Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 23:01:04 GMT
A manly man. The manliest.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 9:53:13 GMT
Illegal spying on a presidential candidate and president-elect right at the top. Wear your slicker, she’s gonna blow. 🤫 That's contrary to the facts though. None of us have access to anything but 5th or 6th hand accounts, but some of it is the sort of public record that forms legal consensus.
Which of these facts are incorrect?
(1) Flynn pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I., a plea which he later tried to retract after firing his first law firm.
(2) The alleged lie was about a conversation Flynn had with the Russian ambassador after the election. (3) The F.B.I. agents who did the interview had a transcript of that conversation, which is how they were able to accuse Flynn of lying about it.
(4) The transcript was from an intercept, authorization of which was done by a FISA court under the Patriot Act (5) The intercept was of the Russian ambassador, and the FISA court had to specifically authorize revealing the identity of the American citizen - Flynn - on the other end.
What if CNN and MSNBC have been lying to you about this for 3 years? We know now from the testimony Schiff took in secret that Clapper and Brennan told the press the exact opposite during that time of what their testimony was: none of them had seen any hard evidence of "Russian collusion". ABC news, for one, hasn't said one word about this that I'm aware of.
Will you suspect political motivation if Comey is charged with a crime? How about, say, Susan Rice? Would you suspect political motivation if she were charged with a crime?
Is it possible that you don't opine that the prosecutions of Flynn, Stone and Manafort were politically motivated because you don't like their politics?
What would U.S. history have been like if outgoing and incoming Presidents had used the power of Federal law enforcement to disrupt their successors or persecute their predecessors? What do other parts of the world where this is common look like?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 9:55:07 GMT
A manly man. The manliest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 10:32:05 GMT
That's contrary to the facts though. None of us have access to anything but 5th or 6th hand accounts, but some of it is the sort of public record that forms legal consensus.
Which of these facts are incorrect? (1) Flynn pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I., a plea which he later tried to retract after firing his first law firm.
(2) The alleged lie was about a conversation Flynn had with the Russian ambassador after the election. (3) The F.B.I. agents who did the interview had a transcript of that conversation, which is how they were able to accuse Flynn of lying about it.
(4) The transcript was from an intercept, authorization of which was done by a FISA court under the Patriot Act (5) The intercept was of the Russian ambassador, and the FISA court had to specifically authorize revealing the identity of the American citizen - Flynn - on the other end. What if CNN and MSNBC have been lying to you about this for 3 years? We know now from the testimony Schiff took in secret that Clapper and Brennan told the press the exact opposite during that time of what their testimony was: none of them had seen any hard evidence of "Russian collusion". ABC news, for one, hasn't said one word about this that I'm aware of.
Will you suspect political motivation if Comey is charged with a crime? How about, say, Susan Rice? Would you suspect political motivation if she were charged with a crime? Is it possible that you don't opine that the prosecutions of Flynn, Stone and Manafort were politically motivated because you don't like their politics? What would U.S. history have been like if outgoing and incoming Presidents had used the power of Federal law enforcement to disrupt their successors or persecute their predecessors? What do other parts of the world where this is common look like?
These are good questions. I think your first six were all true but I can't see them well from this screen. Talking about the Flynn case here might get confusing because they are essentially different stories. Comey and Rice charged with what potential crime? I can't remember all the details about the Manafort and Stone cases, but the evidence against them seemed pretty overwhelming at the time. "What would it have been like.." won't get us very far. During the transition Obama told Trump to his face about Flynn being dirty. The 'spying on a presidential campaign' meme is not exactly correct, and since that is the basis for much of your argument, the source of much of the confusion. The CNN/MSNBC charge against me isn't exactly accurate. I'm not particularly influenced by talking heads. I usually hear about things happening on Twitter first, then I'll google for the remainder of the story. Besides most legit news organizations will retract a story if it can be proven to be incorrect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 10:57:37 GMT
A manly man. The manliest. Hey man, he's the one who feels the need to project the strong leader vibe. I mean he won't even wear a facemask because it might smudge his makeup, for christ sake. That's a Stalinesque display of manliness right there.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 12:02:03 GMT
None of us have access to anything but 5th or 6th hand accounts, but some of it is the sort of public record that forms legal consensus.
Which of these facts are incorrect? (1) Flynn pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I., a plea which he later tried to retract after firing his first law firm.
(2) The alleged lie was about a conversation Flynn had with the Russian ambassador after the election. (3) The F.B.I. agents who did the interview had a transcript of that conversation, which is how they were able to accuse Flynn of lying about it.
(4) The transcript was from an intercept, authorization of which was done by a FISA court under the Patriot Act (5) The intercept was of the Russian ambassador, and the FISA court had to specifically authorize revealing the identity of the American citizen - Flynn - on the other end. What if CNN and MSNBC have been lying to you about this for 3 years? We know now from the testimony Schiff took in secret that Clapper and Brennan told the press the exact opposite during that time of what their testimony was: none of them had seen any hard evidence of "Russian collusion". ABC news, for one, hasn't said one word about this that I'm aware of.
Will you suspect political motivation if Comey is charged with a crime? How about, say, Susan Rice? Would you suspect political motivation if she were charged with a crime? Is it possible that you don't opine that the prosecutions of Flynn, Stone and Manafort were politically motivated because you don't like their politics? What would U.S. history have been like if outgoing and incoming Presidents had used the power of Federal law enforcement to disrupt their successors or persecute their predecessors? What do other parts of the world where this is common look like?
These are good questions. I think your first six were all true but I can't see them well from this screen. Talking about the Flynn case here might get confusing because they are essentially different stories. Comey and Rice charged with what potential crime? I can't remember all the details about the Manafort and Stone cases, but the evidence against them seemed pretty overwhelming at the time. "What would it have been like.." won't get us very far. During the transition Obama told Trump to his face about Flynn being dirty. The 'spying on a presidential campaign' meme is not exactly correct, and since that is the basis for much of your argument, the source of much of the confusion. The CNN/MSNBC charge against me isn't exactly accurate. I'm not particularly influenced by talking heads. I usually hear about things happening on Twitter first, then I'll google for the remainder of the story. Besides most legit news organizations will retract a story if it can be proven to be incorrect. That's a circular nonsense that contradicts that you can't refute (1)-(5).
In third-world nations the incoming dictator often purges his political enemies, and in those infrequent events that one of them leaves they engineer the exit for their own security or position behind the scenes: much like the way that Vlad has dodged the Russian constitution in terms of term limits and the like. One thing that's set the U.S. apart is that - with the potential exception of the Civil War - we didn't used to do things this way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 12:03:02 GMT
None of us have access to anything but 5th or 6th hand accounts, but some of it is the sort of public record that forms legal consensus.
Which of these facts are incorrect? (1) Flynn pled guilty to lying to the F.B.I., a plea which he later tried to retract after firing his first law firm.
(2) The alleged lie was about a conversation Flynn had with the Russian ambassador after the election. (3) The F.B.I. agents who did the interview had a transcript of that conversation, which is how they were able to accuse Flynn of lying about it.
(4) The transcript was from an intercept, authorization of which was done by a FISA court under the Patriot Act (5) The intercept was of the Russian ambassador, and the FISA court had to specifically authorize revealing the identity of the American citizen - Flynn - on the other end. What if CNN and MSNBC have been lying to you about this for 3 years? We know now from the testimony Schiff took in secret that Clapper and Brennan told the press the exact opposite during that time of what their testimony was: none of them had seen any hard evidence of "Russian collusion". ABC news, for one, hasn't said one word about this that I'm aware of.
Will you suspect political motivation if Comey is charged with a crime? How about, say, Susan Rice? Would you suspect political motivation if she were charged with a crime? Is it possible that you don't opine that the prosecutions of Flynn, Stone and Manafort were politically motivated because you don't like their politics? What would U.S. history have been like if outgoing and incoming Presidents had used the power of Federal law enforcement to disrupt their successors or persecute their predecessors? What do other parts of the world where this is common look like?
These are good questions. I think your first six were all true but I can't see them well from this screen. Talking about the Flynn case here might get confusing because they are essentially different stories. Comey and Rice charged with what potential crime? I can't remember all the details about the Manafort and Stone cases, but the evidence against them seemed pretty overwhelming at the time. "What would it have been like.." won't get us very far. During the transition Obama told Trump to his face about Flynn being dirty. The 'spying on a presidential campaign' meme is not exactly correct, and since that is the basis for much of your argument, the source of much of the confusion. The CNN/MSNBC charge against me isn't exactly accurate. I'm not particularly influenced by talking heads. I usually hear about things happening on Twitter first, then I'll google for the remainder of the story. Besides most legit news organizations will retract a story if it can be proven to be incorrect. The biggest problem all these unmaskers have is that someone in the know leaked the unmasked info to the press. That is a serious felony and what can conceivably put some of these peeps in jail.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 12:08:26 GMT
Hey man, he's the one who feels the need to project the strong leader vibe. I mean he won't even wear a facemask because it might smudge his makeup, for christ sake. That's a Stalinesque display of manliness right there. He's a unique phenomenon and ain't anyone I'd wanna' have a beer with, that's for sure. It's sort of like he's a cult-villain, sort of an inside-out cult leader. If you haven't noticed, his power base is largely created from all of the negative reaction he provokes. I find your focus on his personality to be superfluous, and the primary cause of why you're easily misled as to the nature of current events. You won't find me defending his persona or contradicting your memes about him, I just find them to be beside the point. But it's really clear that the vitriol directed his way in the media isn't tongue in cheek. It's a concerted effort to shape your mind.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 12:32:19 GMT
Hey man, he's the one who feels the need to project the strong leader vibe. I mean he won't even wear a facemask because it might smudge his makeup, for christ sake. That's a Stalinesque display of manliness right there. That's a funny crack , but, his not wearing a mask isn't about his manliness. It's about all the artificial danger that pumped up the current baseless level of fear and dread.
The media's always been about turning the volume up to 11. Notice that despite all the different methods used to inflate the death count that we're not at the mark they say H1N1 took in '09/'10. Why weren't they so obsessed about that epidemic, back then?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 14:34:10 GMT
These are good questions. I think your first six were all true but I can't see them well from this screen. Talking about the Flynn case here might get confusing because they are essentially different stories. Comey and Rice charged with what potential crime? I can't remember all the details about the Manafort and Stone cases, but the evidence against them seemed pretty overwhelming at the time. "What would it have been like.." won't get us very far. During the transition Obama told Trump to his face about Flynn being dirty. The 'spying on a presidential campaign' meme is not exactly correct, and since that is the basis for much of your argument, the source of much of the confusion. The CNN/MSNBC charge against me isn't exactly accurate. I'm not particularly influenced by talking heads. I usually hear about things happening on Twitter first, then I'll google for the remainder of the story. Besides most legit news organizations will retract a story if it can be proven to be incorrect. The biggest problem all these unmaskers have is that someone in the know leaked the unmasked info to the press. That is a serious felony and what can conceivably put some of these peeps in jail. I'd say that the FBI pulling a Stasi is of greater concern than a media leak, no matter how criminal the leak might be, as it's all selective prosecution anyways.
|
|