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 (8 Viewers)

Widbil83 said:
Oh boy.  :popcorn:

Shannon Bream@ShannonBream

If you're still catching your breath from today, I'm told next week will involve "a bombshell".  I'm standing by ...

https://twitter.com/shannonbream/status/1258549552900014080?s=21
Click to expand...
"I learned a lot from Richard Nixon -- don't fire people. I learned a lot. I study history ... of course there was one big difference: Number one he may have been guilty and number two he had tapes all over the place."
Click to expand...
Actual President, this morning.

- Just to preface whatever is coming.

 
sho nuff said:
If the media reports that so and so said something...and quoted her (which apparently they did).  That isn't on the media...thats on the person who lied.

Also and odd stance to take about influence and lies...I look forward to those saying as you and liking your post having the same reaction to Trump putting lies out there.
Click to expand...
I fell very good about my stance on Trump. He's a pathetic, narcissistic habitually lying individual. However, I dont spend a good portion of my life obsessing over him like many people here do. 

 
sho nuff said:
You may want to get your ignore feature checked out...I don’t think its working.  Or I wouldn’t see the laughing smile guy on so many posts from you...would I?
Click to expand...
I didn’t want to complain about it on here but some of your posts did get around the filter, maybe some glitch or possibly Russia? It’s all good, I enjoy a good laugh every once in awhile just couldn’t deal with the constant following. Doesn’t seem like much has changed. Hope all is well!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skoo said:
Umm, have you not been paying attention?

Coronavirus is our next attempt to take the President down.
Click to expand...
The curve is being flattened and people are going back to work.  It looks like over 1.8 million lives will have been saved by Trump’s response to the Chinese Virus.  
 

What’s next?

 
Cjw_55106 said:
I fell very good about my stance on Trump. He's a pathetic, narcissistic habitually lying individual. However, I dont spend a good portion of my life obsessing over him like many people here do. 
Click to expand...
Ok...cool.

But the point is...He pushes lies every day.  Every single day.  His is influencial...no?

Now...MSNBC posted quotes that turn out to be lies...that isn't on MSNBC...that is on the official who lied, correct?  They were correct in stating that she stated the things she did...thats their responsibility to report it as such.

Just think its odd to hold the media, in that case where they reported what she said...and she did, in fact say it to them...but say little to nothing about the daily lies and influence of POTUS.  Im much more concerned with POTUS lying in that case than MSNBC posting quotes from an official who turned out to be lying.  Now...if they knew she was lying and still pushed it...yes, that would be an issue for them.

 
knowledge dropper said:
We’re not.  That’s why cleaning out the Obama holdovers has become so important.  That administration apparently weaponized the IRS and FBI against political enemies.  Appalling.  
Click to expand...
No...they did not weaponize the IRS...this was posted against this week by someone else.  Read the IG reports on what happened.

https://oversight.house.gov/investigations/investigation-of-irs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/liberal-groups-got-irs-scrutiny-too-inspector-general-finds/2017/10/04/e9b6e3c4-a929-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last

And no, there is zero evidence the FBI was weaponized against political enemies as well.

Appalling is continuing to push such misinformation.

 
sho nuff said:
No...they did not weaponize the IRS...this was posted against this week by someone else.  Read the IG reports on what happened.

https://oversight.house.gov/investigations/investigation-of-irs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/liberal-groups-got-irs-scrutiny-too-inspector-general-finds/2017/10/04/e9b6e3c4-a929-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last

And no, there is zero evidence the FBI was weaponized against political enemies as well.

Appalling is continuing to push such misinformation.
Click to expand...
Surprised I didn’t see Vox, Salon, or Tiger Beat in that barrage of propagandists links you are using to “prove” your point.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
Surprised I didn’t see Vox, Salon, or Tiger Beat in that barrage of propagandists links you are using to “prove” your point.  
Click to expand...
You continually post from breitbart...who fails fact checks often and are listed as a questionabe source...not only do you then question legitimate sources...you fail to see I linked to the actual report of the house oversight.

Please be consistent...also, read the links, it clearly shows the claims of IRS targeting was not what you stated or the right wing still states at times.

If you read the other IG reports that have been often linked...the same is said about the claims of FBI targeting.

In short, what you posted has been proven false.  Kindly stop posting misinformation.

 
sho nuff said:
No...they did not weaponize the IRS...this was posted against this week by someone else.  Read the IG reports on what happened.

https://oversight.house.gov/investigations/investigation-of-irs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/liberal-groups-got-irs-scrutiny-too-inspector-general-finds/2017/10/04/e9b6e3c4-a929-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last

And no, there is zero evidence the FBI was weaponized against political enemies as well.

Appalling is continuing to push such misinformation.
Click to expand...
EVERYTHING you posted is from a partisan slant.  Did you even read the oversight report?   Stop it. 

 
knowledge dropper said:
EVERYTHING you posted is from a partisan slant.  Did you even read the oversight report?   Stop it. 
Click to expand...
Yes I read it...did you?

Please cite the reports stating the IRS targeted political enemies?  Because that is what you claimed.  I linked to the report and several articles stating otherwise.  Please post something credible that isn't just your claim of partisanship or propaganda.

And no, I will not stop posting links and reports to refute false claims you make.  

 
sho nuff said:
Now...MSNBC posted quotes that turn out to be lies...that isn't on MSNBC...that is on the official who lied, correct?  They were correct in stating that she stated the things she did...thats their responsibility to report it as such.
Click to expand...
They seems to do a thorough job fact checking the other side. They would never let certain others tell a story and present it as fact. 

 
Cjw_55106 said:
They seems to do a thorough job fact checking the other side. They would never let certain others tell a story and present it as fact. 
Click to expand...
Facts checking what?  Did they report she stated what she did?  You realize that would pass any fact check, right?  She actually said what she did.

They somt then fact check that she had seen what she claimed.  They don't do that with anyone (nor does any conservative media).

If they claimed what she said happened actually happened...them yes, they would be in the wrong.

The lie is on the official, not the media reporting what she said.

Same as those who report Trumps words...its not the media’s fault when he lies either.

 
knowledge dropper said:
I thought the point was to flush out and expose all falsehoods.  Not in this case?
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the point of this thread, no. But you've made your point that this former Obama staffer with no connection to the FBI or DOJ lied about her knowledge on television and was shown to be foolish when testifying in front of Congress. 

 
moleculo said:
you could also add that the Russians claimed they were in direct contact with Team Trump throughout the election (per Reuters).

I'm curious: at what point does smoke become actual fire?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it have already been a fire after the Mueller investigation?  

 
@ShannonBream

BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts has put on temporary hold the DOJ release of the Mueller grand jury material requested by the House committee, pending a response from House lawyers. #SCOTUS

8:47 AM · May 8, 2020·Twitter Web App

 
JbizzleMan said:
@ShannonBream

BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts has put on temporary hold the DOJ release of the Mueller grand jury material requested by the House committee, pending a response from House lawyers. #SCOTUS

8:47 AM · May 8, 2020·Twitter Web App
Click to expand...
What response is he seeking?

 
JbizzleMan said:
@ShannonBream

BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts has put on temporary hold the DOJ release of the Mueller grand jury material requested by the House committee, pending a response from House lawyers. #SCOTUS

8:47 AM · May 8, 2020·Twitter Web App
Click to expand...
This is sort of typical. It's on appeal, the WH has requested that the release be put on hold after the appeals court shot them down thoroughly on this. The House responds and the USSC can make it permanent on or not pending their decision.

In other news the White House is fighting tooth and nail to keep the Mueller materials from becoming public.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
What response is he seeking?
Click to expand...
NYT:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to block Congress from seeing grand jury secrets gathered in the Russia investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, saying the executive branch would suffer irreparable harm if lawmakers see the evidence.

In a 35-page filing, Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general, asked the justices to halt an order by a federal appeals court that imposed a May 11 deadline on the Justice Department to turn over the evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. He said the Justice Department should first get a chance to fully litigate an appeal of the ruling before the Supreme Court.

“The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. Once the government discloses the secret grand-jury records, their secrecy will irrevocably be lost,” Mr. Francisco wrote, adding, “That is particularly so when, as here, they are disclosed to a congressional committee and its staff.”

House Democrats have argued that they need to see the grand jury evidence in part because of suspicions that Mr. Trump may have lied under oath in his written answers to Mr. Mueller, including about his campaign’s advance knowledge of and contacts with WikiLeaks about its possession of hacked Democratic emails and plans to publish them.

But under Attorney General William P. Barr, the Justice Department has fought to prevent House investigators from seeing the grand-jury material, including information that was blacked out in the report on the Mueller investigation it released last year and underlying testimony transcripts those passages derived from.

Usually, Congress has no right to view grand jury evidence. But in 1974, the courts permitted lawmakers to see such materials as they weighed whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. Last summer, as the House Judiciary Committee weighed whether to impeach President Trump, it sought a judicial order to see certain Mueller grand jury materials, too.

The politically charged fight turns on a technical legal issue: whether the impeachment process, which begins with a House inquiry and can culminate in a Senate trial, counts as a “judicial proceeding” under an exception to grand-jury secrecy rules that permits sharing evidence for that purpose.

Both a Federal District Court judge ruled last fall, and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled this spring, that impeachment is a judicial proceeding, following the Nixon impeachment precedent. But the Trump administration has delayed any sharing of the evidence by continuing to argue at each level that it is not.

In the request to the Supreme Court that it halt the appeals court’s order that the Justice Department turn over the material by May 11, Mr. Francisco argued that “at least four justices” — the number necessary to take an appeal — are likely to decide that the Supreme Court should weigh in on the issue, and that “there is at least a fair prospect” that a majority will eventually rule in favor of Mr. Trump.

But if the House has already seen the evidence in the interim, he argued, the executive branch will be harmed even if it ultimately wins the case. He noted that nothing could stop House Democrats from publicly releasing the evidence Mr. Mueller gathered by a simple-majority vote in the Judiciary Committee.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is sort of typical. It's on appeal, the WH has requested that the release be put on hold after the appeals court shot them down thoroughly on this. The House responds and the USSC can make it permanent on or not pending their decision.

In other news the White House is fighting tooth and nail to keep the Mueller materials from becoming public.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Mueller materails completely exonerate the White House. 

 
Snotbubbles said:
What does that have to do with Mueller and his investigation?  Mueller was an independent special counsel.  He found everything, that could have been found.  
Click to expand...
Flynn was prosecuted by OSC & SDNY, so it was more than Mueller.

Mueller asked for *no jail time because of his cooperation.

Do you notice how Barr/Shea don’t say anything about the Turkey bribery/agent case?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Yes I read it...did you?

Please cite the reports stating the IRS targeted political enemies?  Because that is what you claimed.  I linked to the report and several articles stating otherwise.  Please post something credible that isn't just your claim of partisanship or propaganda.

And no, I will not stop posting links and reports to refute false claims you make.  
Click to expand...
This is partisan drivel that support your side. Not facts.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is sort of typical. It's on appeal, the WH has requested that the release be put on hold after the appeals court shot them down thoroughly on this. The House responds and the USSC can make it permanent on or not pending their decision.

In other news the White House is fighting tooth and nail to keep the Mueller materials from becoming public.
Click to expand...
Exactly...but yeah its Schiff that is nervous according to some.

 
I guess, what am I missing?

Documents come out that show the FBI tried to trap Flynn--and the DOJ is bad for letting him go?  I hope I'm not prosecuted if the FBI ever decides to go after me.  We should all be slamming the FBI here.  And instead the DOJ is the bad entity?

 
When this thing ends, what crimes are going to be charged against those on the "not Donald Trump/Michael Flynn" side? Asking sincerely......... Are we looking at Obama serving jail time? 

 
Thunderlips said:
When this thing ends, what crimes are going to be charged against those on the "not Donald Trump/Michael Flynn" side? Asking sincerely......... Are we looking at Obama serving jail time? 
Click to expand...
I think Trump supporters are awaiting the Durham hail mary. Horowitz has gone through it twice, DOJ did McCabe, Comey and Strzok, no charges, no charges, no charges. And Huber too. And Sullivan has already gone through all of Barr's claims. Jackson also heard it all from Stone too. Nada, zippo. - And personally I think even if Durham does trump something up, and he might, no judge will ever convict anyone and may even dismiss charges. Part of the problem with all this insane authoritarian puppeteering is that any defendant that comes in will have an immediate strong argument against whatever Durham brings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the last few pages of “discussions” going on I’m now 100% sure you guys are just about to convince each other that you’re right. Keep up the good fight, you’re all close. 

 
MS. HICKS: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

MR. SWALWELL: I had asked you if Mr. Flynn ever asked you to lie for him. You said: Not during the campaign. Then I asked you if you were talking about the transition, and you said yes.

MS. HICKS: Yes. So, I mean, obviously, I didn't know that it was a lie at the time, but I think, based on the reporting that we've seen since then, it would appear that he was not being truthful in his written responses. Remember, I never had a conversation with him about any of this. lt's all in writing, and it's his version of events. l'm merely suggesting that, if he would like that version of events to be captured in the story, instead of telling the group, he should tell the reporter.

++++++

Hope Hicks testified that Flynn was trying to get Trump transition aides to lie to reporters.

 
MR, SWALWELL: Ms, Hicks, thank you for clarifying, but my question was more broadly, has Mr. Trump ever asked you to lie for him?

MS. HICKS: And I decline to answer the broader question.

MR. SWALWELL: Under what basis are you declining to answer?

MR. TROUT: She is declining to answer because she's declining to answer

+++++++++++

MR. SWALWELL: Ms. Hicks, are you refusing to answer whether you've ever lied for Mr. Trump?

MS. HICKS: Yes.

+++++++++++

MR. SWALWELL: Have you ever seen or witnessed Mr. Trump ask others to lie in your presence?

MS. HICKS: I decline to answer

+++++++++++

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MR. SWALWELL: Did Mr. Flynn post-campaign ever ask you to represent something that you knew to be false that he wanted you to represent to be true?

MS. HICKS: lt was after the campaign

+++++++++++++++

 
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
197
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top