• 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

Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Take advantage? Why would that be necessary? Is i FBI policy to take advantage of people?
Click to expand...

There are literally numerous FBI divisions with the sole purpose of learning how to legally take advantage of everything.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Have no idea what this means. What is not going to make it into the history books?
Click to expand...
The whole fictional construct you carry around - "obamagate", imaginary scandals, nonsense and blather.

All of that will disappear within a few decades. You guys will be a footnote - like the Know Nothings.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
There are literally numerous FBI divisions with the sole purpose of learning how to legally take advantage of everything.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's understood and has been repeated often enough now. And they don't need a reason.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
The whole fictional construct you carry around - "obamagate", imaginary scandals, nonsense and blather.

All of that will disappear within a few decades. You guys will be a footnote - like the Know Nothings.
Click to expand...
Never mentioned "Obamagate" and the rest you can debate either way.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
I know you didn't mention "obamagate" - but it's all on par with the other nonsense.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you've debted this long enough. Time to give it a rest.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Yes, Comey knew that an incoming administration would not yet be fully organized yet and he took advantage of that. Why?

And now everyone in the White House understands, as did other Administrations, that they cannot trust the FBI. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a case of being 'fully' organized. It was a case of being poorly organized and managed. The outgoing Obama Administration in an effort to ensure a smooth and hit the ground running transition had all of the various federal government departments and agencies prepare brief folders and reference documents to help incoming administration get up to speed quickly and efficiently just like the Bush Administration had done for them in 2008. But the Trump people weren't interested in taking advantage of any of it. They came in with a separate agenda to weed out policies and opinions they didn't agree with and an agenda to cull out those who didn't conform to their dogma, or were perceived as being disloyal virtually on the basis of having been appointed or hired by the previous administration.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Atomic Kid said:
It wasn't a case of being 'fully' organized. It was a case of being poorly organized and managed. The outgoing Obama Administration in an effort to ensure a smooth and hit the ground running transition had all of the various federal government departments and agencies prepare brief folders and reference documents to help incoming administration get up to speed quickly and efficiently just like the Bush Administration had done for them in 2008. But the Trump people weren't interested in taking advantage of any of it. They came in with a separate agenda to weed out policies and opinions they didn't agree with and an agenda to cull out those who didn't conform to their dogma, or were perceived as being disloyal virtually on the basis of having been appointed or hired by the previous administration.
Click to expand...
The first part of your post is valid because they were disorganized but do you seriously believe that the FBI could do that now? As pointed out elsewhere no one would trust the FBI anymore so, I suppose, that would mean it's now better organized..

And of course Trump was elected in order to change Obama's policies..
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, by all means - clarify your statements. If I am "declaring it" wrong, tell me how and why I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

That would be up to you, would it not?
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
No. Your point is not "up to me".

If I have misunderstood you, I am asking you to help me understand.
Click to expand...

Its going to be a moot point. The appeals court has ordered Sullivan to respond within 10 days on the motion to dismiss.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

I find it amusing that lying to the Congress of the United States of America by a president results in an impeachment trial while lying to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation results in a dismissal of charges.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Tangmo said:
Rowers have gone to the wall for Flynn in multiple ways they didn't consider at all for Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and a few others. This is despite Flynn being just another run of the mill Putin Trump guy.

While Flynn was NSA to Trump he himself is not such a grand figure in the Putin Trump scheme of things except as a gofer and a messenger boy. Trump can get anyone to do that, so why are the Rowers long term and fanatically -- relentlessly -- obsessed with Flynn

The unrelenting defense of Flynn who hasn't any defense -- and that is tireless and indefatigable -- is about much more than Flynn himself. It's about Bison Barr getting away with corrupting justice by nullifying the rule of law. It's about Trump shredding the Constitution in this instance as in many other instances to include personages.

It's about the Rowers using Flynn to demolish justice in the USA and to destroy U.S. counter intelligence capabilities.

This is what the little man Flynn is about to Putin Trump & Rowers. And this only.
Click to expand...

The reason why Flynn matters is because the government had no evidence that Flynn had been part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
You might recall a small matter when many people were up in arms because they thought Trump and or his campaign had conspired with Russia.
It was in the news. You might be be able to find a thread or two about it on DP.

We now know it didn't happen and, on top of that, that there was never any basis for thinking it had.

Nobody goes to bat for Manafort because his trials had nothing to do with any claim that he was part of a conspiracy.
Stone does a little more because of the manner by which he was treated (over an issue-- conspiracy to fix an election that never happened). And that the Stone prosecution confirms there was never a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to fix the election.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Atomic Kid said:
Why wouldn't any savvy investigator take advantage? The Trump transition in comparison to just about any incoming administration you can think of was a mess. And 3 years later it still is a mess. That probably wouldn't have happened under any other competently runned transitional administration
Click to expand...

We already know there was no basis to take advantage of anything.
Its clear-- there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn represented a national security threat or was a criminal.
Period.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

TheDoctorWasIn said:
You guys know that whole weird narrative you guys have all bought into is never gonna make it to the history books, right?
Click to expand...

That Mr. Trump and/or his campaign did not conspire with Russia will be in the history books.
Since that is a fact.
A good history book will ask why anyone actually believed that nonsense.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No. The "evidence" that Flynn lied would have been the live, in-court testimony of Strzok and Pietnka - had this gone to trial.

The 302 is just a memo.
Click to expand...

The 302 is evidence. The call recording is evidence which has yet to be given to the defense. Don't ignore the other exculpatory evidence just released that the prosecution illegally withheld. Prosecutorial malfeasance.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Which otherwise translates as Comey having no evidence of his being either a criminal suspect or a national security threat.
Click to expand...

No, this translates as Comey having some evidence to suspect Flynn was a national security threat, but not a sufficient amount of evidence to prove Flynn was a national security threat. Proving someone is a national security threat is different than suspecting someone is a national security threat. The FBI needs only an articulable factual basis to conduct an investigation of someone. It does not need first to prove someone is a national security threat in order to investigate if someone is a national security threat. Otherwise, what would be the point of an investigation?

And Trump supporters appear to suffer from a flaw in their logic, and they did this with the Special Counsel's report as well, and that is they confuse a lack of sufficient evidence to prove something to be the same thing as having no evidence. Those are two different things entirely.

Obama was not asking for Comey details about how much evidence was collected in the case. Obama was asking for Comey's advice. Comey was indicating that he could not say definitively or prove that Flynn was a national security threat, but that he was still suspicious.

The fact that Flynn had a level of communication with Kislyak that was unusual is evidence in and of itself. Contrary to the notion put forward by Trump supporters and Trump apologists incoming administration officials don't conduct foreign policy before being sworn into office. The frequent calls with the same person as this wouldn't be typical of exchanging greetings with foreign counterparts. Within the context of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the USIC's attempts to learn about Russia's intelligence operation attacking the U.S., Flynn's frequent calls with Kislyak were very suspicious.

Furthermore, Comey also knew at the time that:

1. Flynn was connected to Trump's campaign which had become a target of a Russian intelligence campaign.

2. Flynn himself had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian government:

a) traveling to Russia as recently as December 2015
b) receiving payment from a Russian-funded organization in the amount of $45,000, income which he failed to report to the government in his financial disclosure forms.
c) Flynn also received large payments from the government of Turkey which he failed to report and which the FBI knew about at the time Comey had this discussion with Obama (see this article dated from Nov 2016: Trump’s Top Military Adviser Is Lobbying For Obscure Company With Ties To Turkish Government | The Daily Caller)
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
The reason why Flynn matters is because the government had no evidence that Flynn had been part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
You might recall a small matter when many people were up in arms because they thought Trump and or his campaign had conspired with Russia.
It was in the news. You might be be able to find a thread or two about it on DP.

We now know it didn't happen and, on top of that, that there was never any basis for thinking it had.

Nobody goes to bat for Manafort because his trials had nothing to do with any claim that he was part of a conspiracy.
Stone does a little more because of the manner by which he was treated (over an issue-- conspiracy to fix an election that never happened). And that the Stone prosecution confirms there was never a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to fix the election.
Click to expand...

You've been slicing and dicing and chopping that same baloney for almost four years yet no matter how you slice it it's still your same baloney. It's been leftover and served up again so many times it's turned into mush.

As I've said Flynn is small fry being exploited by Putin Trump & Rowers because you have bigger fish to fry, ie, justice, rule of law, the IC and FBI and the Constitution. Nullifying Flynn's repeated guilty plea is a top priority in this boldly corrupt campaign. It's classic triumph of will which hasn't ever worked against the United States nor will it work domestically in this century. The Trojan Horse Republicans that are the biggest pro Russia political party outside of Russia itself. Conservatives and other Republicans have become what we took up arms to defeat throughout the 20th century.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

W_Heisenberg said:
No, this translates as Comey having some evidence to suspect Flynn was a national security threat, but not a sufficient amount of evidence to prove Flynn was a national security threat. Proving someone is a national security threat is different than suspecting someone is a national security threat.
Click to expand...

He has no reason to suspect it either.
The incoming NSC director talking to the Russian ambassador is not suspicious. He already knew there was no problem on the conversation and as per the Rice memo, he had no evidence of a crime.

T
he FBI needs only an articulable factual basis to conduct an investigation of someone.
Click to expand...

Yes-- and as the memo says flat out-- he is not sending classified information to Russia. We have been over this.
In other words, there is no fact.



Obama was not asking for Comey details about how much evidence was collected in the case. Obama was asking for Comey's advice. Comey was indicating that he could not say definitively or prove that Flynn was a national security threat, but that he was still suspicious.
Click to expand...

Comey said he had no fact that Flynn breaking the law or was a national security threat.
Talking to the Russian ambassador is not suspicious activity.
Comey had nothing.
And Obama knew Comey had nothing.
And Rice knew that Obama knew that Flynn had nothing.

The fact that Flynn had a level of communication with Kislyak that was unusual is evidence in and of itself. Contrary to the notion put forward by Trump supporters and Trump apologists incoming administration officials don't conduct foreign policy before being sworn into office
Click to expand...
.

It didn't happen. We know this because Comey told that to the president.

The frequent calls with the same person as this wouldn't be typical of exchanging greetings with foreign counterparts. Within the context of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the USIC's attempts to learn about Russia's intelligence operation attacking the U.S., Flynn's frequent calls with Kislyak were very suspicious.
Click to expand...

We already know that the FBI had determined that Flynn was not a national security threat.
We also know the that the the Obama Admin DOJ and DNI guys saw no evidence to suggest there was a conspiracy between Russia and Trump to fix the election.

F
urthermore, Comey also knew at the time that:

1. Flynn was connected to Trump's campaign which had become a target of a Russian intelligence campaign.
Click to expand...

Yes-- the Trump campaign was targeted by Russia.
That is different than stating that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

2. Flynn himself had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian government:

a) traveling to Russia as recently as December 2015
b) receiving payment from a Russian-funded organization in the amount of $45,000, income which he failed to report to the government in his financial disclosure forms.
c) Flynn also received large payments from the government of Turkey which he failed to report and which the FBI knew about at the time Comey had this discussion with
Click to expand...

Lots of people have contacts with state entities connected with the Russian government.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Comey isn't a foreign policy guy. His forte is law enforcement and national security
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you think of Comey's expertise as it pertains to foreign policy or how foreign policy might intersect with counterintelligence investigations. You are characterizing Comey's comments. For this purpose of this little sub-argument it's not necessary for Comey to be an expert on foreign policy. It has no bearing on how you are, inaccurately, trying to characterize Comey's comments.

Actually, the purpose of a a counter-intelligence investigation is to provide information for the president
Click to expand...

The president can start one and end one at his will.
Click to expand...

Ug...This is not the purpose of a counterintelligence investigation. The purpose of a counterintelligence investigation is to identify, track, and possibly eliminate intelligence threats posed by foreign governments. The FBI accomplishes its mission of hunting spies and preventing espionage through the use of investigation and interaction with local law enforcement and other members of the USIC. The President delegates nearly all functions of the executive branch to his subordinates, and the various agencies tasked with implementing the duties of the executive branch. And the President is not sitting at his desk approving or disapproving each and every counterintelligence investigation. That's not how the federal government works. That's not how the Presidency works. Important investigations will bubble up to the President's desk when an important decision must be made, yes, but it depends on the circumstances.

We already know he was involved with the spurious Russia investigation.
Click to expand...

In this case, there is enough publicly available information to conclude Obama deliberately stayed away from the investigation and any sort of decision-making process involved with it. I speak, specifically, of Crossfire Hurricane. There were some ancillary decisions Obama had to make in reaction to the information the USIC uncovered, but it's not if, as Trump supporters constantly suggest, that Obama somehow initiated or managed the investigation.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Tangmo said:
You've been slicing and dicing and chopping that same baloney for almost four years yet no matter how you slice it it's still your same baloney. It's been leftover and served up again so many times it's turned into mush.

As I've said Flynn is small fry being exploited by Putin Trump & Rowers because you have bigger fish to fry, ie, justice, rule of law, the IC and FBI and the Constitution. Nullifying Flynn's repeated guilty plea is a top priority in this boldly corrupt campaign. It's classic triumph of will which hasn't ever worked against the United States nor will it work domestically in this century. The Trojan Horse Republicans that are the biggest pro Russia political party outside of Russia itself. Conservatives and other Republicans have become what we took up arms to defeat throughout the 20th century.
Click to expand...

The baloney is the claim that Trump and/or his campaign had conspired with Russia to fix the election.
Its no longer subject to reasonable debate. The facts as stated by the Obama DOJ and DNI are that they saw no evidence that this had occurred. The Stone prosecution and now the Flynn information confirm this-- and the stuff from Flynn now show that the Obama folks knew the allegation was baloney. In other words, there was no good faith reason to think it true.

Say whatever you want about Trump policy toward Russia. But don't turn around and say the use of the surveillance power and authority of the USA is acceptable to stop the elected government from pursuing what it believes is correct.
That don't fly in America. Maybe in Russia, but not here. Dont bring it here.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
The president knew there was no basis for either-- Comey told him that.
Click to expand...

No.

Comey did not say that.

You are confusing little evidence for no evidence. It is true Comey could not prove Flynn was a threat, that doesn't mean he had no evidence indicating Flynn was a threat. And Comey did not in any way indicate there was "no evidence" to suggest Flynn was a threat, in fact Comey revealed his suspicions of Flynn to Obama.

That's why Rice wrote her memo-- to blame Comey for the problem.
Click to expand...

You see. That's where you are mistaken. There is no problem. The USIC was correct to investigate Flynn.

There was no articuable fact. That is what the memo from Rice states.
Click to expand...

Nope. That is not what the memo states.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
There is nothing particularly strange about telling the Russian ambassador that Russia should resist going apesh*t over the sanctions. In fact, that would seem to be quite reasonable.
Click to expand...

No, what Flynn did was not reasonable. Flynn was conducting U.S. foreign policy on behalf of the U.S. without authorization and on behalf of someone who had yet to hold official government power. Incoming administrations do not get to decide and execute policy until they are official in office.

Let's read specifically what Flynn did, let's read Flynn's guilty plea:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia

a. On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government's actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election ("U.S. Sanctions").

b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.

c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.

d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.

e. Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.

f. On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.

g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request that Foreign Officials Vote Against or Delay a United Nations Security Council Resolution

4. During the January 24 voluntary interview, FLYNN made additional false statements about calls he made to Russia and several other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically FLYNN falsely stated that he only asked the countries' positions on the vote, and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. FLYNN also falsely stated that the Russian Ambassador never described to him Russia's response to FL YNN's request regarding the resolution. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:

a. On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Israeli settJements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.

b. On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.

c. On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.

d. On or about December 23, 2016, FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
 
Re: U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outs

Athanasius68 said:
Whatever Flynn told Pence is of no concern of the FB
Click to expand...

Nope. If Flynn is lying about his conversations with Kislyak to Trump's administration he becomes a security risk. Russia's knowledge of the conversation and Flynn's lie about the conversation becomes a form of kompromat.

The fact is that there were no facts to justify the investigation. That is what the Rice memo states.
Click to expand...

That is not what the Rice memo states, and we also have publicly available information indicating that is not what Comey or the USIC believed. We also have specific facts in the public domain that indicate precisely what Comey and the USIC had on Flynn at the time, and it was not "nothing" as you allege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom