Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

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

Recommended Posts

You can tell because Rove! and Dr Oadi have to edit pretty much all their posts.  :hint: :terrible: :oof: :X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slate is doing an eight-part podcast on Watergate called Slow Burn, and it’s really fascinating. Much of what I know about Watergate is from having watched All The President’s Men, but the podcast is much more interesting than that movie when consumed in the context of the Trump-Russia scandal. The movie focused on the reporters who cracked the case of the funding of the break-in. The podcast focuses (so far — I’m on episode 3 right now) on the Republicans’ strategy to downplay, discredit, and obstruct the Congressional investigation, their strategy to spin things in the media, and the reluctance of the media or the public (or even Democratic politicians) to take the story seriously. People back then who believed Nixon was guilty must have been at least twice as frustrated as people today who believe Trump is guilty.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump quietly reassigns FBI official who witnessed attempt to pressure Comey

Quote

A senior FBI official who can reportedly verify that Donald Trump pressured former FBI director James Comey to clear him in the ongoing investigation into Russian election interference was quietly reassigned by Trump’s FBI director, according to an explosive new report by the Washington Post.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Slate is doing an eight-part podcast on Watergate called Slow Burn, and it’s really fascinating. Much of what I know about Watergate is from having watched All The President’s Men, but the podcast is much more interesting than that movie when consumed in the context of the Trump-Russia scandal. The movie focused on the reporters who cracked the case of the funding of the break-in. The podcast focuses (so far — I’m on episode 3 right now) on the Republicans’ strategy to downplay, discredit, and obstruct the Congressional investigation, their strategy to spin things in the media, and the reluctance of the media or the public (or even Democratic politicians) to take the story seriously. People back then who believed Nixon was guilty must have been at least twice as frustrated as people today who believe Trump is guilty.

I've had this on my list for a while now. Thanks for the reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perfectly normal....

 

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

FollowingFollowing @kylegriffin1

More

Days before a series of phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russia’s then-U.S. ambassador in late 2016, members of the transition team began inquiring about ways to encrypt Flynn’s conversations, according to emails FOIAed by Gizmodo.

https://gizmodo.com/trump-transition-team-discussed-michael-flynn-using-sig-1821429655?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Slate is doing an eight-part podcast on Watergate called Slow Burn, and it’s really fascinating. Much of what I know about Watergate is from having watched All The President’s Men, but the podcast is much more interesting than that movie when consumed in the context of the Trump-Russia scandal. The movie focused on the reporters who cracked the case of the funding of the break-in. The podcast focuses (so far — I’m on episode 3 right now) on the Republicans’ strategy to downplay, discredit, and obstruct the Congressional investigation, their strategy to spin things in the media, and the reluctance of the media or the public (or even Democratic politicians) to take the story seriously. People back then who believed Nixon was guilty must have been at least twice as frustrated as people today who believe Trump is guilty.

The Mourh of the South! How has no one ever made a movie just about Martha Mitchell?

Thanks for this, listened to the first four episodes.

Share this post


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

perfectly normal....

 

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

FollowingFollowing @kylegriffin1

More

Days before a series of phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russia’s then-U.S. ambassador in late 2016, members of the transition team began inquiring about ways to encrypt Flynn’s conversations, according to emails FOIAed by Gizmodo.

https://gizmodo.com/trump-transition-team-discussed-michael-flynn-using-sig-1821429655?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Criminal state of mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

The Mouth of the South!

Didn't know this guy was involved with Watergate. Guess that explains the shades and the pseudonymous post-politics career :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Slate is doing an eight-part podcast on Watergate called Slow Burn, and it’s really fascinating. Much of what I know about Watergate is from having watched All The President’s Men, but the podcast is much more interesting than that movie when consumed in the context of the Trump-Russia scandal. The movie focused on the reporters who cracked the case of the funding of the break-in. The podcast focuses (so far — I’m on episode 3 right now) on the Republicans’ strategy to downplay, discredit, and obstruct the Congressional investigation, their strategy to spin things in the media, and the reluctance of the media or the public (or even Democratic politicians) to take the story seriously. People back then who believed Nixon was guilty must have been at least twice as frustrated as people today who believe Trump is guilty.

The Podcast is great and it inspired me to get a copy of The Great Coverup, written in the '70s by one of the Washington Post editors. Tells a more complete story of Watergate and the background than All the President's Men does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

perfectly normal....

 

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

FollowingFollowing @kylegriffin1

More

Days before a series of phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russia’s then-U.S. ambassador in late 2016, members of the transition team began inquiring about ways to encrypt Flynn’s conversations, according to emails FOIAed by Gizmodo.

https://gizmodo.com/trump-transition-team-discussed-michael-flynn-using-sig-1821429655?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Huh.  Before? What a funny coincidence.  

Man, I can’t believe Flynn put them in this position by lying to Pence.  So unforgivable. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

Huh.  Before? What a funny coincidence.  

Man, I can’t believe Flynn put them in this position by lying to Pence.  So unforgivable. 

what's odd is that Flynn is trying to get his communications encrypted so he can have secret conversations where he's working with a US adversary to change the sanction policy of the United States and somehow the head of the transition team AND the President know nothing about it....when was Flynn going to tell them that he made these secret deals with Russia?  What if they didn't approve?  

Good thing Flynn has flipped and can fill in some of the blanks...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh just stop it already. Who doesn't want to encrypt communications? Everybody does it when talking to foreign ambassadors, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

Oh just stop it already. Who doesn't want to encrypt communications? Everybody does it when talking to foreign ambassadors, right?

Well, I've never had a phone conversation with a foreign ambassador that wasn't encrypted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure what’s worse - that they looked into encrypting their communications or that they looked into it and still got caught communicating with the Russian ambassador. Stupid Watergate for sure!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug B said:
2 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

The Mouth of the South!

Didn't know this guy was involved with Watergate. Guess that explains the shades and the pseudonymous post-politics career :D 

It’s amazing the former FBI agent who yanked the phone cord out of the wall & held Martha Mitchell down while a doctor shot her in the butt with a tranquilizer is the current Ambassador to the Czech Republic. #maga

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug B said:

Didn't know this guy was involved with Watergate. Guess that explains the shades and the pseudonymous post-politics career :D 

I had no idea.

I think he's the stand up singer on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warner: “More” Mueller indictments coming

Facing rumors, democrats prepare for impeachment if Trump tries to oust Mueller. Senator Warner believes “more” Mueller indictments are coming. ...Duration: 12:49

http://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/warner-more-mueller-indictments-coming-1122027587545

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the most important news from yesterday was the article that suggested there is actual evidence on record that Trump was informed by the White House Attorney that Flynn had lied to the FBI prior to Trump’s meeting with James Comey. If you combine that with the FBI 2nd in command who confirmed Comey’s testimony that Trump asked Comey for loyalty and to drop the Flynn matter, that’s a clear case of obstruction of justice and President Trump should be impeached and removed from Office for this alone. 

This seems pretty straightforward to me. I invite any Trump supporter, or anyone who disagrees with this analysis, to explain why Trump shouldn’t be removed over this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It seems to me that the most important news from yesterday was the article that suggested there is actual evidence on record that Trump was informed by the White House Attorney that Flynn had lied to the FBI prior to Trump’s meeting with James Comey. If you combine that with the FBI 2nd in command who confirmed Comey’s testimony that Trump asked Comey for loyalty and to drop the Flynn matter, that’s a clear case of obstruction of justice and President Trump should be impeached and removed from Office for this alone. 

This seems pretty straightforward to me. I invite any Trump supporter, or anyone who disagrees with this analysis, to explain why Trump shouldn’t be removed over this. 

Not a Trump supporter, but I think the only response at this point has to be that Comey is a liar and Trump never said those things or told Comey to drop the investigation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It seems to me that the most important news from yesterday was the article that suggested there is actual evidence on record that Trump was informed by the White House Attorney that Flynn had lied to the FBI prior to Trump’s meeting with James Comey. If you combine that with the FBI 2nd in command who confirmed Comey’s testimony that Trump asked Comey for loyalty and to drop the Flynn matter, that’s a clear case of obstruction of justice and President Trump should be impeached and removed from Office for this alone. 

This seems pretty straightforward to me. I invite any Trump supporter, or anyone who disagrees with this analysis, to explain why Trump shouldn’t be removed over this. 

Yes, I think there are now three completely separate bases for impeachment that would ordinarily be pretty straightforward.

Emoluments, abuse of pardon power, and obstruction of justice.

Any of those by itself ought to suffice under normal circumstances.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Not a Trump supporter, but I think the only response at this point has to be that Comey is a liar and Trump never said those things or told Comey to drop the investigation.  

But given the substantial evidence that Trump did say those things (Comey's testimony under oath, his contemporaneous notes), that seems like an argument that should be made in the Senate trial rather than an argument that there should be no such trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ProstheticRGK said:

Usually

Republicans

Are

Not

Indignant snowflakes

Until

Molly-coddling liberals,

 

On fake news outlets,

Negatively portray

Entirely appropriate political actions

 

By clinton standards.

Intelligence community bias

To the point of

Claiming insurance policy

Haranguing the transition over

Every minute detail.

Sad.

 

I will say, circumventing the language filter by use of an acrostic poem was probably never considered as a potential issue by the moderators.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will say, circumventing the language filter by use of an acrostic poem was probably never considered as a potential issue by the moderators.  

I have it on good authority that the moderators here tend to skip over poetry without reading it.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Indestructible said:

Not a Trump supporter, but I think the only response at this point has to be that Comey is a liar and Trump never said those things or told Comey to drop the investigation.  

but Comey made contemporaneous notes and shared them with other FBI agents at the time it happened to have witnesses....Trump has nothing but his word 

Edited by Banger

Share this post


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

I have it on good authority that the moderators here tend to skip over poetry without reading it.

I will keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

 

Any of those by itself ought to suffice under normal circumstances.

those being the operative words...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will say, circumventing the language filter by use of an acrostic poem was probably never considered as a potential issue by the moderators.  

Forgive me. It was an attempt at a performance piece. The particulars are ham-handed, but i think i nailed the gestalt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have it on good authority that the moderators here tend to skip over poetry without reading it.

What about haikus?

By the time it has been read,

would you know it was?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But given the substantial evidence that Trump did say those things (Comey's testimony under oath, his contemporaneous notes), that seems like an argument that should be made in the Senate trial rather than an argument that there should be no such trial.

Good point.  I've long thought that the Comey "see your way clear" and later firing made for a pretty strong case for obstruction.  As for a reason why there shouldn't be any trial, didn't Fox News at one point advance the argument that the POTUS cannot, by law, commit obstruction?  I'll admit I'm reaching here primarily because I don't think there is a good argument for Trump on this issue.  

Share this post


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

but Comey made contemporaneous notes and shared them with other FBI agents at the time it happened to have witnesses....Trump has nothing but his word 

I know and agree.  But for Trump and his supporters, Comey is a serial liar who sucked at his job and wanted HRC to win the election.  

Share this post


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

Good point.  I've long thought that the Comey "see your way clear" and later firing made for a pretty strong case for obstruction.  As for a reason why there shouldn't be any trial, didn't Fox News at one point advance the argument that the POTUS cannot, by law, commit obstruction?  I'll admit I'm reaching here primarily because I don't think there is a good argument for Trump on this issue.  

Yes, the idea is that the President is the top law enforcement official in the country, so in that role he may properly express his view about whether any particular case should go forward.

It's not an argument I've seen any legal commentator take seriously, not even Dershowitz.

Share this post


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

Forgive me. It was an attempt at a performance piece. The particulars are ham-handed, but i think i nailed the gestalt.

Title of a psychotherapist sex tape.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Yes, the idea is that the President is the top law enforcement official in the country, so in that role he may properly express his view about whether any particular case should go forward.

It's not an argument I've seen any legal commentator take seriously, not even Dershowitz.

Just found this: link

Quote

President Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, apparently believes the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because he’s the president.

The “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer [under the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” Dowd told Axios’s Mike Allen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.72917e429874

 

They were expected late this week which would mean today at the latest one would assume. Appears not likely to happen. Let the President stew on this over the holidays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I have it on good authority that the moderators here tend to skip over poetry without reading it.

I love a good loophole. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, I think there are now three completely separate bases for impeachment that would ordinarily be pretty straightforward.

Emoluments, abuse of pardon power, and obstruction of justice.

Any of those by itself ought to suffice under normal circumstances.

Why is pardoning sheriff looney bird grounds for impeachment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, I think there are now three completely separate bases for impeachment that would ordinarily be pretty straightforward.

Emoluments, abuse of pardon power, and obstruction of justice.

Any of those by itself ought to suffice under normal circumstances.

I didn't read the article (twitter is killing us all) but wasn't an emoluments case dismissed yesterday? Do you know why? Standing?

ETA: Yup, standing - 

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question."

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


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

I didn't read the article (twitter is killing us all) but wasn't an emoluments case dismissed yesterday? Do you know why? Standing?

- U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

“As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress
determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, joffer said:
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, I think there are now three completely separate bases for impeachment that would ordinarily be pretty straightforward.

Emoluments, abuse of pardon power, and obstruction of justice.

Any of those by itself ought to suffice under normal circumstances.

Why is pardoning sheriff looney bird grounds for impeachment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Trump also just pardoned a really sketchy money launderer who as I understand it caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. Basically just commuted his sentence IIRC. I will try to dig it up to get the facts right, but it sounds worse than the Rich pardon.

I think what gets me about Arpaio's pardon is that IIRC Trump circumvented the normal process to grant pardons, which requires legal review plus some other kind of review from within the WH. Trump just skipped all that and did it himself.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

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.