charges dropped against Flynn

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Is this the point at which to praise liberal educational institutions, that you otherwise denigrate?
Really are you that much of a hypocrite?
Is Alan stealing money from you like Liz Warren or is his excessive salary OK because he said something you like?
Quite the hypocrite you are, guess you didn’t listen to the Jesuits you claim to have been educated by.
Maybe you should have gone to summer school
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again, it’s ok for you to rely on opposition opinion when it suits you, but wrong when i do it. I see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Suburban

Lethal = risk category. Age , health, obesity, preexisting conditions will put you into a higher rate than 0.5%. I understand that more time is required to sort things out but if there is a plan other than sending people into harms way from our government why don't we know about it? Because there isn't one.
The disinformation campaign from this administration is pathetic.
Our country needs a real leader. DT is not it and is in way over his head. Dont we deserve better???

of course there are other plans. there are countries that didn’t destroy their economies, and they are doing ok, like taiwan and sweden.

the alternative plan would have been a strict lockdown on the at risk groups you mention, and let everyone else continue to live their lives. there’s evidence we could have done that.

if the goal is always to reduce deaths, let’s set the speed limit at 5 mph. or do away with cars entirely. that would save lives. but we don’t do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

How many times do you think the staff in and around Trump and pence get tested


Yet the administration doesn't want to test Americans at 50% of the rate they test at in the WH

And those around Trump should get tested often it's a national security issues hes the POTUS ...

But I can't get tested unless I am symptomatic or work some place that does testing like nursing homes or prison or hospital, try to get an antibody test that's even harder..

But some see him as the best thing to happen to America in a long time .. minus examples of how of course LOL

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good question

My brother got tested yesterday as a heart problem has him going through some procedures. He said the test was agonizing and held at a drive through at St Elizabeth inBoston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Good question

My brother got tested yesterday as a heart problem has him going through some procedures. He said the test was agonizing and held at a drive through at St Elizabeth inBoston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hope hes ok.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't dispute he lied to the FBI. But there seems to be some question about whether or not the FBI acted appropriately during the investigation. All the libs here are having trouble distinguishing between whether or not Flynn committed a crime, and whether or not the FBI broke the rules in trying to establish that he committed a crime

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you could get tested if you were an actor or basketball player. is that trumps fault?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really the point is it.. but again you love comparing thing that aren't remotely the same as the same

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're getting distracted by the conspiracy theories Jim.

The DOJ didn’t drop the case because they thought he was manipulated into lying, they argued the FBI didn’t have the right to interview Flynn in the first place which is mind bafflingly absurd given the facts. Then they slip in a scab to do the deed because none of the career prosecutors would sign off on it.

Barr has taken us into serious thug territory with his actions, first manipulating the Mueller report, then Stone’s sentencing and now Flynn all to do Trump’s bidding and gaslight people like you into thinking it’s all a big hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So if the assistant director says in writing, before the very fist interview "is the goal here to get him to lie nd get him fired",
you're OK with that?

You’re reading fragments of someone’s thoughts as they were deliberating about their objectives and recognizing quite rationally it could have political ramifications. In the end they did the right thing.

I have no problem with doing the right thing.

Have you seen the released transcripts from the House Intelligence committee regarding Russia? Lots of senior democrats saying very clearly under oath, that there was zero direct evidence tying anyone in the administration to Russian election interference. Yet they said very different things when on cable news.

Anything at all to see there?

You’re getting off topic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the court said there was no legitimate investigate reason for the interview. That's what the "I" is supposed to stand for in FBI. It's not supposed to be a weapon to use against political adversaries.

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The court said there was no legitimate investigatory reason to interview Flynn. That's what they said. Sorry if that doesn't serve your Narrative, but it's what they said.

What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What court?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, the DOJ. The DOJ said there was no investigative reason to interview Flynn. The FBI isn't allowed to set people up out of political spite. If that's what happened. I don't know that happened, you don't know that it didn't. The note from the assistant director, asking if the goal is to "get him to lie, or get him fired", is troubling.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The FBI isn't allowed to set people up out of political spite.

And the judge isn’t allowed to accept a guilty plea unless there is evidence of a crime and the defendant has no reasonable defense.

All the DOJ did was file a motion anyway. For the case to be really dismissed the judge who has a very strong reputation would have to do a serious 180...wait for the court to be the next member of the deep state. You’re being played as a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And the judge isn’t allowed to accept a guilty plea unless there is evidence of a crime and the defendant has no reasonable defense.

All the DOJ did was file a motion anyway. For the case to be really dismissed the judge who has a very strong reputation would have to do a serious 180...wait for the court to be the next member of the deep state. You’re being played as a fool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, but the documents showing possible fishiness at the start, were just released. Flynn's lawyers definitely did not have access to those, maybe the trial judge didn't either.

"You’re being played as a fool."

Oh, thanks for looking out for me.

[Pete F.]

Apparently I missed that as part of some code or law.
It does sound quite Orwellian.
Never mind the rule of law, we pass judgment based on fishiness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ahh, but the documents showing possible fishiness at the start, were just released. Flynn's lawyers definitely did not have access to those, maybe the trial judge didn't either.

Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=spence;1193072]Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
[size=1][i]Posted from my iPhone

Even a conspiracy nut can get one right. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and asking if the goal is to get the guy to lie, or to get him fired, is what you'd say if it was a setup.

Either way, the charges will likely be dropped, and we all get to decide what we think of it. I know what your opinion is, and if the political parties were reversed, your opinion would be the exact opposite.

Have you ever noticed that you always side with the democrat? You ever take note of that, and ask yourself why?

As Jordan Peterson calls it, the pathological possession of ideology. You're are enslaved by it, prevented from thinking anything that doesn't fit. If that's wrong, please tell us the biggest single issue, on which you disagree with liberals.

[Pete F.]

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"what, you mean, like, with a cloth?"

Hardee, har-har. That's so much better than Trump.

[Jim in CT]

here's the deal...when the democrats nominate a snake, personal behavior doesn't matter. When they lose to Republicans who are terrible people, suddenly character means everything.

Just be consistent, and no one would disagree with you. Set some standards, and don't abandon them every single time it's politically convenient. The way the democrats flip-flopped on sexual assault allegations, isn't going un-noticed in swing states.

It's unbelievable to me, that 4 years after the last election, where we elected the least likeable person to ever hold that office, and the best you can do is dust off a moth-ridden Joe Biden. This election was the democrats for the taking, it's stunning to me that it's going to even be close.

Just stand for things that help Americans. Is that so hard?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, the notes conveniently released after Flynn fired his reputable council and hired a conspiracy theorist to try and retract his plea. They don’t undermine anything in the case, it’s all just noise to distract you while Barr tries to rewrite history at the behest of the president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nice conspiracy theory

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s interesting that the person cheering on the chant for prosecuting Hillary Clinton "for her careless use of a private e-mail server" at the GOP convention was Flynn himself, who said, "If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"what, you mean, like, with a cloth?"

Hardee, har-har. That's so much better than Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

You’re starting to sound like wdmso.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hea what did I do?...

[scottw]

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

"President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying, "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury...

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent.

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.

How is that for precedent?" Turley asked



I think Obama has some esplainin' to do....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

"President Obama is being quoted on Flynn, saying, "There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free." It is a curious statement. First and foremost, Flynn was not charged with perjury...

Second, we now know Obama discussed charging Flynn under the Logan Act which has never been used successfully to convict anyone and is flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, this reaffirms reports that Obama was personally invested in this effort. Finally, there is precedent.

There is a specific rule allowing for this motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). There are specific Supreme Court cases like Rinaldi v. United States addressing the standard for such dismissals....

The Justice Department has dismissed cases in the past including the Stevens case. That was requested by President Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder for the same reason: misconduct by prosecutors. It was done before the same judge, Judge Sullivan.

How is that for precedent?" Turley asked



I think Obama has some esplainin' to do....

Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Obama also told trump do not Hire flynn during the transition

why should Obama esplain anything ... seeing you dont care about the Guy who lied about his contacts with the russians ,, admitted it, plead guilty twice . but now he's a conservative Hero ????

Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names

is it perjury if you plead guilty under oath but you didn't do it? so now he lied 3 times 2 he did it and 1 he did not?

"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

[Pete F.]

The investigation was open when the FBI interviewed Flynn. And at the time of the interview, the FBI knew that Flynn had held secret discussions with Russia about national security matters, and then lied about it repeatedly. They had to interview him.

Moreover, the umbrella investigation under which Crossfire Razor was established, Crossfire Hurricane, was also still open. Secret conversations with Russia about sanctions imposed by the Obama administration were potentially highly relevant to the issue of possible coordination with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. At the very least, such dealings would raise the question of possible payback for Russia’s help with the election.

There are at least two likely explanations for Barr’s taking such an bogus position.

The most obvious is that he was—yet again—acting primarily to please Trump, as his consigliere.

Less obvious, but perhaps equally likely, is that Barr doesn’t like the way the FBI conducted the interview. Barr clearly believes that rather than handing Flynn the rope with which he could hang himself, the FBI should have told him in advance that they knew there was a disconnect between the facts and what Flynn had told Spicer and Pence, and steered him onto safe ground. But that wouldn’t provide a legal rationale for dismissing the case, so Barr had to make one up.

At the end of the day, however, it really doesn’t matter what pretext Barr offers for his actions. What matters is that he is subverting justice.

Judge Sullivan should not let him get away with it.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with Flynn's FARA violations, taking over half a million from a foreign country, a plot to kidnap, etc.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Like I said Trump supporters love the rule of law as long as it only applies to thoses with a D after their Names"

If Flynn broke the law, he should be punished. Unless law enforcement trampled on his rights to get him to break the law. Are you saying they should be allowed to do that? Or, are you saying that somehow, you know that didn't happen in this case? If that's what you're saying, please tell us how you happen to know that? I'd be very interested to know how you could know that, when what we do know, if that the FBI had notes asking if the goal was to get him fired, and we know that DOJ lawyers improperly withheld information from the defense and the judge. Given that, I'd be very curious to know how you concluded that his rights were respected throughout the process. I'd really like to hear that.

Non of what you wrote happened his rights weren't Trampled that's just another made up conspiracy, notes are notes but the notes never said plant false evidence or pull out his nails or or water board him .. basically get this Russian loving former General ..who lied to us. PS Trump fired him not the FBI so there goes that argument.... and the FBI did and caught him in 2 lies.. ps once again law enforcement can not force you to lie..in front of a judge no less...unless torture is involved.

But it's ok for Trump to pardon a war criminal? Your crazy if you think this administration is pro rule of law for all
Their action clearly show they are only concerned of what laws or investigation actions benfit them


That's why they keep reinvestgating incidents that have all ready been investigated.. looking for anything they can use to discredit our legal system as a whole .... and they are doing the same with voting fraud again