• 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!

U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside gr

Tahuyaman said:
When corruption of the Obama administration is exposed, all of a sudden the defense is “everyone does it”.
Click to expand...

NOT what i stated.

What I said is that you are being a slave to partisan, tribal, politics. That is what I said..

I use to be a fellow slave, now I think don't have a tribe. I don't see our politics in terms of Republican or Democrat, and I find that my view of what is going on is a lot clearer for it.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
How is the USIC investigating whether or not Trump coordinated with the Russian government attacking the results of an election?

Had trump actually coordinated with the Russian government wouldn't the American people deserve to know about it?
Click to expand...

What is this USIC? Where is it mentioned in the US Constitution? What status does it have under the US Constitution? Do they deserve some special power over the country, like the Stasi?
I don't agree with your Stasi-centric perspective. A Stasi-centrist like you may feel that all countries must be governed in that way, but Americans do not believe in that type of governance.


And if you claim to hate and oppose the Stasi, then beware - you are becoming what you hate.
Your desire for vendetta and revenge are making you into the next Stasi supporter.


End the cycle. Break the wheel.

images


Don't become the next problem.

(warn Merkel too)
 
Atomic Kid said:
Stop asking people that which you should be doing for yourself. It's no one's responsibility here to educate you. Get off your deadass and read the Mueller and/or Senate the Intelligence Committee's report.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

Matter of fact Senator Burr is asking for the final volume of the Senate BiPartisan Intel Report on Russian Interference, which deals with counterintelligence findings, be declassified and released. This comes after the volume 4 that was released last month, validated the intelligence assessment describing Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election — including Russian efforts to help Donald Trump — as accurate, thorough, and untainted by political bias.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that you keep vaguely referring some some unspecified "interference" which you are reluctant to elaborate on in your own words. You are engaging in classic McCarthyite tactics.
Your entire case is based on innuendo - and you yourself know it, and your own behavior reflects it, because you're reluctant to elaborate.

The burden of proof is on you, as you're the ones making the allegations - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Do you think it's okay for the Russian government to interfere in our elections? Yes or no?

Do you think it's okay for U.S. politicians to consider and/or coordinate with the Russian government's interference operations in order to help get elected? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

There was no significant Russian interference in the US elections - nothing major or material to the outcome.
Some Facebook ads? WTF? That's like arguing that someone debated on DebatePolitics.com without disclosing they're Russian, and thereby affected the outcome of the US elections.
Prove to me that China wasn't doing similar interference. Prove to me Britain wasn't doing their own interference. Why should they get off, with special attention only given to Russia?
It's absurd.

Under US law, US politicians have their own freedom to take whatever stance they like. There are politicians like Ilhan Omar who have praised AlQaeda. As long as she has not materially aided AlQaeda or otherwise violated US law, she can hold her stance, which I find disagreeable.


Trump and Flynn don't have to hold your foreign policy views. It's perfectly fine for them to be pro-Russia. I feel the United States should end its antagonism toward Russia, and relations should be normalized.
If you don't like it, then too bad.
 
Atomic Kid said:
That's poppycock. Flynn's was a counterintelligence investigation into his communication with the Russian Ambassador that may have been a effort to thwart the foreign policy goals and interest of the Obama Administration. The Logan Act is on the books. It's not an invalid law. And the investigation of Flynn was part of a larger counterintelligence investigation into the nature of the many contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials, nationals and cutouts. Flynn knowingly lied about those contacts. He lied about several conversations with Sergey Kislyak about sanctions. He lied about several conversations with Kislyak about an attempt to undermine an Obama effort at the UN. He lied about whether his company knew that it was working for the government of Turkey and about whether senior officials from Turkey were overseeing that contract. Cartright's was a case involving an unauthorized leak to the media of a secret cyber operation targeting Iran's nuclear program and his intention was actually to make the Obama Administration look good.
Click to expand...

Other than the process crime what was Flynn charged with concerning what he said to Kislyak ?? Espionage, the Logan act ??
 
Atomic Kid said:
Termn8or said:
So freaking what? You need a criminal predicate for the FBI to interview anyone.

They didn't have one, other than the pathetic fig leaf of the Logan Act, unused since before the Civil War.

Contrary to your lies, that it not ordinary FBI conduct. Not even close.

That's one of a number of reasons the case was dismissed.
Click to expand...

Not true again. The investigation into Flynn was a counterintelligence investigation under 18 U.S. Code § 951.Agents of foreign governments. Those investigations have a different set rules for predication. Shea conceded in his motion to dismiss the prosecution that that investigation was never closed. Even if it had been the FBI Domestic Investigation Guidelines would give it the authority to reopen that counterintelligence investigation or begin a new one. Especially once public evidence surfaced that Flynn had lied to others in the Administration.
Click to expand...

The FBI found no evidence that Flynn had committed any crimes related to the Russians, an utterly ridiculous premise to begin with. By law or FBI regulations, the investigation should have been shut down and Strzok admitted surprise it hadn't been.

It was kept open on an obvious pretext, the Logan Act, on directions from "the 7th floor," i.e. Comey and/or McCabe so that Flynn could be set up and either fired or indicted.

A 3-star General was set up and framed.

There was no evidence of other crimes. That's hogwash.

Other than the felony leak of Flynn's conversation, which liberals don't give a rat's a** about, nor did the FBI.
 
Tangmo said:
DoJ filed a Motion to Dismiss.

DoJ does not file an "order" to a judge. Justice files motions, not orders, to a court.

The judge has the full authority in considering any and all motions and it ain't over till the judge says it's over.
Click to expand...

Baloney. When both parties agree to drop a case, it's over. The judge has no say in it and according to a SCOTUS decision issued just a week ago is forbidden from bringing 3rd parties into it. The judge is acting knowing he's violating that recent decision.

Just as bad, the hack he's bringing as a supposedly objective outsider is a hate-Trump hack. This is so transparently ethically and legally corrupt a liberal might even notice.

The judge is a corrupt hack and is in violation of the Constitution. He ought to be impeached.

You guys needn't feel too badly in this fiasco because as we're seeing unmistakably Barr and his hacks at DoJ and in the US Attorney's office didn't know what they were doing nor did they have any idea of Judge Sullivan's options as a federal judge and the courses of action open to him. Sullivan for instance has the option to hold a hearing for DoJ to explain the sudden and complete turnaround in Flynn's case in which DoJ went from Flynn's prosecutor to Flynn's defense counsel in one fell swoop....and their coming crash in Sullivan's court.
Click to expand...


"Barr and his hacks?" How casually liberals smear people of integrity and courage on the basis of zero evidence while praising actual wrongdoers like the judge.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Termn8or said:
Are you ever going to respond to my point about Durham's frenetic criminal investigation and what me might be doing if not preparing indictments?:lol:
Click to expand...

Don't you think that it's rather telling that the legal argument for this DOJ motion for dismissal didn't originate from Durham's investigation? But instead Barr put a firearms prosecutor with no experience whatsoever in counterintelligence investigations, or even national security cases for that matter tin charge of conducting the review of the propriety of the Flynn prosecution. And it kind of shows too.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to Jensen, he worked for ten years at the FBI and ten years as a prosecutor.

What's strange that he was chosen to look at basic legal aspects of the case?

Counterintelligence has nothing to do with anything. No evidence was found against Flynn. The case should have been closed.

Now the case is down to basic aspects of law and the abuse of it by Mueller's corrupt prosecutor. I'll bet he'll soon be under criminal investigation if he isn't already.

Durham and his team already have more work than they can handle, which is why he has hired more staff.

I notice you didn't comment on what Durham is doing. Why not?;)
 
When the under oath testimony of the top Obama Officials were released, recently, that evidence showed nobody in the Obama Administration could claim any evidence of Trump Collusion under oath. The same weasel Democrats, nevertheless lied to the America people, through the morons in the liberals media, for two years. There is no law against lying to the media. Those boneheads made lots of advertising money off those lies. This entire scam, at that level, is therefore political and business, and did not break any criminal laws. Some people like to watch scum bags on TV. This is a free country.

Where the Democrats crossed the line, was connected to the surveillance and then the railroading of people like General Flynn. If Flynn is exonerated, all the dirty politics and dirty tricks can metamorphosis into criminal intent. The Democrats need to perpetuate Flynn's case, so they have a loophole away from politic becoming criminal intent. The analogy is running a fraternity prank, that turns ugly and causes someone to get hurt. If the prank made a mess, but happened without any victims, it could be called funny, clever and epic. But I someone was to get injured, this changes everything.

The Democrats, such as Judge Sullivan, who owe Obama and the party, are willing to fall on their swords, since the worse case scenario is even worse. Sullivan will also be disgraced. The current analogy is like the fraternity brothers all lying together, so as to avoid anyone being accused of the injury. If anyone breaks ranks, this could change the legal jurisdictions, away from the university, to civil and criminal courts. Durham is putting together a welcome party in the criminal jurisdiction. The Democrats want to delay this by hiding the bodies of victims under Flynn's legal papers.

I am quite sure Trump can drop the hammer at any time. There is all types of classified evidence that Trump's people have revealed and which he can declassify. But there are still many months until election. Trump knows that the fake news loyalists will also try to spin this, to protect their handlers and themselves. He also knows that the news cycle has a limited self life. Trump may wait until the 11th hour.

I like the idea of introducing a zinger when he debates Biden. He can confronted him with declassified evidence using an overhead projector If Biden thought this was still cleverly hidden, he will be rattled on national TV, disheartened the minions. The Democrats may be better off bleeding out earlier, than later, and then change the new cycle.

The wild card appears to be General Flynn. He once worked for Obama and was fired by him over policy disagreements. The amount of effort that went into crucifying Flynn tells me Flynn has information that the Democrats are afraid of. Flynn was part of Obama's inner circle. They have kept Flynn back peddling, so he cannot make his own offense. Exoneration allows Flynn to sue for the fraternity prank in civil court so he take the offense. What does Flynn know that frightens the entire Democrat party? Some have suggested he knows where the bodies are buried that implicate the entire fraternity in criminal coverup.
 
wellwisher said:
When the under oath testimony of the top Obama Officials were released, recently, that evidence showed nobody in the Obama Administration could claim any evidence of Trump Collusion under oath. The same weasel Democrats, nevertheless lied to the America people, through the morons in the liberals media, for two years. There is no law against lying to the media. Those boneheads made lots of advertising money off those lies. This entire scam, at that level, is therefore political and business, and did not break any criminal laws. Some people like to watch scum bags on TV. This is a free country.

Where the Democrats crossed the line, was connected to the surveillance and then the railroading of people like General Flynn. If Flynn is exonerated, all the dirty politics and dirty tricks can metamorphosis into criminal intent. The Democrats need to perpetuate Flynn's case, so they have a loophole away from politic becoming criminal intent. The analogy is running a fraternity prank, that turns ugly and causes someone to get hurt. If the prank made a mess, but happened without any victims, it could be called funny, clever and epic. But I someone was to get injured, this changes everything.

The Democrats, such as Judge Sullivan, who owe Obama and the party, are willing to fall on their swords, since the worse case scenario is even worse. Sullivan will also be disgraced. The current analogy is like the fraternity brothers all lying together, so as to avoid anyone being accused of the injury. If anyone breaks ranks, this could change the legal jurisdictions, away from the university, to civil and criminal courts. Durham is putting together a welcome party in the criminal jurisdiction. The Democrats want to delay this by hiding the bodies of victims under Flynn's legal papers.

I am quite sure Trump can drop the hammer at any time. There is all types of classified evidence that Trump's people have revealed and which he can declassify. But there are still many months until election. Trump knows that the fake news loyalists will also try to spin this, to protect their handlers and themselves. He also knows that the news cycle has a limited self life. Trump may wait until the 11th hour.

I like the idea of introducing a zinger when he debates Biden. He can confronted him with declassified evidence using an overhead projector If Biden thought this was still cleverly hidden, he will be rattled on national TV, disheartened the minions. The Democrats may be better off bleeding out earlier, than later, and then change the new cycle.

The wild card appears to be General Flynn. He once worked for Obama and was fired by him over policy disagreements. The amount of effort that went into crucifying Flynn tells me Flynn has information that the Democrats are afraid of. Flynn was part of Obama's inner circle. They have kept Flynn back peddling, so he cannot make his own offense. Exoneration allows Flynn to sue for the fraternity prank in civil court so he take the offense. What does Flynn know that frightens the entire Democrat party? Some have suggested he knows where the bodies are buried that implicate the entire fraternity in criminal coverup.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said, except for your take on Judge Sullivan. I have a different take on his actions. Judge Sullivan was also the judge involved in Sen. Ted Stevens case in 2010, where he excoriated the FBI for illegally withholding exculpatory evidence and he dismissed all the charges against Sen. Stevens. Now we see the FBI illegally withholding exculpatory evidence with regard to Gen. Flynn. I do not believe Judge Sullivan intends to fall on his sword for Obama. I expect him to go after the FBI for their malfeasance, once again.
 
wellwisher said:
When the under oath testimony of the top Obama Officials were released, recently, that evidence showed nobody in the Obama Administration could claim any evidence of Trump Collusion under oath. The same weasel Democrats, nevertheless lied to the America people, through the morons in the liberals media, for two years. There is no law against lying to the media. Those boneheads made lots of advertising money off those lies. This entire scam, at that level, is therefore political and business, and did not break any criminal laws. Some people like to watch scum bags on TV. This is a free country.

Where the Democrats crossed the line, was connected to the surveillance and then the railroading of people like General Flynn. If Flynn is exonerated, all the dirty politics and dirty tricks can metamorphosis into criminal intent. The Democrats need to perpetuate Flynn's case, so they have a loophole away from politic becoming criminal intent. The analogy is running a fraternity prank, that turns ugly and causes someone to get hurt. If the prank made a mess, but happened without any victims, it could be called funny, clever and epic. But I someone was to get injured, this changes everything.

The Democrats, such as Judge Sullivan, who owe Obama and the party, are willing to fall on their swords, since the worse case scenario is even worse. Sullivan will also be disgraced. The current analogy is like the fraternity brothers all lying together, so as to avoid anyone being accused of the injury. If anyone breaks ranks, this could change the legal jurisdictions, away from the university, to civil and criminal courts. Durham is putting together a welcome party in the criminal jurisdiction. The Democrats want to delay this by hiding the bodies of victims under Flynn's legal papers.

I am quite sure Trump can drop the hammer at any time. There is all types of classified evidence that Trump's people have revealed and which he can declassify. But there are still many months until election. Trump knows that the fake news loyalists will also try to spin this, to protect their handlers and themselves. He also knows that the news cycle has a limited self life. Trump may wait until the 11th hour.

I like the idea of introducing a zinger when he debates Biden. He can confronted him with declassified evidence using an overhead projector If Biden thought this was still cleverly hidden, he will be rattled on national TV, disheartened the minions. The Democrats may be better off bleeding out earlier, than later, and then change the new cycle.

The wild card appears to be General Flynn. He once worked for Obama and was fired by him over policy disagreements. The amount of effort that went into crucifying Flynn tells me Flynn has information that the Democrats are afraid of. Flynn was part of Obama's inner circle. They have kept Flynn back peddling, so he cannot make his own offense. Exoneration allows Flynn to sue for the fraternity prank in civil court so he take the offense. What does Flynn know that frightens the entire Democrat party? Some have suggested he knows where the bodies are buried that implicate the entire fraternity in criminal coverup.
Click to expand...

Excellent summation. Yes, Trump will hold a grand show for the country when Durham hands down indictments.

I cannot imagine that independents and even moderate Democrats will not be shocked and horrified at what even the hate-Trump MSM will be forced to report.

I would guess that it would swing the country at least five points in Trump's direction.

And most trends I can think of go Trump's way, too, especially re-opening the country and allowing the economy to recover, versus Democrats doing their best to slow-walk it.

And yes, I would love it if Trump again hired Flynn, giving him the chance to reveal what he knows on the public stage.

I'll be sitting down with a bottle of champagne election night laughing at the shock on reporters and Dems faces.:lol:
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Yes, and then the counterintelligence team responsible for Crossfire Hurricane discovered he had a conversation with Kislyak, and they needed to investigate Flynn more.

It's not that complicated.



When a soon-to-be foreign policy advisor for an incoming President is conducting actual foreign policy with a foreign counterpart, instructing his foreign counterpart who is acting under an official capacity what to expect, what to do, what not to do, in relation to future U.S. actions, and so on, that foreign policy advisor is implementing an actual policy.
Click to expand...

It was already known in Jan 2017 that there was no negotiation or quid pro quo during the conversation between Kisylak and Flynn.



The way counterintelligence works in the U.S. is that there is a sort of ongoing assumption that countries like Russia are actively, and at all times, trying to spy on us, and hurt us in various w
ays. So, from the perspective of U.S. national interests, think of it like a crime that never ends. The reason why the crime never ends is that, in the case of Russia, the government, no matter who is in charge, continues to exist without respect to the involvement of individual human beings. Further, the interests of the Russian government do not cease to exist, ever. Also, the interests of the U.S. government do not cease to exist ever. In both cases, the interests of the governments may change, but they do not cease to exist. Short of a change of mentality on part of the people who manage the Russian government, the Russian government will never stop spying on us, and hurting us in various, in order to further their own interests. The spying will continue indefinitely until the Russian government changes its strategies.

So, therefore, when the USIC picks up signals or indicates that an intelligence operation of some sort is being conducted against the U.S., the USIC has an obligation to the Republic and its people to investigate it. And the thought that entered the minds of people like McCabe, Comey, and Strzok when this first all happened, was not, "OMG what is Trump doing...", instead it was, "OMG what is the Russian government trying to do us now." And when they investigated people like Manafort, Page, Papadopolous (whose name I can never remember how to spell correctly), they are not initially investigating them as if they were traitors. They know the Russian government is good at manipulating people. They know that the Trump campaign staff are the kind of people who can easily be manipulated.

So, it's from that frame of reference, that the FBI went and launched Crossfire Hurricane. Specifically, it was things like Papadapolous bragging to Australia's lead diplomat, that he was in cahoots with the Russian government to help the Trump campaign win.

As time progressed, and the USIC acquired more information, it became clear that the Trump campaign was doing really strange and suspicious things. I think the USIC eventually became suspicious of Trump himself. And the real turning point for the USIC and also for U.S. citizens who were not supporters of Trump, was when Trump fired Comey for not ending the investigation into Flynn. It was when Trump fired Comey that the Special Counsel's investigation began. That was thing that really made people suspicious.
Click to expand...

A nice narrative. The problem continues to be that we now know that the USIC saw no evidence to suppose that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia.
And yet we also know that is the approach they (meaning the FBI) took- ie. that that is to say the FBI saw no distinction between saying Russia was trying to screw with the election and saying Trump was conspiring with Russia in that effort.
Click to expand...
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is your characterization of the investigation.

This is not something any FBI director or FBI agent would ever say about any investigation.

The whole point of an investigation is to learn the truth about something, so long as there is a question that needs to be answered, every investigation is legitimate.

Sometimes investigations do not result in investigators learning that a crime was committed by some specific person. That does not mean the investigation was a failure. If investigators could already determine the outcome of an investigation before the investigation happened, there would never be any investigations of anything, ever.

You need to understand that.

This isn't Minority Report, where we can predict what people will do in the future. The FBI cannot read anyone's mind. The FBI does not have powers of clairvoyance. The FBI must discover the truth about a thing by uncovering facts. This can only be done within the context of an investigation using logic and science and a lot of hard work. And a lot of it involves asking people questions. And that's what they did in Flynn's case. And the truth is, investigators need people to tell them the truth. That is why Congress made it illegal to lie to the FBI. If people were able to lie with impunity about their crimes, they would be far more likely to get away with committing crimes.
Click to expand...

A conversation by the the incoming NSC director with the Russian ambassador where no negotiotiotion took place or quid pro quos exchange dis not a valid reason for thinking they might have been wrong about their conclusion that Mr. Flynn did not present a security risk.
The law against lying to the FBI is about lying with regards to a material fact of the investigation.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Why do you think the Obama administration abused its powers? Do you think Russia did not try to interfere in the 2016 election? Do you think Russia did not try to reach out to the Trump campaign in order to coordinate with the Trump campaign? Do you think the Trump campaign did not, at least, entertain the idea? All of this is in the various reports. I would begin by reading the Special Counsel's report, and follow-up with the two other reports I linked to previously.

Knowing what we know about what Russia did, and knowing what we know what the Trump campaign did, and knowing what we know about the evidence the USIC acquired at the time, your position that the Obama administration somehow abused its powers seemed quite untenable. It doesn't make any sense to me why you would think that. The only thing I can think of is that you have not acquainted yourself with the facts of the investigation.
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether its illegitimate to investigate as to whether Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
The problem is that the Obama Admin took the position that the Trump campaign was actively conspiring with Russia for that end.
We now know- said again-- that the folks in DOJ and DNI leadership never saw evidence to suggest this was true.
Yet-- we have the investigation.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is a silly statement.

The reason why the FBI interviews anyone is to learn more information about something.

If the FBI already knew that Flynn or the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government they would not have any need to interview Flynn or anyone else.

To demonstrate by way of example, the FBI does not need overwhelming evidence a criminal committed a crime to interview that criminal, the FBI requires only suspicious based on some articulable fact.
Click to expand...

With respects to Flynn-- the law for which he pled guilty requires the lie to be of a material fact of an investigation. The FBI already knew what Flynn had said, and they knew there was no quid pro quo. There was nothing to find by interviewing Flynn
What we are now learning is there was no investigation of Mr. Flynn occurring-- the FBI had already determined that he was not a security risk.
Thats why the DOJ withdrew its prosecution.

With regard to the larger issue-- we now know there the Obama DOJ and DNI leadership never saw evidence that would lead them to conclude that Trump was conspiring with Russia.
 
Athanasius68 said:
With respects to Flynn-- the law for which he pled guilty requires the lie to be of a material fact of an investigation. The FBI already knew what Flynn had said, and they knew there was no quid pro quo. There was nothing to find by interviewing Flynn
What we are now learning is there was no investigation of Mr. Flynn occurring-- the FBI had already determined that he was not a security risk.
Thats why the DOJ withdrew its prosecution.

With regard to the larger issue-- we now know there the Obama DOJ and DNI leadership never saw evidence that would lead them to conclude that Trump was conspiring with Russia.
Click to expand...

There is a bigger issue. Not only did the FBI already know what Gen. Flynn said, they were required to present that exculpatory evidence to the court. They didn't. Nor is it the first time the FBI illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in Judge Sullivan's court. The FBI is systemically corrupt to the core.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
We don't know that Mr. Steele was played by Russian intelligence. This is an ASSERTION on your part, which no one has proven.
Click to expand...

That is true.
But its better than saying that Mr. Steele lied about what he was told from his anonymous triple heresay Russian informants.



And? Your point?
Click to expand...

That the evidence shows that Russia targeted the election.
Both candidates.



Crossfire Hurricane began before the FBI received the Steele Dossier.
Click to expand...

Based upon nothing-- PapaD had told the FBI agent there was conspiracy between Russia and the campaign.



No, it's not.

You have a few comments from some people in the government who said that some aspects of the dossier might be the result of disinformation on part of the Russian government. That's it. You have nothing else.
Click to expand...

Sure I do-- we know that when Russia was sending people to reach out to the Trump campaign with starry promises of anti-Clinton stuff, Russians were plowing Mr. Steele with anti-Trump stuff.


#1 you suggest all of the Steele Dossier is rubbish because some of it MAY be rubbish, and therefore any consideration of the contents of the dossier is somehow tainted. That's bad logic.
Click to expand...

So now, after all the denunciations of Russia and how its interests are not aligned with those of the USA's, we are going to give that country the benefit of the doubt.
That makes no sense.

#2 the fact that some parts of the dossier may have been the result of disinformation does not mean Steele or the Clinton campaign were targeted. The possible disinformation you speak of may have simply been distributed without regard to any sort of eventual target.
Click to expand...

Giiven that it was anti-Trump info at a time when Mr. Trump was the GOP nominee for president, it kind of shows what Russia:
Trying to create chaos.

#3 with respect to moral culpability...IT WOULD NOT MATTER if Steele was targeted...Steele was not trying to "work with" the Russian government in the same way the Trump campaign was trying to work with the Russian government. Steele was SPYING on the Russian government.
Click to expand...

Steele was working for the Clinton campaign-- he was not the Lone Ranger here on some quest for justice.
He was paid for his efforts.

So, when you push this dumb argument that well both campaigns were targeted so Trump really didn't do anything that wrong, so let's just leave Trump alone, it's a BAD argument. It doesn't make logical sense.
Click to expand...

Yet again-- there was an official investigation into Mr. Trump that we now know the Obama guys saw no evidence for it to occur.
And we know that the Steele dossier was used as evidence in that effort.



We don't know he was fed nonsense from Russia. This is not public information. There are wonderings-out-loud by U.S. government officials in the public record. There are statements of suspicion by U.S. government officials in the public record. There is not anything in the public record from which we can definitively conclude that disinformation Steele -- MAY have received -- was part of some targeted Russian disinformation campaign.
Click to expand...

Yep-- trust the good will of Russia...

It may be that the false things in the Steele report are simply the result of the "telephone game" (I heard someone say something they heard from another, etc.), or it may simply be the ramblings of some senior Russian government official who got drunk with Steele on the phone and started making crap up.

We simply don't know.
Click to expand...

And yet, these ramblings were used in a court of law and used in Congress to support the claim that Mr. Trump had conspired with Russia.
Was that wrong?
Click to expand...
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Within a criminal law context, they had one, Flynn's possible violation of the Logan Act.

Within a counterintelligence context, they had one as well, and that related to the broader Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Click to expand...

They already knew they had no Logan Act predicate-- they had the transcript.
They also knew Flynn was not a national security threat.
We have been through this.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since the guilty pleas had already been entered, the only thing that the DOJ could properly do would be to make submissions on sentence and recommend that no fine or imprisonment be imposed.

Once the pleas had been entered, there was NO PROSECUTION left to do.
Click to expand...

Doesn't a prosecutor have an ethical obligation to bring to charge and bring to trial only those allegations that he or she believes the evidence will result in a conviction?
I mean, the prosecutor can't just throw mud on the wall and see what sticks.
And if evidence is uncovered that would lead the prosecutor to conclude that he or she could not sustain a conviction, doesn't that prosecutor have an ethical obligation to drop the charges?
 
Athanasius68 said:
They already knew they had no Logan Act predicate-- they had the transcript.
They also knew Flynn was not a national security threat.
We have been through this.
Click to expand...

Poor Heisenblab is taking a terrible beating.:lol:

Anyone think he'll come back to spread more lies and BS?
 
Termn8or said:
No, Poseur.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how thick my skin is, there is not a thing you can say to discourage me from posting my views.

[The FBI needs a criminal predicate to interview someone, and they lacked one for Flynn, because agents other than that corrupt hack Strzok had found no evidence that Flynn had committed any crimes.
Click to expand...

This is not true. The interview itself was evidence of a Logan Act violation.

And they did have a predicate associated with the counterintelligence investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, it was a counterintelligence issue as well as a criminal issue.

The investigation should have immediately been shut down, but Strzok kept it open on a false pretext on request from "the 7th Floor," i.e. Comey and McCabe, both now under criminal investigation, as Strzok is.
Click to expand...

I do not know about Strzok, but the case against McCabe was dropped months ago.

If you're talking about Durham's fool's errand, I won't be holding my breath.
 
Termn8or said:
Very disingenuous evasion. He wasn't doing foreign policy.

Every administration makes contact with foreigners with whom their counterparts, as Flynn did. Obama and his officials did before they took office.

It's routine.

Corrupt Obama hacks lied that ordinary conduct was sinister, like they lied about almost everything about the Trump administration.
Click to expand...

You are lying.

Read the 302. He wasn't just "making contact."

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf
 
Termn8or said:
You, a Poseur
Click to expand...

Lol, why are you using this word? It's such a strange insult to use.

are going to claim that Flynn, a 3-star general who risked his life for his country, was a threat to US national security?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the evidence indicates.

They set him up and framed him.
Click to expand...

It's not that complicated. The rules are very simple. One of those rules is that when the FBI interviews you, do not lie to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom