Flynn

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence View Post

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.





I was just reading an article by a guy who was a federal prosecutor who said the exact opposite....how many cases have you tried?


"Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song. The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence. Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate. It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I was just reading an article by a guy who was a federal prosecutor who said the exact opposite....how many cases have you tried?

Prosecutors don't try cases and I'm confident the Special Prosecutor understands the law.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

considering all of the miscreants you've defended over the years this is absolutely hilarious

you are more desperate than the NY Giants for a win...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Getting debate questions ahead of time, isnt unethical? My god you are indoctrinated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Getting debate questions ahead of time, isnt unethical? My god you are indoctrinated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Change the subject frequently?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Change the subject frequently?

How is that changing the subject? The subject, was whether or not anything in the email leak, revealed unethical behavior?

Jim: the leaked emails revealed unethical actions by team Hilary

Spence: name one thing that was unethical.

Jim: the emails revealed that she got debate questions ahead of time, which is unethical.

Spence: why are you changing the subject?


Spence, if the leaked emails revealed no unethical actions, than the leak couldn't have cost Hilary the election. if the emails only revealed (again) her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans, then there was no harm.

If, however, the leaked email shed light on actions that turned the public off, then most of the blame lies with Hilary for behaving that way, not with the person who broke the true story.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if the leaked emails revealed no unethical actions, than the leak couldn't have cost Hilary the election. if the emails only revealed (again) her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding plans, then there was no harm.

If, however, the leaked email shed light on actions that turned the public off, then most of the blame lies with Hilary for behaving that way, not with the person who broke the true story.

I think the debate question was one or two things about her debate with Sanders. Wrong but big whoop.

Trump then lies and claims it was hurting him...it just stirs the pot and nobody knows what's for dinner.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How is that changing the subject? The subject, was whether or not anything in the email leak, revealed unethical behavior?

There was a study done that showed that excessive consumption of Kool-Aid, coupled with over exposure to tinfoil, lead to increased instances of Early onset Dementia in laboratory rats and liberals