More on the Flynn case

[icanhelp1]

Oh come on,...... You must realize by now that I often parody the debating style of intransigent right wing Sea Lioms, don't you????

The difference is, I have actually cited court rulings, government transcripts, relevant individuals explanations for their notes, and actual testimony in the Flynn case.

Do you think if the FD302 summary of the FBI agents interview with Flynn was materially different than the notes the agents themselves had taken, the court wouldn't have addressed it.????

Do you really think Mueller would have submitted a fraudulent summary of the agents notes to the court????

Judge Sullivan already ruled that the FD302 tracks with the interviewing FBI agents notes.

Of course I forgot, it's all a big cabal designed to take down Flynn and Trump.

Trump finally got "his man" as attorney general, and Flynn saw an opportunity to exploit it. Just like Stone did.

It doesn't change the fact that Flynn KNOWINGLY lied to the FBI. Just compare the transcript of the phone call with Kislyak, with the transcript of the FD302.

It isn't that complicated.

PS... The original investigation of the Trump campaign was totally justified, as was the investigation into Flynn. The FBIs inspector general already Investigated the matter and decided that it was justified.

Of course the right wing will throw some shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks, but as of right now, those are the facts.

This is the argument, was there a predicate for the interview:

LAWFARE transcript:

. To be sure, a possible criminal prosecution based on the Logan Act case was weak leverage, given that the statute has virtually no history of enforcement, but agents hold relatively weak leverage over witnesses all the time. And yes, it’s wrong for the bureau to set up an interview in the absence of a viable case in order to induce a witness to lie for purposes of prosecution, but there’s no evidence that is what happened—merely evidence that the possibility was on a list of possible strategic goals for the interview. And yes, the bureau will sometimes confront a witness with a lie and specifically warn the person about lying being a felony, but that is not a legal requirement.

I believe there is evidence for this very case based on the biases displayed by Strzok and Page.

 

[Conager]

Is he still spouting the same narrative that the DNC, the left wing press, Comey, and even Adam Schiff have gone silent on?

US Senators are doing tte phase III Clinton shuffle of, "that's old news, nothing to see here," to avoid discussing in great detail why everything he is spouting was a lie. As if Mueller wasn't exposed on national TV as suffering from Biden-level dementia and a mere puppet for Weissman's trademark illegalities.

 

[Conager]

This is the argument, was there a predicate for the interview:

LAWFARE transcript:

. To be sure, a possible criminal prosecution based on the Logan Act case was weak leverage, given that the statute has virtually no history of enforcement, but agents hold relatively weak leverage over witnesses all the time. And yes, it’s wrong for the bureau to set up an interview in the absence of a viable case in order to induce a witness to lie for purposes of prosecution, but there’s no evidence that is what happened—merely evidence that the possibility was on a list of possible strategic goals for the interview. And yes, the bureau will sometimes confront a witness with a lie and specifically warn the person about lying being a felony, but that is not a legal requirement.

I believe there is evidence for this very case based on the biases displayed by Strzok and Page.

Such circular logic-

Yes, there is evidence that they discussed the possibility of trapping him in a lie unrelated to any legitimate question or case, but there is no evidence that when they trapped him in a "lie" unrelated to any legitimate question or case that that was necessarily what they set out to do. It was just one of the nefarious plans they discussed to abuse the processes of law enforcement for political purposes.

 

[icanhelp1]

Such circular logic-

Yes, there is evidence that they discussed the possibility of trapping him in a lie unrelated to any legitimate question or case, but there is no evidence that when they trapped him in a "lie" unrelated to any legitimate question or case that that was necessarily what they set out to do. It was just one of the nefarious plans they discussed to abuse the processes of law enforcement for political purposes.

With all the minutiae in between the lack of a predicate for the interview and the withdrawal of the guilty plea we lose focus on the fact that an investigation based on incorrect protocol and legal procedures should not have standing in a court of law. Guilty till proven innocent, illegal unmasking, interfering with executive transfer, defrauding FISC to name a few. This same bullshit happened in the Mueller investigation for over two years. Rod Rosenstein admitted that if he were faced with the same situation today he would not have appointed a special counsel and yet for those mistakes the country suffered great division because of Trump hatred and an attempt to depose a duly elected president. I don't carry water for Trump but when the likes of Maxine Waters and Alan Green crying for impeachment before the guy is even inaugurated I have no trust for anything the left does. Now their blaming Trump for failed city leadership.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

. I don't carry water for Trump

Like fuck you don't!

Chuckles

 

[jomar]

You see, that's the lie the right keeps spreading. The agents interviewing Flynn said his body language suggested that he wasn't being deceptive. However, his answers about his conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak were clearly lies, and there are recorded phone calls and testimony from other witnesses that prove Flynn was lying. The agents interviewing Flynn even used exact phrases from the recorded phone calls when phrasing their questions in an attempt to let him know that they had him on tape, and to give him a chance to tell the truth, but Flynn stuck to his lies.

For some reason he really didn't want to tell the FBI he was dealing with the Russians. I wonder why??? Hmmmmm

In a sidebar to this discussion, Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book, Talking to People, speaks to this. Turns out that humans aren’t super great at reading one another. It’s an interesting and timely read.

 

[Lazaran]

I find it amusing the contortions the righties go through to come to a conclusion that doesn't match the available facts in evidence.

I think this is one of those situations where you apply Occams Razor.

Flynns failure to register as a foreign agent working for the Turkish government, coupled with the clandestine nature of his conversations with Kislyak, and his subsequent lies to the FBI about those conversations, makes the questions of whether the government was justified to investigate him, and whether he was guilty of the crimes he pled to, easy to answer.

The answer to both questions is yes.

 

[KeithD]

Like fuck you don't!

Chuckles

I mean, really.

Who do these Trumpettes think they're fooling?

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, facts ARE stubborn things.

Like the fact that the government withheld evidence. Like the fact that the government entrapped Flynn. Like the fact that the government violated protocols AND the law when the FBI interviewed Flynn without giving notice to the WH counsel's office so he could have counsel present during questioning AND didn't read him his Miranda Rights before questioning him. Like the fact that the government FABRICATED evidence.

Stubborn things those pesky facts. Especially when they're right in front of you. Too bad all you can see is a political narrative rather than facts.

Add all of that to the fact he doesn't understand the case and you have a real Grim Fairy tale collection going on.

 

[Rightguide]

I mean, really.

Who do these Trumpettes think they're fooling?

Reality has had you fooled for quite a while now.

 

[icanhelp1]

Add all of that to the fact he doesn't understand the case and you have a real Grim Fairy tale collection going on.

What I found odd is that Obama waited till Dec to enact sanctions against Russia, right in the middle of a presidential transition rather than leave it to Trump. Obama was found derelict of duty since 2014 for not imposing sanctions on russia years before Flynn pulled an Obama asking Kislyak to wait till Trump was in office. Obama went ballistic at Flynn's arrogance and went on a search and destroy mission in an attempt to destroy Flynn anyway he could. Flynn's correspondence with Kislyak was sanctioned by Trump senior advisors. What's criminal were the leaks to the press that Flynn was a russian bot. Flynn was unmasked with the intention of leaking to the press. That's what the Dems do. The leak to the press described Flynn as a traitor and a russian agent and susceptible to blackmail. Obama fucked up and used a diversionary tactic to blame Flynn for his own failings.

 

[Rightguide]

What I found odd is that Obama waited till Dec to enact sanctions against Russia, right in the middle of a presidential transition rather than leave it to Trump. Obama was found derelict of duty since 2014 for not imposing sanctions on russia years before Flynn pulled an Obama asking Kislyak to wait till Trump was in office. Obama went ballistic at Flynn's arrogance and went on a search and destroy mission in an attempt to destroy Flynn anyway he could. Flynn's correspondence with Kislyak was sanctioned by Trump senior advisors. What's criminal were the leaks to the press that Flynn was a russian bot. Flynn was unmasked with the intention of leaking to the press. That's what the Dems do. The leak to the press described Flynn as a traitor and a russian agent and susceptible to blackmail. Obama fucked up and used a diversionary tactic to blame Flynn for his own failings.

His calls were unmasked, but not the call on December 29. Why wasn't his name masked on that call, as required by law?

 

[KeithD]

It doesn't make a hell of a difference. The sleazeball committed the treason.

He didn't get charged on the obvious Russian and Turkish crimes as a deal on what he was charged with and for the cooperation he was going to give. He dumped on the deal and negated it. he didn't cooperate worth shit. Just charge him for the treason he committed and toss him in the slammer. He's not protected from being charged for the crimes he obviously committed. Lock him up. Give him a cell adjoining those of Trump and Barr.

The judge should just go ahead and sentence him for what he pleaded guilty to and was convicted. Let Trump pardon him and then it can become one of Trump's crimes.

 

[Conager]

Now using pardon power is a "crime?"

Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[icanhelp1]

Now using pardon power is a "crime?"

Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? Who do you think you're fooling?

I find it ironic that the FBI had a FARA case but decided not to pursue it, why?, because it would have been laughed out of court along with a Logan act violation. So what do you do? set up and create a crime 18/1001 and pray it sticks, create a crime then prosecute. Smells of Andrew Weismann.

Obama’s legal philosophy is the ends justify the means.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh come on,...... You must realize by now that I often parody the debating style of intransigent right wing Sea Lions, don't you????

The difference is, I have actually cited court rulings, government transcripts, relevant individuals explanations for their notes, and actual testimony in the Flynn case.

Do you think if the FD302 summary of the FBI agents interview with Flynn was materially different than the notes the agents themselves had taken, the court wouldn't have addressed it.????

Do you really think Mueller would have submitted a fraudulent summary of the agents notes to the court????

Judge Sullivan already ruled that the FD302 tracks with the interviewing FBI agents notes.

Of course I forgot, it's all a big cabal designed to take down Flynn and Trump.

Trump finally got "his man" as attorney general, and Flynn saw an opportunity to exploit it. Just like Stone did.

It doesn't change the fact that Flynn KNOWINGLY lied to the FBI. Just compare the transcript of the phone call with Kislyak, with the transcript of the FD302.

It isn't that complicated.

PS... The original investigation of the Trump campaign was totally justified, as was the investigation into Flynn. The FBIs inspector general already Investigated the matter and decided that it was justified.

Of course the right wing will throw some shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks, but as of right now, those are the facts.

Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the second sentence because, as usual, it's all bullshit and what ain't bullshit is ignorant spin.

You're a fraud.

 

[HisArpy]

It doesn't make a hell of a difference. The sleazeball committed the treason.

He didn't get charged on the obvious Russian and Turkish crimes as a deal on what he was charged with and for the cooperation he was going to give. He dumped on the deal and negated it. he didn't cooperate worth shit. Just charge him for the treason he committed and toss him in the slammer. He's not protected from being charged for the crimes he obviously committed. Lock him up. Give him a cell adjoining those of Trump and Barr.

The judge should just go ahead and sentence him for what he pleaded guilty to and was convicted. Let Trump pardon him and then it can become one of Trump's crimes.

NO, he didn't.

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." don't you understand?

You, like most of the self professed legal experts here, toss that word around as if you think it means something in this case. It doesn't. It's not applicable. I'VE TOLD YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES and you still can't seem to remember it.

If you can't remember THAT, how the hell do you expect anyone to take the rest of your "legal analysis" seriously?

 

[Rightguide]

It doesn't make a hell of a difference. The sleazeball committed the treason.

^^^
Indicator of severe two digit IQ.

 

[Rightguide]

NO, he didn't.

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." don't you understand?

You, like most of the self professed legal experts here, toss that word around as if you think it means something in this case. It doesn't. It's not applicable. I'VE TOLD YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES and you still can't seem to remember it.

If you can't remember THAT, how the hell do you expect anyone to take the rest of your "legal analysis" seriously?

His low IQ can't process the word "only."

 

[HisArpy]

His low IQ can't process the word "only."

He, like the rest of the woke idjits, starts with the "crime" and then twists the facts to justify a pronouncement of guilty before proceeding directly to the punishment phase.

It doesn't matter who it is, or what "crime" they've been accused of, the ONLY thing that matters to them is the punishment part. The only thing.

 

[Lazaran]

Oh look, it's the little Rigu, Con man, and Harpy playing human centipede again.

First you guys eat Trumps shit them feed it to each other ATM.

It all sounds very efficient and economical.

You guys are true conservatives.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh look, it's the little Rigu, Con man, and Harpy playing human centipede again.

First you guys eat Trumps shit them feed it to each other ATM.

It all sounds very efficient and economical.

You guys are true conservatives.

^ wind and piss

 

[phrodeau]

NO, he didn't.

What part of "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." don't you understand?

You, like most of the self professed legal experts here, toss that word around as if you think it means something in this case. It doesn't. It's not applicable. I'VE TOLD YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES and you still can't seem to remember it.

If you can't remember THAT, how the hell do you expect anyone to take the rest of your "legal analysis" seriously?

Trump has tweeted that Schiff should be charged with Treason (with a capital T). How can that be?

 

[phrodeau]

His low IQ can't process the word "only."

OK, I can understand now.

 

[HisArpy]

Trump has tweeted that Schiff should be charged with Treason (with a capital T). How can that be?

GOFUCKYOURSELF