Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Trump Commutes Stone's Sentence

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Thankfully I have a good marriage, because I imagine this is the feeling someone has when they decide the only option left is divorce. 

Uhm...you're the one that's going to move out of the US, not us.  :shrug:

You and all those people who said they would move if Trump won in 2016 who are all still here, anyways.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Uhm...you're the one that's going to move, not us.  :shrug:

I’m really not kidding. I don’t think the rest of the country can reconcile with what amounts roughly to the Trump base. Because when there is no agreement on what facts are, there can be no consensus, no constructive debate. I’m not even interested in ascribing blame or trying to untangle it at this point. I’d rather congregate with the people I respect who assimilate information in ways I respect. So happens that can be done more easily in some countries than others.

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

I’m really not kidding. I don’t think the rest of the country can reconcile with what amounts roughly to the Trump base. Because when there is no agreement on what facts are, there can be no consensus. 

Great!  Are you going to renounce your citizenship too?  I mean, if you're committed then you need to commit 100%.

I think you better prepare yourself for fall to see who America is actually going to renounce.  Good luck on your move, though!

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Uhm...you're the one that's going to move out of the US, not us.  :shrug:

You and all those people who said they would move if Trump won in 2016 who are all still here, anyways.

I didn’t say I’d leave in 2016. I voted for Trump, mainly to cancel my wife’s Hillary vote. I have made inquiries at work about leaving if Trump wins in 2020. I have talked to my wife and had serious discussions about feasibility. I think there is a better than even chance we will go if Trump wins.

And I suspect rather than thinking about losing a skilled worker with a high paying job who pays a lot in taxes, you’ll be more inclined to think you owned a lib. And that’s fine. 

As far as renouncing my citizenship, of course not. I’ll merely renounce those who have diminished its worth.

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Amazing and the claims aren’t accurate. Be careful though football season is too close and he reported Tony and he got 2 months. Have a great weekend. :hifive:

Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices?  Damn

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mr. Ham said:

I didn’t say I’d leave in 2016. I voted for Trump, mainly to cancel my wife’s Hillary vote. I have made inquiries at work about leaving if Trump wins in 2020. I have talked to my wife and had serious discussions about feasibility. I think there is a better than even chance we will go if Trump wins.

And I suspect rather than thinking about losing a skilled worker with a high paying job who pays a lot in taxes, you’ll be more inclined to think you owned a lib. And that’s fine. 

As far as renouncing my citizenship, of course not. I’ll merely renounce those who have diminished its worth.

That's fine, but I'm sure the Democrats don't care.

And I"m not thinking I "owned" a lib.  However, it's sad that your views are so over-the-top dramatic and hyperbolic it's a wonder you're actually still here, TBH.  It's these over-the-top reactions TO EVERYTHING that are the part of the problem.  When everyone is Hitler, no one is Hitler.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices?  Damn

Apparently, just another day. Be safe out there. :loco:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Uhm...you're the one that's going to move out of the US, not us.  :shrug:

You and all those people who said they would move if Trump won in 2016 who are all still here, anyways.

It seems like something you hear a lot on the Left but rarely ever see anyone follow through on it although many posters in here that spend a lot of time bashing Trump don’t live in the US....it’s possible they moved cause of him I guess? The Obama years were brutal but I don’t ever remember saying I was monitor another country, seems extreme in my opinion. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It seems like something you hear a lot on the Left but rarely ever see anyone follow through on it although many posters in here that spend a lot of time bashing Trump don’t live in the US....it’s possible they moved cause of him I guess? The Obama years were brutal but I don’t ever remember saying I was monitor another country, seems extreme in my opinion. 

I’ll bite. With specific examples, how were the Obama years brutal? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

I"m not thinking I "owned" a lib.  However,

My views are in line with unprecedented erosion of political norms and institutions. We must have a completely different idea of the propriety of the Administrative Branch and it’s purpose, because it has in equal parts been abused to further person interests, and abused minorities. 

It’s hard given the totality of our history to say that’s not America. But it’s not the America many bled for coming out of the Jim Crow South and segregation. It’s an America the best of us renounced and worked hard to impede.  

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

My views are in line with unprecedented erosion of political norms and institutions. We must have a completely different idea of the propriety of the Administrative Branch and it’s purpose, because it has in equal parts been abused to further person interests, and abused minorities. 

It’s hard given the totality of our history to say that’s not America. But it’s not the America many bled for coming out of the Jim Crow South and segregation. It’s an America the best of us renounced and worked hard to impede.  

If you were that concerned you would have moved out during the Obama years.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Tony got 2 months for basically congratulating the guy for being in a position to have choices?  Damn

2 months!  Holy ####.  What did he say to earn that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

2 months!  Holy ####.  What did he say to earn that?

Given history here...probably more than what hets claimed.  Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

Given history here...probably more than what hets claimed.  Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.

Read the post and cut the nonsense that people are claiming something different.  Jesus you never stop

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dkp993 said:

2 months!  Holy ####.  What did he say to earn that?

It’s on the previous page. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Ham said:
  • Putin: Putin placed bounties on US soldiers heads
    Before you attempt to deny the bounties, look at the level of detail in the open source reporting here.

This one was almost certainly fake news 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Given history here...probably more than what hets claimed.  Often times anyone complains about a suspension, a mod comes in...shows the actual offense and its far different than the story told.

No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior. 

I read that as win win meaning either his guy wins the election or ham is in a position to have choices and move somewhere he desires.  Everyone doesn’t have those choices I certainly don’t.   My 2 cents but I’ll stay out of it

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a plumbing issue and called a local place. Was talking to the guy they sent, white, early 40's. Spent 2.5 years in a hard prison in his 20's. For getting caught growing 6 marijuana plants in his basement.  Yet Stone walks free. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

I read that as win win meaning either his guy wins the election or ham is in a position to have choices and move somewhere he desires.  Everyone doesn’t have those choices I certainly don’t.   My 2 cents but I’ll stay out of it

I can see that too. I think mostly it just speaks to how the moderators are sick of the toolish back and forth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

No. Actually this one was mostly just the mod being sick of it. Tony said something about it being a win if Ham moved away. People instantly reported it. Moderator was sick of asking people to be cool and he got suspended. I wouldn't have done it that long. But I also understand when the moderators are just sick of the never ending tool behavior. 

Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands.  Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.

Share this post


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

Fair enough...my point about past complaints stands.  Often someone claims they got suspended for something small and the mod comes in and states it was worse than claimed.

Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Unbelievable, even when talking with the owner you feel the need to justify your post and get in the last word.

Thanks for the input...totally necessary to post such things.  I had a civil few posts with the owner.  I think such exchanges are allowed just fine.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 10:33 PM, Ramblin Wreck said:

Read the post and cut the nonsense that people are claiming something different.  Jesus you never stop

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got around to reading this, which I suspect must be music to George P’s ears.  It really functions more as a testimony than anything else.  It’s a very long read but an important one.  

McCabe’s FBI subordinate Peter Strzok — who earlier texted that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was like an “insurance policy” in case of Trump’s election which “[w]e’ll stop” and he could “SMELL the Trump support” at a Walmart — intervened on January 4 to pull the memo terminating Flynn’s investigation.

The next day, January 5, Strzok attended an Oval Office Meeting with President Obama, National Security Adviser Rice, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director Comey. Among the topics were intercepted calls between Flynn and Russia’s Ambassador discussing sanctions. Strzok’s notes indicate Vice President Biden suggested that Flynn somehow violated a 216-year-old, possibly unconstitutional, and never successfully prosecuted, law called the Logan Act.

All of this — White House discussions, the taping of Flynn, Flynn-Russia conversations — were highly classified. They were never supposed to go public. If no one commits a felony by leaking them, this whole situation likely disappears. It is hard to believe anyone in Trump’s White House, or even in the last days of Obama’s presidency, would try to prosecute Flynn for a “Logan Act” violation of a possibly unconstitutional law he probably didn’t even violate, and that hasn’t been successfully prosecuted in its over two centuries of existence.

If this law — created to stop private citizens from intervening in foreign affairs — applied to incoming presidential teams, likely Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and most of the incoming international teams of Presidents Obama, Bush, Reagan, and Clinton would be guilty. Under our Constitution, it is the job of presidential campaigns to announce how they will change policy. So, unless someone commits the leak against Flynn, this all would be resolved internally. It is never transformed into a public Russia-Trump conspiracy tearing our country apart. But as we all now know, and history recorded, that is not what happened.

Five days after that the January 5 Oval Office meeting, I met Halper in Virginia. I didn’t think much about that meeting until Durham’s team requested I review my records. Because Halper had seemed increasingly erratic in our dealings, making it difficult to advance my doctoral work, I requested to start recording our conversations back in 2015 to document his guidance. 

When I listened to my January 10, 2017 recording a few weeks ago, I expected to find boring academic discussions. Instead I found something else.

In the recording Halper laid out what was about to happen to Flynn, something he had no independent reason to know. “I don’t think Flynn’s going to be around long,” he said, adding, “the way these things work” was that “opponents… so-called enemies” of Flynn would be “looking for ways of exerting pressure…that’s how it builds.” 

Flynn, he said, would be “squeezed pretty hard,” and Flynn’s “reaction to that is to blow up and get angry. He’s really ####ed. I don’t where he goes from there. But that is his reaction. That’s why he’s so unsuitable.” ...

 

One of the remaining tasks of investigators is determining the precise source of the leaks about Flynn to the Washington Post. These leaks were a critical inflection point. They revived the Trump-Russia investigations that were about to die and stopped Flynn before he could expose the fabrications and incompetence behind it all.

This is not a classic whistleblowing situation, wherein the confidentiality of the leaker should ideally remain sacrosanct in light of an important, socially-beneficial disclosure. This is the opposite: a leak seemingly manufactured with the intent of creating a media firestorm around a figure the FBI had already investigated, to no effect. The FBI’s key “confidential” source was already naming himself in a major global newspaper as he openly pushed Russia conspiracy theories.  ...

My former supervisor, using his booming voice and bold ideas, likes to be the center of attention. Yet for two years his allies with powerful intelligence, political, and media ties seem to have done the impossible. They made this massive figure almost completely disappear.

The Mueller and DOJ IG investigations of these scandals relied in large part on input from DOJ and FBI officials linked to potential abuses — including the FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Lisa Page and DOJ’s Andrew Weisman. When Congress grilled long-time FBI leader Mueller about why he didn’t interview “Steven Schrage” or others who might expose DOJ or FBI improprieties, he stammered: “n those areas, I am going to stay away from…I stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that, which is - which is not in the report.” 

Given Mueller’s stated preference to “stay away” from those with information that might implicate members of his team and the DOJ IG’s reliance on DOJ insiders, it’s not surprising that people like me who were in a position to expose the Russiagate narrative were not interviewed. 

What is surprising for anyone valuing journalistic standards, is that those under government investigation for abuses of power have so easily avoided hard questions. Some have even been given media contractsto spin their own actions. Imagine if Nixon’s allies appointed the Watergate burglars to investigate themselves, then placed them in nightly news positions where they could attack anyone questioning them. Politics shouldn’t destroy our principles.

There is too much to fully detail here, but further revelations – and they are forthcoming – will make these moves even more damning. How Cambridge Four members and Carter Page came together is a comedy of errors rivaling Dumb and Dumber. An FBI source had information that should have stopped Carter Page’s invasive surveillance in August 2016 before it started. A covert anti-Trump operative sought to be appointed to one of the world’s most powerful positions that could be used to undermine the president. 

Evidence suggests undisclosed famous officials, including Republicans, tried to cover up their links to Steele’s smears. The IG report contains statements by Crossfire officials that appear factual inaccurate, inherently inconsistent, or highly improbable, raising questions about whether they risked prosecution to conceal their acts.

“I don’t remember.” That should be the official, trademarked motto of the government officials involved in these events. It is what former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates responded under oath this past Wednesday. 

She had been asked if Vice President Biden raised the Logan Act in their Oval Office discussion of Flynn on January 5, 2017, seven days before the felony leak on Flynn’s alleged “Logan Act” violation was published. Flynn’s appeals hearing is on Tuesday, and Vice President Biden and President Trump are on the ballot in less than 90 days. These issues should be beyond politics. They should have been dealt with before now. They would have, if Washington insiders could “remember” things, like how to provide legally-mandated documents under our Constitution or their duties to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Opie

Quote

Believe it.

You cannot "pick and choose" which lines of a document are true or not.
if any part of it cannot be validated, it, in itself, cannot be submitted as "validated" evidence.

If you believe that part of a document is true, you have to submit evidence to validate that, in itself...
The original document is out.

Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true.  Only parts of the information were submitted.  If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.

I don't believe you are accurately reflecting what went on in the FISA Warrant or the investigation at all.  Please cite where you are getting this.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

@Opie

Ummm...Actually, you can pick and choose which lines are true.  Only parts of the information were submitted.  If you have information refuting that...that the whole document was included...please post it.

I don't believe you are accurately reflecting what went on in the FISA Warrant or the investigation at all.  Please cite where you are getting this.

What does Ummm mean? 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

How so?  Is this your opinion?  Or the NYTimes?  Wapo?  Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Doesn't say much about how they'll rule necessarily, but Flynn's lawyers didn't hold up very well with the full DC Circuit today.  Outside Henderson and Rao (the two who found in favor of Flynn in the 3-judge panel), it's not clear that Flynn's position has a lot of additional support.

Very intelligent thread from people who actually understand what's going on in the questioning.

Ends by agreeing that it's likely 8-2 or 7-3 in Judge Sullivan's favor.  If so, Trump got lucky that the only two judges clearly supporting his position were on the initial panel of three.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

How so?  Is this your opinion?  Or the NYTimes?  Wapo?  Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?

They got asked legal questions and didn't have very good answers.  They contradicted the law, contradicted themselves and have taken a position so extreme that they were forced into arguing, in court, in front of actual judges, that even if a prosecutor was on videotape being bribed to drop a case the judge in the case could not investigate.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.  Awfully hard for prosecutors to investigate, charge, argue motions, accept TWO guilty pleas, and then claim that it was all done in error and seek dismissal.  While prosecutorial discretion is important, it should involve matters of prosecution - not carrying out Bill Barr's political agenda to absolve the crimes the President's cronies. 

Trump will likely pardon Flynn because there is absolutely no accountability or culpability in this regime - they just do what they want and get away with it.  Heck, we have the President's own fixer convicted and sentenced for paying off porn stars with hush money at the President's bidding.  Cohen's telling all who will listen about the scheme, but does anyone do anything? Of course not, because this President has insulated himself with sycophants and loyalists in the Senate, the Justice Department, the Cabinet, and even the Post Office!  More corrupt than Nixon, and yet he stands a good chance of being re-elected, because he has gone full speed ahead with the authoritarian playbook.           

Share this post


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

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

Share this post


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

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

So it's a paradox?

If they were to find that it was a political sham they'd be implicitly accepting the plaintiff's arguments and would, therefore, have to find in his favor and dismiss the case against him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

So it's a paradox?

If they were to find that it was a political sham they'd be implicitly accepting the plaintiff's arguments and would, therefore, have to find in his favor and dismiss the case against him?

Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.

The question of whether the requested dismissal a sham is therefore not before this appellate court, and it is unlikely to state an opinion about it.

Share this post


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

Flynn is not arguing that the dismissal should be granted because it's not a sham. He's arguing that the dismissal should be granted without regard to whether it's a sham.

The question of whether the requested dismissal a sham is therefore not before this appellate court, and it is unlikely to state an opinion about it.

Right.  But IF they did find it a a political sham it would be absent evidence from the trial court.  Which, in turn, would mean they could accept Flynn's arguments re: Sullivan -- which also lack a fact trail at this point since Sullivan hasn't actually held the hearing in question yet.

(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)

I was pretty sure you were making a joke, but I couldn't tell what it was. (I read your post as if you meant to say "defendant" instead of "plaintiff," but I still couldn't follow it since Flynn isn't arguing that the request for dismissal is a political sham.)

Share this post


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

Before Sullivan even holds his hearing to inquire about the Justice Department's motivation for seeking dismissal, what's the evidence already in the record that it's a political sham? That seems like a leap the appellate court will not make.

True, the DC Circuit will determine whether Judge Sullivan has the discretionary authority to conduct a more thorough "investigation"* into the propriety of the motion to dismiss being filed after two guilty pleas have been entered and prior to the Flynn's sentencing. They will not review or discuss whether political motives are in play.  Those political motives could come up if, and when, Sullivan's "investigation" is authorized by the DC Circuit and resumes before Judge Sullivan. 

In my opinion, the motion to dismiss has no rational basis and lacks any objective, good faith justification.  In my view, it is an openly hostile and blatantly political move by newly appointed Justice Department officials seeking to cover up and normalize the corrupt practices of this administration.

*By "investigation" I am merely referring to Sullivan's demand for further information before granting the motion to dismiss - not a formal investigation by the Justice Department.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mookie said:

Let's hope the DC Circuit calls out the Justice Department for what the motion to dismiss really is - a political sham.  Awfully hard for prosecutors to investigate, charge, argue motions, accept TWO guilty pleas, and then claim that it was all done in error and seek dismissal.  While prosecutorial discretion is important, it should involve matters of prosecution - not carrying out Bill Barr's political agenda to absolve the crimes the President's cronies. 

Trump will likely pardon Flynn because there is absolutely no accountability or culpability in this regime - they just do what they want and get away with it.  Heck, we have the President's own fixer convicted and sentenced for paying off porn stars with hush money at the President's bidding.  Cohen's telling all who will listen about the scheme, but does anyone do anything? Of course not, because this President has insulated himself with sycophants and loyalists in the Senate, the Justice Department, the Cabinet, and even the Post Office!  More corrupt than Nixon, and yet he stands a good chance of being re-elected, because he has gone full speed ahead with the authoritarian playbook.           

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

lol.  I just came from a thread where you chastised a poster for passing off his opinion as fact.  too funny.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, zoonation said:

lol.  I just came from a thread where you chastised a poster for passing off his opinion as fact.  too funny.

Well it seems that the Justice department agrees with me.  :shrug:

 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

Well it seems that the Justice department agrees with me.  :shrug:

 

You mean Barr?   I doubt even he believes it.  It’s not about that though.  

But the Justice Department more broadly?  No chance.  ~ 2,000 ex justice department prosecutors penned a letter to Barr expressing their horror.  It was an assault on the rule of law.  

but you’re free to believe whatever you want.  I’d suggest less hyperbole when expressing your opinion and less hypocrisy when describing the posts of others.  

Cheers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

The FBI asked Flynn questions that they already knew the answers to to see if he would lie to them. And then when he did lie, they used that against him to prosecute him.

Railroaded? Maybe. But its done ALL THE TIME.

I assume you think the FBI should no longer do this to any people under investigation? And the ones who have been convicted should have their convictions thrown out?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

There is ZERO doubt now that Flynn was railroaded by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress and intelligence.  It's all over but this now.

This will end up overturned either way.

Such hyperbole.  Zero doubt, in allcaps?  You sure about that, especially when Flynn pled guilty ... TWICE? 

A Democratic conspiracy, while the Republicans controlled the Oval office AND both the House and Senate? 

You are correct that the 3 Judge panel will likely be overturned by the full DC Circuit, meaning that the Motion to Dismiss is highly likely to be further scrutinized by Judge Sullivan.  I don't think that was what you meant. 

Maybe Sullivan just makes the Justice Department engage in legal gymnastics before dismissing the case.  Or maybe he refuses to dismiss the case because it is so transparently political.  If no dismissal happens, or if this drags on into the weeks before the November election, Trump will have to consider pardoning a known and admitted felon who lied about his Russian contacts in the days before the 2016 election (perhaps this is the other way of overturning you are referring to?).  That's not the kind of front page news you want before another election, but I guess the normal response in these times is to blame Obama.

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.