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

[westwall]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

 

[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...

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.

Correct, Miranda rights are read when somebody is arrested. Flynn was not being arrested

 

[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.

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.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Comey specifically told an audience that he couldn't have gotten away with having Flynn meet with two FBI agents without a lawyer but the Trump people were new and didn't know the ropes (audience laughed). Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview
The fact is Comey knew Flynn should have had a lawyer with him but he told Flynn it wasn't necessary.
Your shit is disingenuous, to say the least.

Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey’s FBI - Washington Examiner

The time has come to cease affording the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt. A steady stream of unflattering revelations, beginning with a report by the Justice Department's inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December, has relentlessly pounded the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

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 crim

I think anyone would instinctively know you don't lie to the cops. I don't know what your point is.

The whole point of a perjury trap is you are asked a bunch of questions and
if any questions are answered in error (i.e. how many windows did your house have that you grew up in?)
then that's considered perjury, even if your intent was not to deceive.
Dirty FBI agents, dirty tactics, dirty liars from Comey and Strzok on down.

 

[iceberg]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

 

[iceberg]

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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

 

[westwall]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

 

[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.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

 

[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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

What was that have to do with anything? How does that affect the fact that it was an unverified raw intelligence dump, and that some of it was verified as accurate. I'm not picking and choosing anything. Just stating the facts.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove 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.

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.

yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.

got it.

Comey's words show he was reckless and disregarded proper procedures. That's not illegal, just wrong. Flynn lied to the FBI. That IS a crime. Contrary to what was claimed - he was told he could have a lawyer. He said he wasn't tricked.

yet if they have no regard for process and are willing to go around them to suit their end goal, you don't give a shit. you like the end goal.

i don't care who they do this to - it would be wrong. if they did it to you, me, slade, hillard, ANY OF US. the action is wrong and i don't care who it's against.

the minute you allow it for YOUR side, you get the divide we have today. so congrats. you play a huge role in your own frustrations.

 

[iceberg]

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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

What was that have to do with anything? How does that affect the fact that it was an unverified raw intelligence dump, and that some of it was verified as accurate. I'm not picking and choosing anything. Just stating the facts.

i keep forgetting - you claim 1:32 is out of context.

it means if i know a book has 50% lies and 50% truth - how are you deciding what is a lie and what is true? and if someone lies that much, are they credible enough to run with? if they were we'd not have run into all the FISA issues now would we have?

ok - your turn to come back confused and angry. i'll wait.

 

[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.

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.

"Former FBI Director James Comey says Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, was told he could have an attorney present during a meeting with bureau officials last year, but Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one."

"In a court file last week, Flynn’s attorneys accused the FBI deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, of pushing their client into not having counsel present during his interview with bureau officials."

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

Flynn’s attorneys accused the FBI deputy director at the time, Andrew McCabe, of pushing their client into not having counsel present during his interview with bureau officials.

www.politico.com

The FBI pretended the interview was no big deal but really, in subsequently released internal FBI communications they were trying to get him to lie. Flynn was set up pure and simple.

 

[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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

What was that have to do with anything? How does that affect the fact that it was an unverified raw intelligence dump, and that some of it was verified as accurate. I'm not picking and choosing anything. Just stating the facts.

i keep forgetting - you claim 1:32 is out of context.

it means if i know a book has 50% lies and 50% truth - how are you deciding what is a lie and what is true? and if someone lies that much, are they credible enough to run with? if they were we'd not have run into all the FISA issues now would we have?

ok - your turn to come back confused and angry. i'll wait.

Apparently to some, if it hurts Trump it must be 'true.'

 

[iceberg]

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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

What was that have to do with anything? How does that affect the fact that it was an unverified raw intelligence dump, and that some of it was verified as accurate. I'm not picking and choosing anything. Just stating the facts.

i keep forgetting - you claim 1:32 is out of context.

it means if i know a book has 50% lies and 50% truth - how are you deciding what is a lie and what is true? and if someone lies that much, are they credible enough to run with? if they were we'd not have run into all the FISA issues now would we have?

ok - your turn to come back confused and angry. i'll wait.

Apparently to some, if it hurts Trump it must be 'true.'

and if you tell them this is bullshit to the core and not about anyone or anything else other than said bullshit, you're suddenly a cultist.

that's the problem with extreme mindsets - no room for gray area or common ground, unless it always goes their way.

 

[Leo123]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

 

[iceberg]

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.

and by what criteria was this? what you like and don't like? my point is if you have a book of 1/2 lies, why do you believe the other half? once you're tagged to be full of shit, picking and choosing what to believe is a luxury.

What was that have to do with anything? How does that affect the fact that it was an unverified raw intelligence dump, and that some of it was verified as accurate. I'm not picking and choosing anything. Just stating the facts.

i keep forgetting - you claim 1:32 is out of context.

it means if i know a book has 50% lies and 50% truth - how are you deciding what is a lie and what is true? and if someone lies that much, are they credible enough to run with? if they were we'd not have run into all the FISA issues now would we have?

ok - your turn to come back confused and angry. i'll wait.

Apparently to some, if it hurts Trump it must be 'true.'

to some, they just don't understand. when you make *everything* about 1 thing, suddenly no one believe anything you say. then you get mad cause people are not following along and they are the enemy. their discussing right and wrong overall becomes defense of who they hate.

yet they then turn around and scream BUT I AM NOT OBSESSED!!!!

which is kinda the "!" at the end of their obsessive rants.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

the problem is - and i can't state this any more clearly than this is - the left has made EVERYTHING a "valid criticism of trump.

2 scoops of ice cream
fast food choices
fried chicken
how he talks - slades loves to start threads on just trumps appearance

Oh hell. That's what everyone does to the other side - here, let me refresh your memory.

Tan suit
Using dijon mustard on his burger
Using a binder clip
Eating arugala
How he held his hand during the pledge of allegiene
The "terrorist fist bump"

you bitch and whine about everything he does. period. without fail. i said when trump took office and the WHAT ABOUT THIS WHAT ABOUT THAT petty shit the left was going crazy over you would get to a point people would tune you out and SHOULD THE DAY COME where there is valid criticism to be had, no one will give a shit because of your 24x7 whining.

welcome to that day.

Get a grip.

 

[Coyote]

,lk

These turds can’t form an honest argument. The IG did find many issues with the way the investigation was conducted yet they still need to lie and distort what is valid criticism. That’s pathetic

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.

And you willfully ignore the political classes own statements where 19 minutes after inauguration they were already plotting on how to remove him.

Like I said Coyote, look in the mirror.

I did. And I found this.

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whi...

swampland.time.com

Do you not understand that there is a HUGE gulf between obstructing a president, and trying to ILLEGALLY remove one from office? C'mon Coyote. You are not dumb. You are smart, but there is NO equivalency here. One groups actions were LEGAL. The other groups actions, were not.

Do you have a link for that - illegally trying to remove him from office? The only thing I can find is that a CA Dem candidate started a super pac called "Impeach Trump".

BEFORE Trump was elected the FBI was spying on his campaign. ILLEGALLY. You tell me.

Actually, according to Horowitz's report it wasn't illegal, there was sufficient reason for it.

Are you saying that is the basis of the claim that the Dems were plotting to remove Trump?

Geez Coyote....They tried to say he was traitor, they called him 'unfit' for office, they tried to impeach him for a fucking phone call. They indicted and jailed members of his team on obscure charges like violating the Logan Act. They outright LIED in a hearing about the actual transcript of the phone call. Seems to me they damn-sure were plotting to remove Trump.

I'm basing my opinion on the Horowitz report which is the most complete and non-partisan source of information we have.