What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (9 Viewers)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
Lord, this is so disingenuous.

The DOJ didn't just up and wake up one day because Eric freakin Holder decided he loved the GOP Senator Ted Stevens.

The DOJ did that because they were forced to, after they were dragged all over the courtroom, the courthouse, and up and down DC by the judge in the case.

Do you know who that judge was? Take a wildass guess.
Click to expand...
You know more than Jonathan Turley?

 
sho nuff said:
Another day...another source far worse than ones he wont even discuss and calls partisan drivel (including oversight committee reports and Inspectors General reports).  The information then gets refuted...and out come the laughs.  Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
False. 
 

The story of a nervous Obama getting the old team together to scheme appears to be true.  Calling other posters liars all the time is not excellent.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
False. 
 

The story of a nervous Obama getting the old team together to scheme appears to be true.  ...
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it's in the Mueller report that Obama advised Trump to not hire Flynn.

And if Trump had followed that advice a good deal of this #### never would have happened to him. Don's not really a listener though is he.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper said:
False. 
 

The story of a nervous Obama getting the old team together to scheme appears to be true.  Calling other posters liars all the time is not excellent.  
Click to expand...
Appears to be true because it was posted in a far right wing site that often posts false information?  Its not a credible source...you know this, just like Breitbart isn't.  Just be consistent since you won’t  even entertain stories from far more reputable sources like the Washington Post, the New York Times or apparently two different Inspectors General.

I didn't call you a liar either, please stop with the false accusations.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Let the judge rule on it. It's how we do things in this country. And I say that even knowing Sullivan still has to consider the DOJ's motion on behalf of the defense and he could even agree with it. But that bridge has to be crossed still.
Click to expand...
Well that is going to happen.  

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_4.pdf

What I'm reading from the motion is that the FBI was going to close the Flynn case ("the investigation had failed to produce 'any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.'  And it noted that no interview of Mr. Flynn was required “as part of the case closing procedure,” before concluding: “The FBI is closing this investigation.”) but but reserved the right to re-investigate which they did due to a communication after the election.  The DOJ advised the FBI to inform the Trump administration of the contents of the call but the FBI refused ("Yates contacted Director Comey to demand that the FBI notify the White House of the communications. Director Comey did not initially return her call. When Director Comey called her back later that day, he advised her that the FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn. Acting Attorney General Yates was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded,” and other senior DOJ officials “hit the roof” upon hearing of this development, given that “an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.”).  Contemporaneous notes from Strozk and Page indicate that had the FBI informed the White House of the interview the White House may direct them not to speak with Flynn.  Strozk and Page were advised by an FBI official to follow normal procedures for informing the White House.  Comey decided not to inform the White House of the interview and stated in an interview that it was "something we, I probably wouldn’t have done or gotten away with in a more organized administration.”  During the interview, the interviewers did not provide copies of the call transcripts and the agents did not believe Flynn was lying during the interview.  Comey's response to the interview: “I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made he lied. It is a close one.”  Special Counsel then filed a criminal complaint.

With the facts as laid out in the motion I wouldn't be surprised if Comey doesn't come under serious fire for his handling of this.

 
Snotbubbles said:
Well that is going to happen.  

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.0_4.pdf

What I'm reading from the motion is that the FBI was going to close the Flynn case ("the investigation had failed to produce 'any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.'  And it noted that no interview of Mr. Flynn was required “as part of the case closing procedure,” before concluding: “The FBI is closing this investigation.”) but but reserved the right to re-investigate which they did due to a communication after the election.  The DOJ advised the FBI to inform the Trump administration of the contents of the call but the FBI refused ("Yates contacted Director Comey to demand that the FBI notify the White House of the communications. Director Comey did not initially return her call. When Director Comey called her back later that day, he advised her that the FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn. Acting Attorney General Yates was “flabbergasted” and “dumbfounded,” and other senior DOJ officials “hit the roof” upon hearing of this development, given that “an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with DOJ.”).  Contemporaneous notes from Strozk and Page indicate that had the FBI informed the White House of the interview the White House may direct them not to speak with Flynn.  Strozk and Page were advised by an FBI official to follow normal procedures for informing the White House.  Comey decided not to inform the White House of the interview and stated in an interview that it was "something we, I probably wouldn’t have done or gotten away with in a more organized administration.”  During the interview, the interviewers did not provide copies of the call transcripts and the agents did not believe Flynn was lying during the interview.  Comey's response to the interview: “I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made he lied. It is a close one.”  Special Counsel then filed a criminal complaint.

With the facts as laid out in the motion I wouldn't be surprised if Comey doesn't come under serious fire for his handling of this.
Click to expand...
And the judge already considered the whole argument about the claim about lack of pretext:

Mr. Flynn’s Other Theories

contending that “[t]he FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation” and that the FBI’s investigation was a “pretext for investigating Mr. Flynn”
Click to expand...
The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty to making materially false statements to the FBI. E.g., Sentencing Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 103 at 11 (affirming it was not his “contention that Mr. Flynn was entrapped by the FBI”); id. (affirming that “Mr. Flynn’s rights were [not] violated by the fact that he did not have a lawyer present for the interview”); Plea Agreement, ECF No. 3 at 10 (“I fully understand this [Plea] Agreement and agree to it without reservation. I do this voluntarily and of my own free will, intending to be legally bound.”); Plea Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 16 at 29 (affirming that no one “forced, threatened, or coerced [Mr. Flynn] in any way into entering this plea of guilty”). And it is undisputed that Mr. Flynn not only made those false statements to the FBI agents, but he also made the same false statements to the Vice President and senior White House officials, who, in turn, repeated Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the American people on national television. 
Click to expand...
The judge already heard this claim.

- Now I'll stay open minded, but Sullivan will be hearing that motion you just posted (thanks for that btw, seriously) and everything Barr/Shea just stepped over their line prosecutors to argue on behalf of the defense will be considered by the judge. You'll have to cross that bridge before anyone, Barr, Durham, or their godfather, expect to get to Comey or anyone else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Another day...another source far worse than ones he wont even discuss and calls partisan drivel (including oversight committee reports and Inspectors General reports).  The information then gets refuted...and out come the laughs.  Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
You guys are really complaining about sources and lying right now? After Clapper and Brennan said under oath there was no collusion in 2017, yet turned around and said there was in every interview for 3 years on CNN? This takes some nerve.

 
Travis the Chimp said:
These guys are going to be in orange jumpsuits and you and Saints are going to be holding your ground here that they've got it all wrong. You guys are loyal soldiers to your team I'll give you that. 
Click to expand...
Amigo, we've been through Horowitz, Huber, Horowitz again, DOJ investigations of McCabe, Comey and Strzok, a grand jury (!) investigation of McCabe, and Jensen with Flynn. Not to mentions judges in DC, NYC, VA. I think there must have been 8 (?) challenges of Mueller alone.

Durham no doubt will deliver the goods for Barr/Trump, and then yeah I'll say let a judge look at it. Guess who just blinked rather than let a judge look at all this for the n'teenth time?

By the way Travis - why didn't Barr/Shea file any actual report from Jensen?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Widbil83 said:
You guys are really complaining about sources and lying right now? After Clapper and Brennan said under oath there was no collusion in 2017, yet turned around and said there was in every interview for 3 years on CNN? This takes some nerve.
Click to expand...
Well, if they don't complain then they have to admit they were fooled this entire time.  That's a tough pill for anyone to swallow.  Better to just keep on defending the indefensible than to admit you were lied to and had it wrong this entire time.

Those who were fooled are perfectly fine with continuing the lies - it's all about "GET TRUMP!".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Appears to be true because it was posted in a far right wing site that often posts false information?  Its not a credible source...you know this, just like Breitbart isn't.  Just be consistent since you won’t  even entertain stories from far more reputable sources like the Washington Post, the New York Times or apparently two different Inspectors General.

I didn't call you a liar either, please stop with the false accusations.
Click to expand...
No, no, no, it's on the internet therefore, it must, be true.

 
The standard for opening an assessment is quite low. It is explicitly less than “‘information or an allegation’ indicating the existence of . . . [a]n activity constituting . . . a threat to national security,” which is required to open a preliminary investigation. (DIOG 6.5) Opening an assessment requires only that there be an “authorized purpose” and a “clearly defined objective” for the assessment. In particular, the DIOG makes clear that an assessment is appropriate when “there is reason to collect information or facts to determine whether there is . . . a national security threat.” (DIOG 5.1; emphasis supplied). And as part of an assessment, the FBI is allowed to conduct interviews, including of the possible subject or target. (DIOG 18.5.6).

The attorney general and his minions are making the astounding argument that when the FBI—aware of extensive Russian interference in U.S. politics in order to benefit the Trump campaign—learned that the incoming national security advisor requested that Russia not respond to the sanctions that were imposed in response to that interference and then lied to other government officials about that, it could not even “collect information or facts to determine” whether this created a counterintelligence threat. This cannot be right. Even if the prior investigation into Flynn had been closed, which it had not, these circumstances at a minimum justified an assessment under standard FBI policy.

In fact, the department’s motion virtually concedes the point. It dismisses Flynn’s lies to Pence and Spicer by saying that “[h]ad the FBI been deeply concerned about the disparities between what they knew had been said on the calls and the representations of Vice President Pence or Mr. Spicer, it would have sought to speak with them directly, but did not.” But that would be a kind of investigative activity, and under the DIOG, either the FBI has a basis to investigate or it doesn’t. If the facts justified talking to Pence about Flynn, they justified talking to Flynn.

Of course, the bureau did not open an assessment of Flynn. But that’s because it didn’t need to—it already had open both the earlier counterintelligence investigation of him, which had not been closed, and the broader Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Russian influence. Interviewing Flynn was justified under either of those matters, and his lies about his activities were material to them.
Click to expand...
LF

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Wait....what?  Is this coming from the crew that believed in pee tapes and Russian Collusion and every other crazy, wild theory about Trump posted on Twitter?  

Get serious, please.
Click to expand...
It’s weird how they post from many questionable sources that fit their agenda then only call out the other sources that don’t fit their agenda? I’m seeing a pattern.  

 
BladeRunner said:
coming from the crew that believed in pee tapes
Click to expand...
Q Do you recall reaching out to Michael Cohen about the tape?

A My recollection of reaching out to Michael took place the following day. And it wasn't about the tape; it was about -- this is going to get confusing, but the day after the tape, there were rumors going around -- I'm not sure exactly where -- I heard it from our campaign spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, who was sort of like a -- she had a lot of contacts, grassroots. And she had called to tell me that -- or maybe sent me a message about rumors of a tape involving Mr. Trump in Moscow with, you know -- can I say this?

[Discussion off the record.]

Ms. Hicks. -- with Russian hookers, participating in some lewd activities. And so, obviously, I didn't -- I felt this was exactly how it had been described to me, which was a rumor. Nonetheless, I wanted to make sure that I stayed on top of it before it developed any further, to try to contain it from spiraling out of control. And the person that made me aware of the rumor said that TMZ might be the person that has access to this tape. I knew Michael Cohen had a good relationship with Harvey Levin, who works at TMZ. So I reached out to Michael to ask if he had heard of anything like this; if Harvey contacted him, if he could be in touch with me. 
Click to expand...
This was Hope Hicks testifying about when the campaign first heard about the peepee tape rumor, during the campaign, the day after the Access Hollywood tape emerged.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High said:
This is fun. Trump arrests Obama.  Michelle runs cleans Trump clock in the election. Frees her husband then has Trump arrested. 
Click to expand...
Now that would be something.

of course, this fairy tail the left wants to believe in about Michelle Obama running is just that - a fairy tail. The woman literally cried after Obama's 2nd term ended because she wanted to get out of there so bad.  The woman just about went on 3 week vacations every 4 weeks during his terms.  Thanks, taxpayers!

She ain't running.  Ever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Now that would be something.

of course, this fairy tail the left wants to believe in about Michelle Obama running is just that - a fairy tail. The woman literally cried after Obama's 2nd term ended because she wanted to get out of their so bad.

She ain't running.  Ever.
Click to expand...
Not even to save her husband?

 
Mile High said:
This is fun. Trump arrests Obama.  Michelle runs cleans Trump clock in the election. Frees her husband then has Trump arrested. 
Click to expand...
Aha, but see then Barron will lead the Michigan militia in a coup d'etat and Melania will rule as regent, ultimately freeing Donald and renaming Washington Trumpovia. You really need to read more Qanon.

 
Challenge Everything said:
Allsides.com

Michelle Malkin . com / twitchy.com = Far Right

Breitbart . com = Far Right

FOX Online News = Center Right

National Review = Far Right

Daily Wire = Far Right

Need I go on? Much of the "sources" used to argue points are either editorials, opinions, or heavily biased, that any argument using them is null and void. Read, source, discuss, news from the center and better discussions will occur.
Click to expand...
Yeah, kind of like the NYTimes, Wapo, Vox, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, HuffPo, DailyKos and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Let's not pretend that it's just "the other side" that is lying and spoon-feeding narratives.

 
So Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell, why spent 2 years on CNN every day, sent Trump guy Michael Caputo a drunk threatening twitter dm in 2018.  :unsure:

Michael R. Caputo@MichaelRCaputo
Good morning all! I’m just having coffee, remembering that 2018 twitter direct message after midnight on a Saturday night from a tipsy Congressman contacting me, a represented party, in clear violation of House Ethics rules.

https://twitter.com/michaelrcaputo/status/1259129982447767553?s=21

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, kind of like the NYTimes, Wapo, Vox, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, HuffPo, DailyKos and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Let's not pretend that it's just "the other side" that is lying and spoon-feeding narratives.
Click to expand...
New York Times = Left Center

Washington Post = Left Center

CNN Web News - Left Center

NBC Web News = Left Center

ABC News = Left Center

CBS News = Left Center

VOX = Far Left

MSNBC = Far Left

Huff Post = Far Left

Daily Kos = Far Left

I'd be willing to bet just about anything, if it would be easy to do, search up the list of Far Right "news" sources and Far Left "news" sources on this site. I'd bet the Far Right news sources are used more often and "sourced" more often than the Far Left ones.

Keep your sources near the center and we'd all be better off for it.

 
Snotbubbles said:
There wasn't, but like I said earlier, I don't know anything (other than the fact pattern presented by the motion I attached) about this case.  Why is Jensen important in this?
Click to expand...
Because Jeff Jensen is the US Attorney assigned by Barr - apparently without statutory basis - to investigate the Flynn case. And I’d rather think that if he had had a recommendation, a finding or really any detail in support of Flynn it would have been attached as Exhibit 1. - But nope, nary a mention.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Well, if they don't complain then they have to admit they were fooled this entire time.  That's a tough pill for anyone to swallow.  Better to just keep on defending the indefensible than to admit you were lied to and had it wrong this entire time.

Those who were fooled are perfectly fine with continuing the lies - it's all about "GET TRUMP!".
Click to expand...
Irony is dead! Dead I tell you!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top