Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light

[flacaltenn]

“In order to succeed here,” Mintz continued, “the defense will have to prove not merely that the FBI anticipated that Flynn might lie during the interview, but that the FBI encouraged him to lie and induced him to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed.”

Had Flynn been told he'd be questioned about the Kislyak calls, and NEEDED to be precise because the agents HAD the Intel intercepts of that conversation, Flynn would have deferred to remaining silent until he reviewed the notes and retained counsel.

OR and this is the key -- As INCOMING Nat Sec Advisor -- he COULD MAKE A SINGLE CALL and have transcripts of those calls ON HIS desk before the end of the day... THIS IS WHY -- they chose to ambush him.. And DID IT less than 2 hours after McCabe set up the meeting. Because he is a CAREER SPY for America and now had the power to defend himself and the Admin from further abuse by the Intel agencies...

Remaining SILENT and RIGHT to counsel are kinda fundamental to ANY REAL justice... Any "short cuts" to that in investigations is not America..,.

 

[Faun]

Coyote Just LISTEN to this bragging bastard traitor ENTERTAINING TDSers like you about AMBUSHING Gen Flynn.,. He's just a HERO to them... NEEDS the credit at that point for GETTING a special counsel to investigate NOTHING that the FBI had on Russia Russia Russia...

This interview was shortly after he was fired and going out on "The Resistance Tour" to whip up the dittohead resisters about Russia..

Boils my blood at the level of ABUSE OF POWER that's here... Not the "abuse of power" you IMAGINED existed in the 1st weeks of the Trump Admin...

Watch IT -- and tell me this is funny or APPROPRIATE now that America KNOWS the FBI had NOTHING ON RUSSIA about Flynn and THEY knew this also...

I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.

You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.

In the history of bullshit hypocritical statements, you just skyrocketed to the top and lost my respect all at once.

What
The
Fuck

Comey confesses in 1:32 and you say it doesn't matter.

There is simply zero point in even trying to talk to someone who ignores. FUCKING GOD DAMN CONFESSION so she can keep partisan hate alive.

Like a security blanket, huh?

A 1:32 minute out of context snippet is an entire confession but an analysis from lawfare is fraudulent (I doubt you even bothered to read it).

You guys are looney tunes with no interest in discussion if it doesn’t support your pet conspiracy theory and make Trump’s ass shine.

keeping the partisan hate alive...good job dude, because that is what you are doing here when you can’t even entertain the idea of another point of view. You can drop your pretense of open mindedness, you are just another Trumpbot.

Nice leftist-Democrat talking points. You are quite the propagandist. Do they pay you?

can you challenge any of the legal points made in lawfare?

There WERE no "legal points" of value in that Lawfare screed.. The guy just DISMISSED "the ambush" while Comey was bragging publicly about it.. Just like you did.. He SPECULATED as to what the judge would do... And WORSE -- he misrepresented WHY Flynn CHANGED his COUNSEL..

The TRUTH IS it wasn't about a whim.. His FORMER counsels were ACTIVELY SCREWING HIM.. Withholding IMPORTANT exculpatory evidence from the court that SHOWED he was set-up, THREATENED and ambushed by the FBI.. When the FBI KNOWINGLY was ready to close the "official" Russian investigation into Flynn..

THAT LIE of omission makes the LawFare article lame and useless.. Because it's no BETTER than uninformed or INTENTIONAL Bullshit that gets posted on USMB...

Wow. Simply wow. No legal points of value huh? I don’t think you read it.

What specific evidence was withheld? And how would it have made a difference?

The 302's where the agents said flynn wasn't lying. C'mon Coyote, you're better than this.

Yeah the facts are Flynn wasn't lying until Comey said he was. Comey should be in jail.

They should ALL be imprisoned for life. That's the only thing that has a chance to prevent the next scumbag bureaucrat who thinks they are above the law.

Throw Trump in their while you are at it.

Why would I do that? He's not the subject of this thread. The subject is the FBI lying to the Court, and falsifying documents.

Next time you hurl the "you are a trump cultist" epithet, I suggest you look in the mirror.

I am talking about criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI. You are launching non sequitur after non sequitur, and resorting to personal insults when the evidence is clearly against you.

Stop it.

I would suggest you look at what some of the other participants here are doing. I've posted discussion, I've posted sources. But certain people would rather discuss anything else BUT that. If all they are going to lob personal insults, then why exactly do I want to waste my time with them?

I have. They too have posted factual data to support their claims, and you have completely ignored them. The progressive left is in hyper attack mode, and seemingly lost in the past. Not one of the Court hearings involving General Flynn have dealt with the recently released information about FBI criminal actions. And yet you ALL refer back to a fraudulently obtained confession as if it is the end.

It's not. Now that the criminal activity has been exposed, the plea will be vacated, and the perpetrators of this abomination against the COTUS will hopefully be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Where they BELONG.

Not once have you addressed the very real criminal actions that we now KNOW occurred. Instead you have deflected and simply ignored real facts that have been laid out in front of you.

Yes. I did. And you and others IGNORE it. Completely. It's like two ships passing in the night. What I posted addressed most of the claims. And when I ask what actual LAWS did the FBI break - nothing.

Why waste time when you just drown out dissent.

No, it didn't. NONE of the FBI's criminal activity has been addressed in Court. Yet.

Did you actually read it? It broke down Flynn's legal case and legal claims and brought up the relevant laws.

If none of the FBI's supposed criminal activity has yet been addressed - then you don't even know if it was criminal.

And not once did it address the criminal activity of the FBI which renders anything flynn may have done, moot.

The FBI had no cause to prosecute flynn. At least not what has been presented. I DO think that flynn was doing something illegal with Turkey. Why didn't the FBI go after him for that?

My personal belief is it transects something that Hillary was doing that is likewise illegal.

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Looks like you should watch the video I've already posted here. You asking questions from a place of ignorance.
And the video is the product of big time progressive leftists, so blather about "right wing talking points"
isn't helpful or pertinent.

I’m less interested in propaganda from either side and more interested in the simple reality of this case. Flynn lied about a pretty damn serious situation. I know it’s been pounded into your head that it was all a snowflake hoax so lying about it was no big deal but again that’s just propaganda at work

Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?

Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.

Here is some more reality for you:

"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."

"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”

"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.

Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?

are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!

Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!

Flynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'

LOLOL

He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.

He lied. Deal with it.

Stay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.

LOLOL

Oh? What other facts do you think there are?

I'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.

LOL

So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

And, you have to use contrived facts.

there comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.

she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.

people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.

so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.

so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".

out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.

1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.

comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.

but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.

would that others feel the same.

Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.

You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.

It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.

You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.

See ya.

Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snapped

I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.

we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".

First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.

at this point you're acting just like slade. talk all "i'm not biased i'm not biased" then run out and do some one sided shit most people wouldn't want either side to do.

We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.

and what made me stop bothering with slade is i would put up posts that would take 30-45 minutes to put together and show my point and he'd not read them nor address them but shout back generic leftist bulletpoints in defense. so i found that regardless of how well you put your argument together and how much time you spend on it trying to find that "common ground" - he had no desire to do the same in the end.

just be right. all the time.

Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.

Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.

There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.

And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).



Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.




13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23

but your question was -

was flynn treated differently.

was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?

that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.

WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?

so - were they?

yes | no

Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.

We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.

Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).

2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.

3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.

4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.

5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).

6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.

Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?

I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.

i said they were and gave you the proof. you overanalyed it and looked for the justification for them to do so; disregarding your own question in the process.

this is why it gets frustrating talking to you. as for slade - when he didn't read a 2nd post i put time into, i wasn't into giving him a 3rd chance. he doesn't want to debate, he wants to be agreed with.

I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.

So will you answer my questions?

So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).


Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something. Like when you change your story about something that is being investigated.

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something.

Right. And because there was no reasonable suspicion, his lies were not material.

Who said there was no suspicion? The FBI was investigating if Trump's people were involved with Russia since it was known Russia was hacking Democrats and Trump had surrounded himself with multiple people with Russian dealings. And the FBI knew Flynn had discussed Obama's sanctions with a Russian ambassador on the same day Obama issued them.

 

[Faun]

“In order to succeed here,” Mintz continued, “the defense will have to prove not merely that the FBI anticipated that Flynn might lie during the interview, but that the FBI encouraged him to lie and induced him to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed.”

Had Flynn been told he'd be questioned about the Kislyak calls, and NEEDED to be precise because the agents HAD the Intel intercepts of that conversation, Flynn would have deferred to remaining silent until he reviewed the notes and retained counsel.

OR and this is the key -- As INCOMING Nat Sec Advisor -- he COULD MAKE A SINGLE CALL and have transcripts of those calls ON HIS desk before the end of the day... THIS IS WHY -- they chose to ambush him.. And DID IT less than 2 hours after McCabe set up the meeting. Because he is a CAREER SPY for America and now had the power to defend himself and the Admin from further abuse by the Intel agencies...

Remaining SILENT and RIGHT to counsel are kinda fundamental to ANY REAL justice... Any "short cuts" to that in investigations is not America..,.

Remaining silent was always an option for him. He ignored that option and lied to the FBI, which is a criminal offense for which he was convicted.

 

[emilynghiem]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

That's a strange interpretation of what they say.

No where does it say "get him to lie".

This is referring to handwritten notes: what is urgent? Truth/Admission or get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?

Taken out of context, this could just be an objective question not a stated intent.

But given the context of what the legal process and negotiations entailed, Flynn was threatened with bankrupting his son as well, but offered to drop certain consequences if he agreed to admit and plead out. So he did, but they reneged on the terms. Thus he was coerced under duress, under threats that had nothing to do with actual guilt and consequences but were based on abusing the legal process to extort political gains. Clearly the context was legal abuse and political abuse of govt process and authority.

If this legal abuse can be proven, where negotiations involved misrepresentations coercion and extortion, then the notes would serve to back that up further. Motivation is subjective and can always be denied and hard to prove without admission.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What crime did he commit that they were investigating?

A stupid comment. Investigations are for possible crimes. If a target did not commit a crime, the investigation shows this. the possible crime was criminal conspiracy with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 elections, for which Flynn had already been under investigation for months.

They don't seem to understand how these things work.

They don't seem to understand how these things work.

LOL!

I can't claim you're involved in kidnapping and money laundering as a pretense to
question you about a phone call you had with your dentist and then charge you with
perjury if you lie about the phone call.

Unless the lies were about a real money laundering and kidnapping case, your
dental lies are not material.

 

[iceberg]

Once again, what's done in the dark is coming to the light.
The FBI is being exposed as a corrupt entity of the government at the highest level.

Handwritten notes from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that had been inappropriately withheld from Flynn’s defense team for years show that a key goal of the agents investigating Flynn was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”
In the handwritten FBI notes, the note-taker, whose identity was not made clear in the document production, wrote that an alternate goal is to “get [Flynn] to admit breaking the Logan Act,” a reference to a 1799 law restricting communications between private citizens and foreign governments.
The FBI notes also show that the author of the document had misgivings about the FBI’s conduct in interviewing Flynn.

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” the FBI author wrote. “I thought [about] it last night, [and] I believe we should rethink this.”

“We regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit wrongdoing,” the notes said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”

Explosive New Flynn Documents Show FBI Goal Was To 'Get Him Fired'

Newly disclosed handwritten documents in the Michael Flynn case show that the stated goal of the FBI in interviewing Flynn was to 'get him fired.'

thefederalist.com

“I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit” but “I thought about it last night and I believe we should rethink this,” the FBI official wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

‘Truth/Admission or to get him to lie’?: Notes show FBI discussed possible Michael Flynn prosecution before interview - Washington Examiner

Top FBI officials discussed the possibility of prosecuting retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians as agents planned how to conduct their interview of the Trump national security adviser, newly unsealed notes show. The records, unsealed through a...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

One of Obama's long list of legacies, no doubt.
I'll be looking for this on CNN.

That's a strange interpretation of what they say.

No where does it say "get him to lie".

This is referring to handwritten notes: what is urgent? Truth/Admission or get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?

Taken out of context, this could just be an objective question not a stated intent.

But given the context of what the legal process and negotiations entailed, Flynn was threatened with bankrupting his son as well, but offered to drop certain consequences if he agreed to admit and plead out. So he did, but they reneged on the terms. Thus he was coerced under duress, under threats that had nothing to do with actual guilt and consequences but were based on abusing the legal process to extort political gains. Clearly the context was legal abuse and political abuse of govt process and authority.

If this legal abuse can be proven, where negotiations involved misrepresentations coercion and extortion, then the notes would serve to back that up further. Motivation is subjective and can always be denied and hard to prove without admission.

View attachment 332540

Hey Emily. Always good to see ya.

 

[Coyote]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

Except you didn't miss them. You replied with nonsense and rabbit hole questions. and dunno about enrin. I was talking about comey saying he treated them with no respect at all.

But hey I'm the asshole. Sure can be yea but you are being quite, the bitch as well.

You don't know about Enron. Oh wow. Clearly you don't read what you pretend to read or you only read into it what you want or maybe this is just one of your rabbit holes. Enron is a similar high profile, large scale and complicated white collar crime case. The FBI handled it's targets there in much the same way Flynn was handled, including using family members who were guilty of lesser charges, to pressure people to talk.

I don't know what enron has to do with this except another deflection in a BUT OBAMA sort of way.

Are you deliberately trying to be dense and act like a troll? Because if you are, you're doing a heck of a job.

The broader discussion is how the FBI handled investigating Flynn and the larger investigation surrounding him. That is the same type of investigation is ones like Enron. In fact the lawfare article I linked to noted it. Bringing it as an example of how such techniques are used in an investigation is perfectly appropriate because THOSE TECHNIQUES are part of the topic of conversation here.

 

[Coyote]

Again you are the one who kerps dragging Trump into this.

Funny, in a totally pathetic sort of way.

What's pathetic is that you are claiming I am dragging Trump into this when 1) the thread is actually about Trump and 2) the post I was replying to dragged Trump into it.

Can you be any more dishonest?

But you keep replying to me and I'm never talking about Trump.

And hey im a liar again cause I call you on your bullshit.

Sweet.

Strange. I keep finding Trump in your posts.

Is this a case of alternative facts?

Cause you keep putting him there and I keep saying HAHA BUT TRUMP!!!

Post #159 (you threw in a gratuitous Hilary and Obama)
Post #165, 179, 195 (another gratuitous Hilary), 207, 294 (this one had a large scale defense-of-Trump rant), 321, 353....I got bored and quit after that.

 

[iceberg]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

Except you didn't miss them. You replied with nonsense and rabbit hole questions. and dunno about enrin. I was talking about comey saying he treated them with no respect at all.

But hey I'm the asshole. Sure can be yea but you are being quite, the bitch as well.

You don't know about Enron. Oh wow. Clearly you don't read what you pretend to read or you only read into it what you want or maybe this is just one of your rabbit holes. Enron is a similar high profile, large scale and complicated white collar crime case. The FBI handled it's targets there in much the same way Flynn was handled, including using family members who were guilty of lesser charges, to pressure people to talk.

I don't know what enron has to do with this except another deflection in a BUT OBAMA sort of way.

Are you deliberately trying to be dense and act like a troll? Because if you are, you're doing a heck of a job.

The broader discussion is how the FBI handled investigating Flynn and the larger investigation surrounding him. That is the same type of investigation is ones like Enron. In fact the lawfare article I linked to noted it. Bringing it as an example of how such techniques are used in an investigation is perfectly appropriate because THOSE TECHNIQUES are part of the topic of conversation here.

Girl, if we can't agree that comey treated flynn differently than he would have anyone else after comey himself said it, your delusions of a broader picture have as much chance of survival as goose farts in a tornado.

That's why I bulldog on one topic til we come to a concensus but that isn't happening now is, it?

 

[iceberg]

Again you are the one who kerps dragging Trump into this.

Funny, in a totally pathetic sort of way.

What's pathetic is that you are claiming I am dragging Trump into this when 1) the thread is actually about Trump and 2) the post I was replying to dragged Trump into it.

Can you be any more dishonest?

But you keep replying to me and I'm never talking about Trump.

And hey im a liar again cause I call you on your bullshit.

Sweet.

Strange. I keep finding Trump in your posts.

Is this a case of alternative facts?

Cause you keep putting him there and I keep saying HAHA BUT TRUMP!!!

Post #159 (you threw in a gratuitous Hilary and Obama)
Post #165, 179, 195 (another gratuitous Hilary), 207, 294 (this one had a large scale defense-of-Trump rant), 321, 353....I got bored and quit after that.

How many of these were after you dragged BUT TRUMP into the convo?

 

[Coyote]

“In order to succeed here,” Mintz continued, “the defense will have to prove not merely that the FBI anticipated that Flynn might lie during the interview, but that the FBI encouraged him to lie and induced him to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have committed.”

Had Flynn been told he'd be questioned about the Kislyak calls, and NEEDED to be precise because the agents HAD the Intel intercepts of that conversation, Flynn would have deferred to remaining silent until he reviewed the notes and retained counsel.

Frankly...that does not make much sense. They already knew Flynn had lied - they had two different versions on hand...why would they show their entire hand and give it all to him? Flynn is no dummy. He had to have known he could have remained silent, could have said he could't recall, could have told the truth. He did not have to lie.

OR and this is the key -- As INCOMING Nat Sec Advisor -- he COULD MAKE A SINGLE CALL and have transcripts of those calls ON HIS desk before the end of the day... THIS IS WHY -- they chose to ambush him.. And DID IT less than 2 hours after McCabe set up the meeting. Because he is a CAREER SPY for America and now had the power to defend himself and the Admin from further abuse by the Intel agencies...

Sure. He could have. But he had already lied to the VP hadn't he? They new he had lied once, they discussed what the best strategy would be going forward given the overall investigation was on Russian influence and concern about possible Russian assets in the Administration - and opted for what they did. If they thought Flynn had information, and they wanted his cooperation - why would they give him all that? From a law enforcement perspective it doesn't make much sense.

And you are also operating from an assumption that you and I don't share - that the Intel agencies were out to get Trump. From my perspetive - the Intel agencies were defending the Administration from Russian penetration.

Remaining SILENT and RIGHT to counsel are kinda fundamental to ANY REAL justice... Any "short cuts" to that in investigations is not America..,.

How was he prevented from remaining silent?
How was he prevented from retaining a counsel?

 

[Coyote]

Again you are the one who kerps dragging Trump into this.

Funny, in a totally pathetic sort of way.

What's pathetic is that you are claiming I am dragging Trump into this when 1) the thread is actually about Trump and 2) the post I was replying to dragged Trump into it.

Can you be any more dishonest?

But you keep replying to me and I'm never talking about Trump.

And hey im a liar again cause I call you on your bullshit.

Sweet.

Strange. I keep finding Trump in your posts.

Is this a case of alternative facts?

Cause you keep putting him there and I keep saying HAHA BUT TRUMP!!!

Post #159 (you threw in a gratuitous Hilary and Obama)
Post #165, 179, 195 (another gratuitous Hilary), 207, 294 (this one had a large scale defense-of-Trump rant), 321, 353....I got bored and quit after that.

How many of these were after you dragged BUT TRUMP into the convo?

My first mention of Trump was in post 419, when I opined about your article link, which included Trump.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

and wow...I mean why question him at all?

You got that right.
If the transcript showed election interference, arrest him.
If the transcript showed a Logan Act violation, arrest him.
No need to question him about the call.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Coyote Just LISTEN to this bragging bastard traitor ENTERTAINING TDSers like you about AMBUSHING Gen Flynn.,. He's just a HERO to them... NEEDS the credit at that point for GETTING a special counsel to investigate NOTHING that the FBI had on Russia Russia Russia...

This interview was shortly after he was fired and going out on "The Resistance Tour" to whip up the dittohead resisters about Russia..

Boils my blood at the level of ABUSE OF POWER that's here... Not the "abuse of power" you IMAGINED existed in the 1st weeks of the Trump Admin...

Watch IT -- and tell me this is funny or APPROPRIATE now that America KNOWS the FBI had NOTHING ON RUSSIA about Flynn and THEY knew this also...

I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.

You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.

In the history of bullshit hypocritical statements, you just skyrocketed to the top and lost my respect all at once.

What
The
Fuck

Comey confesses in 1:32 and you say it doesn't matter.

There is simply zero point in even trying to talk to someone who ignores. FUCKING GOD DAMN CONFESSION so she can keep partisan hate alive.

Like a security blanket, huh?

A 1:32 minute out of context snippet is an entire confession but an analysis from lawfare is fraudulent (I doubt you even bothered to read it).

You guys are looney tunes with no interest in discussion if it doesn’t support your pet conspiracy theory and make Trump’s ass shine.

keeping the partisan hate alive...good job dude, because that is what you are doing here when you can’t even entertain the idea of another point of view. You can drop your pretense of open mindedness, you are just another Trumpbot.

Nice leftist-Democrat talking points. You are quite the propagandist. Do they pay you?

can you challenge any of the legal points made in lawfare?

There WERE no "legal points" of value in that Lawfare screed.. The guy just DISMISSED "the ambush" while Comey was bragging publicly about it.. Just like you did.. He SPECULATED as to what the judge would do... And WORSE -- he misrepresented WHY Flynn CHANGED his COUNSEL..

The TRUTH IS it wasn't about a whim.. His FORMER counsels were ACTIVELY SCREWING HIM.. Withholding IMPORTANT exculpatory evidence from the court that SHOWED he was set-up, THREATENED and ambushed by the FBI.. When the FBI KNOWINGLY was ready to close the "official" Russian investigation into Flynn..

THAT LIE of omission makes the LawFare article lame and useless.. Because it's no BETTER than uninformed or INTENTIONAL Bullshit that gets posted on USMB...

Wow. Simply wow. No legal points of value huh? I don’t think you read it.

What specific evidence was withheld? And how would it have made a difference?

The 302's where the agents said flynn wasn't lying. C'mon Coyote, you're better than this.

Yeah the facts are Flynn wasn't lying until Comey said he was. Comey should be in jail.

They should ALL be imprisoned for life. That's the only thing that has a chance to prevent the next scumbag bureaucrat who thinks they are above the law.

Throw Trump in their while you are at it.

Why would I do that? He's not the subject of this thread. The subject is the FBI lying to the Court, and falsifying documents.

Next time you hurl the "you are a trump cultist" epithet, I suggest you look in the mirror.

I am talking about criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI. You are launching non sequitur after non sequitur, and resorting to personal insults when the evidence is clearly against you.

Stop it.

I would suggest you look at what some of the other participants here are doing. I've posted discussion, I've posted sources. But certain people would rather discuss anything else BUT that. If all they are going to lob personal insults, then why exactly do I want to waste my time with them?

I have. They too have posted factual data to support their claims, and you have completely ignored them. The progressive left is in hyper attack mode, and seemingly lost in the past. Not one of the Court hearings involving General Flynn have dealt with the recently released information about FBI criminal actions. And yet you ALL refer back to a fraudulently obtained confession as if it is the end.

It's not. Now that the criminal activity has been exposed, the plea will be vacated, and the perpetrators of this abomination against the COTUS will hopefully be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Where they BELONG.

Not once have you addressed the very real criminal actions that we now KNOW occurred. Instead you have deflected and simply ignored real facts that have been laid out in front of you.

Yes. I did. And you and others IGNORE it. Completely. It's like two ships passing in the night. What I posted addressed most of the claims. And when I ask what actual LAWS did the FBI break - nothing.

Why waste time when you just drown out dissent.

No, it didn't. NONE of the FBI's criminal activity has been addressed in Court. Yet.

Did you actually read it? It broke down Flynn's legal case and legal claims and brought up the relevant laws.

If none of the FBI's supposed criminal activity has yet been addressed - then you don't even know if it was criminal.

And not once did it address the criminal activity of the FBI which renders anything flynn may have done, moot.

The FBI had no cause to prosecute flynn. At least not what has been presented. I DO think that flynn was doing something illegal with Turkey. Why didn't the FBI go after him for that?

My personal belief is it transects something that Hillary was doing that is likewise illegal.

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Looks like you should watch the video I've already posted here. You asking questions from a place of ignorance.
And the video is the product of big time progressive leftists, so blather about "right wing talking points"
isn't helpful or pertinent.

I’m less interested in propaganda from either side and more interested in the simple reality of this case. Flynn lied about a pretty damn serious situation. I know it’s been pounded into your head that it was all a snowflake hoax so lying about it was no big deal but again that’s just propaganda at work

Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?

Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.

Here is some more reality for you:

"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."

"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”

"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.

Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?

are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!

Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!

Flynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'

LOLOL

He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.

He lied. Deal with it.

Stay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.

LOLOL

Oh? What other facts do you think there are?

I'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.

LOL

So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

And, you have to use contrived facts.

there comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.

she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.

people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.

so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.

so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".

out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.

1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.

comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.

but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.

would that others feel the same.

Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.

You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.

It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.

You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.

See ya.

Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snapped

I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.

we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".

First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.

at this point you're acting just like slade. talk all "i'm not biased i'm not biased" then run out and do some one sided shit most people wouldn't want either side to do.

We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.

and what made me stop bothering with slade is i would put up posts that would take 30-45 minutes to put together and show my point and he'd not read them nor address them but shout back generic leftist bulletpoints in defense. so i found that regardless of how well you put your argument together and how much time you spend on it trying to find that "common ground" - he had no desire to do the same in the end.

just be right. all the time.

Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.

Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.

There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.

And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).



Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.




13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23

but your question was -

was flynn treated differently.

was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?

that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.

WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?

so - were they?

yes | no

Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.

We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.

Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).

2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.

3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.

4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.

5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).

6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.

Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?

I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.

i said they were and gave you the proof. you overanalyed it and looked for the justification for them to do so; disregarding your own question in the process.

this is why it gets frustrating talking to you. as for slade - when he didn't read a 2nd post i put time into, i wasn't into giving him a 3rd chance. he doesn't want to debate, he wants to be agreed with.

I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.

So will you answer my questions?

So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).


Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something. Like when you change your story about something that is being investigated.

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something.

Right. And because there was no reasonable suspicion, his lies were not material.

Who said there was no suspicion? The FBI was investigating if Trump's people were involved with Russia since it was known Russia was hacking Democrats and Trump had surrounded himself with multiple people with Russian dealings. And the FBI knew Flynn had discussed Obama's sanctions with a Russian ambassador on the same day Obama issued them.

Who said there was no suspicion?

Where was the reasonable suspicion that he was involved in election interference?
You can't use a fake Russian dossier as carte blance to violate the privacy of everyone
ever involved in the Trump campaign.

The FBI was investigating if Trump's people were involved with Russia

Did Flynn's phone call mean he was reasonably suspected of criminal behavior involving Russia?

it was known Russia was hacking Democrats and Trump had surrounded himself with multiple people with Russian dealings.

Did Flynn's call discuss hacking? No. Then how were his lies material?

And the FBI knew Flynn had discussed Obama's sanctions with a Russian ambassador on the same day Obama issued them

If that's a chargeable Logan Act violation, charge him. The transcript is enough evidence, right?

 

[Coyote]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

Except you didn't miss them. You replied with nonsense and rabbit hole questions. and dunno about enrin. I was talking about comey saying he treated them with no respect at all.

But hey I'm the asshole. Sure can be yea but you are being quite, the bitch as well.

You don't know about Enron. Oh wow. Clearly you don't read what you pretend to read or you only read into it what you want or maybe this is just one of your rabbit holes. Enron is a similar high profile, large scale and complicated white collar crime case. The FBI handled it's targets there in much the same way Flynn was handled, including using family members who were guilty of lesser charges, to pressure people to talk.

I don't know what enron has to do with this except another deflection in a BUT OBAMA sort of way.

Are you deliberately trying to be dense and act like a troll? Because if you are, you're doing a heck of a job.

The broader discussion is how the FBI handled investigating Flynn and the larger investigation surrounding him. That is the same type of investigation is ones like Enron. In fact the lawfare article I linked to noted it. Bringing it as an example of how such techniques are used in an investigation is perfectly appropriate because THOSE TECHNIQUES are part of the topic of conversation here.

Girl, if we can't agree that comey treated flynn differently than he would have anyone else after comey himself said it, your delusions of a broader picture have as much chance of survival as goose farts in a tornado.

That's why I bulldog on one topic til we come to a concensus but that isn't happening now is, it?

Yes, he treated Flynn differently - but only in the way he approached the questioning. But the way he questioned Flynn was no different than that of other similar investigations.

What is the exact point here? That Comey took an opportunity when he saw it? I would agree on that. It'a what he said.

That it was illegal? There is no evidence to support that. That he was out to "get" the Trump Administration? Again - I didn't see that, not even in the 1.32 video clip. I think he was focused on Russia and the full length transcript seems to support that.

One thing I DO see in Comey though is someone who is not loathe to bend rules, doesn't feel particularly accountable and likes the limelight too much.

 

[Coyote]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

and wow...I mean why question him at all?

You got that right.
If the transcript showed election interference, arrest him.
If the transcript showed a Logan Act violation, arrest him.
No need to question him about the call.

Really?

So....basically, we don't question potential criminals further if we found they lied. Okey Dokie. That's going to be a hell of a blow to the lawenforcment folks you claim to support.

 

[Faun]

Coyote Just LISTEN to this bragging bastard traitor ENTERTAINING TDSers like you about AMBUSHING Gen Flynn.,. He's just a HERO to them... NEEDS the credit at that point for GETTING a special counsel to investigate NOTHING that the FBI had on Russia Russia Russia...

This interview was shortly after he was fired and going out on "The Resistance Tour" to whip up the dittohead resisters about Russia..

Boils my blood at the level of ABUSE OF POWER that's here... Not the "abuse of power" you IMAGINED existed in the 1st weeks of the Trump Admin...

Watch IT -- and tell me this is funny or APPROPRIATE now that America KNOWS the FBI had NOTHING ON RUSSIA about Flynn and THEY knew this also...

I am no fan of Comey, particularly with what he did to Hilary, but 1 minute 32 second snippet isn’t going to make or break a case. It just feeds emotions.

You think I imagined abuse of power with Trump? I am just a TDS’er eh? That is your fall back when I point serious issues with Trump. Well, I know one thing for sure, I am not so far up Trump’s ass I am imitating a suppository.

In the history of bullshit hypocritical statements, you just skyrocketed to the top and lost my respect all at once.

What
The
Fuck

Comey confesses in 1:32 and you say it doesn't matter.

There is simply zero point in even trying to talk to someone who ignores. FUCKING GOD DAMN CONFESSION so she can keep partisan hate alive.

Like a security blanket, huh?

A 1:32 minute out of context snippet is an entire confession but an analysis from lawfare is fraudulent (I doubt you even bothered to read it).

You guys are looney tunes with no interest in discussion if it doesn’t support your pet conspiracy theory and make Trump’s ass shine.

keeping the partisan hate alive...good job dude, because that is what you are doing here when you can’t even entertain the idea of another point of view. You can drop your pretense of open mindedness, you are just another Trumpbot.

Nice leftist-Democrat talking points. You are quite the propagandist. Do they pay you?

can you challenge any of the legal points made in lawfare?

There WERE no "legal points" of value in that Lawfare screed.. The guy just DISMISSED "the ambush" while Comey was bragging publicly about it.. Just like you did.. He SPECULATED as to what the judge would do... And WORSE -- he misrepresented WHY Flynn CHANGED his COUNSEL..

The TRUTH IS it wasn't about a whim.. His FORMER counsels were ACTIVELY SCREWING HIM.. Withholding IMPORTANT exculpatory evidence from the court that SHOWED he was set-up, THREATENED and ambushed by the FBI.. When the FBI KNOWINGLY was ready to close the "official" Russian investigation into Flynn..

THAT LIE of omission makes the LawFare article lame and useless.. Because it's no BETTER than uninformed or INTENTIONAL Bullshit that gets posted on USMB...

Wow. Simply wow. No legal points of value huh? I don’t think you read it.

What specific evidence was withheld? And how would it have made a difference?

The 302's where the agents said flynn wasn't lying. C'mon Coyote, you're better than this.

Yeah the facts are Flynn wasn't lying until Comey said he was. Comey should be in jail.

They should ALL be imprisoned for life. That's the only thing that has a chance to prevent the next scumbag bureaucrat who thinks they are above the law.

Throw Trump in their while you are at it.

Why would I do that? He's not the subject of this thread. The subject is the FBI lying to the Court, and falsifying documents.

Next time you hurl the "you are a trump cultist" epithet, I suggest you look in the mirror.

I am talking about criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI. You are launching non sequitur after non sequitur, and resorting to personal insults when the evidence is clearly against you.

Stop it.

I would suggest you look at what some of the other participants here are doing. I've posted discussion, I've posted sources. But certain people would rather discuss anything else BUT that. If all they are going to lob personal insults, then why exactly do I want to waste my time with them?

I have. They too have posted factual data to support their claims, and you have completely ignored them. The progressive left is in hyper attack mode, and seemingly lost in the past. Not one of the Court hearings involving General Flynn have dealt with the recently released information about FBI criminal actions. And yet you ALL refer back to a fraudulently obtained confession as if it is the end.

It's not. Now that the criminal activity has been exposed, the plea will be vacated, and the perpetrators of this abomination against the COTUS will hopefully be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison. Where they BELONG.

Not once have you addressed the very real criminal actions that we now KNOW occurred. Instead you have deflected and simply ignored real facts that have been laid out in front of you.

Yes. I did. And you and others IGNORE it. Completely. It's like two ships passing in the night. What I posted addressed most of the claims. And when I ask what actual LAWS did the FBI break - nothing.

Why waste time when you just drown out dissent.

No, it didn't. NONE of the FBI's criminal activity has been addressed in Court. Yet.

Did you actually read it? It broke down Flynn's legal case and legal claims and brought up the relevant laws.

If none of the FBI's supposed criminal activity has yet been addressed - then you don't even know if it was criminal.

And not once did it address the criminal activity of the FBI which renders anything flynn may have done, moot.

The FBI had no cause to prosecute flynn. At least not what has been presented. I DO think that flynn was doing something illegal with Turkey. Why didn't the FBI go after him for that?

My personal belief is it transects something that Hillary was doing that is likewise illegal.

Let’s not do the broken record repeat thing ok? Ive already made the point that the FBI wasn’t going after Flynn for a crime. They knew he had contacts with the Russians... contacts that he had publicly lied about and was fired for.... they asked about the discussions and Flynn straight up lied to them about it. That’s a crime. Not a trap. Flynn could have just told the truth. He didn’t. Why are you making this complicated when it is not?!

I ya met said a word about Comey or trump. That’s you bringing them up. Try and stay on point.

Looks like you should watch the video I've already posted here. You asking questions from a place of ignorance.
And the video is the product of big time progressive leftists, so blather about "right wing talking points"
isn't helpful or pertinent.

I’m less interested in propaganda from either side and more interested in the simple reality of this case. Flynn lied about a pretty damn serious situation. I know it’s been pounded into your head that it was all a snowflake hoax so lying about it was no big deal but again that’s just propaganda at work

Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?

Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.

Here is some more reality for you:

"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."

"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”

"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."

Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.

Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?

are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!

Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!

Flynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'

LOLOL

He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.

He lied. Deal with it.

Stay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.

LOLOL

Oh? What other facts do you think there are?

I'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.

LOL

So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

And, you have to use contrived facts.

there comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.

she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.

people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.

so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.

so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".

out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.

1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.

comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.

but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.

would that others feel the same.

Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.

You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.

It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.

You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.

See ya.

Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snapped

I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.

we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".

First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.

at this point you're acting just like slade. talk all "i'm not biased i'm not biased" then run out and do some one sided shit most people wouldn't want either side to do.

We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.

and what made me stop bothering with slade is i would put up posts that would take 30-45 minutes to put together and show my point and he'd not read them nor address them but shout back generic leftist bulletpoints in defense. so i found that regardless of how well you put your argument together and how much time you spend on it trying to find that "common ground" - he had no desire to do the same in the end.

just be right. all the time.

Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.

Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.

There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.

And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).



Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.




13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23

but your question was -

was flynn treated differently.

was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?

that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.

WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?

so - were they?

yes | no

Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.

We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.

Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).

2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.

3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.

4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.

5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).

6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.

Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?

I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.

i said they were and gave you the proof. you overanalyed it and looked for the justification for them to do so; disregarding your own question in the process.

this is why it gets frustrating talking to you. as for slade - when he didn't read a 2nd post i put time into, i wasn't into giving him a 3rd chance. he doesn't want to debate, he wants to be agreed with.

I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.

So will you answer my questions?

So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).


Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something. Like when you change your story about something that is being investigated.

You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something.

Right. And because there was no reasonable suspicion, his lies were not material.

Who said there was no suspicion? The FBI was investigating if Trump's people were involved with Russia since it was known Russia was hacking Democrats and Trump had surrounded himself with multiple people with Russian dealings. And the FBI knew Flynn had discussed Obama's sanctions with a Russian ambassador on the same day Obama issued them.

Try posting words. It really helps.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.

There is nothing "fictional" about the charge of Russian collusion that the democrats tried to use to ride Trump out of office with but the Russian collusion itself. There was none. None that Robert Mueller would certify, anyway.
The people still obsessed with this matter think they know better than that, however. Zealots always do.

But I'm sure deluded leftists believe in the myth of Russian collusion in the same way that residents of mental institutions believe that cats talk to them or fairies and elves come and visit every night when the lights go out.

What was the long, costly multi year Mueller investigation all about if not to settle this matter of Russian collusion? They got their Captain America, Robert Mueller and he got to run a long exhaustive investigation
just the way he wanted to... with no interference and at the end of it all, there are still a bunch of morons who
can't accept their urban legend doesn't exist.

They are children throwing tantrums.

 

[iceberg]

Again you are the one who kerps dragging Trump into this.

Funny, in a totally pathetic sort of way.

What's pathetic is that you are claiming I am dragging Trump into this when 1) the thread is actually about Trump and 2) the post I was replying to dragged Trump into it.

Can you be any more dishonest?

But you keep replying to me and I'm never talking about Trump.

And hey im a liar again cause I call you on your bullshit.

Sweet.

Strange. I keep finding Trump in your posts.

Is this a case of alternative facts?

Cause you keep putting him there and I keep saying HAHA BUT TRUMP!!!

Post #159 (you threw in a gratuitous Hilary and Obama)
Post #165, 179, 195 (another gratuitous Hilary), 207, 294 (this one had a large scale defense-of-Trump rant), 321, 353....I got bored and quit after that.

How many of these were after you dragged BUT TRUMP into the convo?

My first mention of Trump was in post 419, when I opined about your article link, which included Trump.

Then all those other times I was not talking to you then, was I?

 

[iceberg]

Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate.

His honesty isn't an issue if they aren't conducting a legitimate investigation.

Flynn was not trustworthy

Not material.

They were conducting a legitimate investigation unless you think investigating Russian interference in our elections is not a concern.

And please, don't pull the crap of "what votes did they change" - interference isn't about just that.

and every other election no one cared. no one cares when we interfere with other countries elections.

but this one time, at band camp...

that is how this feels to me. you take something that happens all the time and suddenly use it to your advantage then sell yourself "it's different".

I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).

The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.

Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)

It happened all the time!

Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.

That is exactly what you are doing.

I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.

I told you before that until you answer the question we are on I'm not playing deflection games. Please feel free to read back and see me say that.

I answered your question. I am merely out to determine if after I showed you they WERE treated differently, do you agree they were or was it as you state in your original question, they were treated the same.

How is answering a question WITH a question an answer? Or did I miss something in your post?

Comey took advantage of the Trump Administrations lack of protocols allowed him to circumvent them. He wouldn't have gotten away with that in the prior administrations but that isn't to say he wouldn't have tried if the same organizational leeways were open. In legal terms it changed nothing. No two cases are going to be treated exactly the same but now you seem to think they should be regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. You also overlook one simple fact - Flynn lied. He did not have to.

Now where did you actually answer my question or are you going to deflect again? Is Flynn being treated differently than any other white collar criminal/informant?

You keep choosing to ignore the fact I answered your question straight up. Then I just asked you to do the same.

I said yes. I used comey quotes to illustrate.

You are still doing this deflection shit.

You know what asshole - this is a thread a with a hell of a lot of posts and replies. If I missed, I apologize.

Yes. Flynn is being treated differently - unlike other's in similar circumstances - you demand that Flynn should have been told everything the FBI suspected, told to bring his notes, told he should bring a lawyer (even though he wasn't under arrest) and wow...I mean why question him at all? Did the Enron people get all that special treatment?

Except you didn't miss them. You replied with nonsense and rabbit hole questions. and dunno about enrin. I was talking about comey saying he treated them with no respect at all.

But hey I'm the asshole. Sure can be yea but you are being quite, the bitch as well.

You don't know about Enron. Oh wow. Clearly you don't read what you pretend to read or you only read into it what you want or maybe this is just one of your rabbit holes. Enron is a similar high profile, large scale and complicated white collar crime case. The FBI handled it's targets there in much the same way Flynn was handled, including using family members who were guilty of lesser charges, to pressure people to talk.

I don't know what enron has to do with this except another deflection in a BUT OBAMA sort of way.

Are you deliberately trying to be dense and act like a troll? Because if you are, you're doing a heck of a job.

The broader discussion is how the FBI handled investigating Flynn and the larger investigation surrounding him. That is the same type of investigation is ones like Enron. In fact the lawfare article I linked to noted it. Bringing it as an example of how such techniques are used in an investigation is perfectly appropriate because THOSE TECHNIQUES are part of the topic of conversation here.

Girl, if we can't agree that comey treated flynn differently than he would have anyone else after comey himself said it, your delusions of a broader picture have as much chance of survival as goose farts in a tornado.

That's why I bulldog on one topic til we come to a concensus but that isn't happening now is, it?

Yes, he treated Flynn differently - but only in the way he approached the questioning. But the way he questioned Flynn was no different than that of other similar investigations.

What is the exact point here? That Comey took an opportunity when he saw it? I would agree on that. It'a what he said.

That it was illegal? There is no evidence to support that. That he was out to "get" the Trump Administration? Again - I didn't see that, not even in the 1.32 video clip. I think he was focused on Russia and the full length transcript seems to support that.

One thing I DO see in Comey though is someone who is not loathe to bend rules, doesn't feel particularly accountable and likes the limelight too much.

So you finally admit it then move to damage control.