Conager]

Ah, you're attempting to be one of those I-am-victorious-because-I-say-so trolls. Good luck with that. "Dom".

Have you met DomElliotRogers? You two could hang out and do "Dom" stuf!

 

[Rotadom]

Ah, you're attempting to be one of those I-am-victorious-because-I-say-so trolls. Good luck with that. "Dom".

Have you met DomElliotRogers? You two could hang out and do "Dom" stuf!

That's so odd. You were attempting to troll and claim "victory" and now you're turning it around on me because I made you look ridiculous.

And my name is Dominick, I'm not into the Dom/sub thing. Sorry if you were looking for a new Master, I'm flattered but it is just not going to happen.

 

[Conager]

Is it odd, "Dom?'

FWIW, "Dom," your fantasies notwithstanding, no one has the power to make anyone look ridiculous. That's a self-inflicted condition.

 

[Rotadom]

I can't imagine how exciting your life must be.

 

[Conager]

Well, don't imagine. Get out there and have an exciting life of your very own. They are free for the taking, "Dom."

 

[Rotadom]

I have one. That's why I'm rarely here while it appears that you're rarely anywhere else.

And you're totally burning me by calling me by my name.

 

[Conager]

I have one. That's why I'm rarely here while it appears that you're rarely anywhere else.

And you're totally burning me by calling me by my name.

Don't blame me, I wasn't the one than named you Dominick, and it was you that chose to identify yourself as Rota"Dom" on Lit or "here" as you call it. Remember what I said about looking ridiculous being a self-inflicted condition?

"Here," Dom? There is no "here," here. This is a virtual space. With the magic that is a smart phone, you can be "here" as you call it from anywhere at all while doing anything you like.

It isn't a binary choice as in be "here" on Lit or out "there" having a rich, fulfilling, enjoyable life. You can have it all, "Dom."

Let me see if I can give you a practical exercise to help you get to where you want to be: have you ever gone for a walk out, "there?" Chewed gum? Ever thought of doing them -together-?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AeD0ubMag9k/hqdefault.jpg

 

[Rotadom]

Get tested for whatever has rotted your brain.

 

[Conager]

Why?




.

 

[Rotadom]

OIC. You're that guy. The sucker at the poker table but doesn't know it.

 

[Conager]

You know what actually is odd, "Dom?"

That you have, just today, in this very thread invested a full 1% or your total posts defending this derp:

They obviously think he can be compromised which most likely means they have proof of him compromised in the past.

Three years of carefully venturing into this thread or that posting a comment, being mostly ignored. The first time someone takes the time to acknowledge your presence you get bent out of shape because it is pointed out that your post is not grounded in any version of reality.

It happens. You think you have some sort of insight on a topic or a conversational thread, you chime in, it falls flat. Happens to everyone. Even me, if you can believe it.

No matter how high you lift your leg to piss, your Domliness, you have no control whatsoever over who chooses to add their "mark" to the fire hydrant. Re-christening the fire hydrant, no matter how many times you do it, still does not make it your fire hydrant. Especially if you are a piss-poor pisser, "Dom."

 

[Rotadom]

You know what actually is odd, "Dom?"

That you have, just today, in this very thread invested a full 1% or your total posts defending this derp:

That you have now soent

Three years of carefully venturing into this thread or that posting a comment, being mostly ignored. The first time someone takes the time to acknowledge your presence you get bent out of shape because it is pointed out that your post is not grounded in any version of reality.

It happens. You think you have some sort of insight on a topic or a conversational thread, you chime in, it falls flat. Happens to everyone. Even me, if you can believe it.

No matter how high you lift your leg to piss, your Domliness, you have no control whatsoever over who chooses to add their "mark" to the fire hydrant. Re-christening the fire hydrant, no matter how many times you do it, still does not make it your fire hydrant. Especially if you are a piss-poor pisser, "Dom."

When was your last lobotomy?

 

[Conager]

You're still here? When will you decide that you have well and truly, "won," Dom?

 

[Rotadom]

Where is here? And won what? Is this how you rate your internet conversations?

 

[Conager]

You consider this a "conversation," Dom?

Glad I could help you reach out.

https://i.imgur.com/IiYzyfQ.mp4

 

[Rightguide]

. . .and the FBI agents sent to set him up know what that standard needs to be and they reported back that he did not perjure himself. A minor, immaterial misstatement from a subject of an investigation, who is not aware he is a target and has not been advised he is bring actually interviewed under penalty of perjury cannot be prosecuted.

Perjury requires intent. Being wrong is not perjury. Not remembering correctly is not perjury.

Interestingly, saying "I don't recall" dozens of times about things that strain credit that you don't recall, rather than invoking your right not to testify if it would tend to incriminate yourself as protected by the fifth amendment is actual perjury. Just hard to prosecute it.

When and if Flynn is exonerated, these nitwits will claim he "got off" on a "technicality" ignoring the fact that this entire exercise in prosecutorial misconduct was based on a misconstrued technicality and used a bastardization of a law that is never been used to prosecute anyone to curse him to plead guilty do something that he did not actually do. You cannot even ask for, mich less coerce a guilty plea if you know the person is not guilty. You also cannot accept such an elocution if you know that the person is not actually guilty.

The FBI thoroughly shamed itself with this Comey caper. None of them ever thought any of this would ever come to light. It would seem Judge Sullivan would have to act against the prosecution, he's done so before, but who knows? It seems implausible he would refuse to allow Flynn to withdraw his plea and sentence him instead and let this obvious misconduct go unanswered.

 

[Conager]

I don't recall who said it but I was listening to a discussion about this and they pointed out that a lot of plea agreement have a provisio waiving discovery. This one did. Usually there is no reason to challenge it, you are accepting a plea in lieu of trial, you don't need the material to use in the defense you are not mounting.

I think that the FBI was counting on none of this seeing the light of day. They weren't going after significant punishment because they wanted that plea exactly to bury Brady material.

You have to wonder what was their vision going in on how this would play out? Were they assuming that they could just dangle the sword, and Trump would ditch Flynn? "They" obviously were quite vested in making sure the promised house-cleaning by Flynn did not happen. Be nice to have a full list of who was on team "they."

I love the idea of appointing Flynn as Wray's successor. Don't see it happening, but it's fun to imagine.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I don't recall who said it but I was listening to a discussion about this and they pointed out that a lot of plea agreement have a provisio waiving discovery. This one did. Usually there is no reason to challenge it, you are accepting a plea in lieu of trial, you don't need the material to use in the defense you are not mounting.

I think that the FBI was counting on none of this seeing the light of day. They weren't going after significant punishment because they wanted that plea exactly to bury Brady material.

You have to wonder what was their vision going in on how this would play out? Were they assuming that they could just dangle the sword, and Trump would ditch Flynn? "They" obviously were quite vested in making sure the promised house-cleaning by Flynn did not happen. Be nice to have a full list of who was on team "they."

I love the idea of appointing Flynn as Wray's successor. Don't see it happening, but it's fun to imagine.

They were working for and counting on an incurious Clinton Administration in this matter.


Deep State operating as a shadow government picking winners and losers nothing more.
Their only mistake made in this affair was discounting the will of the people...

 

[icanhelp1]

Interesting article of why Obama wanted Flynn gone, some interesting notes exposed by Andy McCarthy ( assistant US attorney )

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/criminalizing-politics-the-investigation-of-general-flynn/

Gives you some perspective of why Flynn was a thorn in Obama's side and why Flynn was a threat to Obama's legacy. Funny how Iran's ugly head keeps surfacing.

 

[Conager]

They were working for and counting on an incurious Clinton Administration in this matter.


Deep State operating as a shadow government picking winners and losers nothing more.
Their only mistake made in this affair was discounting the will of the people...

The environment was set up assuming a Clinton reign, but Flynn was safely out of the picture till Trump won. Him putting Flynn in may have been the single biggest problem they faced. Of all of the adjustments they would have to deal with while trying to run the country the way they think it should be run, and by whom, he was key.

It's all going to get buried again if Trump does not win real action. If Trump wins real action he's still going to be fighting and uphill battle with the bureaucracy just to uncover things but imagine a church committee set of hearing these days with all of the electronic paper trails that are probably available.

Even when you're aware that you're doing things that you don't want oversight to see there is still a trail. Money still have to go in and out of banks. The intelligent services have all kinds of slush funds. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of this is related to that.

 

[Rightguide]

E.W. "Bill" Priestap. Almost three years ago I told you all to remember his name. Well now, it has finally been revealed it was Priestap who briefed the Senate Intel Committee in a classified hearing in 2018, affirming under oath the veracity of the Steele Dossier, despite having known since January of the previous year the Dossier was a total fabrication.

His name was previously redacted from the IG report. It was revealed to Lindsey Graham today by Director Wray that it was Priestap who had testified falsely before the Committee. Graham announced today he was going to refer this information to John Durham for prosecution.