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 (16 Viewers)

What the FBI did is criminalize routine diplomacy with Russia.  Flynn was telling Kislyak ‘look don’t over react, when we get in we’ll start with a clean slate.’  It’s really not controversial at all.  There is nothing wrong with that from the standpoint of an incoming transition govt.   There was no crime the FBI had in mind to interview him about. 

But people were lathered up with collusion theories.  Flynn was immediately cast as part of a nonexistent conspiracy between Trump & Russia.  This was around the time that every single news reporter was asking Trump “what about Russia” and the walls were closing in.  Barring some sort of Logan Act Hail Mary, Flynn hadn’t actually broken any laws.  

The only “collusion” Flynn sought from Russia, was for them to go along with Israel on a UN settlement vote.  And Russia voted against them anyway.  The work Flynn took with Turkish agents, by the way, wasn’t on behalf of sinister Kremlin operatives- that’s our NATO pals.  Turkey is our NATO partner.  

I think people have been inclined to overlook some subterranean behavior against the Trump people because they don’t like them.  But it’s impossible to reconcile the FBI’s handling of Clinton (‘keep in mind this could be the incoming president’) against its strongarming of Flynn ("Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"), and threatening to go after his kid.  There’s really no disputing that the FBI had a differing set of operating principles in its approach to the Trump campaign.  

As if it could possibly get any worse, the conspiracy theories were driven chiefly by the Clinton campaign, in its commission of a dossier loaded with absolute horse#### yet taken seriously as an intel document by uncritical buffoons at the FBI.  

Trump was elected President.  They deserved a chance to start with a clean slate, just like any other administration.  2016 was an opportunity for Dems to learn a lesson, and remake themselves in the country’s image.  Instead we got 3 years of Cold War hysteria and Dems blaming their failure on Russia.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck said:
Remember when Clinton had an illegal email server and lied about it.  And people still dismiss it with “but emails”.  A few even said until she’s convicted of something she did nothing wrong.  Didn’t seem to be about following the law then.   Bottom line is no charges against Flynn.  
Click to expand...
The conviction still exists. The judge already considered everything argument that the DOJ just made for the defense and had previously ruled against it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The conviction still exists. The judge already considered everything argument that the DOJ just made for the defense and had previously ruled against it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but now the convicted criminal railroaded defendant is exerting his "takesies-backsies" rights, so the judge should listen to the DOJ prosecutors appointed flunkie that doesn't want to see Flynn go to jail.

For real though, some of the notes from the FBI investigation have been made public. How common is that? Do others convicted on federal charges get afforded the same treatment?

 
The Z Machine said:
Yeah, but now the convicted criminal railroaded defendant is exerting his "takesies-backsies" rights, so the judge should listen to the DOJ prosecutors appointed flunkie that doesn't want to see Flynn go to jail.

For real though, some of the notes from the FBI investigation have been made public. How common is that? Do others convicted on federal charges get afforded the same treatment?
Click to expand...
No, continuous document washing and the DOJ spilling out files for defendants for publication is not something that happens. Every issue in those notes and other documents was already considered and shot down by the judge.

 
So what will the political impact of this story be? 

IMO, much like the Tara Reade accusation against Joe Biden, zero. 

Between now and the election the only thing the public cares about is the coronavirus and the resulting economic catastrophe. The rest is noise. 

 
"Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows."

“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”

“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.

“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.

“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.

“No,” Farkas admitted.

“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.

“Correct,” Farkas responded.

Gowdy didn’t stop there.

“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.

“Correct,” Farkas answered.

“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.

“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.

Farkas, a Democrat, is currently running for Congress in New York’s 17th district.

 
timschochet said:
So what will the political impact of this story be? 

IMO, much like the Tara Reade accusation against Joe Biden, zero. 

Between now and the election the only thing the public cares about is the coronavirus and the resulting economic catastrophe. The rest is noise. 
Click to expand...
The political impact won't be felt in elections, but in the evermore brazen actions by the DOJ and executive branch to exert political interference into federal criminal investigations and prosecutions.  The road map has been made for future administrations to further abuse their power and suffer little to no repercussions.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
"Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows."

“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”

“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.

“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.

“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.

“No,” Farkas admitted.

“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.

“Correct,” Farkas responded.

Gowdy didn’t stop there.

“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.

“Correct,” Farkas answered.

“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.

“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.

Farkas, a Democrat, is currently running for Congress in New York’s 17th district.
Click to expand...
Weird how they went out and proved that case and Flynn plead guilty and then plead guilty again and then didn't want to take back those guilty pleas when the judge asked.  The Deep State guys are good!

 
Cjw_55106 said:
"Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows."

“Why don’t we go back to that sentence that I just asked you about. It says ‘the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their staff dealing with Russians,” Gowdy said. “Well, how would you know what the U.S. government knew at that point? You didn’t work for it, did you?”

“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.

“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.

“Did you have information connecting the Trump campaign to the hack of the DNC?” Gowdy asked.

“No,” Farkas admitted.

“So when you say, ‘We knew,’ the reality is you knew nothing,” Gowdy asked later during the deposition.

“Correct,” Farkas responded.

Gowdy didn’t stop there.

“So when you say ‘knew,’ what you really meant was felt?” he asked.

“Correct,” Farkas answered.

“You didn’t know anything?” Gowdy continued.

“That’s correct,” Farkas responded.

Farkas, a Democrat, is currently running for Congress in New York’s 17th district.
Click to expand...
She doesn't sound like someone I'd want representing me in Congress. 

 
Cjw_55106 said:
“I didn’t,” said Farkas, a former mid-level Russia analyst who left the federal government in 2015.

“Then how did you know?” Gowdy responded.

“I didn’t know anything,” Farkas said.
Click to expand...
This is the transcript.

- Sorry, before getting further into this, what does a Defense official who left in 2015 have to do with this?

I'll also point out for the 100th time the Republicans always, always post documents that aren't searchable. It's just funny that's all.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
The political impact won't be felt in elections, but in the evermore brazen actions by the DOJ and executive branch to exert political interference into federal criminal investigations and prosecutions.  The road map has been made for future administrations to further abuse their power and suffer little to no repercussions.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins. 

If he loses? 

There are basically two possible outcomes: the first is that future administrations from both parties will take advantage of Trump’s subversion of the political system, the Justice Department, expansion of executive authority, refusal to work with Congress, corruption, etc. and imitate it. The second outcome is that this is all a one-off, like Warren Harding was a one-off, and when Trump is gone future Presidents will behave as before without abusing the office. 

I lean toward the latter, though I have no idea. 

 
GoBirds said:
Not as much as I am for a great teaching moment for the extremists that bought into this hoax and pushed its agenda at any means necessary. Great news regarding Flynn, hope it’s a good learning experience for those that pushed this agenda for years. 
Click to expand...
Its not a hoax...Flynn actually dod what he was accused of.

You are now applauding unconfirmed portiina of the DOJ acting in a political manner vs a legal one.  Likely at the direction of the executive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Republicans called her to testify about something she said on tv.

She had nothing to do with the investigation.
Click to expand...
I assume because she was in the Obama administration at the time of the DNC hacking and claimed she had collusion evidence. I dont know how she wouldn't be called to testify.  

 
Cjw_55106 said:
I assume because she was in the Obama administration at the time of the DNC hacking and claimed she had collusion evidence. I dont know how she wouldn't be called to testify.  
Click to expand...
No, that's incorrect. Farkas was on Msnbc and she argued that IC officials should disseminate counterintelligence information within the IC to prevent it from being suppressed by the incoming Trump administration.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are “consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.” Gov’t’s Surreply, ECF No. 132 at 4-5. The Court rejects Mr. Flynn’s request for additional information regarding the drafting process for the FD-302s and a search for the “original 302,” see Def.’s Sur-Surreply, ECF No. 135 at 8- 10, because the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD-302, and Mr. Flynn’s own admissions of his false statements make clear that Mr. Flynn made those false statements.
Click to expand...
- Judge Sullivan.

Sullivan went on to rule that Flynn's claims his lies were not "material" were also denied.

Everything Barr just filed on behalf of the defense was already seen, heard and ruled on by the judge, including the notes.

 
sho nuff said:
Yeah...but what about Hillary?
Click to expand...
Something that is little discussed is that Horowitz - the IG - found that the DOJ had planted a mole in the Clinton Foundation, something that they are often accused of with the Trump campaign but which they never did to them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Punxsutawney Phil said:
Wasn't Flynn's son into pizzagate?  I wonder what the FBI was going to charge him with?  I'm sure he must have done something bad if Flynn was going to plead guilty to prevent him from being charged.
Click to expand...
Flynn's son was under investigation as a Sec. 951 foreign agent. So was Flynn. That's not FARA, that's a foreign agent.

 
Cjw_55106 said:
The point is, the media has a huge influence in this country and they have no shame putting lies out there as long as you are lying for the right party. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
sho nuff said:
Not sure that was ever the point to figure out if someone unrelated to the investigation lied to a news network.

Otherwise the sheer number of government officials who have lied to the media would tale up a whole lot of space.
Click to expand...
So you are okay with SOME people telling falsehood based upon where their beliefs fall on the political spectrum.  Nice to know.  

 
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: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Top