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 (15 Viewers)

Poor MF'er gets strung out by the special prosecutor to squeeze for information, loses his house to pay for lawyers, and then gets let off on a process crime that the FBI didn't think he committed.  Crushed to dust by the infinite weight and power of the federal government.  Quite the Pyrrhic victory.  Yay for "justice".
Obviously I am judging it from where we are in time and the potential results that are possible from here. 

 
Poor MF'er gets strung out by the special prosecutor to squeeze for information, loses his house to pay for lawyers, and then gets let off on a process crime that the FBI didn't think he committed.  Crushed to dust by the infinite weight and power of the federal government.  Quite the Pyrrhic victory.  Yay for "justice".
1. The fbi reports said Flynn didn’t show visible signs of lying, that’s diffferent. 2. Flynn has earned leniency. It cracks me up that people might think a general would just passively agree to a charge when the FBI really didn’t think he did anything and then gave 19 hours of cooperation on the record resulting in pages of redacted detail suggesting underlying crimes. What are they talking and writing about, Christmas recipes maybe?

 
This was heavily discussed at the time, but please keep in mind that someone who commits murder and pleads it down to negligent homicide isn’t actually guilty of negligent homicide. Furthermore, the “didn’t think he was lying” bit is about this:

The report notes that Comey testified that “the agents … discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

He’s not some weirdo off the street.  He’s Michael Flynn.  He had a touch of an understanding what they were looking for. 
Also he pleaded guilty to lying to multiple sets of investigators on different days about different topics. These sentencing memos aren't long. Anyone who is confused about what is and isn't in them should can really just read them in about 5 minutes.

 
Poor MF'er gets strung out by the special prosecutor to squeeze for information, loses his house to pay for lawyers, and then gets let off on a process crime that the FBI didn't think he committed.  Crushed to dust by the infinite weight and power of the federal government.  Quite the Pyrrhic victory.  Yay for "justice".
He provided "substantial information" relating to the transition team and Russia including communications.

 
FYI Sand fresh off watching Catherine Herridge spending 30 seconds on the so called process crime and 90 seconds on the redacted text while flipping black marked pages in Hannity’s screen. Sean’s message? Somehow that it’s over.

 
FYI Sand fresh off watching Catherine Herridge spending 30 seconds on the so called process crime and 90 seconds on the redacted text while flipping black marked pages in Hannity’s screen. Sean’s message? Somehow that it’s over.
Still at work, as usual.  

I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.  He got leaned on, hard, and really had no choice but to take the way out he did.  I guess it worked - he got off without jail, more than likely. 

 
Still at work, as usual.  

I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.  He got leaned on, hard, and really had no choice but to take the way out he did.  I guess it worked - he got off without jail, more than likely. 
I'm not sure how hard he got leaned on since the memo mentions how important it was that Flynn started cooperating almost right away.  Its not like he endured months of harassment and threats.

 
Still at work, as usual.  

I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.  He got leaned on, hard, and really had no choice but to take the way out he did.  I guess it worked - he got off without jail, more than likely. 
Doesn’t sound like it. Part of the recommendation is due to his willingness and quickness to cooperation. Doesn’t sound like being leaned on hard. He also appears to be cooperating on two other investigations that could not be publicly acknowledged yet. Seems pretty significant.

 
1. The fbi reports said Flynn didn’t show visible signs of lying, that’s diffferent. 2. Flynn has earned leniency. It cracks me up that people might think a general would just passively agree to a charge when the FBI really didn’t think he did anything and then gave 19 hours of cooperation on the record resulting in pages of redacted detail suggesting underlying crimes. What are they talking and writing about, Christmas recipes maybe?
19 hours :lmao: / Cohen

 
Party of law and order really doesn’t like privileged white guys getting busted.  Guy in charge of our national security is compromised and lies to the FBI?  No problem.

Migrant legally seeking asylum?  Lethal force!!!

 
The final link grossly misrepresents a pretty straightforward Supreme Court ruling, which is that courts won’t imply a cause of action that a statute didn’t create. 
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.  It sounds like you're saying there is some procedural technicality that absolves Mueller and other Bush officials of accountability for post-9/11 abuses.  Here's another interpretation:

“No one is above the law. To suggest that the most powerful people in our nation should escape liability when they violate clearly established law defies the most fundamental principle of our legal system,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Rachel Meeropol. “At a time when racial and religious profiling are put forward as serious policy proposals for dealing with everything from immigration to terrorism, it is more important than ever that the high court affirm that government officials, especially those at the highest levels, can be held accountable when they break the law. We look forward to making that argument before the justices.” -CCR

 
Still at work, as usual.  

I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.  He got leaned on, hard, and really had no choice but to take the way out he did.  I guess it worked - he got off without jail, more than likely. 
He could have always not committed crimes in the first place. That would be the route I would go. But by all means feel sorry for him. Lol. Your heart must really be bleeding for Manafort. Another great guy bring squeezed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. The fbi reports said Flynn didn’t show visible signs of lying, that’s diffferent. 2. Flynn has earned leniency. It cracks me up that people might think a general would just passively agree to a charge when the FBI really didn’t think he did anything and then gave 19 hours of cooperation on the record resulting in pages of redacted detail suggesting underlying crimes. What are they talking and writing about, Christmas recipes maybe?
Probably the collusion with Israel thing

 
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.  It sounds like you're saying there is some procedural technicality that absolves Mueller and other Bush officials of accountability for post-9/11 abuses.  Here's another interpretation:

“No one is above the law. To suggest that the most powerful people in our nation should escape liability when they violate clearly established law defies the most fundamental principle of our legal system,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Rachel Meeropol. “At a time when racial and religious profiling are put forward as serious policy proposals for dealing with everything from immigration to terrorism, it is more important than ever that the high court affirm that government officials, especially those at the highest levels, can be held accountable when they break the law. We look forward to making that argument before the justices.” -CCR
I love Credence

 
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.  It sounds like you're saying there is some procedural technicality that absolves Mueller and other Bush officials of accountability for post-9/11 abuses.  Here's another interpretation:

“No one is above the law. To suggest that the most powerful people in our nation should escape liability when they violate clearly established law defies the most fundamental principle of our legal system,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Rachel Meeropol. “At a time when racial and religious profiling are put forward as serious policy proposals for dealing with everything from immigration to terrorism, it is more important than ever that the high court affirm that government officials, especially those at the highest levels, can be held accountable when they break the law. We look forward to making that argument before the justices.” -CCR
If “Procedural technicality” is what you call “the law” then I guess so?

 
Though the men could only be charged with civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa or working without authorization, they were detained in solitary confinement for months and physically abused, suspected only due to their religion and ethnicity. Among other documented abuses, many of the men had their faces smashed into a wall where prison guards had pinned a t-shirt with the image of an American flag and the words, “These colors don’t run.” They were slammed against the t-shirt upon their entrance to prison and told, “Welcome to America.” The shirt was smeared with blood and stayed up on the prison wall for months.

“I was put in a hole like a grave for four months because I’m Muslim,” said Anser Mehmood, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who was held in solitary confinement. “The guards called us camels and kept us from sleeping and praying. Meanwhile I was so worried for my kids who were at home. I was never handcuffed in my whole life before this ordeal. Even after 15 long years I still feel the shame of being cuffed and shackled. I want our day in court to finally come so those responsible for our pain will have to answer for the laws they broke.”

"If there is one guiding principle to our nation it is the rule of law. It protects the unpopular view, it restrains fear‐based responses in times of trouble, and it sanctifies individual liberty regardless of wealth, faith, or color. The Constitution defines the limits of the Defendants’ authority; detaining individuals as if they were terrorists, in the most restrictive conditions of confinement available, simply because these individuals were, or appeared to be, Arab or Muslim exceeds those limits. It might well be that national security concerns motivated the Defendants to take action, but that is of little solace to those who felt the brunt of that decision. The suffering endured by those who were imprisoned merely because they were caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately following 9/11 is not without a remedy."

https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/supreme-court-review-case-against-ashcroft-and-other-bush-officials

 
I genuinely feel sorry for the guy.  He got leaned on, hard, and really had no choice but to take the way out he did.  I guess it worked - he got off without jail, more than likely. 
I think the foreign agent he did is certainly illegal and should be.  Ultimately all of this came to light because of his discussions with Russia and the admins lying about it though.  In my estimation, he was probably genuinely following the orders of Trump in doing so.   I don't think he is one of the worst characters in this story of collusion, but he is a pivotal one.

His son on the other hand...

 
The detainees.  Apparently Mueller can't be held liable for detainees that were beaten and abused under his direction.  Somehow this is "the law".  
Are you surprised that you can’t just create a cause of action whenever you want to sue someone?

 
Are you surprised that you can’t just create a cause of action whenever you want to sue someone?
I'm trying to understand how if I throw hundreds of people into a solitary/torture facility, it's a crime, but when Mueller did it, it wasn't.  

 
Where the Oxford comma is preferred because it prevents confusion:

"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God." (Assuming Ayn Rand and God aren't your parents.)

Where the Oxford comma is disfavored because it causes confusion:

"This book is dedicated to my mom, Ayn Rand, and God." (Assuming Ayn Rand isn't your mom.)

Although in pretty much every situation where the Oxford comma causes confusion, the sentence is bad and should be restructured.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See, I'm anti-two spaces after a period because I'm not some Mississippi dinosaur, but I'm also pro-Oxford comma.
I do a good bit of editing, and one of the first things I do is ctrl-h replace all double spaces with single spaces. If Word finds more than a few double spaces I know I'm in for a bad time.

 
Not in my world.  Freaking millennials can single space after periods, misuse the em-dash, and kill the Oxford comma.   Not today, sir.  Not today.
I admire your inability to adapt to change. You'll make a fine Republican someday. 

 
I do a good bit of editing, and one of the first things I do is ctrl-h replace all double spaces with single spaces. If Word finds more than a few double spaces I know I'm in for a bad time.
Yes. I do it twice in case anyone did a triple or quadruple space.

(I do it right after replacing every instance of "utilize" with "use".)

(Also, I use ctrl-f instead of ctrl-h.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top