https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/0 ... /24272816/

Gee! only 2000 call for his resignation. Of course when you count the other millions of citizens who think he should go, now that means something in the real world. Now in trumps, not so much.

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/05/11/2000-former-doj-fbi-officials-call-on-barr-to-resign-over-michael-flynn-case/24272816/

Gee! only 2000 call for his resignation. Of course when you count the other millions of citizens who think he should go, now that means something in the real world. Now in trumps, not so much.

Well, it is the Trump White House. If any level of competency is shown for doing a job, the person get's fired. Barr is just working on Job security.

casinterest wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/05/11/2000-former-doj-fbi-officials-call-on-barr-to-resign-over-michael-flynn-case/24272816/

Gee! only 2000 call for his resignation. Of course when you count the other millions of citizens who think he should go, now that means something in the real world. Now in trumps, not so much.

Well, it is the Trump White House. If any level of competency is shown for doing a job, the person get's fired. Barr is just working on Job security.

I agree, nothing else matters to these clowns. Death, Sickness, Truth, Laws, Morality, Patriotism, nothing but staying in power. Raw Naked Power (trumps) the Constitution and the Unity of the Nation.

Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.

Amen. The question now is can we save the Union?

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/05/11/2000-former-doj-fbi-officials-call-on-barr-to-resign-over-michael-flynn-case/24272816/

Gee! only 2000 call for his resignation. Of course when you count the other millions of citizens who think he should go, now that means something in the real world. Now in trumps, not so much.

Well, it is the Trump White House. If any level of competency is shown for doing a job, the person get's fired. Barr is just working on Job security.

I agree, nothing else matters to these clowns. Death, Sickness, Truth, Laws, Morality, Patriotism, nothing but staying in power. Raw Naked Power (trumps) the Constitution and the Unity of the Nation.

Comedy gold right there, because those exact descriptors can easily flipped for whatever party flavor koolaid you are drinking. When you finally accept that it’s dirty all around and realize moral high ground is all actually flat then you no longer get too upset with politics. Different story but same old game they the conservatives played during the Obama presidency. It’s like a really canned and cheesy comedy when you watch conservatives and democratic flop like the same fish out of water.

Reddevil556 wrote:

Comedy gold right there, because those exact descriptors can easily flipped for whatever party flavor koolaid you are drinking. When you finally accept that it’s dirty all around and realize moral high ground is all actually flat then you no longer get too upset with politics. Different story but same old game they the conservatives played during the Obama presidency. It’s like a really canned and cheesy comedy when you watch conservatives and democratic flop like the same fish out of water.

And that is exactly why Republicans should be upset with Barr too. When you have a guy as AG whose view on presidential power is tantamount to kingship setting the precedents, do you really think future presidents aren't going to use and abuse that power too? I for one am looking forward to President Ocasio-Cortez citing one of Barr's recommendations when she starts building the gulags for everyone who makes more than 500k per year.

Reddevil556 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Well, it is the Trump White House. If any level of competency is shown for doing a job, the person get's fired. Barr is just working on Job security.

I agree, nothing else matters to these clowns. Death, Sickness, Truth, Laws, Morality, Patriotism, nothing but staying in power. Raw Naked Power (trumps) the Constitution and the Unity of the Nation.

Comedy gold right there, because those exact descriptors can easily flipped for whatever party flavor koolaid you are drinking. When you finally accept that it’s dirty all around and realize moral high ground is all actually flat then you no longer get too upset with politics. Different story but same old game they the conservatives played during the Obama presidency. It’s like a really canned and cheesy comedy when you watch conservatives and democratic flop like the same fish out of water.

Do you honestly think that I do not know that?The system is corrupted down to our toes.That though is the God of the Conservative movement, power and money through corruption. They have done a good job of packing the courts so they can continue this charade of caring for the people. What I do not understand is how gullible these Redneck types seem to be who follow him.. They are full of pride in their loyal following of this Moron we have now. He preaches love of country that he never served, he preaches love of his fellow citizens who he has screwed over all of his life. He preaches about jobs as he spent billions buying all he could from the nation he now vilifies because it suits him now after he made his money and needs a whipping boy to obfuscate his real agenda, Me me me. He is a lie, he lives a lie and he uses lies to deceive all of his followers and they are too naive to see it. He is destroying our unity as he blunders along whipping up the mob who are to dumb to realize it.

Reddevil556 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Well, it is the Trump White House. If any level of competency is shown for doing a job, the person get's fired. Barr is just working on Job security.

I agree, nothing else matters to these clowns. Death, Sickness, Truth, Laws, Morality, Patriotism, nothing but staying in power. Raw Naked Power (trumps) the Constitution and the Unity of the Nation.

Comedy gold right there, because those exact descriptors can easily flipped for whatever party flavor koolaid you are drinking. When you finally accept that it’s dirty all around and realize moral high ground is all actually flat then you no longer get too upset with politics. Different story but same old game they the conservatives played during the Obama presidency. It’s like a really canned and cheesy comedy when you watch conservatives and democratic flop like the same fish out of water.

Yeah, Obama ate a Burger with Dijon mustard, wore a tan suit and his wife wore a shoulder free dress vs.
impeached Präsident Is responsible for 80k US Citizens dead, used Taxpayer money to bribe a foreign county into making up shit about his political opponent and feels himself absolute above the law.

Yeah, you are right.. its the same......

Not that everything was peachy under Obama, but the simple fact that all of the above was blown out of proportion to fake scandals shows you he didn´t have much in the way of scandals.

According to the Presidents layers this President thinks the can not just shoot people on times square and still win elections, he thinks the NYPD wouldn´t have the right to stop him from shooting people. Stay tuned to your supreme court, discussing that argument later today.... when did anyone in US government ever claim they can go around town executing people with total immunity?

WarRI1 wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.

Amen. The question now is can we save the Union?

Vote Biden into office and McConnell out of it.

Most importantly: don´t do the American thing, forget about it and move forward, but appoint a special prosecutor to go after his enablers, when they potentially violated laws doing so.

Senators could, and should, be charged with lying under oath. Let a jury decide if they upheld their oath to conduct a fair trial and be impartial jurors.

The next time any government is this criminal, everybody contemplating being a part of that should immediately think "there are still people behind bars from the last time someone did that".

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I agree, nothing else matters to these clowns. Death, Sickness, Truth, Laws, Morality, Patriotism, nothing but staying in power. Raw Naked Power (trumps) the Constitution and the Unity of the Nation.

Comedy gold right there, because those exact descriptors can easily flipped for whatever party flavor koolaid you are drinking. When you finally accept that it’s dirty all around and realize moral high ground is all actually flat then you no longer get too upset with politics. Different story but same old game they the conservatives played during the Obama presidency. It’s like a really canned and cheesy comedy when you watch conservatives and democratic flop like the same fish out of water.

Yeah, Obama ate a Burger with Dijon mustard, wore a tan suit and his wife wore a shoulder free dress vs.
impeached Präsident Is responsible for 80k US Citizens dead, used Taxpayer money to bribe a foreign county into making up shit about his political opponent and feels himself absolute above the law.

Yeah, you are right.. its the same......

Not that everything was peachy under Obama, but the simple fact that all of the above was blown out of proportion to fake scandals shows you he didn´t have much in the way of scandals.

According to the Presidents layers this President thinks the can not just shoot people on times square and still win elections, he thinks the NYPD wouldn´t have the right to stop him from shooting people. Stay tuned to your supreme court, discussing that argument later today.... when did anyone in US government ever claim they can go around town executing people with total immunity?

WarRI1 wrote:

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Finally, in our previous statement, we called on Attorney General Barr to resign, although we recognized then that there was little chance that he would do so. We continue to believe that it would be best for the integrity of the Justice Department and for our democracy for Attorney General Barr to step aside. In the meantime, we call on Congress to hold the Attorney General accountable. In the midst of the greatest public health crisis our nation has faced in over a century, we would all prefer it if Congress could focus on the health and prosperity of Americans, not threats to the health of our democracy. Yet Attorney General Barr has left Congress with no choice. Attorney General Barr was previously set to give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31, but the hearing was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge the Committee to reschedule Attorney General Barr’s testimony as soon as safely possible and demand that he answer for his abuses of power. We also call upon Congress to formally censure Attorney General Barr for his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest. Our democracy depends on a Department of Justice that acts as an independent arbiter of equal justice, not as an arm of the president’s political apparatus.

Amen. The question now is can we save the Union?

Vote Biden into office and McConnell out of it.

Most importantly: don´t do the American thing, forget about it and move forward, but appoint a special prosecutor to go after his enablers, when they potentially violated laws doing so.

Senators could, and should, be charged with lying under oath. Let a jury decide if they upheld their oath to conduct a fair trial and be impartial jurors.

The next time any government is this criminal, everybody contemplating being a part of that should immediately think "there are still people behind bars from the last time someone did that".

best regards
Thomas

You couldn’t have reinforced my point any better. Denial is a powerful drug. The out of control devotion to a political idea is a dangerous addiction. One hates and is consumed by those they oppose and at the same time worship and dismiss the shortcomings those pledge allegiance to. All objectivity is gone and the only remaining truth is purely subjective.

I worship no person or party, I can recognize the good and the bad. Despite what all the talking heads and trolls regurgitate, the truth almost always lies somewhere in between. For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy and terrible for environmental protection. As an avid outdoorsman I oppose traditional conservative views on conservation ( a bit odd isn’t it?). Fiscally I am far more conservative. Then let’s take Obama, he was far more diplomatic and better for international relations, but also at the same time was not a good commander in chief. I also don’t think Trump is a good commander in chief. Trump is an actor, he plays his audience, I have no idea what he actually stands for other than himself. At the same time it was nice to see my investment accounts soar over the past 3 years until COVID.

So despite what Fox News or Huffpost try to spew, I usually call BS on the spins for both sides. I would never in good faith cite either sources for anything that I want my audience to take serious. Nonetheless this hate mongering of those you oppose is downright sad. It must be hard to live with such hatred and obsess with trying to delegitimize them. This is a shot fired at heap of Democrats and Republicans equally. Both can be right and both can be wrong...shocking.

Interesting opinion article from a former FBU agent on how Trump is working with Barr to try to flip the switch. Look for scorched earth from here to the election.



https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t ... cna1204856

"Trump can't pull off this ruse by himself, of course, but he has a partner. Barr is riding shotgun on Trump's scorched-earth joyride against justice. Barr already said he believes the Russia inquiry was designed to "sabotage" Trump's campaign. He's ignored the findings of his own inspector general and appointed a hand-picked U.S. attorney to try to put flesh on the bones of a convoluted conspiracy theory."

We already know that the president has been hellbent on invalidating the work of the special counsel's office. That investigation resulted in 34 total indictments, including those of the 26 Russians and three Russian organizations. Other individuals were convicted when their cases were spun off to other prosecutors.

The convictions of loyal associates like Flynn and Roger Stone clearly needle Trump. But the special counsel found no chargeable criminal conspiracy between them and Russia. The elements of Mueller's investigation that seem to really cut the deepest are the findings about election interference. And it's those findings that Trump may now be seeking to nullify.

There are many reasons to criticize Barr's job performance as Attorney General. And there are many things you can point to in the job he has done and say he should resign because of it. IMO, the Flynn case is not one of those things. What has become obvious to me in recent weeks is that Flynn was setup. He was the victim of a setup that was orchestrated by the Obama administration as they were leaving office. More and more evidence comes out every day proving this, and thanks to Catherine Herridge's excellent reporting on this, we are starting to see the truth. (She works for CBS by the way, not exactly the most Trump friendly media outlet out there) There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Biden addressed the issue with George Stephanopoulos today and he admitted that he knew about the probe but denied he was involved in it.

The questions I have are this:

1. What was the legal justification for the Flynn interview?
2. Why did the Obama administration start the Flynn investigation?
3. Why do FBI notes say their intent in the interview is to get Flynn to lie to them so they can charge him?
4. How does Comey fit into all of this?

The bottom line is, Flynn was clearly the victim of a setup. And we the people need to know what really happened here so we can restore our faith and trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.

Here is all we need to remember about Flynn.

https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn-gui ... 3da78.html

On Monday, Mueller's office released redacted notes of the FBI's interview with Flynn, revealing what exactly the former national security adviser lied about.

Flynn told the FBI that in his conversations with Kislyak during the presidential transition, he did not attempt to influence Russia's vote on a UN Security Council resolution concerning Israeli settlements. He admitted in his charging document in Mueller's case that a senior member of the Trump transition team directed him to contact Kislyak to learn where Russia stood and urge them to vote against the resolution.
Flynn also told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating tensions in response to steps taken by Barack Obama over Moscow's election meddling, which included expelling alleged Russian spies and closing two Russian diplomatic compounds in the U.S. Flynn later admitted that, acting on behalf of a senior member of Trump's transition team, he contacted Kislyak to ask that Russia show restraint. Vladimir Putin ultimately elected not to escalate the situation, a move Trump called "very smart."

You look at this, and whether Flynn lied or not comes down to protecting Trump from Collusion.

apodino wrote:

There are many reasons to criticize Barr's job performance as Attorney General. And there are many things you can point to in the job he has done and say he should resign because of it. IMO, the Flynn case is not one of those things. What has become obvious to me in recent weeks is that Flynn was setup. He was the victim of a setup that was orchestrated by the Obama administration as they were leaving office. More and more evidence comes out every day proving this, and thanks to Catherine Herridge's excellent reporting on this, we are starting to see the truth. (She works for CBS by the way, not exactly the most Trump friendly media outlet out there) There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Biden addressed the issue with George Stephanopoulos today and he admitted that he knew about the probe but denied he was involved in it.

The questions I have are this:

1. What was the legal justification for the Flynn interview?
2. Why did the Obama administration start the Flynn investigation?
3. Why do FBI notes say their intent in the interview is to get Flynn to lie to them so they can charge him?
4. How does Comey fit into all of this?

The bottom line is, Flynn was clearly the victim of a setup. And we the people need to know what really happened here so we can restore our faith and trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.

Flynn plead guilty to lying under oath. Remember when Bill Clinton lied under oath? But totally not the same thing right?

More to the point, US intelligence officials were investigating if, why, and how Russia had anything at all to do with interfering in our elections. Turns out, they did. We know that. This was not targeted at any one person by any other one person. This was/is a matter of US national security. Non partisan. That needs to be understood first. Once we understand that, the answers to your questions fall into place.

Stop looking at this through the state media lens of "Obama and Hillary were out to get Republicans" and look at this through the lens of "our national pride is on the line so we never have this happen again". Keep in mind, also, that Comey had been appointed to key positions in intelligence under GWB before being appointed head of FBI under Obama. Comey had bipartisan support. Until he decided Russia interfered in our election.

casinterest wrote:

Here is all we need to remember about Flynn.

https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn-gui ... 3da78.html

On Monday, Mueller's office released redacted notes of the FBI's interview with Flynn, revealing what exactly the former national security adviser lied about.

Flynn told the FBI that in his conversations with Kislyak during the presidential transition, he did not attempt to influence Russia's vote on a UN Security Council resolution concerning Israeli settlements. He admitted in his charging document in Mueller's case that a senior member of the Trump transition team directed him to contact Kislyak to learn where Russia stood and urge them to vote against the resolution.
Flynn also told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating tensions in response to steps taken by Barack Obama over Moscow's election meddling, which included expelling alleged Russian spies and closing two Russian diplomatic compounds in the U.S. Flynn later admitted that, acting on behalf of a senior member of Trump's transition team, he contacted Kislyak to ask that Russia show restraint. Vladimir Putin ultimately elected not to escalate the situation, a move Trump called "very smart."

You look at this, and whether Flynn lied or not comes down to protecting Trump from Collusion.

I don't see how this is collusion. What you say happened here happened during the transition and you had an incoming administration. I don't see how a guy who was elected and is about to take office can't engage in Diplomacy with other nations. That's all that is going on here. You have an incoming president engaging in Diplomacy with a foreign nation. You can make the argument that it is inappropriate for Trump to engage in Diplomacy until he had taken office. But aside from that, this is nothing more than that.

What your post makes it look like to me, is that the FBI was trying to get Flynn for violating the Logan Act. (Which no one is ever prosecuted for, and actually people like John Kerry could technically be punished for violating it now) So what the FBI was trying to do was either get him for violating the Logan Act, or get him to lie about it so they could get him on that charge. We know what happened.

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is all we need to remember about Flynn.

https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn-gui ... 3da78.html

On Monday, Mueller's office released redacted notes of the FBI's interview with Flynn, revealing what exactly the former national security adviser lied about.

Flynn told the FBI that in his conversations with Kislyak during the presidential transition, he did not attempt to influence Russia's vote on a UN Security Council resolution concerning Israeli settlements. He admitted in his charging document in Mueller's case that a senior member of the Trump transition team directed him to contact Kislyak to learn where Russia stood and urge them to vote against the resolution.
Flynn also told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating tensions in response to steps taken by Barack Obama over Moscow's election meddling, which included expelling alleged Russian spies and closing two Russian diplomatic compounds in the U.S. Flynn later admitted that, acting on behalf of a senior member of Trump's transition team, he contacted Kislyak to ask that Russia show restraint. Vladimir Putin ultimately elected not to escalate the situation, a move Trump called "very smart."

You look at this, and whether Flynn lied or not comes down to protecting Trump from Collusion.

I don't see how this is collusion. What you say happened here happened during the transition and you had an incoming administration. I don't see how a guy who was elected and is about to take office can't engage in Diplomacy with other nations. That's all that is going on here. You have an incoming president engaging in Diplomacy with a foreign nation. You can make the argument that it is inappropriate for Trump to engage in Diplomacy until he had taken office. But aside from that, this is nothing more than that.

What your post makes it look like to me, is that the FBI was trying to get Flynn for violating the Logan Act. (Which no one is ever prosecuted for, and actually people like John Kerry could technically be punished for violating it now) So what the FBI was trying to do was either get him for violating the Logan Act, or get him to lie about it so they could get him on that charge. We know what happened.

Then why lie to the FBI about it? Why wasn't Flynn sure enough about his role to say that he was handling business for the President? My bet is that Flynn knew that there were multiple rabbit holes that would have been opened up about Trump and his money/loan situation to give more to investigate.

at the end of the day, how did the FBI learn that Flynn was lying/ They learned it by investigating further with other sources. So the real question for Trump and the GOP going forward is how deep do they want to go? At the end of the day, the house could reopen investigations based on what was in the Mueller report. The Senate, if they had a leader with a spine, would as well. However now Trump wants to paint American institutions as unpatriotic. While they might play well to the fringe idiots, at the end of the day, it points back to hampering the FBI in their jobs.

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

There are many reasons to criticize Barr's job performance as Attorney General. And there are many things you can point to in the job he has done and say he should resign because of it. IMO, the Flynn case is not one of those things. What has become obvious to me in recent weeks is that Flynn was setup. He was the victim of a setup that was orchestrated by the Obama administration as they were leaving office. More and more evidence comes out every day proving this, and thanks to Catherine Herridge's excellent reporting on this, we are starting to see the truth. (She works for CBS by the way, not exactly the most Trump friendly media outlet out there) There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Biden addressed the issue with George Stephanopoulos today and he admitted that he knew about the probe but denied he was involved in it.

The questions I have are this:

1. What was the legal justification for the Flynn interview?
2. Why did the Obama administration start the Flynn investigation?
3. Why do FBI notes say their intent in the interview is to get Flynn to lie to them so they can charge him?
4. How does Comey fit into all of this?

The bottom line is, Flynn was clearly the victim of a setup. And we the people need to know what really happened here so we can restore our faith and trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.

Flynn plead guilty to lying under oath. Remember when Bill Clinton lied under oath? But totally not the same thing right?

More to the point, US intelligence officials were investigating if, why, and how Russia had anything at all to do with interfering in our elections. Turns out, they did. We know that. This was not targeted at any one person by any other one person. This was/is a matter of US national security. Non partisan. That needs to be understood first. Once we understand that, the answers to your questions fall into place.

Stop looking at this through the state media lens of "Obama and Hillary were out to get Republicans" and look at this through the lens of "our national pride is on the line so we never have this happen again". Keep in mind, also, that Comey had been appointed to key positions in intelligence under GWB before being appointed head of FBI under Obama. Comey had bipartisan support. Until he decided Russia interfered in our election.

First of all I don't believe Hillary had anything to do with this so lets remove her from the conversation right now. Secondly, no one has denied that Russia tried to meddle in our elections. That is not in dispute. As for your "our national pride is on the line so this never happens again", that is exactly the lens I look at everything through. I don't get my news from Fox News or CNN as neither site is reputable anymore. I am relying on reporting by Catherine Herridge for most of my opinions on this. (Catherine Herridge is an excellent journalist who never gets the credit she deserves) And its for that reason that I want to know the truth here. And based on everything that has been reported, the FBI conducting the Flynn interview was out to do one of two things. Nail Flynn for a Logan Act Violation (which no one is ever prosecuted for), or get him to lie so that they can charge him on that. To me that is a setup. Was Obama directly involved in that? We don't know. The evidence is circumstancial at best.

And yes Flynn did plead guilty. That does not mean he was not setup.

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

There are many reasons to criticize Barr's job performance as Attorney General. And there are many things you can point to in the job he has done and say he should resign because of it. IMO, the Flynn case is not one of those things. What has become obvious to me in recent weeks is that Flynn was setup. He was the victim of a setup that was orchestrated by the Obama administration as they were leaving office. More and more evidence comes out every day proving this, and thanks to Catherine Herridge's excellent reporting on this, we are starting to see the truth. (She works for CBS by the way, not exactly the most Trump friendly media outlet out there) There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Biden addressed the issue with George Stephanopoulos today and he admitted that he knew about the probe but denied he was involved in it.

The questions I have are this:

1. What was the legal justification for the Flynn interview?
2. Why did the Obama administration start the Flynn investigation?
3. Why do FBI notes say their intent in the interview is to get Flynn to lie to them so they can charge him?
4. How does Comey fit into all of this?

The bottom line is, Flynn was clearly the victim of a setup. And we the people need to know what really happened here so we can restore our faith and trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.

Flynn plead guilty to lying under oath. Remember when Bill Clinton lied under oath? But totally not the same thing right?

More to the point, US intelligence officials were investigating if, why, and how Russia had anything at all to do with interfering in our elections. Turns out, they did. We know that. This was not targeted at any one person by any other one person. This was/is a matter of US national security. Non partisan. That needs to be understood first. Once we understand that, the answers to your questions fall into place.

Stop looking at this through the state media lens of "Obama and Hillary were out to get Republicans" and look at this through the lens of "our national pride is on the line so we never have this happen again". Keep in mind, also, that Comey had been appointed to key positions in intelligence under GWB before being appointed head of FBI under Obama. Comey had bipartisan support. Until he decided Russia interfered in our election.

First of all I don't believe Hillary had anything to do with this so lets remove her from the conversation right now. Secondly, no one has denied that Russia tried to meddle in our elections. That is not in dispute. As for your "our national pride is on the line so this never happens again", that is exactly the lens I look at everything through. I don't get my news from Fox News or CNN as neither site is reputable anymore. I am relying on reporting by Catherine Herridge for most of my opinions on this. (Catherine Herridge is an excellent journalist who never gets the credit she deserves) And its for that reason that I want to know the truth here. And based on everything that has been reported, the FBI conducting the Flynn interview was out to do one of two things. Nail Flynn for a Logan Act Violation (which no one is ever prosecuted for), or get him to lie so that they can charge him on that. To me that is a setup. Was Obama directly involved in that? We don't know. The evidence is circumstancial at best.

And yes Flynn did plead guilty. That does not mean he was not setup.

How was Flynn setup? Flynn himself did it. He met with the Russians at Trump's request.
Since we are here, should we also remember that Flynn was already in the Private sector taking money to lobby on Behalf of Turkey prior to his appointment to NSC. Why would Trump appoint someone open to lobbying for Money where National Security was involbed.

Prosecutorial codes of ethical conduct require prosecutors to only bring charges in cases where they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, regardless of any guilty plea they were able to extract. There is no chance that would be the case here, with any sort of unbiased jury.

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant lied to our esteemed FBI agents about a call he had with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as the incoming NSA.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK then, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you, after all. You can start by submitting the transcript of those calls.

PROSECUTOR: No can do, it's classified.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: How come you submitted it to the Washington Post, then?

PROSECUTOR: That is different, because of reasons.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ok then, call your witness to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Your what, now?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your witness. You claim he lied to the FBI, so you can bring to the stand the only witness to that alleged crime, the FBI agent who spoke to him. What was his name, again? Peter Strozk? We look forward to asking him a few questions on the topic, under oath.

PROSECUTOR: (shifting nervously) Uhh... we just got word that he committed suicide with four shots to the back of the head on his way to court. But don't worry, we have the 302 detailing their debriefing from the Flynn interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when was that 302 submitted?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh... 3 weeks after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when does FBI policy say that 302 needed to be submitted?

PROSECUTOR: 5 days after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And who does FBI policy say is supposed to submit it?

PROSECUTOR: The interviewing FBI agents, only.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was the 302 you are submitting to the court edited by someone?

PROSECUTOR: Uhhh. it appears to have been edited by a Lisa Page.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is Lisa Page an employee of the FBI?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was Lisa Page present in the meeting with Flynn?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we get the original 302, then?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh...

Pyrex wrote:

Prosecutorial codes of ethical conduct require prosecutors to only bring charges in cases where they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, regardless of any guilty plea they were able to extract. There is no chance that would be the case here, with any sort of unbiased jury.

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant lied to our esteemed FBI agents about a call he had with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as the incoming NSA.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK then, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you, after all. You can start by submitting the transcript of those calls.

PROSECUTOR: No can do, it's classified.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: How come you submitted it to the Washington Post, then?

PROSECUTOR: That is different, because of reasons.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ok then, call your witness to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Your what, now?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your witness. You claim he lied to the FBI, so you can bring to the stand the only witness to that alleged crime, the FBI agent who spoke to him. What was his name, again? Peter Strozk? We look forward to asking him a few questions on the topic, under oath.

PROSECUTOR: (shifting nervously) Uhh... we just got word that he committed suicide with four shots to the back of the head on his way to court. But don't worry, we have the 302 detailing their debriefing from the Flynn interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when was that 302 submitted?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh... 3 weeks after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when does FBI policy say that 302 needed to be submitted?

PROSECUTOR: 5 days after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And who does FBI policy say is supposed to submit it?

PROSECUTOR: The interviewing FBI agents, only.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was the 302 you are submitting to the court edited by someone?

PROSECUTOR: Uhhh. it appears to have been edited by a Lisa Page.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is Lisa Page an employee of the FBI?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was Lisa Page present in the meeting with Flynn?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we get the original 302, then?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh...

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

casinterest wrote:

Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

Looks like it must get a more than frustrating when you spend a couple years illegally trying to deny an American Citizen their constitutional rights and get caught.
Does not want to lose his retirement than face disciplinary would be my best guess.

That brings the question. Are the 2000 former DOJ and FBI former because of indiscretions as well?


Okie

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

Looks like it must get a more than frustrating when you spend a couple years illegally trying to deny an American Citizen their constitutional rights and get caught.
Does not want to lose his retirement than face disciplinary would be my best guess.

That brings the question. Are the 2000 former DOJ and FBI former because of indiscretions as well?


Okie

Hmm so 2000 former DOJ and FBI agents are asking Barr to step down why? And you are accusing them of indiscretions?
Also where did Flynn lose his constitutions rights:? He was the one that lied. Our justice system is based on the Truth. What was he hiding?

casinterest wrote:

Hmm so 2000 former DOJ and FBI agents are asking Barr to step down why?

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Now I have it by a good source that you can take that letter and five bucks and get a donut and coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

casinterest wrote:

And you are accusing them of indiscretions?

I asked the question now you are deflecting.

casinterest wrote:

Our justice system is based on the Truth.

Looks like we are going to find out here real soon about the truth now aren't we!

Okie

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Hmm so 2000 former DOJ and FBI agents are asking Barr to step down why?

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Now I have it by a good source that you can take that letter and five bucks and get a donut and coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

casinterest wrote:

And you are accusing them of indiscretions?

I asked the question now you are deflecting.

casinterest wrote:

Our justice system is based on the Truth.

Looks like we are going to find out here real soon about the truth now aren't we!

Okie

Which Truth ? The one fabricated by the biggest Con Man ever, that knowingly hired for the NSC a man that took money to work for a foreign government, or the one that exists through the work of thousands of Government agents diligently doing their jobs, and actually caught Flynn in a lie?

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Prosecutorial codes of ethical conduct require prosecutors to only bring charges in cases where they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, regardless of any guilty plea they were able to extract. There is no chance that would be the case here, with any sort of unbiased jury.

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant lied to our esteemed FBI agents about a call he had with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as the incoming NSA.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK then, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you, after all. You can start by submitting the transcript of those calls.

PROSECUTOR: No can do, it's classified.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: How come you submitted it to the Washington Post, then?

PROSECUTOR: That is different, because of reasons.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ok then, call your witness to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Your what, now?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your witness. You claim he lied to the FBI, so you can bring to the stand the only witness to that alleged crime, the FBI agent who spoke to him. What was his name, again? Peter Strozk? We look forward to asking him a few questions on the topic, under oath.

PROSECUTOR: (shifting nervously) Uhh... we just got word that he committed suicide with four shots to the back of the head on his way to court. But don't worry, we have the 302 detailing their debriefing from the Flynn interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when was that 302 submitted?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh... 3 weeks after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when does FBI policy say that 302 needed to be submitted?

PROSECUTOR: 5 days after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And who does FBI policy say is supposed to submit it?

PROSECUTOR: The interviewing FBI agents, only.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was the 302 you are submitting to the court edited by someone?

PROSECUTOR: Uhhh. it appears to have been edited by a Lisa Page.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is Lisa Page an employee of the FBI?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was Lisa Page present in the meeting with Flynn?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we get the original 302, then?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh...

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Prosecutorial codes of ethical conduct require prosecutors to only bring charges in cases where they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, regardless of any guilty plea they were able to extract. There is no chance that would be the case here, with any sort of unbiased jury.

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant lied to our esteemed FBI agents about a call he had with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as the incoming NSA.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK then, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you, after all. You can start by submitting the transcript of those calls.

PROSECUTOR: No can do, it's classified.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: How come you submitted it to the Washington Post, then?

PROSECUTOR: That is different, because of reasons.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ok then, call your witness to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Your what, now?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your witness. You claim he lied to the FBI, so you can bring to the stand the only witness to that alleged crime, the FBI agent who spoke to him. What was his name, again? Peter Strozk? We look forward to asking him a few questions on the topic, under oath.

PROSECUTOR: (shifting nervously) Uhh... we just got word that he committed suicide with four shots to the back of the head on his way to court. But don't worry, we have the 302 detailing their debriefing from the Flynn interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when was that 302 submitted?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh... 3 weeks after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when does FBI policy say that 302 needed to be submitted?

PROSECUTOR: 5 days after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And who does FBI policy say is supposed to submit it?

PROSECUTOR: The interviewing FBI agents, only.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was the 302 you are submitting to the court edited by someone?

PROSECUTOR: Uhhh. it appears to have been edited by a Lisa Page.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is Lisa Page an employee of the FBI?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was Lisa Page present in the meeting with Flynn?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we get the original 302, then?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh...

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

Think about that statement for a long time.

Reddevil556 wrote:

For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy .

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Prosecutorial codes of ethical conduct require prosecutors to only bring charges in cases where they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, regardless of any guilty plea they were able to extract. There is no chance that would be the case here, with any sort of unbiased jury.

PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant lied to our esteemed FBI agents about a call he had with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as the incoming NSA.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: OK then, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you, after all. You can start by submitting the transcript of those calls.

PROSECUTOR: No can do, it's classified.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: How come you submitted it to the Washington Post, then?

PROSECUTOR: That is different, because of reasons.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Ok then, call your witness to the stand?

PROSECUTOR: Your what, now?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your witness. You claim he lied to the FBI, so you can bring to the stand the only witness to that alleged crime, the FBI agent who spoke to him. What was his name, again? Peter Strozk? We look forward to asking him a few questions on the topic, under oath.

PROSECUTOR: (shifting nervously) Uhh... we just got word that he committed suicide with four shots to the back of the head on his way to court. But don't worry, we have the 302 detailing their debriefing from the Flynn interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when was that 302 submitted?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh... 3 weeks after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And when does FBI policy say that 302 needed to be submitted?

PROSECUTOR: 5 days after the interview.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And who does FBI policy say is supposed to submit it?

PROSECUTOR: The interviewing FBI agents, only.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was the 302 you are submitting to the court edited by someone?

PROSECUTOR: Uhhh. it appears to have been edited by a Lisa Page.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And is Lisa Page an employee of the FBI?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: And was Lisa Page present in the meeting with Flynn?

PROSECUTOR: No.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we get the original 302, then?

PROSECUTOR: Uhh...

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy .

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

Ah but to the 45 defender crowd, even the judge is damaged goods - because although originally a 40 appointee, he was appointed to the DC USDC by 42. Definitely evil and has a Dem agenda.

Aaron747 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy .

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

Pyrex wrote:

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

Ah but to the 45 defender crowd, even the judge is damaged goods - because although originally a 40 appointee, he was appointed to the DC USDC by 42. Definitely evil and has a Dem agenda.

I think the DOJ and Flynn's attorneys will promptly file an appeal to the Circuit Court to ban the 'third party' briefs, with it likely going to the Supreme Court as well as file a motion to remove and replace the judge in the case.

tommy1808 wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy .

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We will never know since the Trump administration has sabotaged the American Justice system. Why else would the prosecutors step down in protest?

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

Once again proving a point that hatred, vitriol, and emotion are far more important than logic and objectivity. I don’t even care about the finger pointing about who did what for the economy, but my bank statements sure looked good for the past three years until COVID. Unemployment was at record lows, labor shortage was a legit problem. Many factors contribute to what is considered a strong economy. But again hatred and bias are blinding.

So you think Trump should have kept the economy open? You think governors especially in blue states taking the most drastic measures didn’t have anything to do with it?. I have heard some absurd arguments on here but this one takes the cake. Especially with how current the crisis is and how thorough the coverage has been.

The political savior complex is hilarious. “My party is pure as snow,” but then say “their party is the root of all evil.” Funny how you can only see the bad in what you oppose and only the good in what you support.

ltbewr wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

Ah but to the 45 defender crowd, even the judge is damaged goods - because although originally a 40 appointee, he was appointed to the DC USDC by 42. Definitely evil and has a Dem agenda.

I think the DOJ and Flynn's attorneys will promptly file an appeal to the Circuit Court to ban the 'third party' briefs, with it likely going to the Supreme Court as well as file a motion to remove and replace the judge in the case.

Yesterday's supreme court arguments sounded like someone may run into a very hard wall soon.

Reddevil556 wrote:

So you think Trump should have kept the economy open?

Yeah, with a competent approach to the pandemic instead of doing essentially nothing from mid January to mid March, he could have opened the way for states to keep much more of the economy open and would have made it possible for a very targeted, effective management of the epidemic to be implemented with minimal economic impact. You know, like almost everywhere else, usually with enough success to keep the economy from cratering, and in many cases with the death toll staying low as well.

You think governors especially in blue states taking the most drastic measures didn’t have anything to do with it?

Of course. Governors all over the county, Republicans and democrats alike, made the crucial mistake to assume that not even Trump would lie about something with the ability to kill over a million US citizens, just because he likes his numbers to stay low. They should have known no later than after his cruise ship comments.
Boy where they wrong, and Trumps genocidal narcissism isn't done killing Americans yet.

Funny how you can only see the bad in what you oppose and only the good in what you support.

Not just is this only your bias showing, you won't have much trouble finding me critizing the Obama Admin, or blaming the Clinton admin for a large chunk of the GFC, but flat out amazing coming from someone unable to see the tens of thousands bodies Trumps ego trip has pilled up so far as the utter failure that it is.

Best regards
Thomas

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Hmm so 2000 former DOJ and FBI agents are asking Barr to step down why?

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Remember back in 2006 when GWB fired eight US attorneys and the justification was "they serve at the pleasure of the president" so we should not even bother asking why they were fired?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

Could it be that the agents are former because they were doing their job investigating the current corrupt and secretive administration?

seb146 wrote:

Okie wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Hmm so 2000 former DOJ and FBI agents are asking Barr to step down why?

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Remember back in 2006 when GWB fired eight US attorneys and the justification was "they serve at the pleasure of the president" so we should not even bother asking why they were fired?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

Could it be that the agents are former because they were doing their job investigating the current corrupt and secretive administration?

I just don't understand why Okie think former means they were fired. They may have moved on to better jobs.

casinterest wrote:

How was Flynn setup? Flynn himself did it. He met with the Russians at Trump's request.
Since we are here, should we also remember that Flynn was already in the Private sector taking money to lobby on Behalf of Turkey prior to his appointment to NSC. Why would Trump appoint someone open to lobbying for Money where National Security was involbed.

The setup was not the Russian meeting. The setup was the FBI laying a perjury trap for Flynn. What I imagine happened was that the FBI threatened Flynn with Logan Act violations if he was talking. So he could either incriminate himself on that (which he was never going to get prosecuted for since no one in the history of the Logan act has ever been charged under it), or lie about it. The FBI Agents notes prior to the interview made it quite clear they wanted him to lie, so they set him up with the perjury trap. Hindsight 20/20, Flynn should have probably gotten a better lawyer and plead the fifth during the interview. But even though he plead guilty, we still don't really know what happened in this interview since the only record is from the FBI agents notes, and only from their point of view.

As I said, Barr is far from a perfect Attorney General, and I would prefer to see someone in that position like Trey Gowdy or Chris Christie. But Barr was 100 percent right on this one.

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

How was Flynn setup? Flynn himself did it. He met with the Russians at Trump's request.
Since we are here, should we also remember that Flynn was already in the Private sector taking money to lobby on Behalf of Turkey prior to his appointment to NSC. Why would Trump appoint someone open to lobbying for Money where National Security was involbed.

The setup was not the Russian meeting. The setup was the FBI laying a perjury trap for Flynn. What I imagine happened was that the FBI threatened Flynn with Logan Act violations if he was talking. So he could either incriminate himself on that (which he was never going to get prosecuted for since no one in the history of the Logan act has ever been charged under it), or lie about it. The FBI Agents notes prior to the interview made it quite clear they wanted him to lie, so they set him up with the perjury trap. Hindsight 20/20, Flynn should have probably gotten a better lawyer and plead the fifth during the interview. But even though he plead guilty, we still don't really know what happened in this interview since the only record is from the FBI agents notes, and only from their point of view.

As I said, Barr is far from a perfect Attorney General, and I would prefer to see someone in that position like Trey Gowdy or Chris Christie. But Barr was 100 percent right on this one.

The setup was asking a question that Flynn NEVER HAD TO LIE ABOUT.
We have already posted the question he lied about. How was that a setup?
Simple Yes, Simple No, Simple, Let me call my lawyer. But No, he LIED.

casinterest wrote:

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

How was Flynn setup? Flynn himself did it. He met with the Russians at Trump's request.
Since we are here, should we also remember that Flynn was already in the Private sector taking money to lobby on Behalf of Turkey prior to his appointment to NSC. Why would Trump appoint someone open to lobbying for Money where National Security was involbed.

The setup was not the Russian meeting. The setup was the FBI laying a perjury trap for Flynn. What I imagine happened was that the FBI threatened Flynn with Logan Act violations if he was talking. So he could either incriminate himself on that (which he was never going to get prosecuted for since no one in the history of the Logan act has ever been charged under it), or lie about it. The FBI Agents notes prior to the interview made it quite clear they wanted him to lie, so they set him up with the perjury trap. Hindsight 20/20, Flynn should have probably gotten a better lawyer and plead the fifth during the interview. But even though he plead guilty, we still don't really know what happened in this interview since the only record is from the FBI agents notes, and only from their point of view.

As I said, Barr is far from a perfect Attorney General, and I would prefer to see someone in that position like Trey Gowdy or Chris Christie. But Barr was 100 percent right on this one.

The setup was asking a question that Flynn NEVER HAD TO LIE ABOUT.
We have already posted the question he lied about. How was that a setup?
Simple Yes, Simple No, Simple, Let me call my lawyer. But No, he LIED.

You are right, he didn't have to lie. But put yourself in Flynn's shoes for a second. If you are in an interrogation room with two FBI agents grilling you, would you not be intimidated? I know for sure I would. And when you are intimidated and uncomfortable, you start to act irrational. That's what I think happened here. That being said, we don't know what happened in the interview because the only record is the FBI agents notes.

In any event, this interview should have never happened in the first place.

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

apodino wrote:

The setup was not the Russian meeting. The setup was the FBI laying a perjury trap for Flynn. What I imagine happened was that the FBI threatened Flynn with Logan Act violations if he was talking. So he could either incriminate himself on that (which he was never going to get prosecuted for since no one in the history of the Logan act has ever been charged under it), or lie about it. The FBI Agents notes prior to the interview made it quite clear they wanted him to lie, so they set him up with the perjury trap. Hindsight 20/20, Flynn should have probably gotten a better lawyer and plead the fifth during the interview. But even though he plead guilty, we still don't really know what happened in this interview since the only record is from the FBI agents notes, and only from their point of view.

As I said, Barr is far from a perfect Attorney General, and I would prefer to see someone in that position like Trey Gowdy or Chris Christie. But Barr was 100 percent right on this one.

The setup was asking a question that Flynn NEVER HAD TO LIE ABOUT.
We have already posted the question he lied about. How was that a setup?
Simple Yes, Simple No, Simple, Let me call my lawyer. But No, he LIED.

You are right, he didn't have to lie. But put yourself in Flynn's shoes for a second. If you are in an interrogation room with two FBI agents grilling you, would you not be intimidated? I know for sure I would. And when you are intimidated and uncomfortable, you start to act irrational. That's what I think happened here. That being said, we don't know what happened in the interview because the only record is the FBI agents notes.

In any event, this interview should have never happened in the first place.

I am sure you would have felt intimidated, but I have a hard time a General would have felt intimidated.

Looks like an interesting turn going on.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/85578852 ... flynn-case

[he presiding judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson, a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York, to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury.

casinterest wrote:

Looks like an interesting turn going on.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/85578852 ... flynn-case

[he presiding judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson, a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York, to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury.

I think it is a wonderful idea, the right wing press was taking pot shots all day about this Judge and this decision. Maybe justice will prevail for once under this corrupt administration. That would be wonderful and so rare.

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like an interesting turn going on.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/85578852 ... flynn-case

[he presiding judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case has appointed a retired judge to present arguments in opposition to the Justice Department's move to dismiss its prosecution of the former national security adviser.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has asked John Gleeson, a retired judge in the Eastern District of New York, to act as a friend of the court and look into whether Flynn should face a contempt hearing for perjury.

I think it is a wonderful idea, the right wing press was taking pot shots all day about this Judge and this decision. Maybe justice will prevail for once under this corrupt administration. That would be wonderful and so rare.

I would imagine the court is not amused about what has happened here. Either way though, it seems that the GOP really wants to bring Russian interference back to the forefront. Should get interesting when they start their investigation into Hunter next week.
It will be a shame when the GOP political inclinations get derailed in two to three weeks by the COVID resurgence.

casinterest wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like an interesting turn going on.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/85578852 ... flynn-case

I think it is a wonderful idea, the right wing press was taking pot shots all day about this Judge and this decision. Maybe justice will prevail for once under this corrupt administration. That would be wonderful and so rare.

I would imagine the court is not amused about what has happened here. Either way though, it seems that the GOP really wants to bring Russian interference back to the forefront. Should get interesting when they start their investigation into Hunter next week.
It will be a shame when the GOP political inclinations get derailed in two to three weeks by the COVID resurgence.

This decision to drop the charges against Flynn must be an abomination to a man who has pledged to follow the law and believes what he swore that oath to is sacred. Justice for all, not some lying right wing conspiracy spewing political hack.

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I think it is a wonderful idea, the right wing press was taking pot shots all day about this Judge and this decision. Maybe justice will prevail for once under this corrupt administration. That would be wonderful and so rare.

I would imagine the court is not amused about what has happened here. Either way though, it seems that the GOP really wants to bring Russian interference back to the forefront. Should get interesting when they start their investigation into Hunter next week.
It will be a shame when the GOP political inclinations get derailed in two to three weeks by the COVID resurgence.

This decision to drop the charges against Flynn must be an abomination to a man who has pledged to follow the law and believes what he swore that oath to is sacred. Justice for all, not some lying right wing conspiracy spewing political hack.

I completely agree, and all for a right wing talking point that Trump and Barr are trying to push. It will be interesting to see how career judges weigh in on it.

casinterest wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I would imagine the court is not amused about what has happened here. Either way though, it seems that the GOP really wants to bring Russian interference back to the forefront. Should get interesting when they start their investigation into Hunter next week.
It will be a shame when the GOP political inclinations get derailed in two to three weeks by the COVID resurgence.

This decision to drop the charges against Flynn must be an abomination to a man who has pledged to follow the law and believes what he swore that oath to is sacred. Justice for all, not some lying right wing conspiracy spewing political hack.

I completely agree, and all for a right wing talking point that Trump and Barr are trying to push. It will be interesting to see how career judges weigh in on it.

I am almost at the point of praying that there are men of Principle left to defend our System of Laws and the Constitution and the unity of this once great country for my grandchildren to inherit.

Trump can still pardon him, but it not playing out as he wanted it too.

casinterest wrote:

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The setup was asking a question that Flynn NEVER HAD TO LIE ABOUT.
We have already posted the question he lied about. How was that a setup?
Simple Yes, Simple No, Simple, Let me call my lawyer. But No, he LIED.

You are right, he didn't have to lie. But put yourself in Flynn's shoes for a second. If you are in an interrogation room with two FBI agents grilling you, would you not be intimidated? I know for sure I would. And when you are intimidated and uncomfortable, you start to act irrational. That's what I think happened here. That being said, we don't know what happened in the interview because the only record is the FBI agents notes.

In any event, this interview should have never happened in the first place.

I am sure you would have felt intimidated, but I have a hard time a General would have felt intimidated.

"I rather commit a crime than telling the absolute innocent truth"....... guess truth wasn´t that innocent.

And fascinating how Trumpistas believe everyone is a blowover like themselves...

casinterest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Okie wrote:

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Remember back in 2006 when GWB fired eight US attorneys and the justification was "they serve at the pleasure of the president" so we should not even bother asking why they were fired?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

Could it be that the agents are former because they were doing their job investigating the current corrupt and secretive administration?

I just don't understand why Okie think former means they were fired. They may have moved on to better jobs.

plus of course the little bit that republicans sign those letters too.

The Lincoln Project is afaik not drowning in money because democrats donate to it either.

best regards
Thomas

casinterest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Okie wrote:

This is about the third time that the "former agents from the previous administration" which are former for a reason have posted something about the DOJ or FBI operations.
They can file legal at anytime they would wish if there was legal reason.

Remember back in 2006 when GWB fired eight US attorneys and the justification was "they serve at the pleasure of the president" so we should not even bother asking why they were fired?

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

Could it be that the agents are former because they were doing their job investigating the current corrupt and secretive administration?

I just don't understand why Okie think former means they were fired. They may have moved on to better jobs.

True. Private sector jobs pay more, contractors pay more. Some probably just retired because they could.

Reddevil556 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

For example, Trump has been mostly good for the US economy .

Awesome.... the standard for being good for the Economy is now "Just roughly maintain what you inherited and don´t trash it before three years are over".

The first decision that would actually impact the economy Trump was presented with led to him tanking it.

best regards
Thomas

Pyrex wrote:

No, the reason we will never know is because Mueller's team refused to let Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and face trial.

As you can see that is neither for the DoJ or the FBI to decide. And the Judge being a smart guy asked Flynn a gazillion times if he really, really, really, really committed those crimes.

Flynn is pretty much admitting he lied to the judge, under oath.

And it seems the Judge ain´t playing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

best regards
Thomas

Once again proving a point that hatred, vitriol, and emotion are far more important than logic and objectivity. I don’t even care about the finger pointing about who did what for the economy, but my bank statements sure looked good for the past three years until COVID. Unemployment was at record lows, labor shortage was a legit problem. Many factors contribute to what is considered a strong economy. But again hatred and bias are blinding.

So you think Trump should have kept the economy open? You think governors especially in blue states taking the most drastic measures didn’t have anything to do with it?. I have heard some absurd arguments on here but this one takes the cake. Especially with how current the crisis is and how thorough the coverage has been.

The political savior complex is hilarious. “My party is pure as snow,” but then say “their party is the root of all evil.” Funny how you can only see the bad in what you oppose and only the good in what you support.

there are so many problems with Trump, I don't know where to begin. How can anyone ignore the mass turnover that happens in the WH key staff members? Do you ignore the fact that he can't keep staff members? He's on his 4th chief of staff. 4th National Intelligence director none of which have been vetted because they are just"acting" there are serious question about the people he has doing these key jobs lack of experience. This has hurt America,
Can you imagine where our economy, would be? if we had someone 20% more competent in charge?

I agree, that one only sees what they want to see. but, I cannot understand how it's acceptable, that the U.S. is lagging behind in reopening because of having failed testing kits that didn't work which allowed the virus to spread unchecked. we didn't have enough PPE. Then there is Trump being wishy-washy sending mixed signals so we haven't been able to contain the virus. Half of America wants to open now. LIVE AND LET DIE The other half want testing ramped up, tracing done, and want to open when it's safe. Right now we have the most cases. the most deaths, than any country in the world, even banana republic. Do you really think any of this would be happening if we had a competent person in the white house?

Reddevil556 wrote:

Once again proving a point that hatred, vitriol, and emotion are far more important than logic and objectivity. I don’t even care about the finger pointing about who did what for the economy, but my bank statements sure looked good for the past three years until COVID. Unemployment was at record lows, labor shortage was a legit problem. Many factors contribute to what is considered a strong economy. But again hatred and bias are blinding.

It's interesting that if you omitted the word COVID and "three" years you could've been talking about Clinton. He presided over one the greatest economic expansions in our history, and yet it didn't stop Republicans from catching him in a lie, much like what the FBI did to Flynn. In Flynn's case it was about conversations with a senior Russian government official, conversations that he lied to Pence about and for which Trump fired him. Think about that magical turn of events. Or go back to the very reason the FBI wanted to talk to him, which was in connection with an investigation into collusion that a bipartisan government inquiry just stated was absolutely warranted based on all known facts then and today.

So here we have a great 3 year economy turned to garbage, a liar convicted for lying about discussions DIRECTLY related to the matter under investigation (collusion with the Russian government and their interference in the 2016 election), and on the other hand you have a seven year run of monstrous economic performance and the GOP nails Bill on a blowjob when the matter under investigation back then was...shit, I don't even remember now. Anyway, history will never forget that it was Trump's own words, his own public boasts on TV, his tweets and his closest confidante's and family members' meetings with Russians that led to the Russia investigation. He invited Russia to interfere in our elections multiple times and he owns everything that happened next. History will also never forget the most essential fact in all of this - under Obama's watch Comey told the nation Hillary was under investigation one week before the election, but never once did he ever reveal to the public the burgeoning investigation into Trump.

And now Trump also owns a piece of shit economy and a deficit and debt load so staggering I keep waiting for the all those Republican Crackers that used to hide behind that "Tea Party" banner to make a magical reappearance. But nope! Anyway, glad you enjoyed that three year run, I bet you wish it had lasted as long as Obama's and Clinton's runs.

wingman wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

Once again proving a point that hatred, vitriol, and emotion are far more important than logic and objectivity. I don’t even care about the finger pointing about who did what for the economy, but my bank statements sure looked good for the past three years until COVID. Unemployment was at record lows, labor shortage was a legit problem. Many factors contribute to what is considered a strong economy. But again hatred and bias are blinding.

It's interesting that if you omitted the word COVID and "three" years you could've been talking about Clinton. He presided over one the greatest economic expansions in our history, and yet it didn't stop Republicans from catching him in a lie, much like what the FBI did to Flynn. In Flynn's case it was about conversations with a senior Russian government official, conversations that he lied to Pence about and for which Trump fired him. Think about that magical turn of events. Or go back to the very reason the FBI wanted to talk to him, which was in connection with an investigation into collusion that a bipartisan government inquiry just stated was absolutely warranted based on all known facts then and today.

So here we have a great 3 year economy turned to garbage, a liar convicted for lying about discussions DIRECTLY related to the matter under investigation (collusion with the Russian government and their interference in the 2016 election), and on the other hand you have a seven year run of monstrous economic performance and the GOP nails Bill on a blowjob when the matter under investigation back then was...shit, I don't even remember now. Anyway, history will never forget that it was Trump's own words, his own public boasts on TV, his tweets and his closest confidante's and family members' meetings with Russians that led to the Russia investigation. He invited Russia to interfere in our elections multiple times and he owns everything that happened next. History will also never forget the most essential fact in all of this - under Obama's watch Comey told the nation Hillary was under investigation one week before the election, but never once did he ever reveal to the public the burgeoning investigation into Trump.

And now Trump also owns a piece of shit economy and a deficit and debt load so staggering I keep waiting for the all those Republican Crackers that used to hide behind that "Tea Party" banner to make a magical reappearance. But nope! Anyway, glad you enjoyed that three year run, I bet you wish it had lasted as long as Obama's and Clinton's runs.

That is the mystery of it all, the bagging of Hillary Clinton by Comey and the absolute silence on trump. Absolutely handed the election to the man who has vilified and slandered him ever since. trump has not one once of integrity in his makeup. He would slander his own brother, as a matter of fact he did if I member correctly. I think it had to do with money and power.

No one knew until after the election who had contact with Russians and who told Russians not to worry about Obama's sanctions

https://www.politifact.com/article/2017 ... sian-sanc/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-i-kn ... was-fired/

At the time, only those with the highest security clearance would "unmask" who met with Kislyak. When that person was appointed to the current administration's security detail, why would that not raise red flags in the intelligence community?