Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 19:02:04 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. WHY ARE WE RE-LITIGATING 2016? 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.
OMG you're like a walking talking soviet disinformation campaign!
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? If Barr does it.. absolutely!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? Mueller found evidence of guilt against some folks I guess. They got a fair trial! (with the possible exception of agent orange sticking his big nose in.. which helped the defense and hurt the prosecution)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?
Its a crazy bullshit theory that "the Obama administration' orchestrated the investigation of Trump. The DOJ and counter intelligence did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 19:05:48 GMT
a well informed opinion yes, you Giraffe2 I call fair play on the first one.. but bullshit on the second. if nothing else you're like an unwitting accomplice
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 19:47:13 GMT
Giraffe2 I call fair play on the first one.. but bullshit on the second. if nothing else you're like an unwitting accomplice Then quote me, very specifically, " defending Trump". I've said some positive things 'bout 'em and validated some of your negative opinions. The only litigation I've done so far is about Flynn. Everything else is color commentary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:00:53 GMT
I call fair play on the first one.. but bullshit on the second. if nothing else you're like an unwitting accomplice Then quote me, very specifically, " defending Trump". I've said some positive things 'bout 'em and validated some of your negative opinions. The only litigation I've done so far is about Flynn. Everything else is color commentary. very well, I'm not willing to fight the charges, 2 it is then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:08:41 GMT
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. It is, indeed. But I was responding to farmer's "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" comment. I'm also reminded of what I learned during the Clinton impeachment period...that there is no getting through to the dyed in the wool, top down, socialistic, big centralized government supporters. Those of us suspicious of power, like the founders of a Federated USA of 50 co-equal states, have no interest in wanting centralized power at the top...or anywhere else. All politics is local, and should remain so. Others are not so mindful of the grave dangers such a centralization of power can be toward individual freedoms and liberty. So be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:24:07 GMT
I"M NOT A LIBERAL COMMIE FASCIST! a smaller government works for me international treaties are needed in some respect; on environmental issues I usually lean to pro-animal-life and anti-fossil fuel industry I favor only moderately restricted immigration, a woman's right to choose, free and fair elections anything else?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:32:57 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. WHY ARE WE RE-LITIGATING 2016? ok, so, this reads to me like another troll job, but here, I'll play straight man for one more round. I'm not "re-litigating 2016". You c laimed that what jly wrote was counter-factual, so I gave you five "facts" that supported his conclusion: "illegal spying on a presidential candidate and president-elect". And, you haven't refuted any one of them. 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. OMG you're like a walking talking soviet disinformation campaign! it was just a question dude .. that, and another fact. Can't refute that one either, eh? Want links? 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? If Barr does it.. absolutely!Sure that's not 'cause of yer politics? So, do you give Suzy Rice a pass for the unmasking as not politically motivated? Were Strzok's texts about his insurance policy if Trump won wasn't political? See, now, it's impossible to ignore the politics in what Barr and Durham are doing, simply because they're investigating a previous admin of the other party. But the question really is, what's the root of it? Who politicized law enforcement first?
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? Mueller found evidence of guilt against some folks I guess. They got a fair trial! (with the possible exception of agent orange sticking his big nose in.. which helped the defense and hurt the prosecution)Sorry to wonk-out on ya', but no, Flynn wasn't tried. "Agent orange" heh heh See now, I won't do you the disservice of arguing that he wasn't influential in the DOJ's motion to dismiss just because he claims he was hands off. 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?
Its a crazy bullshit theory that "the Obama administration' orchestrated the investigation of Trump. The DOJ and counter intelligence did.First of all that's entirely unresponsive to the two questions, 2nd of all .. What?? , jeez, I mean, pay some 'tension ta' what yer writin'. Son. I mean, ain't the DOJ part of the 'xecutive branchin'?? Third of all. Busted.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:39:53 GMT
Then quote me, very specifically, " defending Trump". I've said some positive things 'bout 'em and validated some of your negative opinions. The only litigation I've done so far is about Flynn. Everything else is color commentary. very well, I'm not willing to fight the charges, 2 it is then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:41:09 GMT
I"M NOT A LIBERAL COMMIE FASCIST! a smaller government works for me international treaties are needed in some respect; on environmental issues I usually lean to pro-animal-life and anti-fossil fuel industry I favor only moderately restricted immigration, a woman's right to choose, free and fair elections anything else? You may not be all that but the peeps you choose to sympathize with are all in for big brother government. No judgement. It’s your right to support whomever you wish.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:45:26 GMT
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. It is, indeed. But I was responding to farmer's "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" comment. I'm also reminded of what I learned during the Clinton impeachment period...that there is no getting through to the dyed in the wool, top down, socialistic, big centralized government supporters. Those of us suspicious of power, like the founders of a Federated USA of 50 co-equal states, have no interest in wanting centralized power at the top...or anywhere else. All politics is local, and should remain so. Others are not so mindful of the grave dangers such a centralization of power can be toward individual freedoms and liberty. So be it. Well, I can't say that this description applies to farmer. Rather, it seems to me that he favors a particular narrative, one that I find flawed. I don't even really subscribe to the counter-narrative to the extent I can be certain it's free of it's own flaws. Although some of the specific elements, particularly of the Flynn and Stone cases, and particularly about Strzok, are real eyebrow raisers. I'm suspicious of Comey, McGabe and Rice, but they were better at forming firewalls of deniability than the hapless Pete.
One major peril about digging in and taking a position is the inevitable effigy we create in our mind of the person on the other side of it.
|
|