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

[iceberg]

Post 1419.

You should pay attention before going into arrogant bitch mode. We've also established you don't read my posts either, just scream replies of some sort back. I answered your "treat differently" question at least 3 times and asked you how you felt. You kept bitching how dare I answer a question with a question PROVING you are simply not reading through my posts now are you?

Slade.

When you go into asshole mode - I will go into bitch mode. Really nice deflection in that post.

So, it's ok for you to drag Trump (and Clinton, and Obama) into multiple posts but you scream at me when I mention him and accuse me of dragging him into every post.

There's a term for that. Care to guess what it is?

Hypocrisy.

No. I said I wouldn't do that TO YOU. You said you'd try to also not do that.

I kept my end of the bargain.

What's that term again???

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

 

[Leo123]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

There was no good reason, that is what you seem to be in denial of. Unless, of course, you actually believe Trump was/is a Russian asset.

 

[Slade3200]

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 and many others have also posted sources like the exact verbiage of the FBI where they admitted trying to get Flynn to lie. Sources that show Flynn was not read his Miranda rights and was not encouraged to get a lawyer. He did not even enjoy a presumption of innocence. Rights even a common criminal is given in this country. Neither you nor any of the other TDSers want to address that, all you/they do is beat the same old dead horse that "Flynn lied" while absolutely refusing to see the whole picture.

Flynn made the choice to lie. Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate. It’s exactly what cops do when they investigate to see if people are trustworthy. Flynn was not trustworthy

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.

you're wrong. Giving honest accounts to cops is material and relevant. Lying is illegal.

They already had the account all they were doing was trying to trip him up while threatening his family. This is Bannana Republic shit.

No it’s not... and you’re not being honest. Nothing was trying to trip him up unless that’s how you refer to cops asking probing questions which is exactly what their job is.

 

[iceberg]

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 and many others have also posted sources like the exact verbiage of the FBI where they admitted trying to get Flynn to lie. Sources that show Flynn was not read his Miranda rights and was not encouraged to get a lawyer. He did not even enjoy a presumption of innocence. Rights even a common criminal is given in this country. Neither you nor any of the other TDSers want to address that, all you/they do is beat the same old dead horse that "Flynn lied" while absolutely refusing to see the whole picture.

Flynn made the choice to lie. Testing his honesty is not a crime and it’s not inappropriate. It’s exactly what cops do when they investigate to see if people are trustworthy. Flynn was not trustworthy

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.

you're wrong. Giving honest accounts to cops is material and relevant. Lying is illegal.

They already had the account all they were doing was trying to trip him up while threatening his family. This is Bannana Republic shit.

No it’s not... and you’re not being honest. Nothing was trying to trip him up unless that’s how you refer to cops asking probing questions which is exactly what their job is.

If not trying to trip him up then go through standard process.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

"entirely".

Cute.

 

[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.

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.

I already spelled out the suspicion. Feel free to re-read as necessary.

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 warranted investigation.

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?[/indent]
No, but not being material to their investigation does not give him a license to lie to them. It's still a crime and lying to the FBI comes with the risk of prosecution.

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?

Perhaps he could have been but it matters not since he wasn't charged with it. Again, that doesn't allow him to lie to the FBI.

It warranted investigation.

Ok. Investigate all the calls that mentioned election interference.

So? What does that have to do with Flynn? That certainly doesn't exonerate him and other calls have nothing to do with him.

No, but not being material to their investigation does not give him a license to lie to them.

I agree. Don't lie to the FBI. But non-material lies shouldn't be criminally charged.

They were investigating Trump's people with connections to Russia. Flynn was one of Trump's people who was contacted by a Russian ambassador with whom he spoke about Obama's sanctions placed on Russia because they were hacking us.

Perhaps he could have been but it matters not since he wasn't charged with it.

If you're not planning on charging for an underlying crime, you shouldn't be able to charge
perjury for the non-charged criminal act.

Your opinion is meaningless. The law disagrees with you.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

"entirely".

Cute.

Cute.

I realize nuance escapes you. The dossier was not "fictional" - it was a collection of raw unverified intelligence. That is all it was, and it all it claimed to be. Within it, some was verified as proven, some was verified as unproven. As is typical with those sort of intelligence dumps. What has not been verified is what you term "fictional" - and it may well be. But your implication is that it was created as a fictional report.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

And keep in mind you keep assigning my position to me and arguing with that.

My thinking you are full of shit about Trump is not defending Trump. It's saying I think you are an emotional basket case, who is full of shit about Trump.

And you refuse to consider that Trump was set up but you want others to consider your view.

Hypocrite, was it?

 

[iceberg]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

"entirely".

Cute.

Cute.

I realize nuance escapes you. The dossier was not "fictional" - it was a collection of raw unverified intelligence. That is all it was, and it all it claimed to be. Within it, some was verified as proven, some was verified as unproven. As is typical with those sort of intelligence dumps. What has not been verified is what you term "fictional" - and it may well be. But your implication is that it was created as a fictional report.

So tell me then, what parts of star wars were real?

If you have to make shit up, I don't trust anything you say.

I see that nuance escapes you.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

And keep in mind you keep assigning my position to me and arguing with that.

My thinking you are full of shit about Trump is not defending Trump. It's saying I think you are an emotional basket case, who is full of shit about Trump.

Oh cry me a river. You've determined (aka assigned my position) as a TDS'r- regardless of the arguments I make, regardless of what Trump does. It's all TDS. That is your automatic default, and not just with me. That has become the default argument of most of the right (just as "racist" was the default of the left during Obama). Your posting history is very Trump supportive, very few criticisms so excuse me but, I think you are full of shit pretending to be some sort of unbiased person.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

And keep in mind you keep assigning my position to me and arguing with that.

My thinking you are full of shit about Trump is not defending Trump. It's saying I think you are an emotional basket case, who is full of shit about Trump.

Oh cry me a river. You've determined (aka assigned my position) as a TDS'r- regardless of the arguments I make, regardless of what Trump does. It's all TDS. That is your automatic default, and not just with me. That has become the default argument of most of the right (just as "racist" was the default of the left during Obama). Your posting history is very Trump supportive, very few criticisms so excuse me but, I think you are full of shit pretending to be some sort of unbiased person.

Because you keep lobbing Trump into every conversation and saying he's a cult.

Stop doing extreme shit and I'll stop noticing you doi g extreme shit.

Gnight.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

"entirely".

Cute.

Cute.

I realize nuance escapes you. The dossier was not "fictional" - it was a collection of raw unverified intelligence. That is all it was, and it all it claimed to be. Within it, some was verified as proven, some was verified as unproven. As is typical with those sort of intelligence dumps. What has not been verified is what you term "fictional" - and it may well be. But your implication is that it was created as a fictional report.

So tell me then, what parts of star wars were real?

If you have to make shit up, I don't trust anything you say.

I see that nuance escapes you.

What does that have to do with what I said? Or, are you trolling again?

I'll dumb it down.

The dossier was a collection of raw unverified intelligence - i.e. not yet analyzed.
That means - no one knows what is true, partly true, or pure b.s. - it's collected from many different sources of various credibility. It's a data dump.

 

[DamnDude]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Since this has come up and to see a lack of proper procedures and protocol being followed in the Flynn prosecution, It confounds me how it has gotten this far....
Not Mirandizing Flynn once they decided to charge him, much less possibly charge him with a crime is in and of itself criminal. I don't give a flying flip about how "affable" the agents wanted him to be, the fact that this one simple procedure wasn't done when it should have been is at the least immoral of any investigating authority, and at worst criminal in and of itself. Coming from the overall "Top Cop" agency should concern each and every one of us.... regardless of political affiliation.
Comey's brag about not following procedures is another dirty deed in all of this as well. Policies and Procedures do not change just because a new person steps in..... It doesn't matter if it's military, business nor government. Policies and Procedures are set and adhered to until they are formally changed by those capable of making those changes... and for any changes to take place is a process, until that process is done, then te status quo is intact. To deviate from that is flat out wrong.
There was a statement made about Hillary Clinton's treatment by Comey..... Talk about your apples and oranges... Hillary Clinton was assessed by the FBI to have actually committed a crime, and it kept coming back around and around due to several different reason... yet Comey admits, yes it was wrong but he would not charge her.... since when does the FBI get to decide who and who doesn't get sent up? isn't that the job of the Attorney General??? Yet Comey "really screwed her." I ask you this, who would you have the FBI treat you like? Hillary, or Flynn?

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

And keep in mind you keep assigning my position to me and arguing with that.

My thinking you are full of shit about Trump is not defending Trump. It's saying I think you are an emotional basket case, who is full of shit about Trump.

Oh cry me a river. You've determined (aka assigned my position) as a TDS'r- regardless of the arguments I make, regardless of what Trump does. It's all TDS. That is your automatic default, and not just with me. That has become the default argument of most of the right (just as "racist" was the default of the left during Obama). Your posting history is very Trump supportive, very few criticisms so excuse me but, I think you are full of shit pretending to be some sort of unbiased person.

Because you keep lobbing Trump into every conversation and saying he's a cult.

Stop doing extreme shit and I'll stop noticing you doi g extreme shit.

Gnight.

Stop lobbing TDS at every Trump criticism.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

And keep in mind you keep assigning my position to me and arguing with that.

My thinking you are full of shit about Trump is not defending Trump. It's saying I think you are an emotional basket case, who is full of shit about Trump.

And you refuse to consider that Trump was set up but you want others to consider your view.

Hypocrite, was it?

Sure. I would consider it. But there is too much evidence against it for me to take it seriously.

 

[Leo123]

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.

The investigation, imo, was 100% merited. There was enough evidence for sufficient concern. Investigations don't start out with a conclusion, they gather evidence and build from that. The Mueller investigation was thorough, professional, non-partisan and left no stone unturned. I'm satisfied. I do want to see the report released. There was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, but obstruction was another matter. There is nothing fictional about any of that.

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.

And deluded rightists will believe it was all a hoax-spawned witch-hunt and ignore the larger implications of it, just as they believe everyone is out to get Trump.

And given your open disdain for Trump as a "cult" are you being unbiased or letting how you feel about Trump allow you to treat him differently? We've already established you are OK treating people differently.

Which is, why I establish points, and not chase rabbits.

The problem with your reasoning is you ignore the points you don't like, including that Mueller was a highly respected prosecutor, that even Trump praised. He was a Republican (as if that would make any difference - people can belong to a political party and do a professional job even though rightists don't seem to believe that). I respect Mueller and I respect the job he did. I respect the findings of our own intelligence and that of other nations that reported Russian attempts to influence elections in multiple countries.

How about you? Are you allowing your bias for Trump to affect the way you view this investigation.

Hell, since you did it already, I'll throw in my own gratuitous Hilary - how about, given your well known antipathy towards her...you think that might influenced your view on the investigation done on her? Comey really screwed her after all.

I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.

But this is funny n caught my eye...i'm Trump neutral but you keep assigning me more. Why is that? Ignoring facts you don't like?

You just proved my point while struggling to make sense of your own. That has to hurt.

That dog don't hunt. Your posting history and positions you tend to take really don't support that.

Even here. You refuse to consider that there could have been a good reason to investigate Trump.

If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.

Except the dossier wasn't entirely fictional - it was unverified raw intelligence, but some of it was proven true. It was never presented as anything but what it was - a collection of rumors and hearsay, unverified. The FISA courts knew that. In addition, that wasn't the only evidence depended on to initiate an investigation. Frankly it had more to it, particularly from a national security perspective, than all the time and money spent on other notable investigations.

There were a lot of confirmed contacts, with Russian figures, and lies about those contacts, including by Flynn. It was enough to warrant an investigation.

"entirely".

Cute.

Cute.

I realize nuance escapes you. The dossier was not "fictional" - it was a collection of raw unverified intelligence. That is all it was, and it all it claimed to be. Within it, some was verified as proven, some was verified as unproven. As is typical with those sort of intelligence dumps. What has not been verified is what you term "fictional" - and it may well be. But your implication is that it was created as a fictional report.

Except that the Dossier was NOT verified.

"If dossier claims were still unverified when Comey testified to Congress in mid 2017 (and thereafter), then those claims could not have been verified when the Obama Justice Department and FBI submitted it to the FISC as a “VERIFIED APPLICATION” in October 2016. It also had to have been unverified on January 6, 2017, when the Obama administration chose to include a sliver of the dossier in the briefing of President-elect Trump — the day after intelligence chiefs met with President Obama in the Oval Office and discussed what Russia information should be shared with the incoming Trump team. "

"Moreover, FBI and Justice Department procedures require that information be vetted for factual accuracy before it is submitted to the FISC. The rules of the FISC require the Justice Department to notify the court promptly if misstatements or inaccuracies have been discovered. Far from alerting the FISC that information in what it boldly labeled the “VERIFIED APPLICATION” was actually unverified, the Justice Department and the FBI kept reaffirming the dossier allegations to the court — in January, April, and June of 2017.

The Steele Dossier and the ‘Verified Application’ That Wasn’t | National Review

Former officials are fighting over who deserves blame.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Faun]

Because you keep lobbing Trump into every conversation and saying he's a cult.

Actually uttered in a thread titled, "Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light"

[emphasis added to highlight a whiney, sniveling bitch's moronic askew complaint]