Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • SaintsInDome2006

    10138

  • Henry Ford

    5502

  • Sinn Fein

    3362

  • packersfan

    2921

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I actually don't.  And I've made my feelings on that clear for many, many months.  I don't believe there should be any requirement for investigators to like the people they're investigating.  I don't

The defense being put forth by Trump Levin Dershowitz and our own house Gary Johnson supporters is that a candidate can give unlimited funds to his own campaign.  Therefore Trump can pay off the women

My whole office is almost literally rolling on the floor laughing.  The managing partner of my firm just had to use an inhaler to breathe.

7 hours ago, [scooter] said:

So we were both wrong.....um thanks.   But u seem more wrong than me.   I was only slightly wrong.....and im more likely to grow in my righteousness 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/20/2020 at 5:43 PM, Gr00vus said:

199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences

Corroboration of allegations in the Steele dossier. He didn't bat 1.000, but he did hit on a lot of these.

 

This isn't "nothing" a "hoax" or even an invesigation  started by democrats.  Those are all lies.

Quote

Why was the investigation launched? The FBI opened “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31, 2016, after learning a Trump campaign aide may have had advance knowledge that Russian intelligence operatives had stolen Democratic emails.

A diplomat revealed that the aide, George Papadopoulos, had boasted to him that he had heard Russia had damaging information on Democrat Hillary Clinton that it could release to harm her campaign.

That May 2016 conversation triggered alarms within the FBI since the Russian hacking operation, which resulted in the public disclosure of thousands of hacked emails, was not yet public knowledge.

Here's more

Quote

In 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign chairman shared polling data with an associate suspected of ties to Russian intelligence. Another Trump associate sought inside information about Democratic emails stolen by Kremlin operatives. The candidate himself invited Russia to hunt for his opponent’s emails, then tried to stifle investigators once he entered the White House.

Link

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Secret intelligence exists that ‘would cast Trump in very negative light’, warns ex-FBI chief

Quote

‘It’s almost incomprehensible to me that he would want that information out,’ says Andrew McCabe

Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe has warned that classified intelligence from bureau’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign ties to Russia could contain information that would “risk casting the president in a very negative light”.

Mr McCabe has been at the centre of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in which a Republican-controlled panel is reviewing the FBI’s recision to initiate the investigation.

He testified before the panel on Tuesday and told lawmakers that officials had a “duty” to carry out the investigation due to the information they had collected. Mr McCabe personally approved the decision to investigate Mr Trump for possible obstruction of justice.

In an interview with CNN on Friday night, Mr McCabe was asked what the risks were if more information from the Russia investigation was to be declassified.

CNN anchor Andrew Cuomo said Mr Trump was told by Devin Nunes, a close ally of the president’s and former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, that if more previously unreleased information comes out, the more it will appear that the president was “framed”.

“From your knowledge, is there anything that could come out that people would look at and say, ‘wow, I can’t believe they ever included the president in this analysis, he and his people clearly did nothing’?” asked Mr Cuomo.

Mr McCabe replied: “There is some very, very serious, very specific, undeniable intelligence that has not come out, that if it were released, would risk compromising our access to that sort of information in the future.

“I think it would also risk casting the president in a very negative light - so, would he have a motivation to release those things? It’s almost incomprehensible to me that he would want that information out, I don’t see how he spins it into his advantage, because quite frankly, I don’t believe it’s flattering.

Asked if Mr McCabe thought there was more “bad stuff” about Mr Trump that wasn’t already publicly known, he replied: “There is always more intelligence, there is a lot more in the intelligence community assessment than what is ever released for public consumption.

“The original version of that report was classified at the absolute highest level I have ever seen. We’re talking about top secret, compartmentalised code word stuff, and it would be tragic to American intelligence collection for those sources to be put at risk.”

The FBI has been accused by the Senate Judiciary Committee of going “rogue” with the Russia investigation, with one senator describing it as the “biggest scandal in the history of the FBI” on Tuesday.

Mr Trump has repeatedly railed against the FBI for the investigation and maintained there was “no collusion” between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

In 2019, after a report by former FBI director Robert Mueller concluded that Mr Trump’s campaign did not conspire with Russia during the 2016 election - but did not clear him of obstruction of justice - Mr Trump tweeted: “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mr McCabe pointed out that Mr Trump fired then-director James B Comey in 2017 after Mr Comey refused to close an investigation into the president’s national security at the time, or say publicly that Mr Trump himself was not under investigation.

Mr McCabe said: “It became pretty clear to us that he did not want us to continue investigating what the Russians had done.

“We had many reasons at that point to believe that the president might himself pose a danger to national security and that he might have engaged in obstruction of justice, if the firing of the director and those other things were geared towards elimination or stopping our investigation of Russian activity.”

 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/14/2020 at 6:35 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

What's going in the Mike Flynn case? I've lost track. The full panel reversed the Rao-Henderson writ ordering dismissal, so the case went back to Judge Sullivan to schedule a hearing, and then I don't remember hearing anything after that.

Never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uwe Blab said:

He’s a QAnon guy, of course he does

The dude wants the President to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution and give control of elections to the military.

I am really proud of Trump for pardoning such a great American.

  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godsbrother said:

The dude wants the President to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution and give control of elections to the military.

I am really proud of Trump for pardoning such a great American.

I wonder what he thought when he was in the military and he swore an oath to the constitution. 

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

The dude wants the President to declare Martial Law, suspend the Constitution and give control of elections to the military.

I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

 

 

I guess it was a retweet but I am not sure.  I'm not on twitter but if I were I wouldn't retweet something unless I agreed with it unless I was making fun of it.  Maybe Flynn has a LOL afterwards, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

I wonder what he thought when he was in the military and he swore an oath to the constitution. 

1) What branch did you serve in so we can get your thoughts from a military perspective?

2) I think as US Citizens we all have an oath to the constitution, no?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Godsbrother said:
12 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

I guess it was a retweet but I am not sure.  I'm not on twitter but if I were I wouldn't retweet something unless I agreed with it unless I was making fun of it.  Maybe Flynn has a LOL afterwards, I don't know.

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

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

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

Google news.

Is it your opinion that Flynn was opposed to declaring martial law and suspending the constitution and was retweeting for other reasons? 

It is possible I guess but I think it is generally safe to say that typically if someone retweets something it is usually because they support it or are making fun of.  
 

Given his support of the president I assume it wasn’t the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godsbrother said:
8 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

Google news.

OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
6 hours ago, Godsbrother said:
12 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

Google news.

OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.

This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JAA said:
3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
6 hours ago, Godsbrother said:
12 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

Google news.

OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.

This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No it's not hard, people can read the actual tweet and think for themselves.

Or you can make it hard by choosing to read false headlines ABOUT the tweet and then post misinformation in forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
47 minutes ago, JAA said:
4 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
6 hours ago, Godsbrother said:
13 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh wow. Well if you're not on Twitter, may I ask where you got your info? Just curious because those are some pretty serious accusations.

Google news.

OK I thought you read his tweet and I've seen other people make the same mistake. Google doesn't really publish any news, so I have no idea where you got that info - it all depends on your settings.

This isnt hard fellas:  https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+flynn+martial+law&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS866US866&oq=michael+flynn+martial+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.5747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No it's not hard, people can read the actual tweet and think for themselves.

Or you can make it hard by choos

You asked for a link, I just gave you 2.  What is the problem?  Are you saying those articles are wrong?  What facts do they have wrong?

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

You asked for a link, I just gave you 2.  What is the problem?  Are you saying those articles are wrong?  What facts do they have wrong?

I didn't ask for a link, I read Flynn's tweet myself. Did you read the tweet? Did you read my description of the tweet?  Do you disagree with anything I wrote? 

Someone saying they got their info from "Google News" is sort of like saying they got it "from the internet". 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I didn't ask for a link, I read Flynn's tweet myself. Did you read the tweet? Did you read my description of the tweet?  Do you disagree with anything I wrote? 

Someone saying they got their info from "Google News" is sort of like saying they got it "from the internet". 

What's your contention? That Flynn retweeted this just for the sake of conversation? We are not to intuit that he approves of what's written there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

What's your contention? That Flynn retweeted this just for the sake of conversation? We are not to intuit that he approves of what's written there?

 

On 12/10/2020 at 11:07 AM, NorvilleBarnes said:

I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I don't think this is true.

If you're referring to his RT of a controversial post from an Ohio org, then it should be noted that Flynn frequently RTs controversial posts and then @ several others on Twitter to get THEIR reactions. It was not an original post from Flynn. 

If you're referring to something else then I'm all ears.

I see, and him captioning the retweet ""Freedom never kneels except for God" - we are to gather no meaning from that?

I think your read on this is either convenient or naive. It seems he is forwarding their manifesto, and that he approves of it.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I see, and him captioning the retweet ""Freedom never kneels except for God" - we are to gather no meaning from that?

I think your read on this is either convenient or naive.

:shrug:What I wrote was accurate and based on my direct observation. What Godsbrother wrote wasn't and blamed on Google news.

I mean, it's a public twitter account, people don't have to rely on articles ABOUT the tweet when they can simply read the tweet.

If you think Godsborther post was accurate, then realize the same could be said of you for the exact same reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

:shrug:What I wrote was accurate and based on my direct observation. What Godsbrother wrote wasn't and blamed on Google news.

I mean, it's a public twitter account, people don't have to rely on articles ABOUT the tweet when they can simply read the tweet.

If you think Godsborther post was accurate, then realize the same could be said of you for the exact same reason.

I posted the link to manifesto contained in Flynn's tweet. I'm talking about the tweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's tweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the tweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I posted the content of the retweet. I'm talking about the retweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's retweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the retweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.

It's technically not a retweet. He tweeted a link to a press release. I know... semantics but there is a difference. He made an effort to post that link instead of just pressing the retweet button. It is clear that he is supporting it. If he wasn't supporting it, he would have posted as such in his tweet. I would never post a tweet to a manifesto that I don't support without adding commentary that I did not support the manifesto. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tymarsas said:

It's technically not a retweet. He tweeted a link to a press release. I know... semantics but there is a difference. He made an effort to post that link instead of just pressing the retweet button. It is clear that he is supporting it. If he wasn't supporting it, he would have posted as such in his tweet. I would never post a tweet to a manifesto that I don't support without adding commentary that I did not support the manifesto. 

Of course he supports it.   Despite Flynn's pardon we know that he believes the rules of law don't apply to him and his buddy Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

I posted the link to manifesto contained in Flynn's tweet. I'm talking about the tweet. I'm not talking about Google news,  @Godsbrother or anyone else in here's take on it, except for yours. Flynn's tweet of that manifesto (linked again here just for the sake of completeness) along with his own caption of it (""Freedom never kneels except for God"") attached to the tweet unambiguously indicate his support for the content of the manifesto. Given that,  your take doesn't appear to be accurate at all.

That's fine but try to understand first I was talking to Godsbrother, and then Jaa, and now you. Everything I wrote is accurate and if you look even casually at Flynn tweet habit you'll see the same pattern. If you disagree or come to a different conclusion that's perfectly fine. Posting a link to something, as you yourself demonstrate, does not necessarily mean you endorse the content of the link - especially if it's part of a repeated pattern. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, shader said:

Pretty ironic that a thread with 2368 pages on Russia has nothing to say after a massive cyber attack

 

Blumenthal with some scary words today:

https://twitter.com/senblumenthal/status/1338972186535727105?s=21

It's been covered in the thread on this topic, why would you expect it to be in a different thread on a different topic?  :confused: 

  • Like 1
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.


×
×
  • Create New...