Flynn

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You know better than this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Spence, I do know better and I suspect several different avenues are possible and I want a proper investigation to get to the core truths.

You know how I feel WRT Russian Interference / Influence in the election, they did it and it was an operation that paid off their investment (and O should have hampered it but the effectiveness of a sternly worded letter dot dot dot) . This is what Russians do, the Soviets did (to the benefit of Dem party for decades) and what the Czars did before them (something a barely competent Secretary of State would know).

I do not think they "Hacked" the election tampering with voting machines. The Dems still effed up running Hillary who beat - or stole - from Marty from MD, The Missing Link, and a Commie. That is what cost the middle.

I believe DJT has more shadiness with RUS than what is confirmed and I also believe the Russians actively sprinkle false breadcrumbs for people to chase in addition to legit stuff. The Steele Dossier is parts truth and half truth mixed with pure make believe - which is far more effective at polluting the political environment than an all true document.

But I do not see a post-election transition team discussing things with the RUS as colluding. We do not have verifiable proof the DJT "colluded" with RUS to rig election or hack influence (like Wikileaks). The Mueller investigation has not provided proof that there was collusion.

Originally Posted by spence

To some, Clinton's improper use of private email is the same thing as colluding with the enemy to undermine your own government.

There ya go again with a little misdirection, and those some would be wrong. There is a difference between collusion (actively working with) and being numb nuts effing stupid with massive doses of hubris and political privilege placing significant amounts of data on unmanaged and unsecured servers for other nations' competent intelligence services to pluck from.

[Jim in CT]

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/0...constitutional

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/0...constitutional

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and as for obstruction he is tweeting his way right into that one .. or is that another false possibility ...

right...so hopefully they'll get him for obstructing the investigation into the collusion that they can't seem to prove

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years.

sounds like a bargain by DC standards

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

and political privilege placing significant amounts of data on unmanaged and unsecured servers for other nations' competent intelligence services to pluck from.

and remember, Obama was conversing with her highness under a pseudonym on that unsecured server

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

I'm not upset that they are investigating Trump. But let's investigate thoroughly and fairly. I'm upset that some people who should know better, are acting as if there's evidence to suggest Trump is guilty. There isn't.

And Hilary was guilty of wrongdoing. She had highly classified emails on an unsecured server, and lied about it, and in true Clinton fashion, changed the precise verbiage of her story 85 times. When asked if she wiped the server, she mocked "you mean, like, with a cloth"? Hardy-har-har...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not upset that they are investigating Trump. But let's investigate thoroughly and fairly. I'm upset that some people who should know better, are acting as if there's evidence to suggest Trump is guilty. There isn't.

And Hilary was guilty of wrongdoing. She had highly classified emails on an unsecured server, and lied about it, and in true Clinton fashion, changed the precise verbiage of her story 85 times. When asked if she wiped the server, she mocked "you mean, like, with a cloth"? Hardy-har-har...

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

Am I missing something? Was there a special independent consul leading an investigation of her use of a private server? And didn't Comey say there was evidence of a crime being committed or that a crime was committed but that, in his opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. And wasn't his assumption vehemently protested as false, that he actually laid out a more than reasonable case for prosecution.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republicans spent $7m on 33 separate hearings over four years. They hope to find evidence that the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, was in some way guilty of wrongdoing. knows she would be the nominee and found nothing .. and now theses same republicans are crying foul ... curious

but now they are upset with the current investigation

There was an investigation of why Benghazi went wrong--it did actually go wrong. They weren't searching for evidence that it went wrong. It actually did go wrong. And they did conclude what why it went wrong and laid much of the blame on SecState. The notion of nothing being found is political spin.

The Benghazi investigation was not a search for evidence. The supposed Trump collusion investigation is not based on a known crime. Nor on the basis of evidence that Trump collusion occurred. It is a hunt for evidence. Which is standing due process on its head.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Am I missing something? Was there a special independent consul leading an investigation of her use of a private server? And didn't Comey say there was evidence of a crime being committed or that a crime was committed but that, in his opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would charge her. And wasn't his assumption vehemently protested as false, that he actually laid out a more than reasonable case for prosecution.

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." - James Comey

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe he stated there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

He said "“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

There was no special prosecutor to investigate this "evidence," there was no congressional investigation. There is no comparison of it to what is happening in the Trump/collusion investigation. Clinton did violate statutes on handling classified information. There was not only evidence that she did, there was proof that she did. It simply wasn't prosecuted on the opinion of Comey that no reasonable person would prosecute if because no proof of intent, even though the statute did not allow lack of intent as an excuse.

In the meantime, Trump is being investigated in order to find evidence, and even to find if a crime was even committed--no known crime, no evidence, yet there is an investigation.

How is there even a minute comparison in how the Clinton and Trump matters were/are being handled?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Alan Dershowitz is a very liberal, very famous law professor at Harvard. To quote Spence, he says that the corruption investigation thus far, is a nothingburger.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/0...constitutional

The Dersh - spent time on Epstein's Island with Willy Clinton and Trump, right? Don't know if that is true (DJT and BC on Island of underage sexploitation) but might explain the rare space where AD, BC, DT intersect.

(returns Eben's TFH)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There is an ongoing investigation if Trump colluded and your upset that people have a belief he is guilty (of something) yet you believe that Clinton guilty of wrongdoing even though the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law and that no reasonable prosecuter would charge her.

Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing?

I'm upset that the reporting is as blatantly dishonest as it is. A once highly respected reporter at ABC got suspended for a month, because he lied through his teeth about a big scoop, to the point where it caused the stock market to go down because if he was telling the truth, it sounded like impeachment was likely.

I'm upset because any credibility the mainstream media had before he won the election, is gone. A free press can be a vitally important thing to securing our democracy, now the press is trying to undermine our democracy. It's a violation of a sacred trust.

That's why I am upset, so you can stop speculating, wrongly, about why I am upset.

"the FBI said that while careless there is no evidence she intended to violate the law"

People get found guilty all the time, of doing things without specifically intending to break the law. Intent isn't always a prerequisite. And this is the same FBI that was headed up by Loretta Lynch, who had a secret meeting with Bill on his plane, just before the announcement of no charges?

"Aren't you in someways doing what your upset others are doing"

I do not believe so.

I declared Hilary guilty after I knew she lied about having classified emails on her server. There's nothing remotely that compelling, to suggest Trump illegally colluded with anyone. If there is, charge him. If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The Dersh - spent time on Epstein's Island with Willy Clinton and Trump, right? Don't know if that is true (DJT and BC on Island of underage sexploitation) but might explain the rare space where AD, BC, DT intersect.

(returns Eben's TFH)

I have no idea. I do know that I just lost my appetite.

It's hard not to take notice when Dershowitz defends Trump, and he has really been critical of the Mueller investigation for going way outside the scope of its authority. I have no idea if that's true, but I presume he knows a thing or two about the subject.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

There's nothing remotely that compelling, to suggest Trump illegally colluded with anyone. If there is, charge him. They are looking into whether he colluded currently. Do you want them to rush to judgement? If there isn't, stop claiming there is.

There is more than collusion - which they are currently looking at.

Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There is more than collusion - which they are currently looking at.

Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that?

"are looking into whether he colluded currently"

And that's fine. But that's not what ABC reported, which even impacted the stock market. This is why the guy got elected, because of what liberals, and their PR minions in the media, do to conservatives.

"Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that? "

Stupidity.

Paul, I have no problem with the investigation. The reporting of the investigation, is horribly distorted. As it always is when Trump/Hitler is concerned.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"are looking into whether he colluded currently"

And that's fine. But that's not what ABC reported, which even impacted the stock market. This is why the guy got elected, because of what liberals, and their PR minions in the media, do to conservatives. Drudge, Breitbart, Conservatives, and their PR minions in the media reported that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of Comet pizza - is that different?

"Trump just said he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI then after he knew this he fired the FBI agent looking into that. What do you call that? "

Stupidity.

Paul, I have no problem with the investigation. The reporting of the investigation, is horribly distorted. As it always is when Trump/Hitler is concerned.

Same thing - both sides.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Same thing - both sides.

"Drudge, Breitbart, Conservatives, and their PR minions in the media reported that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of Comet pizza - is that different?"

I literally have zero knowledge of the story you are talking about. I will tell you that I have never, not once, looked at Breitbart or Drudge, nor do I think they are anywhere near as influential as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

I googled that story you mentioned...all I saw were reports that it was fake news. I don't know who reported it as legitimate, or for how long. Shame on Breitbart and Drudge if they presented it as real.

[scottw]

yeah...I've never heard that one either...sounds like something Clinton would do though...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

But I do not see a post-election transition team discussing things with the RUS as colluding. We do not have verifiable proof the DJT "colluded" with RUS to rig election or hack influence (like Wikileaks). The Mueller investigation has not provided proof that there was collusion.

At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted. Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.

There's also plenty of evidence that does indicate pre-election collusion did occur. Even if it wasn't substantial we do know for a fact there were attempts to collude with Russia and Wikileaks (i.e. Russia) to influence the election.

Roll this together with the Turkey connection to kidnap a dissident, attempts to influence US policy at the UN and lest we not forget Manefort's earlier efforts to set GOP policy relative to his cash payments...there's a lot to go on. Even if it's not 100%. And there's no Russian trickery in that calculation.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here is a sincere question, not a sarcastic wise-ass comment...

Collusion between whom? For what purpose?

When Flynn met with Russians (which he lied about, and deserves to be punished for that because he knows better), was he working for Trump at the time?

If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?.

Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?.

Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete ?

"If we knew who and for what purpose the collusion investigation would be over?. "

Nope. I was just asking what is alleged here.

"Why do you demand answers that can only come after the investigation is complete "

I didn't demand any answers, I asked a simple question. One that you could not answer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Duh duh dummmmmmmm.....

Out of curiosity...isn't it true that if the democrats hadn't done so many unethical things during the campaign, that there would have been nothing for Wikileaks to reveal?

If the democrats' actions were so underhanded, that it cost them the election when the public found out...why is the whole story centered around how it was revealed? Is anyone asking why the democrats behaved this way? Was there anything in the wikileaks dump that wasn't true?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Out of curiosity...isn't it true that if the democrats hadn't done so many unethical things during the campaign, that there would have been nothing for Wikileaks to reveal?

If the democrats' actions were so underhanded, that it cost them the election when the public found out...why is the whole story centered around how it was revealed? Is anyone asking why the democrats behaved this way?

Honestly...I'd like you, off the top of your head, to tell me one thing revealed by Wikileaks that was unethical.

No cheating.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Honestly...I'd like you, off the top of your head, to tell me one thing revealed by Wikileaks that was unethical.

No cheating.

First, I'd answer that with a question...if there was nothing unethical in there, why are liberals saying that the release of the emails, tilted the election for Trump?

Anyway, to answer your question, I believe the emails revealed the following...thids is going off memory from a year ago, so give me some leeway, OK?

that the Hilary campaign thought Obama was lying when he outrageously said he found out about Hilary's email server by watching the news, just like everyone else.

Huma Abedin had some criticism of Hilary's political skills, can't recall what it was (I am not cheating at your request).

team Clinton had some choice terms for Bernie Sanders

my favorite, that Catholics adhere to backwards gender relations

that CNN fed debate questions (maybe just 1) to Hilary. That's a very very big deal. Not surprising that the DNC would elect as its leader, someone who would think this is acceptable.

if team Hilary (Podesta and others) had not done these things, there would have been no "scandal". Has anyone claim that the hacked emails were not authentic?

I answered your question. Now please answer mine. If the leaked emails revealed unethical actions that turned many voters off Hilary, why is the only concern, how those emails came to be released? Shouldn't SOME attention be given to what's in those emails? Because only Foxnews cared about the content of the emails. Everyone else was obsessed with figuring out how they came to be released.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I answered your question. Now please answer mine. If the leaked emails revealed unethical actions that turned many voters off Hilary, why is the only concern, how those emails came to be released? Shouldn't SOME attention be given to what's in those emails? Because only Foxnews cared about the content of the emails. Everyone else was obsessed with figuring out how they came to be released.

I'm not sure how any of that is unethical. You have to believe in a campaign people will be discussing all sorts of things regarding messaging and strategy. Quite a contrast to how to use illegally gained information from an enemy of the USA to undermine our democratic process.

But with the news cycles anything related to a "hack" will grab the headlines regardless of what it contains. Oh wait, and the people leaking might just be in cahoots with the trolls flooding facebook and twitter with storied about said hack to stir the pot.

Clinton + hack = bad. It didn't even really matter what the content was.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

At this point I don't think it's the point of the Mueller investigation to provide proof for anything beyond what they have indicted. Certainly these plea agreements are not given as get out of jail free cards. They are evidence that further indictments are justified for more severe crimes.

At this point Mueller needs to accurately and swiftly prove and indict those that may have colluded with Russia prior to the election. If that collusion does not exist or is not provable Mueller needs to conclude his investigations.

So I would suspect that the flying to FBI is an armtwist to get Flynn to cooperate more but if nothing substantial develops soon or if it is only low level stuff between lower level people time to move on. There is as many stories of Clinton / Dems paling around with the Russians (it's what they do). Sheee it or get off the pot.

Originally Posted by spence

There's also plenty of evidence that does indicate pre-election collusion did occur. Even if it wasn't substantial we do know for a fact there were attempts to collude with Russia and Wikileaks (i.e. Russia) to influence the election.

FBI needs to prove it, not NYT.

Originally Posted by spence

Roll this together with the Turkey connection to kidnap a dissident, attempts to influence US policy at the UN and lest we not forget Manefort's earlier efforts to set GOP policy relative to his cash payments...there's a lot to go on. Even if it's not 100%. And there's no Russian trickery in that calculation.

Concur on Turkey WRT Gulen. If that is proven that is a gross violation on Flynn's part, time resulting. By many accounts Flynn thinks he is smarter than he is. What he is, my understanding, is a fine boots type General, but not a Mahan or von Clausewitz.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

At this point Mueller needs to accurately and swiftly prove and indict those that may have colluded with Russia prior to the election. If that collusion does not exist or is not provable Mueller needs to conclude his investigations.

So I would suspect that the flying to FBI is an armtwist to get Flynn to cooperate more but if nothing substantial develops soon or if it is only low level stuff between lower level people time to move on. There is as many stories of Clinton / Dems paling around with the Russians (it's what they do). Sheee it or get off the pot.

You don't offer a plea deal on a lesser charge to see if you can get something better. You already have (or think you have) the others in the bag and will swap for a bigger fish. My understanding is that if Flynn doesn't give up the goods the other charges will come forth.

Concur on Turkey WRT Gulen. If that is proven that is a gross violation on Flynn's part, time resulting. By many accounts Flynn thinks he is smarter than he is. What he is, my understanding, is a fine boots type General, but not a Mahan or von Clausewitz.

I think Flynn was very respected and has served his country well. Something changed though and he took a darker path. Looks now that Trump did know he lied when Trump defended him and fired Comey which just backs up the obstruction case even more.