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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Is Matt Taibbi authoritative and real enough for you?
Does he seem like an unreliable source? Aren't his leftist credentials good enough for you?

What would it take to make you investigate your biases and myths that you are leaning on
and really put them to the test? Taibbi shows up at about 2:40 in my link if you can stand to watch.

 

[Cellblock2429]

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed,

Why are they not feeding their children?

no money to buy food? isn't that what poor means? here,


poor
/po͝or,pôr/
Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: poor; comparative adjective: poorer; superlative adjective: poorest

1. 1.
   lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

They are giving away food from local, state and federal sources..How can one not be able to feed their child? If they ever get to the point where I was once because of a health issue and have to get their meals from dumpster diving them I will join their cause.

/——-/ Mortgages or rents, utilities, car insurance.... BTW, since when is it the business owners responsibility to prove their business is a necessity? WTF business is it of some bureaucrat who decides if you can make a living or not.

I recall when Liberals would be on the front lines demanding people’s liberties restored.

I remember when the government and the president were not so incompetent that we still don't have equipment to protect workers. Great job as always

/——/ It’s the hospital’s job to protect their workers, not the Government, you moron.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Taibbi is hardly a credible source.

Unlike who? Yourself maybe?

If one is a dyed in the wool leftist then I can't think of a single journalist who has more credence than Taibbi.

 

[Coyote]

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it?

You need more? (not that you read the first one of course)

Trump-Russia Dossier One Year Later: How True Is It?

Some of the document's seemingly wild claims have held up to a year's worth of scrutiny, even as many more parts remain disputed or have no evidence of being true.

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[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?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

 

[Coyote]

You misunderstand what was meant by valid criticisms. I meant what the IG report revealed on the failings in the FBI. Those indicate a need for reform and more transparency and oversight. What you’ve done is taken those criticisms, heavily fertilized them with manure, and used them to prop up your conspiracy theory of a coup.

Did the FBI conspire against Trump or are the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants proof of nothing to you?
In your world I guess the Nixon White House wasn't crooked...it just needed reform, transparency and
oversight.
There is much more proof but of course you'd rather not see any.

According to the Horowitz report, there was no political bias. However - there was a lot of damning behavior on the part of the FBI and they need to be reined in

Why the faux comparison to the Nixon White House? Apples and Oranges - one you reform, put in place stricter oversight, new policies/procedures etc. The other you vote out of office.

A more accurate comparison is the crooked Nixon White House and the crooked Trump White House.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And frustrating. They are turning valid criticisms into grist to fuel their huge, multifaceted conspiracy theory of a coup. You can’t argue conspiracy theories, logic has no place there, it becomes an exercise in frustation. That is what I found with birthers.

Maybe you and your pal should define what a "valid" criticism is. You seem to think
anything you bring up and throw in is "valid". It is not.

And maybe you should comment on the fact that progressive anti Trump YouTubers are the ones providing
all the rationales and arguments that you are dismissing out of hand. Ever hear of the site Push Back?


You are not credible or ethical. You should be ashamed but apparently you're incapable of feeling shame.
I wish I didn't have to try and shame you but what recourse does anyone have when someone sticks to a politicized narrative no matter how false and patently absurd it is.

Mueller shot Russia Gate down. You are beating a dead horse. Wise up.

Taibbi is hardly a credible source.

Taibbi is hardly a credible source.

Too conservative for you?

 

[Leo123]

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it? I wish I had quarter for every time CNN used the qualifier "it is alleged" or cites an unnamed source.

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it?

You need more? (not that you read the first one of course)

Trump-Russia Dossier One Year Later: How True Is It?

Some of the document's seemingly wild claims have held up to a year's worth of scrutiny, even as many more parts remain disputed or have no evidence of being true.

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

Well we can't 'disprove' the 'allegation' from 'unnamed sources' that certain Forum members here are NOT paid commie spies either.

 

[Coyote]

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it? I wish I had quarter for every time CNN used the qualifier "it is alleged" or cites an unnamed source.

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it?

You need more? (not that you read the first one of course)

Trump-Russia Dossier One Year Later: How True Is It?

Some of the document's seemingly wild claims have held up to a year's worth of scrutiny, even as many more parts remain disputed or have no evidence of being true.

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

Well we can't 'disprove' the 'allegation' from 'unnamed sources' that certain Forum members here are NOT paid commie spies either.

I place no stock in what has not been verified. My point is - some of it was.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

 

[Faun]

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?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

There was no requirement for them to read him his Miranda rights so it certainly wasn't illegal for them not to do so. You claim you've done investigations before so I must admit I'm baffled at how you don't already know that?

I hope you have better luck fishing than you had here.

 

[jc456]

Faist Judge demands shop owner apology for opening a few days early to help her staff earn a living. She refused, gets 7 days in prison and $7,000 fine

Texas Salon Owner Gets 7 Days in Prison for Staying Open

Keeping her salon open against legal orders, a Dallas salon owner has been sentenced to seven days in prison for, The Dallas Morning News reported.

www.newsmax.com

A Dallas salon owner has been sentenced to seven days in prison for keeping her salon open, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Shelley Luther was also fined $7,000 for continuing to operate her business, Salon a la Mode.

Dallas County Judge Eric Moye ruled against Luther for both criminal and civil contempt.
Moye told Luther she owes local leaders an apology.

"I have to disagree with you, sir, when you say that I am selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish," she said. "I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they'd rather feed their kids.

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed, then please go ahead with your decision, but I'm not going to shut the salon."
Salons and barbershops can reopen May 8, but Luther told Moye she would still reopen her establishment before then.

So Texas Governor Abbot is a 'libtard' now?

naw, he opened up his state, he's smarter than you.

 

[jc456]

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed,

Why are they not feeding their children?

Takes money, idiot.

I have been feeding mine all through this.

/——-/ How dare you feed your kids? You must apologize to the judge or go to jail.

that's his position. made it quite clear as well. he damned her for daring to support her family. how dare she. that's beyond comprehensible, I have to tell you. BTW, I want every business with her mentality. let em go baby!!!!!

 

[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.

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?

Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....

Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.
However, when under investigation, suspicion, or there is the slightest possibility the person you are "having a conversation" with could be implicated in any way, shape, form or fashion, it is inherent upon the investigator to mirandize that individual.
I've done enough 15-6 investigations to know this, so why would seasoned FBI agents do otherwise? The answer to that question, is to make things fit their particular agenda.
It really is as simple as that.
Now, if you will excuse me the fish are biting...

The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!
Two Points...
1.Flynn was told that he could have an attorney present prior to the interview.

2. Flynn acknowledged in court that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

Flynn's own words are damning.

 

[Leo123]

You misunderstand what was meant by valid criticisms. I meant what the IG report revealed on the failings in the FBI. Those indicate a need for reform and more transparency and oversight. What you’ve done is taken those criticisms, heavily fertilized them with manure, and used them to prop up your conspiracy theory of a coup.

Did the FBI conspire against Trump or are the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants proof of nothing to you?
In your world I guess the Nixon White House wasn't crooked...it just needed reform, transparency and
oversight.
There is much more proof but of course you'd rather not see any.

According to the Horowitz report, there was no political bias. However - there was a lot of damning behavior on the part of the FBI and they need to be reined in

Why the faux comparison to the Nixon White House? Apples and Oranges - one you reform, put in place stricter oversight, new policies/procedures etc. The other you vote out of office.

A more accurate comparison is the crooked Nixon White House and the crooked Trump White House.

No political bias? Page and Strzok wrote:

03/04/2016
Page - God Trump is loathsome human.

Strzok – Yet he many win.

Strzok – Good for Hillary.

Page – It is.

Strzok – Would he be a worse president than Cruz?

Page –Trump?, yes I think so

Strzok – I’m not sure.

Strzok – Omg he’s an idiot.

Page – He’s awful

Strzok – America will get what the voting public deserves.

Page – That’s what I’m afraid of.

Read FBI's Strzok, Page texts about Trump

The anti-Trump text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led to Strzok’s removal from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe have been obtained by Fox News.

www.foxnews.com

Then there is this:

"Strzok briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, sources said. But within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier."

"Strzok also oversaw the bureau’s interviews with ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – who pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators in the Russia probe."

'F TRUMP': Texts between ex-Mueller team members emerge, calling Trump 'loathsome human,' 'an idiot'

Text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2016 that have been obtained by Fox News refer to then-candidate Donald Trump as a "loathsome human" and "an idiot."

www.foxnews.com

If that ain't politics infecting the FBI I don't know what is.

 

[Leo123]

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it? I wish I had quarter for every time CNN used the qualifier "it is alleged" or cites an unnamed source.

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it?

You need more? (not that you read the first one of course)

Trump-Russia Dossier One Year Later: How True Is It?

Some of the document's seemingly wild claims have held up to a year's worth of scrutiny, even as many more parts remain disputed or have no evidence of being true.

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

Well we can't 'disprove' the 'allegation' from 'unnamed sources' that certain Forum members here are NOT paid commie spies either.

I place no stock in what has not been verified. My point is - some of it was.

Hearsay is not verifiable and, even if 'some of it was' the document was marked 'verified' which was a least a misrepresentation and at worst and outright lie.

 

[Coyote]

You misunderstand what was meant by valid criticisms. I meant what the IG report revealed on the failings in the FBI. Those indicate a need for reform and more transparency and oversight. What you’ve done is taken those criticisms, heavily fertilized them with manure, and used them to prop up your conspiracy theory of a coup.

Did the FBI conspire against Trump or are the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants proof of nothing to you?
In your world I guess the Nixon White House wasn't crooked...it just needed reform, transparency and
oversight.
There is much more proof but of course you'd rather not see any.

According to the Horowitz report, there was no political bias. However - there was a lot of damning behavior on the part of the FBI and they need to be reined in

Why the faux comparison to the Nixon White House? Apples and Oranges - one you reform, put in place stricter oversight, new policies/procedures etc. The other you vote out of office.

A more accurate comparison is the crooked Nixon White House and the crooked Trump White House.

No political bias? Page and Strzok wrote:

03/04/2016
Page - God Trump is loathsome human.

Strzok – Yet he many win.

Strzok – Good for Hillary.

Page – It is.

Strzok – Would he be a worse president than Cruz?

Page –Trump?, yes I think so

Strzok – I’m not sure.

Strzok – Omg he’s an idiot.

Page – He’s awful

Strzok – America will get what the voting public deserves.

Page – That’s what I’m afraid of.

Read FBI's Strzok, Page texts about Trump

The anti-Trump text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led to Strzok’s removal from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe have been obtained by Fox News.

www.foxnews.com

Then there is this:

"Strzok briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, sources said. But within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier."

"Strzok also oversaw the bureau’s interviews with ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – who pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators in the Russia probe."

'F TRUMP': Texts between ex-Mueller team members emerge, calling Trump 'loathsome human,' 'an idiot'

Text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2016 that have been obtained by Fox News refer to then-candidate Donald Trump as a "loathsome human" and "an idiot."

www.foxnews.com

If that ain't politics infecting the FBI I don't know what is.

Unlike Horowitz - you do not have access to all the information, only selected bits. The IG conducted a very thorough overview - I'm satisfied. Now we just need to rein them in.

 

[jc456]

Woman Sentenced To Week In Jail For Refusing To Apologize For Reopening Salon – USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page

So this lady in Texas opens up her hair salon in defiance of a governor decree not to work because she had to feed her family as well as those who worked for her had to feed their family.

All the lady had to do was apologize to the judge and say she was selfish to avoid jail, to which she replied, "How is trying to feed my kids and the kids of my employees selfish?"

All she had to do was lick his boots and she could have avoided jail time, but she declined respectfully rather than be humiliated and oppressed by the state at the same time. Maybe in jail she can find some food. So the judge sent her to 7 days jail where Covid is spreading like wildfire.

What a callous arrogant prick of a buffoon the judge is.

How does this make any sense? It obviously is not Constitutional, but Progressives reinterpreted that long ago so as to ignore it. Most don't read the disclaimer on the First Amendment that gives people the right to assemble. On the back it says, "EXCEPT FOR COVID STUPID"

they left that barn a looooooong time ago

 

[jc456]

"So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed,

Why are they not feeding their children?

no money to buy food? isn't that what poor means? here,


poor
/po͝or,pôr/
Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: poor; comparative adjective: poorer; superlative adjective: poorest

1. 1.
   lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

They are giving away food from local, state and federal sources..How can one not be able to feed their child? If they ever get to the point where I was once because of a health issue and have to get their meals from dumpster diving them I will join their cause.

/——-/ Mortgages or rents, utilities, car insurance.... BTW, since when is it the business owners responsibility to prove their business is a necessity? WTF business is it of some bureaucrat who decides if you can make a living or not.

I recall when Liberals would be on the front lines demanding people’s liberties restored.

I remember when the government and the president were not so incompetent that we still don't have equipment to protect workers. Great job as always

those employers suck huh? ohhhh wait, you think the goberment is supposed to pay for their supplies? hahahaahhahahaha dude, you're in the wrong country, you know that?

 

[Coyote]

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it? I wish I had quarter for every time CNN used the qualifier "it is alleged" or cites an unnamed source.

What I am alleging? I am alleging nothing. I am just pointing out what the dossier was, raw intellegance.

What was verified and unverified can be found here: Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear?

Really? Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo's CNN is your authoritative source? Why don't you get Joy Behar while you're at it?

You need more? (not that you read the first one of course)

Trump-Russia Dossier One Year Later: How True Is It?

Some of the document's seemingly wild claims have held up to a year's worth of scrutiny, even as many more parts remain disputed or have no evidence of being true.

www.newsweek.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

Well we can't 'disprove' the 'allegation' from 'unnamed sources' that certain Forum members here are NOT paid commie spies either.

I place no stock in what has not been verified. My point is - some of it was.

Hearsay is not verifiable.

Actually yes. It is.

If I tell someone that I heard you have a wall covered in pictures of penguins in bikinis - that's hearsay. If the person hearing it goes to your house and finds that no, it isn't actually penguins but pictures of dodo birds in speedos, then he verified my hearsay claim as false.