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 (3 Viewers)

Making decisions for the good of a foreign adversary vs the interests of the usa sounds like treason to me. 
Sounds like it to me, as well.  That doesn't mean it will meet the legal definition.  And what you & I think it sounds like isn't what matters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drip, drip, drip.

Breaking News

Russians bragged about relationship with Flynn.*

Flynn reportedly told Kislayak new admin. might be amenable to lifting sanctions. 

This is like a slow mo train wreck in time lapse mode with multiple wide angle and zoom lens cameras in forensic detail directed by Kurosawa.

Don't you love it when a great plan comes together!

* Chalk up another probable confirm of Mensch's MI5/6 Intel sources, she heard through the grapevine that Kislayak ran his mouth and implied he may have implicated multiple campaign members. He should beware of Starbuck's gift cards to the Moscow branch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe one of the lawyers here can chime in, but I thought you could be guilty of obstruction just as part of the process of investigation...that investigation doesn't have to result in a conviction for you to have been obstructing the process to get there. 
Ask Bill Clinton.

 
Hmm.  Perhaps there should be an independent commission formed to investigate if anyone in the Trump administration has ties to the United States of America.
Do you recommend the veal?

* You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.

** R's - It's unpatriotic to not overlook Trump's potential treason.

He LOVED Wikileaks when it hurt his political opponent, not so much when the shoe is on the other foot and its Kremlin-y Weirdo-gate leaks.

*** FinCEN don't mess around. If you mix in Russian Mafia money laundering into this infernal, unholy, clusterfunk alliance between the oppressive Putin/Trump Syndicate Regime (news which I assume will be inexorably getting dripped/dropped in an hour or two while still in the air), maybe Seth Meyers was right and the Trump admin. will be over before the NBA playoffs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I imagine it actually goes both ways - you want to protect a "target" from information that might be protected by attorney/client privilege.  So, if a target disclosed certain information to his attorneys and/or law firm - that info does not influence an attorney/investigator from that law firm.
But since Sessions has recused himself (if you believe that), it would then fall to Rosenstein to grant the waiver which seems like a no-brainer.  Having said that, I'm sure this is going to lead to a pissing contest.

My guess is this is why Lieberman wasn't nominated for FBI head since Trump employs his law firm.

 
Lord is such a #####. :lol:  

ANDERSON COOPER (HOST): His honest opinion is that the former FBI director is a "nut job" and that this relieves some of the pressure on the Russia stuff? That's his honest opinion. I have no doubt that's his honest opinion but do you think that that is smart for a guy under investigation to be saying that? 

JEFFREY LORD: Yes I do. And I'll tell you exactly why I think it's smart. Remember this statement from President Obama? "Tell Vladamir I'll be more flexible after the election," quote, unquote. To the Russian prime minister. Caught on a hot mic. Now that is what you call collusion with the Russians. Vladamir, for all we know, was flexible with Barack Obama to help him be reelected. Was there a call for a special prosecutor?

COOPER: Was there an investigation by the FBI? Was there a special counsel? No, and no, and no. And so I know you got to bring up Obama every time or or you got to bring up somebody else. But you can't really defend it in all fairness. You can't defend what the president of the United States just said.

LORD: I don't care what he says to the Russians. I mean, he's the president of the United States. If he wants to say that, if Barack Obama wants to say whatever, if George Bush says I looked in his eyes --

COOPPER: If he took a dump on his desk, you would defend it.
IHTADOHDYWDI might not have a great ring to it, but I recommend it going forward as a quick response to posts more interested in defending Trump than truth.

 
Didn't see this posted yet.


White House looking at ethics rule to weaken special investigation: sources


The Trump administration is exploring whether it can use an obscure ethics rule to undermine the special counsel investigation into ties between President Donald Trump's campaign team and Russia, two people familiar with White House thinking said on Friday.

Trump has said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's hiring of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation "hurts our country terribly."

Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.

An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.

Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.

Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.

If the department did not grant a waiver, Mueller would be barred from investigating Kushner or Manafort, and this could greatly diminish the scope of the probe, experts said.

The Justice Department is already reviewing Mueller's background as well as any potential conflicts of interest, said department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

Even if the Justice Department granted a waiver, the White House would consider using the ethics rule to create doubt about Mueller's ability to do his job fairly, the sources said. Administration legal advisers have been asked to determine if there is a basis for this.

Under this strategy, the sources said the administration would raise the issue in press conferences and public statements.

Moreover, the White House has not ruled out the possibility of using the rule to challenge Mueller’s findings in court, should the investigation lead to prosecution.
A guest on Rachel Maddow addressed this.  He raised the possibility of two special counsels as a countermeasure, allowing Mueller to stay on but recuse himself from Kushner and Manafort, and bringing on a second counsel to investigate the WilmerHale clients.  

 
Our Oval Office and White House needs extreme vetting, Extreme, *EXTREME* VETTING!

Also chalk up significantly more confirmation and *VINDICATION* for Richard "James Bond" Steele's Intel. Just like those laughing at Trump before he ran weren't laughing by election night, those initially laughing at the BuzzFeed release of the Steele Dossier probably aren't yukking it up so much after (in rapid succession all within the past 10 days) COMEY-GATE, ROSENSTEIN-GATE, KISLAYAK-GATE, OBSTRUCTION MEMO-GATE, MUELLER-GATE, NUT BALL-GATE, FLYNN-GATE, now SANCTION LIFTING-GATE and maybe KUSHNER-GATE!

* Steele Dossier background article (MI6 Senior Russia Desk for many years, you think maybe he cultivated a few good sources?) : 

How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier

The man behind the infamous dossier that raises the possibility that Donal Trump may be vulnerable to Kremlin blackmail is Russia expert Christopher Steele, formerly of M.I.6. Here's the story of his investigation.

Howard Blum, Vanity Fair 3/30/17

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cannot say enough about this article.  Amazing. Feel like it's the part of the movie when you stand up and cheer, and definitely clarifies who is whom.  
In uber simplified terms, a lot of guys are rooting for the bad guys, the black hats, here.

And not the cool bad guys rebelling against an evil authority, but rather those that bully and pillage as their most basic behavior. 

 
In uber simplified terms, a lot of guys are rooting for the bad guys, the black hats, here.

And not the cool bad guys rebelling against an evil authority, but rather those that bully and pillage as their most basic behavior. 
Pretty normal to have that happen.  It takes a white hat to show up publicly before the mob turns, and those are in mighty short supply these days.

 
Steele carried it to the 50 yard line, Schindler to the 20 yard line, Mensch to the 3 yard line and Taylor banged it into the end zone.

1) The only way this could have been a worse day for Trump is if it had been *SHOT SOMEBODY ON FIFTH AVENUE-GATE*.

2) Now that we've established that Trump is the NUT JOB, and Steele, Schindler, Khan, Mensch, Taylor, et al are looking more verified and vindicated than even 10 days ago (sheesh, even 10 hours ago!   :) ), it will be interesting to track how many other future shoes dropped map onto their Intel. For instance, Mensch is currently taunting Senator Grassley as I type this, and she was the one earlier talking about President Pro Tempore Hatch and a RICO case on THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!! Also the three oldest Trump children implicated in *KREMLIN-Y WEIRDO-GATE*.

3) Reminder that if 44 hadn't expelled the Russian spies in December, history may have unfolded differently. That was the event that precipitated Flynn's notorious call to Kislayak where it sounds like he let it be known the incoming administration might be amenable to and look favorably on lifting sanctions.

4) One of the NYTimes reporters that broke the NUT JOB story made a good point, the frequency, volume and even velocity of the news cycle releases is accelerating and spinning out of control for Trump. It has become so fast, people are tuning most of it out and only hearing *TRUMP* & *RUSSIA* (Bummer for Trump).

5) Retweeted by Steven Hall, former CIA Chief of Russian Operations.:

Once you realize that "deep state" is code for "rule of law", you can translate their jibberish into something more like English

Hall - Tough one. How to stop fake news but not limit free speech? Baltic countries say the answer is education.

Retweet - I suspect that one of Trump's many legacies will be a reexamination of all the blanket immunities and privileges given to presidents.

Hall (on learning of at least 18 undisclosed Russian contacts by Trump campaign) This is why investigating is important

Hall - Good sound bite, I think. Problem is, foreign Intel services will decide its wholly appropriate not to pass as much intel in the future.

* Great Seth Meyers A Closer Look segment last night - Donald Trump Warned Us About Himself

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My personal belief is that the obstruction stuff will never go anywhere or truly matter in the long term. It all comes down to what happens in the investigation.  If Trump ends up being guilty of colluding w Russia, obstruction is the least of his worries. If no evidence is found leaking him to Russia, the obstruction will never matter, whether it technically is or not. Just my opinion of course.

I'll be forever furious with the Republicans...and NEVER consider voting another Republican again if this happens. These same folks tried to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about a ^#%&$ blo-job. IMO, at this point the obstruction alone is enough, because this was over something far far more serious, and asking the FBI director to run interference is far worse than asking an aide to back up a lie. (And yes...I HAVE voted Republican in the past. My political ideals are all over the spectrum but my most important ones (currently) align much more closely with the left.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I'm still annoyed that he didn't get charged with perjury and I'm not crazy about attempts to minimize what he did. He didn't just lie, he lied under oath.

 
This is not the media's fault.
I was quoting Camille Paglia.  I just want to see how it would go if I posted as it was me saying it.  Pretty much exactly as expected.  
Not sure I buy this, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.  Let me help a little bit though to make it perfectly clear.  The concept and assertions are stupid. Doesn't matter who takes credit for them...HTH :shrug:  

 
Not sure I buy this, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.  Let me help a little bit though to make it perfectly clear.  The concept and assertions are stupid. Doesn't matter who takes credit for them...HTH :shrug:  
There is nothing to buy.  I supplied the link which had all the quotes in it.  It was just an experiment to see how the tools on this thread would respond and they did as expected with their usual laughing emoticons and trying to make it personal.  Just attempting to illustrate how difficult it is to get any rationale discussion here.  There is really just too much hate and animosity in these threads.  

 
I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but I'm still annoyed that he didn't get charged with perjury and I'm not crazy about attempts to minimize what he did. He didn't just lie, he lied under oath.
People lie under oath every day.  That whole thing was a ####### witch hunt from day one.  Ken Starr was the biggest criminal in that story. 

 
People lie under oath every day.  That whole thing was a ####### witch hunt from day one.  Ken Starr was the biggest criminal in that story. 
Heck of a resume he has.  He then went on to allow a massive rape culture at Baylor.  One could even say his actions and decisions endorsed it.

 
There is nothing to buy.  I supplied the link which had all the quotes in it.  It was just an experiment to see how the tools on this thread would respond and they did as expected with their usual laughing emoticons and trying to make it personal.  Just attempting to illustrate how difficult it is to get any rationale discussion here.  There is really just too much hate and animosity in these threads.  
They are like moths to a flame - they just can't help themselves.  The hate filled hysteria has an unbreakable grip on them.

 
There is nothing to buy.  I supplied the link which had all the quotes in it.  It was just an experiment to see how the tools on this thread would respond and they did as expected with their usual laughing emoticons and trying to make it personal.  Just attempting to illustrate how difficult it is to get any rationale discussion here.  There is really just too much hate and animosity in these threads.  
You think what that woman said was "rational"? It was ridiculous. I don't know why you are implying because whoever that woman is identifies as a liberal means that people that lean left have to defend garbage that comes out of her mouth. That's not really the way it should work. These aren't teams. The world is made up of a couple billion free-thinking and free-willed individuals. I think that may be the core of your issue here - a failure to understand this. It may also be why you feel the need to defend Trump and his actions by slinging blame on "the other side" when deep down you know this whole situation is ####ed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They are like moths to a flame - they just can't help themselves.  The hate filled hysteria has an unbreakable grip on them.
Max, consider this for a second, if you will.

On one side (Trump defenders), you have posters like Toe Cutter, Eminence, and Shane Ricketts.

On the other side (the situation is serious and needs real investigation), you have posters like Maurile Tremblay, IvanKaramazov, and Henry Ford (sorry to many others I left out here).

Which group would you consider the serious, thoughtful, and well-respected posters?  With which group would you rather be associated?

 
There is nothing to buy.  I supplied the link which had all the quotes in it.  It was just an experiment to see how the tools on this thread would respond and they did as expected with their usual laughing emoticons and trying to make it personal.  Just attempting to illustrate how difficult it is to get any rationale discussion here.  There is really just too much hate and animosity in these threads.  
Didn't read all the posts from everyone so not sure about people making it personal - obviously any personal attack is pretty dumb.. I thought the one I responded to made it look as if you were saying this or this was your assertion.

When you say the media is creating this, and not Trump and his actions, it's hard to take it seriously. 

 
You think what that woman said was "rational"? It was ridiculous. I don't know why you are implying because whoever that woman is identifies as a liberal means that people that lean left have to defend garbage that comes out of her mouth. That's not really the way it should work. These aren't teams. The world is made up of a couple billion free-thinking and free-willed individuals. I think that may be the core of your issue here - a failure to understand this. It may also be why you feel the need to defend Trump and his actions by slinging blame on "the other side" when deep down you know this whole situation is ####ed. 
It is not my failure to understand it.  I am perfectly willing to listen to people's thoughts whether I agree or I disagree with and discuss without the mocking. It is all the hyperbole, strawmen, and personal attacks which makes this thread and most political threads unbearable.  

 
Didn't read all the posts from everyone so not sure about people making it personal - obviously any personal attack is pretty dumb.. I thought the one I responded to made it look as if you were saying this or this was your assertion.

When you say the media is creating this, and not Trump and his actions, it's hard to take it seriously. 
I don't believe that was her point to purely blame the media for this.  Her point was the media is clearly taking sides in this debate instead of reporting and thus losing credibility.  I think there is merit to that point, although I personally don't think she did a great job at making the case with her examples of Clinton and Obama. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max, consider this for a second, if you will.

On one side (Trump defenders), you have posters like Toe Cutter, Eminence, and Shane Ricketts.

On the other side (the situation is serious and needs real investigation), you have posters like Maurile Tremblay, IvanKaramazov, and Henry Ford (sorry to many others I left out here).

Which group would you consider the serious, thoughtful, and well-respected posters?  With which group would you rather be associated?
I think about this aspect everyday.

Look at the miscreants that make up so much of Trumps hardline base of support.

No, not all Trump supporters are miscreants. People with no ability to think critically. Cowardly small minded racists. Loud mouths rooting for those team above the good of their country. People who are gloat and the pain and tears of the opposition as if we are not on the same team as countrymen. People who lack all respect for others, for the tenets of freedom, for conducting ourselves like responsible citizens who care about one another and our nation's future.

No, not all Trump supporters are these small minded, treasonous supporters of people doing the will of our nation's historically greatest adversary at the expense of our very democracy's well being...

but just about if not all such people support Trump. In terms of those who do so on this board vocally, I'd say it's close to 100%.

So, when you look around the room and you are surrounded by these people, how can one not notice that there are no same nor true conservatives in the room... those who may support Trump begrudgingly (Gorsuch!) distance themselves from the immature or inflammatory folks who are represented by the smiley faced mafia, here or in real life. 

So, why would anyone feel comfortable supporting, liking and associating with the worst our nation seems to offer? 

Its beyond my comprehension- but then again so is actively and purposefully parroting the very talking points eminating (emminencing?) from the damm Kremlin from abroad and a white nationalist and/or utterly selfish base here st home. :shrug:  

 
I don't believe that was her point.  Her point was the media is clearly taking sides in this debate instead of reporting and this losing credibility.  I think there is merit to that point, although I personally don't think she did a great job at making the case with her examples of Clinton and Obama. 
Wouldn't you say it gets hard to say they are taking sides when the stuff they have to report on is mostly really, really bad and tend to put him in a bad light regardless if you like the guy or not?

 
There is nothing to buy.  I supplied the link which had all the quotes in it.  It was just an experiment to see how the tools on this thread would respond and they did as expected with their usual laughing emoticons and trying to make it personal.  Just attempting to illustrate how difficult it is to get any rationale discussion here.  There is really just too much hate and animosity in these threads.  
You should do this all the time.  Quote Hitler next, then "I TRICKED YOU ALL!  I DIDN'T SAY THAT! HITLER DID!".  It'll really get us good.

 
Max, consider this for a second, if you will.

On one side (Trump defenders), you have posters like Toe Cutter, Eminence, and Shane Ricketts.

On the other side (the situation is serious and needs real investigation), you have posters like Maurile Tremblay, IvanKaramazov, and Henry Ford (sorry to many others I left out here).

Which group would you consider the serious, thoughtful, and well-respected posters?  With which group would you rather be associated?
You also have Tim and Squisy and Bucky and others throwing out Nazi innuendos and other over the top arguements.  You want to characterize one side with the worst possible examples and the other side with the best.  I think both sides have issues.  

 
I don't believe that was her point to purely blame the media for this.  Her point was the media is clearly taking sides in this debate instead of reporting and this losing credibility.  I think there is merit to that point, although I personally don't think she did a great job at making the case with her examples of Clinton and Obama. 
I give you points for expressing your viewpoint on the article, but I think we've moved well past liberal/conservative POV's or historical comps here. A Dep. Sec. DHS blew the whistle on POTUS delivering above TS material to a foe, what is the liberal 'spin' there? 

 
Wouldn't you say it gets hard to say they are taking sides when the stuff they have to report on is mostly really, really bad and tend to put him in a bad light regardless if you like the guy or not?
Very much so.  But you have to contain your personal bias and not show your contempt for the man.  The reporting is too much and over the top in most cases. 

 
You also have Tim and Squisy and Bucky and others throwing out Nazi innuendos and other over the top arguements.  You want to characterize one side with the worst possible examples and the other side with the best.  I think both sides have issues.  
Fair enough.  You tell me who the "best possible examples" on the Trump defenders side are.

 
I give you points for expressing your viewpoint on the article, but I think we've moved well past liberal/conservative POV's or historical comps here. A Dep. Sec. DHS blew the whistle on POTUS delivering above TS material to a foe, what is the liberal 'spin' there? 
Maybe Trump views the Soviets as potential allies in the war against terrorism.  We are not at war with the Soviets, so why are they referred to as our enemy.  It may sound ridiculous but why can't we try to reach out to them.  As President, Trump has ultimate authority over handling of classified material, so anything he does is technically legal. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough.  You tell me who the "best possible examples" on the Trump defenders side are.
There are several more rationale posters who are more in the middle, but are group with the defenders like Max and I.  BYW, has Em been axed or does he have an alias? 

 
Maybe Trump views the Soviets as potential allies in the war against terrorism.  We are not at war with the Soviets, so why are they referred to as our enemy.  It may sound ridiculous but why can't we try to reach out to them. 
The 'Soviets'? First of all this sounds like a far left POV from the late 80s, but yeah somehow many Trump supporters vouching his behavior are 'there'. But the press, allegedly liberal, isn't taking that position. I can't imagine anything more non-partisan than saying the President should simply maintain national secrets within the Oval Office itself or insisting that the American people should know that he hasn't.

 
Maybe Trump views the Soviets as potential allies in the war against terrorism.  We are not at war with the Soviets, so why are they referred to as our enemy.  It may sound ridiculous but why can't we try to reach out to them.  As President, Trump has ultimate authority over handling of classified material, so anything he does is technically legal. 
The Russians have actively participated in efforts to destabilize not only our own elections but also those of allies like France and Germany. They are propping up a murderous thug in Assad and are playing at expansionist games in areas like the Ukraine. Putin wants to expand the Russian empire and bring back the Soviet Union. While we are not engaged in a full scale war, they are choosing to be our enemies with their actions. The cold war continues.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top