• 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!

Federal judge hires high-powered D.C. attorney to defend his actions in Flynn case Judge Emmet G. S

Athanasius68 said:
He said for Russia to not overreact. It continues to be mysterious why we would want any American in similar situation to say "Go batsh*t crazy."
Click to expand...

He said for Russia to not overreact so as to not box in the Trump administration. While Flynn may have had his own reasons for doing so, such as fighting radical Islamists, in doing so he was conveying to Russia that the incoming Trump administration would make things easier for the Russian government. This had the effect of negating the punishment the Obama administration enacted by slapping Russia with sanctions and kicking out its diplomats. Obama did this to fight back at Russia, to punish Russia, for Russia's attempts to interfere in our elections.

It's okay that Flynn doesn't care that Russia tried to interfere in our elections. That's not wrong, immoral, or illegal.

It's NOT okay for Flynn to actively engage in foreign policy, interfering with what the Obama administration was trying to do, because Flynn had not yet been given any delegated authority to do such a thing. This was both an immoral act and also possibly illegal.

The FBI STILL did nothing about Flynn ...

And then Flynn LIED to White House officials. That made Flynn's behavior even more suspicious. When Flynn lied it became the duty of the FBI to find out why he lied.

And then Flynn messed up. The FBI didn't mess up. Strzok didn't mess up. Comey didn't mess up. Flynn messed up. Flynn lied to the FBI. Flynn is responsible for his own behavior and he chose to lie to the FBI. And then when Flynn was caught Flynn eventually admitted in open court, before a judge, under oath, TWICE, that he lied. Flynn was not treated unfairly. And he was given a sweetheart deal for his cooperation in the Special Counsel's investigation. Flynn should be sentenced in accordance with the crime he pleaded guilty too. It is wrong for Barr to interfere in this matter to protect Trump.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It negated nothing.
Click to expand...

We know that's not true because Russia did nothing in response to the sanctions.

Mr. Obama himself had said that Russia does this sort of stuff every election (BTW-- where was the punishment for such efforts in 2012?). It only became an crisis because Trump won.
Click to expand...

So, I have examined that issue too. So there was a huge difference between what Russia did in 2012 and prior, and what it did in 2016. The 2016 active measures campaign against us was a far more serious, and well-cordinated endeavor on Russia's part. Your characterization of 2012 and 2016 being similar is grossly inaccurate to the point of it being a lie.

And if you want to go through what happened in 2012 point by point. I have the time and inclination to do so in order to prove you wrong. So let's get started. Where would you like to begin with respect to 2012 and prior?

Well, Mueller dissagreed.
Click to expand...

This is another lie. Mueller did not disagree. I know you love Trump and are trying to do everything possible to protect him, but you really need to stop lying on his behalf. You are completely mischaracterizing what Mueller said, to the point of lying.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190724/109808/HHRG-116-IG00-Transcript-20190724.pdf

This is what Mueller said about Flynn's behavior:

Mr. Krishnamoorthi. For example, you successfully charged former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn of lying to Federal agents about his conversations with Russian officials, correct?
Mr. Mueller. Correct.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?

Mr. Mueller. I cannot get into that mainly because there are many elements of the FBI that are looking at different aspects of that issue.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Currently?

Mr. Mueller. Currently.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Lying to the FBI is a crime when it relates to a "material" fact. We now that the FBI had concluded Flynn was not a threat and that the FBI did not think the transcript showed anything different.
Click to expand...

It does not matter that the FBI concluded Flynn was not a threat.

It matters that the FBI noticed Flynn lying about the call to White House officials. The FBI then became duty-bound to examine the old evidence in light of the new evidence.

This happens all the time. Law enforcement all throughout the country does this all the time. The FBI does this all the time in investigations large and small.

As such, the whatever Flynn told the FBI was not "material" and thus the charges were properly dropped.
Click to expand...

Flynn's lie was material and directly impeded the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.

Flynn's lie was material to a possible violation of the Logan Act. Furthermore, it is normal for a criminal suspect to be charged and convicted with lying even though they are not charged and convicted with some related crime.

It's an almost everyday occurrence. Flynn was not treated any differently than anyone else.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yep-- but the FBI didn't drag Clinton through the dirt...
Click to expand...

1. The FBI looked into this before and after Trump took office, and found nothing.

2. Clinton didn't lie.

3. Furthermore, Clinton publicly disclosed the payments.

4. Flynn, on the other hand, lied about it, both on his forms to the government, and also to the American people during the Republican National Convention when he was interviewed by Michael Isikoff.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
It's quite simply poorly written law, and if you were to write it properly or if prosecutors construed it in a way that would be constitutional it would still be very difficult to prosecute, but that doesn't really matter. Even in a universe where the Logan Act was not on the books...Flynn still should NOT have done what he did. It was not proper. It was not appropriate. It ran contrary to the way our government operates. It was also contrary to U.S. national interests.
Click to expand...

Flynn said Russia should not overreact. Its not clear why that was a bad thing.
Almost certainly Kisylak could have found news articles saying the same thing.

Whether opposition to sanctions is contrary to national issues is a policy issue which is of no business of the FBI.


Yes, there was hysteria. Let's examine the hysteria...

Flynn did something improper, possibly criminal. The FBI took note.

Flynn then lied about it. The FBI then decided it was time to interview him.

Flynn lied then lied to the FBI.

And then when Flynn pleaded guilty, twice, under oath, before a judge, in open court, Trump's supporters went apes***.
Click to expand...

It was already established above that the Logan Act is probably unconstitutional and, even on its own terms, would basically be impossible to prosecute.
Yet you find it perfectly acceptable to go after Flynn in such circumstances? That isn't 'normal.'

The thing about Flynn is that he was a guy who was prosecuted in order to get him to divulge the information he had about the Trump/Russia conspiracy.
Those people who called such a conspiracy bunk over the past few years have been proven correct and the dropping of charges supports this.
And as we now know there was no reason to think there ever was a conspiracy.
Its been pure politics-- Flynn is guilty because it shows what a corrupt guy Trump is; Flynn is not guilty and it shows how corrupt Trump detractors are.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Now we are trusting upon the good faith of Russia. Give us a break.
Click to expand...

This comment doesn't make any sense.

We know Russia did not retaliate in return by expelling our diplomats, upon Flynn's requested, and as we would have been expected Russia to have done:

Putin says Russia will not expel anyone in response to US sanctions

So this has nothing whatsoever to do with trusting on the good faith of Russia. They simply chose not to retaliate by expelling our diplomats. We know they did not do this because those diplomats were not sent home.
 
[
QUOTE=W_Heisenberg;1071976154]We know that's not true because Russia did nothing in response to the sanctions.
Click to expand...

And now we are relying upon the good faith of Russia.
Maybe Russia was just trying to continue to create chaos-- you know, fan the flames with those who thought Trump had conspired with Russia.

So, I have examined that issue too. So there was a huge difference between what Russia did in 2012 and prior, and what it did in 2016. The 2016 active measures campaign against us was a far more serious, and well-cordinated endeavor on Russia's part. Your characterization of 2012 and 2016 being similar is grossly inaccurate to the point of it being a lie.

And if you want to go through what happened in 2012 point by point. I have the time and inclination to do so in order to prove you wrong. So let's get started. Where would you like to begin with respect to 2012 and prior?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Russia did in 2012. I do know that Obama thought Romney was wrong when the latter stated that Russia was the great for to the USA.
I do know that Obama did nothing in 2016-- until Clinton lost. Then suddenly Russian involvement became a big issue.

This is another lie. Mueller did not disagree. I know you love Trump and are trying to do everything possible to protect him, but you really need to stop lying on his behalf. You are completely mischaracterizing what Mueller said, to the point of lying.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190724/109808/HHRG-116-IG00-Transcript-20190724.pdf
Click to expand...

We already know that the FBI didn't think he was a security threat because they dropped the investigation.
And we know that the FBI didn't think the transcripts showed any law violations because Comey said there wasn't a criminal or national security threat.
We have the tapes.
All you are trying to do here is insinuate there is some super secret stuff somewhere that if revealed will show all.


It does not matter that the FBI concluded Flynn was not a threat.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Why waste time on a non-threat?

It matters that the FBI noticed Flynn lying about the call to White House officials. The FBI then became duty-bound to examine the old evidence in light of the new evidence.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any new evidence. They knew what was actually said.
I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.


Flynn's lie was material and directly impeded the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Flynn wasn't being interviewed in pursuit of investigating Russian interference.
He was being interviewed in pursuit of Trump conspiracy with that interference.

Flynn's lie was material to a possible violation of the Logan Act. Furthermore, it is normal for a criminal suspect to be charged and convicted with lying even though they are not charged and convicted with some related crime.
Click to expand...


I thought we agreed that the Logan Act precept was nonsense.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This comment doesn't make any sense.

We know Russia did not retaliate in return by expelling our diplomats, upon Flynn's requested, and as we would have been expected Russia to have done:

Putin says Russia will not expel anyone in response to US sanctions

So this has nothing whatsoever to do with trusting on the good faith of Russia. They simply chose not to retaliate by expelling our diplomats. We know they did not do this because those diplomats were not sent home.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that expelling some American diplomats would be more important for Russia than helping foster a narrative that the new president had conspired with Russia to fix the election.
I think its clear at this point Putin made the right decision for his national interests.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Flynn said Russia should not overreact. Its not clear why that was a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It's because in doing so he was negating the effect of the diplomatic expulsions and the sanctions.

It's not that complicated.

Whether opposition to sanctions is contrary to national issues is a policy issue which is of no business of the FBI.
Click to expand...

It is with respect to the Logan Act. It is with respect to counterintelligence -- because if someone is doing something contrary to U.S. national interests and the action creates the suspicion that person is an agent of the foreign government -- especially within the context of an ongoing and broader counterintelligence investigation the FBI becomes obligated to investigate. And the lies Flynn told about his calls with Kislyak created a situation where it clearly became the business of the FBI.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yet you find it perfectly acceptable to go after Flynn in such circumstances? That isn't 'normal.'
Click to expand...

1. We need not rely solely on the Logan Act. In fact, the primary concern the FBI had was from a counterintelligence angle.

2. The FBI reacted normally. What's not normal is FLYNN's BEHAVIOR. Flynn's behavior is NOT NORMAL. That's what made Flynn's behavior suspicious. It's not normal for soon-to-be U.S. officials to take money from a foreign government, not report it, lie about it on national television, have dinner with the leader of that particular foreign country, and subsequent to an active measures campaign against the U.S., try to intervene in U.S. foreign policy when having no official authority to do so.

THAT is not normal.

THAT is strange.

THAT is worthy of investigation.

And then the idiot lied about it. Flynn lied about it. Not the FBI. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Not Comey. Not Strzok. Flynn. Flynn lied.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The thing about Flynn is that he was a guy who was prosecuted in order to get him to divulge the information he had about the Trump/Russia conspiracy.
Click to expand...

YES! This is what the FBI does ALL the time with EVERYONE they suspect of being involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Flynn was not treated any differently.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Those people who called such a conspiracy bunk over the past few years have been proven correct and the dropping of charges supports this.
Click to expand...

The fact that the Special Counsel could not prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt does NOT mean Flynn was treated unfairly, and it does NOT mean that Flynn's case should be dropped, and it does NOT mean that the FBI erred in conducting the investigation.

The whole point of an investigation is to discover the truth of a thing.

An investigation does not fail if it cannot find enough evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

An investigation is not a goal.

An investigation is a process.

If investigators knew the outcome of an investigation beforehand there would never be any investigations of anything, ever.

If investigators were afraid that an investigation would not ultimately produce evidence provable of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be very few investigations. The only investigations you would likely see is for investigations in which the evidence is already overwhelming. But this not how our law enforcement agencies generally work. Our law enforcement agencies generally have to do the hard work of uncovering evidence. Investigations don't usually just fall in the lap of investigators.

You keep making this point in an attempt to protect your cult leader, but you're wrong. This propagandistic argument you keep making has no basis in the actual reality of what law enforcement does on a day-to-day basis.

And as we now know there was no reason to think there ever was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

This is a lie. Read the Special Counsel's report. After you've read the Special Counsel's report you will have knowledge that there were very good reasons to suspect a conspiracy.
 
Athanasius68 said:
You are assuming that expelling some American diplomats would be more important for Russia than helping foster a narrative that the new president had conspired with Russia to fix the election.
I think its clear at this point Putin made the right decision for his national interests.
Click to expand...

1. What the **** does this have to do with "trusting" Russia?

2. You are pushing a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy to assume that Russia MUST have either been trying to foster a narrative that Trump conspired with Russia OR actually trying to avoid punishment.

3. When the Russian government did not get what they wanted from the Trump administration, because Congress -- NOT TRUMP -- found its spine and stood up for America, they expelled over 700 hundred diplomats from Russia:

Russia Expels 755 U.S. Diplomats - The Atlantic
 
W_Heisenberg said:
YES! This is what the FBI does ALL the time with EVERYONE they suspect of being involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Flynn was not treated any differently.
Click to expand...
Your forbearance in the face of blatant lies and unserious arguments is again, commendable. I just wanted to note this: Flynn was prosecuted because he was guilty. The plea deal, as I noted earlier, relieved him of prosecution of more serious charges because he agreed to cooperate. It is convenient of your interlocutors to ignore this and minimize Flynn's other misconduct, but it still exists. Someone even claimed here "no one gets prosecuted" for FARA violations, which will be news to to Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and Sam Patten, among others.
 
When Flynn said this:
FLYNN: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I understand. Okay, um, okay. Listen, uh, a couple of things. Number one, what I would ask you guys to do - and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? - do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay? Um -
KISLYAK: We have conveyed it.
Click to expand...
Was that an effort to support the national security of the United States, or was he asking for another political favor from a foreign adversary? It was made clear to Russia that OBAMA, not Putin, was the administration's adversary. That is why I think Judge Sullivan reacted unfavorably. He was mindful of the United States Constitution, Article III, section 3, which reads, in pertinent part:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Click to expand...
Russia attacked the United States. It was an act of cyber warfare. A cyber attack is considered both hostile and an act of war. So who, exactly, is the "enemy" in this scenario? Were not his reassurance intended to give "comfort" to the Russian authorities?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom