Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: DOJ Drops Case Against Flynn Even After He Pleads Guilty

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

So you say it’s speculative...so as I said no one outside of these people investigations truly knows. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doug-collins-suspects-ex-fbi-leaker-is-peter-strzok

Andrew Miller blahblahblahhed about this all the way to the DC Circuit. Today he appeared in front of the grand jury.

Quote

Andrew Miller has concluded his grand jury testimony after about two hours. His attorney says he plans to turn over documents requested by prosecutors by next week. Miller says he drove Roger Stone, forwarded emails sent to Stone and says Stone was like his “uncle Roger”

AP

Quote

Stone associate Andrew Miller testified for two hours before the grand jury. Bottom lines: - asked about his relationship with Stone, comms between Stone and Assange - not planning on testifying at Stone trial - lawyer doesn’t know if they’re building a case against anyone.

NBC

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saints...you write many things here and always with no snark like so many do here. However, you defending Strzok is something I didn’t expect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, yak651 said:

meh, all politicians lie.  Doesn't matter if the reason he was elected was that he would drain the swamp because he wasn't a politician, he now is, so he can go on a lying spree without being condemned from anyone on the right.

BOF SIDEZZZZZ!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

His mission was biased and he said they will stop Trump. That isn't exactly professional and terrible conduct. 

This is not an answer to the question asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

This is not an answer to the question asked.

There never is an answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where are the misha flynn info drops that are supposed to come today? looked on the tweet machine and didn't see anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

There never is an answer.  

Hey Chef Sho....how you you know? I’m one of the many you have on ignore. Stir that pot, Chef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule #1 of trolling: Never, under any circumstance engage in an honest discussion. Never ever ever.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Isn't exactly professional' and 'terrible conduct' are probably not the stones I would throw around.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skoo said:

Rule #1 of trolling: Never, under any circumstance engage in an honest discussion. Never ever ever.

Yep....and of course the trolling comments. If we don’t agree...you call it trolling and you’ve been told to knock it off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Rule #1 of trolling: Never, under any circumstance engage in an honest discussion. Never ever ever.

You must be an expert on trolling, whatever that is.  Why are you talking about trolling in a Russian thread?  Please stay on topic.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Yep....and of course the trolling comments. If we don’t agree...you call it trolling and you’ve been told to knock it off. 

 

On a related note, do you think Strzok committed treason?

Edited by whoknew
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible to believe that Strzok and Page were unprofessional while also not falling for the phony conspiracy narrative that they were on some kind of mission to take out Trump.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Yep....and of course the trolling comments. If we don’t agree...you call it trolling and you’ve been told to knock it off. 

 

4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

You must be an expert on trolling, whatever that is.  Why are you talking about trolling in a Russian thread?  Please stay on topic.  Thanks.

Gee, I wonder why my random post directed at no one in particular got under your skin.

I wonder.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whoknew said:

 

On a related note, do you think Strzok committed treason?

I’m concerned about his “stop them” and “insurance policy” comment despite Dems attempt to spin it. I’m not sure if it’s treason but it’s very wrong. Not to mention the latest news

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-wasnt-told-about-peter-strzoks-russia-operation-in-2016-defensive-briefing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skoo said:

 

Gee, I wonder why my random post directed at no one in particular got under your skin.

I wonder.

This is trolling. HTH

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual text message exchange saying we will stop him - oh no big deal just unprofessional 

Huge conspiracy theory created off a fake dossier - OMG collusion!! Treason!! Impeach!!! Impeach! 

 

You guys are confusing.

Edited by Weebs210
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the FBI had a backup plan to stop Trump in case he somehow won, did anyone notify Comey of it before he went and announced the Hillary investigation was open again and kept quiet on the fact that the Trump campaign was also being investigated? 

why don't I see Hillary supporters claiming some grand conspiracy to keep her from being POTUS on the part of the FBI (specifically the NY office and Comey)?  why isn't Hillary tweeting about this on a daily basis?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was a COUP AGAINST HILLARY!!!   COUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Actual text message exchange saying we will stop him - oh no big deal just unprofessional 

Huge conspiracy theory created off a fake dossier - OMG collusion!! Treason!! Impeach!!! Impeach! 

 

You guys are confusing.

OMG...an actual text message?????  Did their involvement have anything whatsoever to do with the final investigation and Mueller report findings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, urbanhack said:

OMG...an actual text message?????  Did their involvement have anything whatsoever to do with the final investigation and Mueller report findings?

Saints has invited them all to discuss the actual texts multiple times.  Each and every time it’s met by completely ignoring it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Actual text message exchange saying we will stop him - oh no big deal just unprofessional 

Huge conspiracy theory created off a fake dossier - OMG collusion!! Treason!! Impeach!!! Impeach! 

 

You guys are confusing.

Strzok said "We'll stop it" and then did absolutely nothing to stop Trump from becoming president.

Therefore, whatever Strzok meant by "we" -- whether he meant "we, the voters", or "we, the FBI who think Trump may have committed a crime and will be arrested before election day" -- is completely irrelevant.

As the FBI lovers themselves stated, "There's no 'there' there."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Saints has invited them all to discuss the actual texts multiple times.  Each and every time it’s met by completely ignoring it.

This simply isn’t true. Keep stirring, Chef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jomar said:

if the FBI had a backup plan to stop Trump in case he somehow won, did anyone notify Comey of it before he went and announced the Hillary investigation was open again and kept quiet on the fact that the Trump campaign was also being investigated? 

why don't I see Hillary supporters claiming some grand conspiracy to keep her from being POTUS on the part of the FBI (specifically the NY office and Comey)?  why isn't Hillary tweeting about this on a daily basis?

:goodposting:

They claim that the FBI had a backup plan to stop Trump, and yet the only evidence of this plan is a single vague text message which was never expounded upon or acted upon.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did Strzok acutally do beyond mean texts to his lover?

I mean, it's not really treasonous to say Trump's a weenie is it?  Is it treasonous to take #### about the President?

He must have done something really bad for Blutarsky to say he's a traitor.

Can you imagine if FBI guy texts were made public during Obama's years?  I'm quite certain he had many in the bureau who despised him. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James Daulton said:

 

He must have done something really bad for Blutarsky to say he's a traitor.

 

And once again....like clockwork....things are written I didn’t say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

And once again....like clockwork....things are written I didn’t say.

Eh, close enough.  You think he did some terrible things.  Please lay out what they are beyond mean texts por favor. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Strzok said "We'll stop it" and then did absolutely nothing to stop Trump from becoming president.

Therefore, whatever Strzok meant by "we" -- whether he meant "we, the voters", or "we, the FBI who think Trump may have committed a crime and will be arrested before election day" -- is completely irrelevant.

As the FBI lovers themselves stated, "There's no 'there' there."

Thank God for arm chair mind readers on these forums. You know exactly what went on before or after those text messages how again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weebs210 said:
10 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Strzok said "We'll stop it" and then did absolutely nothing to stop Trump from becoming president.

Therefore, whatever Strzok meant by "we" -- whether he meant "we, the voters", or "we, the FBI who think Trump may have committed a crime and will be arrested before election day" -- is completely irrelevant.

As the FBI lovers themselves stated, "There's no 'there' there."

Thank God for arm chair mind readers on these forums. You know exactly what went on before or after those text messages how again?

I know that the FBI did not attempt to stop Trump from being President. Therefore your entire conspiracy theory is meaningless. It's wishcasting.

Whatever you think they might have been planning, they did not do it. Nothing happened.

We do not live in a world where the thought police make arrests based on the whims of conspiracy theorists.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

I know that the FBI did not attempt to stop Trump from being President. Therefore your entire conspiracy theory is meaningless. It's wishcasting.

Whatever you think they might have been planning, they did not do it. Nothing happened.

We do not live in a world where the thought police make arrests based on the whims of conspiracy theorists.

So you know everything that possibly went down behind the scenes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I’m concerned about his “stop them” and “insurance policy” comment despite Dems attempt to spin it. I’m not sure if it’s treason but it’s very wrong. Not to mention the latest news

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-wasnt-told-about-peter-strzoks-russia-operation-in-2016-defensive-briefing

For the first sentence, he was disciplined for it. I'm not sure what else Trump supporters want.

For the new article - I'm not sure I understand. Trump was told that the Russians were trying to infiltrate his campaign. And Obama warned him not to hire Mike Flynn. So I guess I don't understand Ratcliffe's complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

For the first sentence, he was disciplined for it. I'm not sure what else Trump supporters want.

For the new article - I'm not sure I understand. Trump was told that the Russians were trying to infiltrate his campaign. And Obama warned him not to hire Mike Flynn. So I guess I don't understand Ratcliffe's complaint.

First paragraph 

 

When officials briefed then-candidate Donald Trump in August 2016 about threats Russia posed to his campaign, they did not inform him about a counterintelligence investigation into members of his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, whoknew said:
53 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I’m concerned about his “stop them” and “insurance policy” comment despite Dems attempt to spin it. I’m not sure if it’s treason but it’s very wrong. Not to mention the latest news

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-wasnt-told-about-peter-strzoks-russia-operation-in-2016-defensive-briefing

For the first sentence, he was disciplined for it. I'm not sure what else Trump supporters want.

For the new article - I'm not sure I understand. Trump was told that the Russians were trying to infiltrate his campaign. And Obama warned him not to hire Mike Flynn. So I guess I don't understand Ratcliffe's complaint.

Ratcliffe is arguing that Strzok should have informed Trump that Strzok was investigating him. :loco:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I know that the FBI did not attempt to stop Trump from being President. Therefore your entire conspiracy theory is meaningless. It's wishcasting.

Whatever you think they might have been planning, they did not do it. Nothing happened.

We do not live in a world where the thought police make arrests based on the whims of conspiracy theorists.

Seems like we do in regards to possible impeachment of a president though 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

It's possible to believe that Strzok and Page were unprofessional while also not falling for the phony conspiracy narrative that they were on some kind of mission to take out Trump.

Speaking of phony conspiracy narratives, buddy have I got a whopper for you... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

First paragraph 

 

When officials briefed then-candidate Donald Trump in August 2016 about threats Russia posed to his campaign, they did not inform him about a counterintelligence investigation into members of his team.

How long after this briefing did Trump can Manafort? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Speaking of phony conspiracy narratives, buddy have I got a whopper for you... 

I thought we were done talking about Seth Rich.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

This simply isn’t true. Keep stirring, Chef.

Actually it is 100% true.  SID has been doing God's work in this thread trying to walk people through it and engage in an honest manner.  I'm pretty sure he's a descendant of Job.  

  • Like 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:
48 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I know that the FBI did not attempt to stop Trump from being President. Therefore your entire conspiracy theory is meaningless. It's wishcasting.

Whatever you think they might have been planning, they did not do it. Nothing happened.

We do not live in a world where the thought police make arrests based on the whims of conspiracy theorists.

So you know everything that possibly went down behind the scenes?

Genuine question alert!!!!!

What theories can we come up with that happened behind the scenes to make the texts that lead to nowhere a legitimate concern?

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Actually it is 100% true.  SID has been doing God's work in this thread trying to walk people through it and engage in an honest manner.  I'm pretty sure he's a descendant of Job.  

It’s spelled Gob. Oh wait I thought we were talking about arrested development this whole time, is this a thread about current events?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Actually it is 100% true.  SID has been doing God's work in this thread trying to walk people through it and engage in an honest manner.  I'm pretty sure he's a descendant of Job.  

I didn’t say that. I was referring to the comment no one wants to engage him. He is great. Unlike you and many people here he isn’t condescending or full of snark or trying to stir the pot.

Edited by John Blutarsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I thought we were done talking about Seth Rich.

Who's talking about Seth Rich?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I didn’t say that. I was referring to the comment no one wants to engage him. He is great. Unlike you and many people here he isn’t condescending or full of snark or trying to stir the pot.

I haven't seen a genuine back and forth between him and anyone whose view is opposite of his in weeks.  Are you simply saying that people want to engage him, but for some unknown reason aren't?  The lack of actual engagement is a tough thing to overcome when you make a comment that goes against it :oldunsure: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I haven't seen a genuine back and forth between him and anyone whose view is opposite of his in weeks.  Are you simply saying that people want to engage him, but for some unknown reason aren't?  The lack of actual engagement is a tough thing to overcome when you make a comment that goes against it :oldunsure: 

He and I had a nice conversation recently about the disaster recover bill that was stopped last week by Chip Roy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

The comment you were responding to talking about not being able to know what went on behind the scenes was specific to the texts.  And my question was specific to your comment.  I don't question that we never know everything that's gone on behind the scenes.  It's been my position in this thread the entire time and thrown out there dozens of times in this very thread.  So if you'd like to take a shot at the question, if not, that's cool too.  I personally can't come up with a specific scenario that would make texts not acted upon relevant.  It's pretty clear some think they are important because they are brought up over and over and over and over again.  Usually, when that happens, the people bringing something like that up think it's important.  The only other reason I can think someone would do that is trolling/deflection and that can't possibly be true.  I am simply asking why people keep bringing them up frequently making it seem like they think they are important.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you find evidence Trump is guilty?

Mueller: No.

So then Trump is innocent?

Mueller: We didn't say that.

So... what are you saying?

Mueller: *resigns*

 

😂

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I haven't seen a genuine back and forth between him and anyone whose view is opposite of his in weeks.  Are you simply saying that people want to engage him, but for some unknown reason aren't?  The lack of actual engagement is a tough thing to overcome when you make a comment that goes against it :oldunsure: 

He and I had a nice conversation recently about the disaster recover bill that was stopped last week by Chip Roy. 

ASSumptions on my part....that you'd understand I was talking specifically about this topic.  No one with an opposing view with him ON THIS TOPIC is engaging him in any sort of genuine manner that I can see.  Sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.