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 (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter whoknew
- Start date
Skoo
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
IMO, which is meaningless...your thinking is backwards. Saying "We need to get rid of the GOP because they pose a clear and present danger to the United States" is an incredibly silly thing to say when you live in a country in which the GOP controls the Senate, House and presidency. The issue is that half of your country is in favor of things like repealing Obamacare, closing the borders, etc.
So if the policies destroy the country, it's the fault of the people.
As an aside, the fear-mongering regarding the "other party" is something I've seen for my entire adult life. Republicans thought Obama was going to destroy the US, Democrats thought Bush was going to destroy the US, now they think Trump will...
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The DOJ has argued in court that TrumpTweets are statements of US government policy as well.
McCarthy may be right - loved him in Weekend at Bernies, btw - but, I don't think anyone has put together a case like this - ever. So its dangerous to impute how you might put together other major cases.
I think there is more to this than simply Logan Act and obstruction. Mueller would not need to prosecute Flynn at all on the lying to the FBI/FARA charges. If this was simply a political case - obstruction of justice v. Trump - then Mueller would simply issue a final report, and turn it over to the Justice Department, and probably (maybe?), congressional leaders - and let Congress decide where to go from here. Any federal prosecutor could handle a "lying to the FBI" charge - no need for a team of "all-stars" to bother with something that straightforward.
If there are grounds to charge Flynn with more - and I am not saying Mueller has that necessarily - then the danger to charging on those crimes, before Mueller is ready to move after the bigger fish, is that it would consume Washington, and the rest of the country for a long time, which would be incredibly harmful to the country - even considering the damage Trump does every day - because this would be damage on top of Trump's carnage.
I think, that if there are bigger charges to follow - impeachable charges - they will come suddenly and with such force, that they are dealt with expeditiously - at least as much as possible. If you charge Flynn now - or anyone else - then its just rank speculation as to how far, wide and deep it goes. Much better to have the case laid out in full - than get caught in a never-ending Mensch/Abramson/Taylor/ et al. twitter storm...
shader
Footballguy
Biggest media-driven story of the year, 8-9 month investigation, 1204 pages and you've got Manafort on a tax evasion and Flynn for lying (which we knew 11 months ago!) But hey...it's gonna happen anyday now, right?
I mean..it might happen. I'm not predicting anything. But this thread is FULL of wishcasting..
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree - obviously. I think the majority of GOP voters vote against their own self-interest because they don't know any better.
Now, some vote for their own self-interest - and they fund those candidate to further their self-interest. But the average, everyday, working American loses under almost all GOP policies.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The whole post is great, thanks.
About this, one of McCarthy's crucial points is that supposedly prosecutors bring the heaviest possible charges to force the maximum pressure on cooperators. However I don't see how charging Flynn with everything possibly at stake, which I have read could be as much as 60 years, could be pushed down to near zero like it is here. Flynn would likely think he's screwed with jail time anyway, so what's the point of cooperating with that?
the moops
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
The President's NSA pleading guilty to lying to the FBI........that's a big deal in case you were wondering.
It's already happening buddy.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
How often does the cooperating witness actually get charged and plead guilty before the end of the investigation? And how often is that person then charged with a more serious offense?
The me thing that would really make sense though is if Mueller's endgame is impeachment. If that's the case, then he's really after information more than he is the best legal case to take to a jury.
shader
Footballguy
The average GOP voter would say the exact opposite about the Democrats. Which is true? Your viewpoint is quite clearly that the Republican voters are voting against their own self-interests because they aren't smart enough...which is demeaning and silly.
shader
Footballguy
Yeah. His lying cost him his job and he got a slap on the wrist from Mueller. Now maybe he sings like a canary. I'm interested to see what comes out of that. I won't wish-cast it though.
Trump is.
We can see the tangible effects of that in the world right now - countries are leaving the US isolated. They are quickly finding that they can live without the US, more than they ever thought possible. Asia - now belongs to China. Europe is learning to go its own way. Even in our own backyard, Canada and Mexico are preparing to move forward without the US.
Trump is a disaster for the US - the long-term effects of this will be difficult to overcome - and our negotiating position has gotten considerably worse.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
By the way Grove I know you're super-reasonable, I often agree with your posts, and the advice to 'temper expectations' is really smart, that's always a good policy.
However, it's funny to think this thing started out with 'no deals, no contacts' to ----->>>> 'The President is above the law.'
- eta - That's coming from the Trump camp, it's not a good progression for Trump.
However, it's funny to think this thing started out with 'no deals, no contacts' to ----->>>> 'The President is above the law.'
- eta - That's coming from the Trump camp, it's not a good progression for Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
randall146
Footballguy
McCarthy ignores that Flynn's deal is ongoing. Just because he has plead guilty to lying doesn't mean that's all he can be charged with. The plea agreement itself says that if he doesn't fully cooperate, or violates the deal in any other way, the deal is off. If the deal is off, Flynn is stuck with his guilty plea, but the government is not foreclosed from bringing other charges against him.
Put another way, let's say Mueller has evidence to convict Flynn of A, B, and C. For negotiation and leverage purposes, he faces the same potential sentences whether or not he's been actually charged with those offenses. His plea to A doesn't foreclose his exposure to B and C, but it does guarantee that he gets punished for A.
Remember that there was some speculation that Flynn was cooperating some time back in exchange for leniency for his son. The speculation was that Flynn got wishy-washy so that cooperation ended. Now that he has plead guilty to at least one charge, he has added incentive not to get wishy-washy.
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
Perhaps another thread would be needed to discuss the above. You are possibly right but that discussion could be really interesting. I'd argue there are a lot more factors than just Trump.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
It is very regular practice (let's say 50/50) in federal court for the cooperator to plead guilty before the target, but get sentenced only after the target has been sentenced or at least convicted. This delay happens more often in federal court than state court, in my experience, because in the ordinary (non cooperation) case in state court, the plea and sentence almost always happen on the same day. In federal court, the guilty plea and sentence are usally separted by at least a few months, and often much longer. Since a delay happens in the ordinary case, it doesn't necessarily raise suspicion of cooperation when it happens in a cooperation case.
I'll add that "cooperation language" doesn't necessarily have to be in the plea agreement. The prosecutor or defense might have a reason to want the language in or out. In Flynn's case the language is in the agreement in order to send a message to other targets.
timschochet
Footballguy
Shader, let’s get down to the brass tacks here. Please answer the following: (Anyone else who believes this is still no big deal is also welcome to respond):
1. James Comey testified, under oath, that President Trump asked him to let the Flynn matter go. Trump seemed to acknowledge this earlier, but now denies it ever happened. Do you believe Comey or Trump?
2. In Trump’s tweet from 2 days ago (supposedly written by his lawyer but in Trump’s style) Trump admitted that he knew at the time of Flynn’s firing that Flynn had lied to the FBI. Trump now denies that he knew this, contradicting himself (or his lawyer). Do you believe Trump? Or do you think he knew?
3. Many legal experts believe that if Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, and then asked James Comey to let the Flynn matter go, that is a clear case of obstruction of justice and that Trump should be impeached and removed from office for this crime. Do you agree with this analysis? And if you disagree, why not?
Please, if you would, explain your answers. Thanks.
1. James Comey testified, under oath, that President Trump asked him to let the Flynn matter go. Trump seemed to acknowledge this earlier, but now denies it ever happened. Do you believe Comey or Trump?
2. In Trump’s tweet from 2 days ago (supposedly written by his lawyer but in Trump’s style) Trump admitted that he knew at the time of Flynn’s firing that Flynn had lied to the FBI. Trump now denies that he knew this, contradicting himself (or his lawyer). Do you believe Trump? Or do you think he knew?
3. Many legal experts believe that if Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, and then asked James Comey to let the Flynn matter go, that is a clear case of obstruction of justice and that Trump should be impeached and removed from office for this crime. Do you agree with this analysis? And if you disagree, why not?
Please, if you would, explain your answers. Thanks.
randall146
Footballguy
It is a common R claim that D voters are voting against their own interests, but it is just as common an R claim that D's bribe their voters with social program giveaways.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Sounds like Trump's attorney John Dowd is now a witness.
- Dowd wrote a statement incriminating his own client? After having a day to craft a statement? Anyone really believe that?
- Or do we believe that a supreme narcissist would want his flock to believe that he knew all and really wanted nothing to do with the liar Flynn?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I’ve posted McCarthy here before as well. But every prediction he’s made in the past regarding this case has been proven wrong. He predicted there would be no recusal by Sessions. He predicted there would be no special prosecutor. He predicted there would be no indictments, and this investigation wrapped up months ago. Conversely, last year McCarthy predicted Hillary would go to jail for her email “crimes”.
What this man does, every time, is take the most conservative position and then try to find legal arguments to justify it. That doesn’t always make his points invalid, but it certainly has bearing on his objectivity.
What this man does, every time, is take the most conservative position and then try to find legal arguments to justify it. That doesn’t always make his points invalid, but it certainly has bearing on his objectivity.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is all crap. Dowd is lying so much I’m starting to think Pete Rose might be vindicated.
Koya
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
I hope when their cell records and GPS or other location defining data gets into Meullers hands everyone was at least close to where they said they were
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
That's nothing.
What you have just said is "they have spent very little time investigating the Russia issues."
I am confused. It happens from time to time.
But, lets go out on a limb, and say that KAC has finally found the truth. Lets assume, just for the sake of argument, that she was with Trump "all day" on Saturday. How then, would she know that Dowd crafted the Flynn tweet, and and sent it to the director of social media?
If we take it a step further - how would she know if Trump approved the tweet?
And, assuming this is all one big conspiracy against Trump - why has he not taken the tweet down? (hint, this is a trap question)
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Seems like it's full of a bunch of people who smelled a rat a year ago and seem to be more correct with each passing week.
massraider
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Wait, you knew on January 4 that Flynn lied to the FBI?
...is this Kelly Anne Conway? Because shader is an amazing forum handle for her.
toshiba
Footballguy
If you have a problem with a post please use the report button. This type of comment doesn't really add any value.
Please stop.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
Lots of comments here don't add any value. Shader is trolling, it adds value to remind people. Thanks for your concern.
toshiba
Footballguy
The comment was to skoo not shader. At the very least it looked like skoo was being asked to stop and that he was trolling.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
This morning, in an apparent defense of Michael Flynn, President Trump said, "Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI, many many times."
I've generally ignored the attacks on Hillary as "whataboutism", but I don't think this should be let go. One of the reasons that Hillary lost in 2016 is that too many accusations were not rebutted and simply allowed to be accepted by people, when they weren't true.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton ever lied to the FBI. James Comey was asked directly about this a year ago and he stated, on the record, that Hillary never lied to the FBI.
I've generally ignored the attacks on Hillary as "whataboutism", but I don't think this should be let go. One of the reasons that Hillary lost in 2016 is that too many accusations were not rebutted and simply allowed to be accepted by people, when they weren't true.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton ever lied to the FBI. James Comey was asked directly about this a year ago and he stated, on the record, that Hillary never lied to the FBI.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The fundamental error you make here is that you assume that the only reason this topic is worth discussing- and is being discussed- is if it ends in a conclusion that the President is a crook.
Here are some things we KNOW to be true:
- A top advisor to the President's campaign, transition and early days of his administration lied to the VP and the FBI about contacts with the Russian ambassador. The administration was told he was lying and was therefore vulnerable to blackmail. They took no action until a Washington Post report forced their hand.
- Those lies related to a discussion between that advisor and the ambassador from a country that used illegal means to attempt to sway a presidential election in favor of Trump (the advisor's boss).
- The topic of the discussion was how to undermine the government's response to their illegal efforts to sway a presidential election in favor of the man's boss.
Without question this would have been the biggest scandal of the Obama presidency. It would have been at least the second-biggest scandal of the Bush presidency, depending on whether you consider the selling of the Iraq war a scandal. And that is just one small part of this mess- the part directly tied to one meeting between Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador. Nothing here about the administration's many denials of contacts that we now know took place, some under oath or in official filings. Nothing about the "if it's what you say I love it" emails and meetings. Nothing about Kushner's backdoor communications. Nothing about Trump's continued denials of Russian interference despite evidence to the contrary and his public request that they hack and publish Hillary Clinton's emails. Nothing about the Steele dossier. Nothing about the request that the FBI back off Flynn, the subsequent firing of Comey and the public admission that it was motivated by a desire to kill the Russia investigation. Nothing about the fact that less than one year into the Trump administration four of his campaign's advisors have now been indicted or convicted on charges related to their interactions with Russia. And on and on and on.
Setting all that aside, just that one Flynn story in the bullet points would be a blockbuster scandal during any other administration. If you think it doesn't matter and we're just "wishcasting" you're out of your mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a big Flynn money story that we haven't heard yet. How does a general wind up so vulnerable, wind up making plans to kidnap people?
Flynn had a good CV, former generals have plenty of avenues to make really really good money pretty easily. Lobbying, security companies, speeches, they only need to choose, and they can settle into the comfortable 6 figures without trying too hard.
Maybe he is simply greedy.
Flynn had a good CV, former generals have plenty of avenues to make really really good money pretty easily. Lobbying, security companies, speeches, they only need to choose, and they can settle into the comfortable 6 figures without trying too hard.
Maybe he is simply greedy.
timschochet
Footballguy
In addition to lying about writing that tweet (so I believe), John Dowd also stated: "The President of the United States cannot commit obstruction of justice, because he is the chief executive officer."
This absurd statement goes against our entire history, and the whole reason we had a revolution in the first place.
This absurd statement goes against our entire history, and the whole reason we had a revolution in the first place.
timschochet
Footballguy
Bump.
Shader, some people here think you're trolling. I don't agree with them. Here's your chance to prove them wrong. Please respond.
massraider
Footballguy
John Dowd, I gotta feel bad for him.
I wrote that tweet, but really, it doesn't matter, because the president cannot commit obstruction of justice butjustincase I totally wrote that tweet.
If he freaking believed what he was selling, he never would have run out and said he wrote that tweet.
The fact that Team Trump claims that Donnie Two Scoops didn't write this one tweet means they don't trust their own argument.
F@*kin' hell, if a college dropout like me can figure that out before his 2nd latte, Trump needs to take a second look at his legal team.
I wrote that tweet, but really, it doesn't matter, because the president cannot commit obstruction of justice butjustincase I totally wrote that tweet.
If he freaking believed what he was selling, he never would have run out and said he wrote that tweet.
The fact that Team Trump claims that Donnie Two Scoops didn't write this one tweet means they don't trust their own argument.
F@*kin' hell, if a college dropout like me can figure that out before his 2nd latte, Trump needs to take a second look at his legal team.
massraider
Footballguy
:sigh:
Watch this, I'm totally psychic:
Right about when you've had Shader cornered, and the facts and solid arguments are about to convince him..........
How many times has he done this already?
randall146
Footballguy
randall146
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
