• 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!

Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in first criminal case arising from review, sources say

Jack Fabulous said:
You won't answer a simple question but you'll skirt right up to the edge of the rules with the personal attacks?

This thread has obviously hurt your feelings.
Click to expand...

I don't allow myself to get pulled down big stupid rabbit holes by conspiracy theorists. Their tactics are invariably the same: have no proof for their implications, demand that others answer vague, open-ended questions forever, and demand that others prove their CT wrong.

Which is what you're doing here. You probably think you're above flat earthers, young earth creationists and 911 Truthers, but you're not.
 
Lutherf said:
Clinesmith's manipulation was also expressly material in that it was included as part of a legal claim.
Click to expand...

Only problem you've got there is that the DoJIG expressly testified to the opposite of your conclusion:
Horowitz Finds FBI Probe into Trump Campaign Was Justified | Time
I guess you could send him your brief showing why you think he's wrong.

Flynn's situation was completely different in that he was fully justified in having the conversation the FBI asked him about, manipulated into an "interview" with what appears to be the express intent to get him to lie*
Click to expand...

*Which he did without any pressure. This is the big question you people have never addressed and for obvious reasons: If Flynn was fully justified in having those conversations why did he lie about them the first time he was asked and then lied again when the FBI interviewed him a second time. Obviously, Flynn knew something that you people still don't recognize. Flynn was worried that he might have gone too far in discussing the sanctions and realized in the first interview that the FBI knew about those conversations (not, as you people have tried to falsely claim, by illegally tapping Flynn's phone but by legally doing so to Sislyak's and capturing Flynn in the process). Given a second interview, Flynn could have changed his story to the FBI but chose to double down on the first lies. If he'd have copped to what he said to Sislyak it might have resulted in some embarrassment but he wouldn't have been charged for lying to the FBI.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't allow myself to get pulled down big stupid rabbit holes by conspiracy theorists. Their tactics are invariably the same: have no proof for their implications, demand that others answer vague, open-ended questions forever, and demand that others prove their CT wrong.

Which is what you're doing here. You probably think you're above flat earthers, young earth creationists and 911 Truthers, but you're not.
Click to expand...

ANNNNnnnnddd... he's been reduced to name calling.:lol:
 
Jack Fabulous said:
ANNNNnnnnddd... he's been reduced to name calling.:lol:
Click to expand...

If you feel that's name calling, that's on you. I'm pointing out that your tactics and their tactics...as well as the legitimacy of the beliefs...are no different.
 
TomFitz said:
Actually, a civilian with no post or authority has no business. telling the top Russian spymaster in the US not to worry about the US government because the Russians would get a better deal from his guy.

And, considering that this guy was fired from the job of DNI, he’s stupid enough to have done it on a phone line that he should have know was being monitored.
Click to expand...

That's a good point that often gets overlooked (as I did). Dirtbag fired Flynn for lying to Pence and others before Flynn was charged with any crime.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes, it is.

This the definition of a process crime.
Click to expand...

Keep this in mind, on August 17th, 2016, before the FIRST FISA warrant was approved, the CIA had informed Crossfire Hurricane investigators that Page was an "operational contact". Basically they told the CH investigators that Page was legit and that was completely ignored until the THIRD RENEWAL at which point someone contacted Clinesmith who then altered the email to indicate the exact opposite of what he had been told.

Clinesmith directly lied as part of an effort to secure a renewal on the warrant even after Trump had been elected. The previous warrant applications were submitted while at least some of the attesters KNEW Page was cleared by another government agency and withheld that information from the court.
 
Cardinal said:
If you feel that's name calling, that's on you. I'm pointing out that your tactics and their tactics...as well as the legitimacy of the beliefs...are no different.
Click to expand...

And they call liberals snowflakes. There is no subject they will not project about
 
Mr Person said:
I might consider it if they applied their own rules in such a fashion, concluding that Trump did what he was accused of and there was a vast cover-up going all the way to Trump as evidence by something like 9 people of his people going down as a result of the investigation. Instead, I get told that actually, all those guilty pleas and convictions after trial by people on Team Trump are just more proof of this conspiracy against Trump I'm supposed to assume. It's absurd.
Click to expand...

No. The argument is that these guys were not charged and convicted or pled guilty for crimes associated with a Trump campaign to conspire with Russia to fix the election.

It is true that the lack of facts to support the allegation against Trump isn't proof there was a conspiracy to 'get' Trump by the Obama Admin.
But the question then has to be asked why then did the administration was conspiring with Russia.




But none of it means Trump didn't actually do what he was accused of, which is the intent behind OP's like this
Click to expand...
.

Well yes. It shows that there was NO reason to think Trump did what he was accused of (conspiring with Russia to fix the election).
It also suggests that the investigation wasn't entirely honest and aboveboard.

He invited and knowingly accepted interference from Russian to aid him in his election.
Click to expand...

The allegation was that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election-- namely by assisting in the hacking of the DNC emails.
All you are doing is arguing that Trump was excited when the emails were released and hoped more would be coming.
Well, if that is the standard, it would seem obvious the Clinton campaign is far 'guiltier' in accepting interference and aid from Russia in 2016. They actually had somebody searching for dirt on Mr. Trump in Russia, and they actually received that dirt. And since we now know that the FBI thinks much of that dossier was Russian disinformation, we can say it was the Clinton campaign allowed a Russian intelligence operation access to the courts (via the FISA warrant), the intelligence community (via the Obama report on Russian meddling) and in Congress (where it was used by Rep. Schiff).
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
Keep this in mind, on August 17th, 2016, before the FIRST FISA warrant was approved, the CIA had informed Crossfire Hurricane investigators that Page was an "operational contact". Basically they told the CH investigators that Page was legit and that was completely ignored until the THIRD RENEWAL at which point someone contacted Clinesmith who then altered the email to indicate the exact opposite of what he had been told.

Clinesmith directly lied as part of an effort to secure a renewal on the warrant even after Trump had been elected. The previous warrant applications were submitted while at least some of the attesters KNEW Page was cleared by another government agency and withheld that information from the court.
Click to expand...

And, as per Horowitz, when the FBI suspected the dossier was in part Russian disinformation.
 
Lutherf said:
Keep this in mind, on August 17th, 2016, before the FIRST FISA warrant was approved, the CIA had informed Crossfire Hurricane investigators that Page was an "operational contact". Basically they told the CH investigators that Page was legit and that was completely ignored until the THIRD RENEWAL at which point someone contacted Clinesmith who then altered the email to indicate the exact opposite of what he had been told.

Clinesmith directly lied as part of an effort to secure a renewal on the warrant even after Trump had been elected. The previous warrant applications were submitted while at least some of the attesters KNEW Page was cleared by another government agency and withheld that information from the court.
Click to expand...
It's still a process crime.
 
TomFitz said:
Actually, a civilian with no post or authority has no business. telling the top Russian spymaster in the US not to worry about the US government because the Russians would get a better deal from his guy.

And, considering that this guy was fired from the job of DNI, he’s stupid enough to have done it on a phone line that he should have know was being monitored.
Click to expand...

That's an absurd mischaracterization of Flynn's situation and if we held to that standard then no incoming administration would be allowed to have any contact with any foreign government and would be forced to start flat footed. It would also allow an outgoing administration to completely sabotage an incoming administration and utterly destroy one of the keys to facilitating a peaceful transition between administrations. If I were you I'd think long and hard before advocating for adversarial transitions between elected administrations.
 
Athanasius68 said:
There was no Trump/Russia operation.
Click to expand...

There was definitely a Russia operation on Dirtbag's behalf, though. Dirtbag even let it be known that he knew about and approved of it when he invited Russia (Putin) to dump everything it had about the bogus email accusation which Russia (Putin) in his famous podium statement: "Russia, if you're listening...." which Putin obligingly did to Wikileaks a few hours later. If that didn't rise to the legal definitions of a conspiracy it certainly fits with the mob boss way of getting someone else to do his dirty work.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes, it is.

This the definition of a process crime.
Click to expand...

A process crime would be a situation where this FBI agent was being investigated for falsifying documents, and he wound up being charged for stating the incorrect dates of his hire.
He was being investigated specifically for falsifying the document.
And we was charged with that crime for which he was being investigated. He was not charged with a process crime.
 
digitusmedius said:
Only problem you've got there is that the DoJIG expressly testified to the opposite of your conclusion:
Horowitz Finds FBI Probe into Trump Campaign Was Justified | Time
I guess you could send him your brief showing why you think he's wrong.



*Which he did without any pressure. This is the big question you people have never addressed and for obvious reasons: If Flynn was fully justified in having those conversations why did he lie about them the first time he was asked and then lied again when the FBI interviewed him a second time. Obviously, Flynn knew something that you people still don't recognize. Flynn was worried that he might have gone too far in discussing the sanctions and realized in the first interview that the FBI knew about those conversations (not, as you people have tried to falsely claim, by illegally tapping Flynn's phone but by legally doing so to Sislyak's and capturing Flynn in the process). Given a second interview, Flynn could have changed his story to the FBI but chose to double down on the first lies. If he'd have copped to what he said to Sislyak it might have resulted in some embarrassment but he wouldn't have been charged for lying to the FBI.
Click to expand...

You are mischaracterizing Horowitz's findings.
 
digitusmedius said:
There was definitely a Russia operation on Dirtbag's behalf, though. Dirtbag even let it be known that he knew about and approved of it when he invited Russia (Putin) to dump everything it had about the bogus email accusation which Russia (Putin) in his famous podium statement: "Russia, if you're listening...." which Putin obligingly did to Wikileaks a few hours later. If that didn't rise to the legal definitions of a conspiracy it certainly fits with the mob boss way of getting someone else to do his dirty work.
Click to expand...

Yes-- there was a Russian operation to screw with the election.
Thats why Russia kept trying to ply the Trump campaign with anti-Clinton stuff.
And why they were successful in plying the Clinton campaign with anti-Trump stuff.
 
Athanasius68 said:
A process crime would be a situation where this FBI agent was being investigated for falsifying documents, and he wound up being charged for stating the incorrect dates of his hire.
He was being investigated specifically for falsifying the document.
And we was charged with that crime for which he was being investigated. He was not charged with a process crime.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what "process crimes" are. Process crimes are crimes against process of justice - crimes in which the victim is the system itself.

Clinesmith has been charged with making false statements. That is a process crime.
 
****er should get 20 years, what a weasel
 
Cardinal said:
Why? Remember to provide evidence for why you believe that.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Says the fake news peddler that quotes a sourceless Vanity Fair article like it's a federal indictment.
 
Lutherf said:
It is not a process crime. It's a crime that occurred before any judicial process had taken place and therefore can't possibly be a "process crime".
Click to expand...
Obtaining a warrant is a judicial process.

Process crimes are not limited to judicial processes - they apply to crimes against any stage of the justice system. Lying to the FBI is a "process crime" - and that usually occurs long before any judicial involvement.
 
Just look at all the vigorous hand waving from the left pretending they don't care.

:lol:
 
TomFitz said:
No,, people like me were bellowing that the Steele “dossier” was largely accurate. But the Steele “dossier” was not used to launch the investigation into Trump’s activities with the Russians.
Click to expand...

At this point, we know it was not accurate. We also know the FBI suspects much of it was Russian disinformation.
The warrant was used in court to support the allegation that Trump was conspiring with Russia.
Since that is the best they had. it kind of leads to the conclusion about the inadequacy of the reasons to launch the investigation.
And at ths point, we also know that the Obama DOJ and DNI guys had testified that also saw no evidence of any conspiracy.

But it is sad to watch Trumpsters try and dismiss a real national security threat
Click to expand...


Yes-- Russia interfering in the election is a national security threat.
But it was the Democrats who used it as a political weapon against the Republicans. So the anti-Trump folks didn't take it seriously.

a deadly combination of incompetence
Click to expand...

But who was incompetent here? The Obama Admin took Russian originated anti-Trump campaign info and spun a lurid tale of conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, that's not what "process crimes" are. Process crimes are crimes against process of justice - crimes in which the victim is the system itself.

Clinesmith has been charged with making false statements. That is a process crime.
Click to expand...

He was being investigated for that crime.
That was the allegation. The process crime would be if he had lied about something during that investigation.
 
Lutherf said:
That's an absurd mischaracterization of Flynn's situation and if we held to that standard then no incoming administration would be allowed to have any contact with any foreign government and would be forced to start flat footed.
Click to expand...

Contact is one thing. Flynn was actually negotiating with Kislyak about sanctions. In any case, Flynn himself must have thought he'd overstepped and lied not just to the FBI about those contacts but also Pence and others in the WH which is why he got ****-canned long before he was charged with lying to the FBI. If Flynn had told the truth the nature of the talks with Sislyak probably would never have been learned and he wouldn't have been fired. He's the very personification of the word hubris which is the downfall of all power hungry men.


It would also allow an outgoing administration to completely sabotage an incoming administration and utterly destroy one of the keys to facilitating a peaceful transition between administrations. If I were you I'd think long and hard before advocating for adversarial transitions between elected administrations.
Click to expand...

That outgoing administration has every interest and right to prevent its policies from being sabotaged by people who are not in office yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom