• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flynn has given "substantial" assistance to the special counsel

Hatuey said:
[emoji93] failed where you want to succeed. Bold for somebody who isn't known for their legal scholarship. I welcome you to give it a shot.

Mueller's drums will keep beating, and Trump's people will go to prison.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...
You are the one that said Flynn looked like "cheap traitor" for lying about a legal meeting with the Russian Ambassador. So much for your legal acumen. :roll:
 
Re: Flynn has given "substantial" assistance to the special counsel

SLC said:
You tell me me.
Click to expand...
Ah, so we dishonored it by calling him a traitor and he didn't dishonor it by lying to the vice president. We get it. Liberals are the bad guys while right wingers commit the crimes, and destroy their careers all on their own.

I bet you are constantly promoted at work. You have amazing foresight. Really, the name callers are the problem is not a defense when you have a special investigator grilling your balls for lying.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
SLC said:
Traitor? Only an idiot would think Flynn is a traitor :lamo You have to be kidding. You sure are loose with your words. You do know that Clapper and Brennon both lied to congress. Are they traitors to?
Click to expand...

Lying to Congress isn’t the issue. It’s changing US foreign policy based upon a foreign government who pays you.
 
Mycroft said:
That is kind of an ambiguous memo. Yes, he cooperated. But we don't know if he actually gave them anything that can be used against Trump.

Don't count your chickens, is my advice.
Click to expand...

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Go with your gut. Who cares about any so-called "evidence" that this confessed liar purports to produce. I mean, how do we know that the so-called evidence isn't all forged?

Right?
 
Athanasius68 said:
It continues to be the case: Mueller is putting together a collection of convicted perjurers to testify against... what?
Click to expand...

Did you happen to notice who was the intended beneficiary of those perjuries?

Or is that simply an "inconvenient truth"?
 
If 45 had heeded Obama's warning to not hire Flynn this whole deal would not possibly have come to where we are now.
 
Threegoofs said:
Lying to Congress isn’t the issue. It’s changing US foreign policy based upon a foreign government who pays you.
Click to expand...
Happens every day in DC. The issue is registering as a lobbyist. Unregistered lobbyist also happen everyday in DC. Manafort and Podesta are just another couple of examples.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
BINGO!

The "Official Line" strikes.
Click to expand...

I would be suspected that a perjurer has a well justified credibility problem in a courtroom. As was indicated, why not simply have Flynn et. al. confess to their role in whatever conspiracy Mueller thinks happened in 2016.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And, in that he differs from Mr. Trump?

How?



Apparently Gen. Flynn "saw the light".
Click to expand...

I don’t think he differs from Trump in that regard at all. In fact, I think Flynn’s personality and leadership style is a LOT like Trump’s, only Flynn is an intelligent man.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Go with your gut. Who cares about any so-called "evidence" that this confessed liar purports to produce. I mean, how do we know that the so-called evidence isn't all forged?

Right?
Click to expand...

My gut says, I'll just wait and find out the facts.

Speculation. Counting chickens. Oh, that stuff can make you feel good...but it's ultimately a waste of time.
 
Parrish said:
If 45 had heeded Obama's warning to not hire Flynn this whole deal would not possibly have come to where we are now.
Click to expand...

A few months ago, it was Page, then it was PapaD, then Stone ect ect. It never ends, these shifting theories and explanations as to what is going on, who has the smoking gun, who is going to flip ect.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I would be suspected that a perjurer has a well justified credibility problem in a courtroom. As was indicated, why not simply have Flynn et. al. confess to their role in whatever conspiracy Mueller thinks happened in 2016.
Click to expand...
I think you and I know the answer to that question. There was no collusion. I'm willing to bet when the redactions are removed from Flynn's indictment there will be no direct connection to Russian collusion in the election.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you happen to notice who was the intended beneficiary of those perjuries?

Or is that simply an "inconvenient truth"?
Click to expand...

The person being interviewed it would seem to be. Certainly, there was no requirement that they say otherwise.
 
Athanasius68 said:
A few months ago, it was Page, then it was PapaD, then Stone ect ect. It never ends, these shifting theories and explanations as to what is going on, who has the smoking gun, who is going to flip ect.
Click to expand...

I'd bet it's Flynn and a few others we don't yet know.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The statenent can be made because this is what Mueller is agreeing to. Court actions have been taken. Cohen isnt pleading guilty to his role in collusion with Russia. Neither is PapaD or Flynn or for that matter Manafort.
Click to expand...

You realize that complex investigations of organized crime work that way.... you pick off the lower level people offering up rather benign convictions in exchange for states evidence on the kingpin.

Again, I refer to the biopsy analogy, the fact that you have yet to hear the results does not infer anything about the ultimate results. The conspiracy has been established, we are just waiting to hear which Americans get charged in that conspiracy and how it changes definitionly.

Deciding that there is no conspiracy, at this point, is an act of both arrogance and ignorance. You simply don't know what you don't know. We do know there was probable cause for the investigation. Actually, what one should infer for light sentences of senior people facing serious crimes is that the investigation has reason to believe that the kingpin is guity of even more serious crimes.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You realize that complex investigations of organized crime work that way.... you pick off the lower level people offering up rather benign convictions in exchange for states evidence on the kingpin.

Again, I refer to the biopsy analogy, the fact that you have yet to hear the results does not infer anything about the ultimate results. The conspiracy has been established, we are just waiting to hear which Americans get charged in that conspiracy and how it changes definitionly.

Deciding that there is no conspiracy, at this point, is an act of both arrogance and ignorance. You simply don't know what you don't know. We do know there was probable cause for the investigation. Actually, what one should infer for light sentences of senior people facing serious crimes is that the investigation has reason to believe that the kingpin is guity of even more serious crimes.
Click to expand...

In a court, a "kingpin" and his control of ""organized crime" (which is a conspiracy) isnt determined by prosecutorial declaration. It has to be proven, and with the testimony of lower level people who testify to their role in the organization and the crime they commited. And the role of the kingpin in the crime.

Nobody is confessing to any sort of conspiracy with Russia. And of those who came closest (PapaD), Mueller didnt charge with a crime for it. Its not arrogance to suggest this means there is nothing there with respect to collusion.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
BINGO!

The "Official Line" strikes.
Click to expand...

What? Are you sure Trump hasn't blamed it on the Lizard people? That's what I'm hoping for.

Then we get to listen to the base tell us how Bill who works at the liquor store, and Joan in accounting, are Lizard people. That the Lizard people have taken over! But we liburals are too stupid to recognize them. Poor us! :(


More laughs for the holidays...go Trump!
 
Last edited:
we all know there was collusion and obstruction of justice.

whether Mueller can prove it is the question

more interesting is all these investigations into Trump's business practices

and

what the other investigations mentioned in Flynn's sentencing memo

and

what the democrats hit him with now that they have the house

Trump is going to have a pretty bad year
 
SLC said:
I think you and I know the answer to that question. There was no collusion. I'm willing to bet when the redactions are removed from Flynn's indictment there will be no direct connection to Russian collusion in the election.
Click to expand...

The collusion was done by the Democrats. The fake dossier used to spy on the Trump campaign and frame Flynn was written with Russian assistance. Acting AG Whitaker is holding Mueller's feet to the fire, requiring he stop scamming, and free his prisoners or he will go to jail. If you recall Flynn was indicted based on the illegal spying and the illegal release of classified information obtained from that illegal spying.
 
Winston said:
I don't know if I've ever read a more hyper partisan post, so congratulations on that achievement in Hackery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you’re blind to all the conflicts of interest in this investigation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
So you’re blind to all the conflicts of interest in this investigation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh please.

If you cared one iota about conflict of interest you would not support this POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom