charges dropped against Flynn

[Pete F.]

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

[scottw]

sorry about your frustration pete...try to relax over the weekend

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Flynn committed a crime, he should be punished. But law enforcement has to go about it the right way, they can't be motivated by politics, and they can't entrap him. DO you agree with that?

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

The FBI assistant director asked if the goal was "to get him to lie". That's very different from "see if he already lied".

Anyway, Alan Dershowitx is a subject matter expert (unlike you) who is a rare person that doesn't always agree with one side or the other (also very unlike you). He therefore has some credibility..

I'm not defending what Flynn did. This is about what the FBI did. The libs here won't go near the FBI's actions, because it doesn't fit the Narrative.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

Nobody is saying the FBI engineered what he did before the investigation. But the FBI did engineer the way they chose to conduct themselves.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

so bitter

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nobody is saying the FBI engineered what he did before the investigation. But the FBI did engineer the way they chose to conduct themselves.

obama was the engineer

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape.

Now Barr is saying Sullivan’s orders and the whole process leading up to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing was illegitimate. At least if Trump were to pardon Flynn, the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. If Barr prevails, though, the most fundamental building blocks of counterintelligence investigations — such as ensuring that the FBI can question people about contacts with hostile foreign agents and hold them accountable if they conceal them — are no longer things we can count on. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"Glad to hear you hold Alan Underpants in such high regard. I suppose you also agree with his position on statutory rape. "

I'm confused. Didn't you very recently post a 50,000 word article written by a former Jeb Bush staffer, to support your position that Trump is bad? Yes, you did. Does that mean you agree with every position that man has ever taken?

So why is it OK for you to support your position with words of someone who you don't agree with on other topics, but it's not valid when I do it? I'd just love to hear you attempt to explain that.

Pete, you are again and again, backing yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute. Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity.

Apparently it is now a good thing, that the servants of the people dare not question courtiers of the King.

"the basic premise that he had, in fact, lied to the FBI and pleaded guilty to it would not be up for dispute."

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.

"Barr wants to create a twilight zone where such things can occur with legal impunity"

Nooo...he wants to create a world where the government cannot break the rules in trying to bring criminals to justice. I have no issue with creating a world where the FBI doesn't set out "to get" someone for political reasons. They can't do that.

[Pete F.]

This is not the first time that Barr interfered in criminal investigations involving Trump* courtiers. He also intervened to with a sentencing memorandum for Stone, that led to the withdrawal of four career prosecutors from the case and a call from thousands of DOJ alumni for Barr’s resignation. He earlier sought to soften the sentence to be imposed on General Flynn. This time, Barr has gone a step further and moved to dismiss the Flynn case outright. So once again, the lead prosecutor has quit the case, and the government’s filing was so unpersuasive that no career prosecutor was willing to sign it. It is signed only by a political appointee—Timothy Shea, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who was appointed by Barr—acting at the Attorney General’s direction.

Flynn was caught lying about his conversation with a foreign ambassador during a foreign-counterintelligence investigation. The lie was material when Flynn admitted it was, and nothing has changed since he did so.

Barr’s actions are so destructive—they destroy the norms of discretionary decision making. The American system of justice asks prosecutors to consider systematic questions—for example, whether the prosecution is a federal-law-enforcement priority or will have a significant deterrent effect—and issues that are specific to the individual, such as a person’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offense.

But never, until now‚ has it been acceptable to ask whether an individual has political connections to the president. Or if the prosecution would benefit his political interests.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The FBI knew Flynn had lied before the interview. Getting him to continue his dishonesty on the record isn't entrapment, it's good police work. Think about it, Obama slaps sanctions on Russia for election interference, Flynn talks to Russia about it, then lies to cover it up. The FBI didn't engineer this...it is the facts from the case.

Before the interview, the FBI was ready to drop the case against Flynn. It did not find that he did anything wrong. Nor was his conversation with kislyak illegal or treasonous. As the incoming National Security Adviser, it was not some illegal, nefarious, "talks to Russia," it was a perfectly legal conversation in response to the Russian Ambassador calling him and questioning a policy issue. Flynn did not say anything treasonous in the call. And knew that his call had been monitored. So there was no reason to lie about it. The FBI knew what was said on the call and had no need to have Flynn regurgitate the details. The sole purpose of questioning Flynn was to entrap him in a perjury charge. If Flynn didn't remember correctly and said the wrong thing, it was not a deliberate lie, but they would have what they really wanted. What they wanted was not to convict a traitor or criminal, it was to remove an obstacle that would frustrate their intention to preserve the Trump-Russia probe, as Andy McCarthy wrote: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...-russia-probe/

If Flynn had actually done something treacherous or illegal (other than so-called lying to the FBI), he would have, and should have, been prosecuted for that. They had no evidence of him doing any of that. They had no evidentiary reason for any further investigation of him (as I noted above, they were ready to close the investigation of Flynn), but he had to be removed in order to protect the attempt to continue the bogus Trump/Russia conspiracy. McCarthy spells it out very well in the above linked article.

[Pete F.]

On December 29, 2016 the Obama administration announced punitive sanctions on Russia.

The imminence of these sanctions triggered a flurry of communications between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, reached out to Flynn on December 28. Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, but on December 29, he spoke multiple times with Kislyak.

On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not respond to the sanctions. That same day, Trump tweeted his thanks: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!” Another round of calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

What exactly happened here? At first, Trump’s team denied that anything untoward had occurred. On January 15, 2017, Vice President–elect Mike Pence appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation to assure the country that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed the Obama sanctions. “He had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place,” Pence said, referring to a December 25, 2016, accident that had killed 92 people. “It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Pence’s statement was not true. Flynn lied to the FBI about the calls. Back in 2017, Pence insisted that Flynn had lied to him too.

Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.

And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The FBI assistant director asked if the goal was "to get him to lie". That's very different from "see if he already lied".

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

you sound like a fool

this was not law enforcement trying to solve a crime...this was partisan hacks trying to take down a president

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

great day for America and a Great American Patriot! God Bless General Flynn!

bad day for perpetually wrong pete and the obama corruption crew

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by scottw

sorry about your frustration pete...try to relax over the weekend

Originally Posted by scottw

so bitter

Originally Posted by scottw

obama was the engineer

Originally Posted by scottw

you sound like a fool

Obviously a Death Star Stormtrooper

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you so freaking naive as to think agents don't come up with a strategy to get more evidence to support their investigation?

No I'm not that naïve. But when an assistant director asks in writing if the goal is to get him fired, that sounds like bias to me.

Again, Dershowitz knows more than both of us, and he's a lot less politically deranged than you. No offense, he has the credibility.

[Pete F.]

Here are the predicates for the Flynn investigation and predicates are cumulative or in simple words, they add up.
Now if you look at these and you are a government official charged with national security, do you say there is a possible threat here (predicate) which makes the lies material or just walk away?
Walking away is what the DOJ leadership purports to be the correct solution.

1. A senior official with a TS/SCI (top secret/sensitive compartmented information) clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities.
2. He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
3. As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he has phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he asked Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
4. He subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public.
5. The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here are the predicates for the Flynn investigation and predicates are cumulative or in simple words, they add up.
Now if you look at these and you are a government official charged with national security, do you say there is a possible threat here (predicate) which makes the lies material or just walk away?
Walking away is what the DOJ leadership purports to be the correct solution.

1. A senior official with a TS/SCI (top secret/sensitive compartmented information) clearance working in the White House has ties to various Russian government entities.
2. He has traveled to Russia and taken large sums of money from a state-controlled Russian media outfit.
3. As the investigation of these matters was winding down, he has phone conversations with the Russian ambassador at a time when the United States had just imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. In those conversations, he asked Russia to respond only in a measured fashion.
4. He subsequently lied to the vice president of the United States and other White House officials about the substance of those calls, causing the White House to issue inaccurate statements to the public.
5. The Russian government was aware of these lies, having participated in the phone calls, and the official was thus potentially subject to blackmail.

Pete, you criticized me for relying on Dershowitz's opinion. So please (for the second time), can you explain why you relied on the opinion of a Jeb Bush staffer to bolster your claim that Trump is a bad person? Do you agree with every single opinion that man has?

Boy do you have a problem answering questions.

[Pete F.]

Most, he's a good honest guy.

Dershowitz is a suckup and easily impressed, buddied up to Epstein and Trump, I'm not surprised you like him.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Most, he's a good honest guy.

Dershowitz is a suckup and easily impressed, buddied up to Epstein and Trump, I'm not surprised you like him.

there’s the baby i’ve been missing. you got called out for having weak arguments, and instead of admitting anyone else is right, or could even have a point, you go on the attack.

that’s what makes you a bore. that’s what makes you a bitch slapped pussy.

so Dershowitz doesn’t know
much about the law, despite spending his career at Harvard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Suburban]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Suburban

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

you don’t think we have to open
the economy back up soon?

how did taiwan, which is densely populated and close to china, manage to keep deaths to less than 20 without destroying themselves?

unemployment is the highest since the great depression. and not because the economy was unhealthy, but because we shut it off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Suburban]

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Suburban

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there’s the baby i’ve been missing. you got called out for having weak arguments, and instead of admitting anyone else is right, or could even have a point, you go on the attack.

that’s what makes you a bore. that’s what makes you a bitch slapped pussy.

so Dershowitz doesn’t know
much about the law, despite spending his career at Harvard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Suburban]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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???

[Pete F.]

This is where MR1 usually says greatest President ever!
Of course that’s if your metric equates most infected with #1
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Suburban]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if, and this is a big if, it’s more contagious than we thought, but far less lethal ( lots of evidence suggesting fatality rates under 0.5%), then we probably didn’t need to do this. but you nailed it, we need waaaaaay more testing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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???

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Suburban

Like he said: He can run the country single handily all by himself.
True =: RIGHT INTO THE GROUND JUST LIKE HE DID W/ HIS BIZ.
MAGA = MASA + Make america sick again.
Lets open up the economy.. Great idea. Maybe you should should sign up and get in line behind boot lick Pence. I would love to see people like you that think he is so good work for him for a few months.
Go drink more cool aid and, sit back and watch more Fox news.

I like suburbans and I don’t watch news. He is not a likable person but he happens to be the best thing that has happened to you in a long time. Trust me. ✌🏼
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Suburban

Test. Test. Test. When it takes way to long to get tested and way to long to get the results How can we move forward ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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