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 (4 Viewers)

Slapdash said:
Imagine firing up an alias to do this.
Click to expand...
Isn't 'Slapdash' an alias for your real name?  If so, then I would suggest that getting all butt hurt about alias' seems a bit hypocritical.  If not, and 'Slapdash' is actually your real name, then carry on your conversation with the FBG self-appointed board cop and link manager.

Honestly, the amount of fake outrage and clutching pearls that go on in here about user names would make a Mexican soap opera envious.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lol:

Judge Amy Berman Jackson wants to see Roger Stone's commutation paperwork, after questions have arisen about whether President Trump's clemency covers only Stone's prison time or also his probation. US Probation Office has raised questions about the commutation

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SoBeDad said:
"I don't really feel like arguing with this negro.”

Stone being treated very unfairly again. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/1284673373734350848

Stone told a local supporter that he reaffirmed his relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't know what's in his heart, but I have my doubts. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/miami.cbslocal.com/2020/07/14/roger-stone-jim-defede-prison-sentence-commuted-interview/amp/
Click to expand...
This whole administration is a bad nightmare of what a terrible administration should be...

 
Mr. Ham said:
I have a suspicion that Trump is going to end up “winning” in November, under extremely unsettling circumstances. If that happens, I know people talk about it, but we’re making arrangements to leave the country formerly known as the United States. It’s currently under the thumb of a dictator, and four more years will seal the end of the Republic.

If you simply observe what’s occurring, it’s quite clear Trump is aware of his criminality and is obstructing multiple state prosecutions by installing cronies. This kind of rampant abuse of power was never supposed to happen here, and yet here it is. 

Top candidates for our family are Ireland and New Zealand. Luckily, I have a job where relocating is an option, and will execute the option if Trump isn’t ousted.
Click to expand...
That sounds awesome!  Win-Win. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Trump continues to obstruct justice, kowtow to Putin, thank pedophila pimps, deny science, and unleash private mercenary armies in cities. It’s unraveling badly for everyone. Thankfully, more of Trump’s “impenetrable” base seems to realize it.
Click to expand...
I don't even know how to respond to you GB other than it is amazing to me these are really your views.  I was upset when Obama won but I made it through okay, you will too.

 
Don't Noonan said:
I don't even know how to respond to you GB other than it is amazing to me these are really your views.  I was upset when Obama won but I made it through okay, you will too.
Click to expand...
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:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
I would advise that you broaden where you get information

  • Obstructing: Trump has ordered Barr to force prosecutors out of the 3 State AG offices investigating him in the last month. Berman in SDNY is the most public firing and described the outer and its corruption in House testimony. As an aside, Barr also retaliated against Cohen by placing him back in prison, as determined by a federal judge. That's more abuse of power though.
  • Putin: Putin placed bounties on US soldiers heads, and tested missile defense systems, and Trump has said nothing. Before you attempt to deny the bounties, look at the level of detail in the open source reporting here.
  • Ghislaine Maxwell: Trump wished her well the other day, which is extremely unsettling and frankly suspicious given similarities in language to others with potential leverage over him (Flynn, Stone, Manafort)
  • Deny Science: History will show, and the data certainly does, that Trump's denial of fact and constant lying in regard to COVID cost tens of thousands of lives (maybe into the hundreds of thousands) and delayed economic recovery. Later generations will feel the effects from client denial.
  • Even Fox News calls "crackdown" in Portland illegal and Unconstitutional. We have no idea if private contractors have been procured, because the soldiers illegally wear private identifiers and not those designated by any legitimate military or law enforcement authority.
It's happening. It's fact.
Click to expand...
None of these are facts, just your opinions.  Which of course you are entitled to have.

 
Mr. Ham said:
You’re not entitled to call facts opinions, and your opinions facts. I backed mine.
Click to expand...
I never called my opinions facts.   :lol:   You backed your opinions with opinions of others.  It has not been proven Russia put a bounty on U.S. soldiers.  Trump followed the lead health experts like any President should do.  In fact, he suggested wearing masks when Fauci said it wasn't required.  He also blocked travel from other countries to Democrats outspoken hate, which some have now admitted was right.  The Portland unrest again falls in Democratic run states, it is awful and I say this as someone who grew up in Oregon and went to college in Portland.  Trump is the perfect President to be in charge now as he will not put up with out of control riots.  God bless him.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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. 

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

 
dkp993 said:
2 months!  Holy ####.  What did he say to earn that?
Click to expand...
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
Reactions: rct
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.
Click to expand...
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 
Click to expand...
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

 
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. 

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

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...



 
@Opie

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.
Click to expand...
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
Reactions: rct
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.
Click to expand...
What does Ummm mean? 

 
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
Reactions: rct
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.
Click to expand...
How so?  Is this your opinion?  Or the NYTimes?  Wapo?  Who's saying they didn't hold up well and based on what?

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.           

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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?

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
(The bit about if you have to explain it, it probably wasn't very funny comes to mind here.)
Click to expand...
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.)

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.  

 
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
200
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top