Flynn

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[Nebe]

And while everyone is focused on this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& the billionaires push through a massive tax cut that will defund so many social services that the poor depend on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And while everyone is focused on this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& the billionaires push through a massive tax cut that will defund so many social services that the poor depend on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that's true ( a huge, huge if), you can take your increased tax refund, and donate it all.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If that's true ( a huge, huge if), you can take your increased tax refund, and donate it all.

What do you mean “if”??? Are you joking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What do you mean “if”??? Are you joking?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I mean if. Nothing has been passed by both houses of Congress yet. If the gop cuts vital services, shame on them, and they deserve to get creamed. They are saying they aren’t doing that. The liberals are saying they are doing that. It’s not established whatbisbtrue. I heard they were hurting Medicare, Mitch McConnell said it’s not true, and he’s not a hard-right liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes I mean if. Nothing has been passed by both houses of Congress yet. If the gop cuts vital services, shame on them, and they deserve to get creamed. They are saying they aren’t doing that. The liberals are saying they are doing that. It’s not established whatbisbtrue. I heard they were hurting Medicare, Mitch McConnell said it’s not true, and he’s not a hard-right liar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Medicaid won’t be cut? Yeah right!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Different strokes for different folks. Clinton aides lied to FBI--no punishment:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

[scottw]

this is just remarkable...seems what we really need is a special prosecutor to investigate the hyper-partisanship, obstruction and collusion that is rampant within the "justice" department and FBI

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Different strokes for different folks. Clinton aides lied to FBI--no punishment:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

I see what you did there..the russians again...what is the definition of "justice"?

[spence]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...82070?lo=ap_a1

This doesn't look good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...82070?lo=ap_a1

This doesn't look good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how about this....aaannnd...what happened to that?


Judge(Rudolph Contreras) recuses in Michael Flynn case

By JOSH GERSTEIN 12/07/2017

.......

Judge Rudolph Contreras is one of a very small group of FISA Court Judges.

Judge Contreras may be the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant that led to the surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign officials, that included National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn.

Those FBI FISA warrants are now coming under scrutiny.

It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out that the FISA warrants were gained by deception, misleading information, manipulated information, or fraud…. and that warrant led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Michael Flynn was authorized by Contreras…. who would now be the judge in Flynn’s case.


the plot thickens

[scottw]

this whole Russia, collusion etc. thing is coming back on the democrats like a boomerang....Trump Effect

and the media...fake news all week......Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.

The misses

Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

this whole Russia, collusion etc. thing is coming back on the democrats like a boomerang....Trump Effect

and the media...fake news all week......Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.

The misses

Flynn's testimony: Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials. But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.

Deutsche Bank subpoena: Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."

WikiLeaks emails: CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents. WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.

Actually the investigation appears to be charging along. You're just caught up in the turbulence of those trying to spin it away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device