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

[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.

Oh yeah where he found "apparent errors or inadequately supported facts' in every single FBI Fisa application? Where he said that was indicative of a wider problem.

Yup. I agree on that. Which is why I agree that the FBI must be reformed.

Yet you still say the dossier was based on good procedure? Was it right to pass off a partially fake document to the FISA court as verfied?

Well no, I never said that. All I said is I was a raw intelligence dump some of which was subsequently verified and some not.

If they claimed it was all verified then they lied to the FISA courts.

 

[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.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

That is what I figured, but I wrote out a thoughtful reply anyway. It's your choice to be an ass.

Oh the thoughtful reply that calls me an ASS right off the bat?

God damn woman stop nailing yourself to the cross.

 

[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

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.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

You Assume I support Trump to the level you think I do.

And you whine more than Trump does.

 

[Moonglow]

"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!!!!!

She has several options to feed her kids no one is forcing her to play it straight.

 

[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.

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.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

That is what I figured, but I wrote out a thoughtful reply anyway. It's your choice to be an ass.

Oh the thoughtful reply that calls me an ASS right off the bat?

God damn woman stop nailing yourself to the cross.

Look at your own post I responded to. If you want a POLITE reply...consider how you word things. I tend to respond in kind. If you don't like, too bad.

 

[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.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

You Assume I support Trump to the level you think I do.

And you whine more than Trump does.

None of which changes what I presented. I certainly don't recall you ever stepping up to the plate regarding Obama and crazy allegations leveled at him...or Bush...but Bush is going to far back probably. My point stands - Trump is hardly unique when it comes to dumb stuff to be criticized for.

 

[Moonglow]

"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.

Welfare huh, traitor?

Traitor to what, try making sense for a change...

 

[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.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

 

[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.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

That is what I figured, but I wrote out a thoughtful reply anyway. It's your choice to be an ass.

Oh the thoughtful reply that calls me an ASS right off the bat?

God damn woman stop nailing yourself to the cross.

Look at your own post I responded to. If you want a POLITE reply...consider how you word things. I tend to respond in kind. If you don't like, too bad.

Hey I'm doing the same. I expect it back in kind and no problem. But if you want me to read a thoughtful reply, maybe that's a bad way around it.

Then again you do the STOP BUT OTHER GUY then do it yourself. Like I said you seem to feel rules are for others not you.

 

[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

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.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

You Assume I support Trump to the level you think I do.

And you whine more than Trump does.

None of which changes what I presented. I certainly don't recall you ever stepping up to the plate regarding Obama and crazy allegations leveled at him...or Bush...but Bush is going to far back probably. My point stands - Trump is hardly unique when it comes to dumb stuff to be criticized for.

Never said he was. Only saying in our last peaceful convo we agreed to stop doing the BUT OTHER GUY stuff cause you hated it. I think it's valid but I'll TRY to stay within peaceful "rules of engagement" and simply pointing out you do not.

 

[Faun]

,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.

"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."

So? Who was the last president to avoid such scrutiny?

if i paypal you a fiver, will you go be a fucknugget for someone else for awhile?

Nah, I don't want to leave you homeless. But I'll accept your concession just the same.

 

[Coyote]

mkn

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.

You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I was and I am still seriously concerned about Russian attempts to influence elections - that's the elephant in the room that people like you avoid seeing or try to downplay. That is the real issue.

To that end - I fully supported the Mueller investigation - there was just too much obstruction, lies, and political games from both sides to not have an impartial professional NON PARTISAN investigation. And Mueller, by the way, was a Republican.

I don't have an "end goal" accept to make sure our electoral integrity and the public trust in our elections is preserved, and that (hopefully) we vote Trump out of office. Did you catch that bit? VOTE him out.

Going around the normal process is reckless - when police do it, it means what they find might not hold up in court. It indicates a person willing to bend or break rules. As a comparison - Comey did indeed go around normal process when he announced, days before the election, that he was reopening an investigation on Hilary (and that might have cost her the election, no way to ever know for sure). He bucked his DoJ bosses. (where is your outrage?) So he hasn't done this just to one side. He has shown himself to be willing to bend rules and to be a showboater. Not good qualities in his position.

Points to consider:
Did he do anything illegal? What laws did he break?

Did Flynn break the law? Yes. He did. And he knew it and knew what the laws were. Regardless of what process Comey circumvented - Flynn still was offered a lawyer, and he knew full well that lying to the FBI was a crime. And he stated he wasn't tricked. You can't just sweep that under the rug.

Comey's already fired but, I suspect if he weren't - he would be now - but it doesn't alter what Flynn did unless laws or rules were broken that prohibited the use of that interview. I think that is up to the courts to determine and they haven't been particularly sympathetic to Flynn so far. I'm fine with what the courts determine because that is their job.

well when speaking to an ASS it's what i'm forced to do. the kind that will read my replies 4 times and still bitch at me that i didn't answer her questions even though every one of those 4 replies had my answer in it. the kind of ass that will say stop doing the BUT SOMEONE ELSE crap - and then do it herself time and time again...annoying huh?

and no i didn't read the rest of your shit. but i'll go ahead and answer like i did cause i'm going to do what you do since that seems to be acceptable.

That is what I figured, but I wrote out a thoughtful reply anyway. It's your choice to be an ass.

Oh the thoughtful reply that calls me an ASS right off the bat?

God damn woman stop nailing yourself to the cross.

Look at your own post I responded to. If you want a POLITE reply...consider how you word things. I tend to respond in kind. If you don't like, too bad.

Hey I'm doing the same. I expect it back in kind and no problem. But if you want me to read a thoughtful reply, maybe that's a bad way around it.

Then again you do the STOP BUT OTHER GUY then do it yourself. Like I said you seem to feel rules are for others not you.

Cool, glad we are in agreement about strategy. If you are being a blatant hypocrite, I will then utilize the power of "but (insert person of choice)" tactic. Are you ready to move forward then? This is getting rather boring.

 

[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.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

You Assume I support Trump to the level you think I do.

And you whine more than Trump does.

None of which changes what I presented. I certainly don't recall you ever stepping up to the plate regarding Obama and crazy allegations leveled at him...or Bush...but Bush is going to far back probably. My point stands - Trump is hardly unique when it comes to dumb stuff to be criticized for.

Never said he was. Only saying in our last peaceful convo we agreed to stop doing the BUT OTHER GUY stuff cause you hated it. I think it's valid but I'll TRY to stay within peaceful "rules of engagement" and simply pointing out you do not.

The thing is - if you want to point out that Trump is UNIQUELY attacked or the worst attacked - you open the door for an argument showing that is not the case. You can't just present it and then forbid any arguments showing that is not the case.

 

[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

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.

again just for good measure...

BUT BUT BUT - OBAMA!!!!!

you know that thing that pisses you off when others do it.

If it makes you happy, go for it.

all im saying is you don't follow your own "rules" but get seriously SERIOUSLY asshurt when someone does the very same shit you do.

annoying, isn't it?

And I'm sure it's annoying to have your hypocrisy pointed out when it comes to Trump.

Trump is not unique when it comes to ridiculous complaints (I could go back to Bush as well) - but he is by far the biggest whiner and supported by a chorus of "how unfair" whiners.

You Assume I support Trump to the level you think I do.

And you whine more than Trump does.

None of which changes what I presented. I certainly don't recall you ever stepping up to the plate regarding Obama and crazy allegations leveled at him...or Bush...but Bush is going to far back probably. My point stands - Trump is hardly unique when it comes to dumb stuff to be criticized for.

Never said he was. Only saying in our last peaceful convo we agreed to stop doing the BUT OTHER GUY stuff cause you hated it. I think it's valid but I'll TRY to stay within peaceful "rules of engagement" and simply pointing out you do not.

The thing is - if you want to point out that Trump is UNIQUELY attacked or the worst attacked - you open the door for an argument showing that is not the case. You can't just present it and then forbid any arguments showing that is not the case.

The point is you open that very same door. I've tried to stay on focus but it's a bitch you do not.

NOW if you'll stop bitching about 5he BUT OTHER GUY then I'll leave you alone about it. But when you bitch at others for doing the VERY SAME THING you constantly do... What's that word again?

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

No he always was.

You loved him 'til you hated him. How convenient!

 

[2aguy]

This former FBI agent explains how his beloved agency disgraced itself by what they did to General Flynn............

As you can see, Gagliano was still very much defending the honor of the FBI at the time. So what changed his mind about that? He says the notes suggest this was a set up:

The notes in question are handwritten and appear to outline the Crossfire Hurricane team’s objectives for the planned interview with Flynn at the White House, just days after the inauguration of President Trump. They are clearly initialed by then-FBI Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap. I know Bill from our overlapping assignments in the FBI’s New York office. He is an experienced, honorable, and well-respected lawman…
It almost appears as if Priestap is attempting to memorialize his own opposition to the Flynn ambush…
Since the FBI was already in possession of the transcript of Flynn’s telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, what exactly was to be gained by the interview? Nothing except the potential to jam him up and get him removed as national security adviser. It was never going to charge him for violations of the Logan Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Even Robert Mueller’s team could have done so. It passed.

Gagliano also points to some obvious funny business with the 302 forms related to Flynn’s interview. Strzok and Pientka were the agents who interviewed Flynn. Pientka took the notes but Strzok later rewrote the 302 with some help from Lisa Page who Gagliano notes, “was not present at the interview and was not an FBI agent.”

The other thing that convinced Galiano was the obvious difference in the way the FBI pursued the Clinton “matter” vs. the Flynn interview. Where the FBI went around the White House Counsel (Comey even bragged about it) to interview Flynn, Hillary was given the kid gloves treatment. He quotes Rep. Trey Gowdy who said Hillary, “had a medium-sized law firm in the room with her. They gave the questions to her lawyer before they interviewed her, and they most assuredly told her there’s a consequence for lying. None of which they did for Michael Flynn.”

Galiano also points to this Strzok-Page text exchange in which they discussed not being too aggressive with Hillary:

Page: “One more thing: She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more DOJ than FBI?”
Strzok: “I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees.”

Not at all how they approached Flynn. And given Strzok’s evident personal preference for Hillary over Trump, it’s hard to dismiss that as a factor in how the two cases were handled. Gagliano concludes, “No plausible explanation exists here other than rank partisan, political bias.”

Gagliano was interviewed yesterday by Matt Lewis. If you’re interested in hearing Gagliano’s opinion on this topic at more length, the first half hour of this is mostly him discussing it:

Former FBI Agent: Michael Flynn was railroaded by the FBI

hotair.com

 

[westwall]

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.

The ORIGINAL 302's.......you know, the ones that WEREN'T fraudulently changed, stipulated (that is a legal term) that the agents believed him to not be lying.

 

[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.

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?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

 

[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...

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.

Let me break it down Barney style for you:
While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well. No matter if it was for what I may have been doing or a separate incident altogether... Miranda rights must be read, questioning halted until a decision by said individual is made on if they are willing to continue without legal counsel or deferred for other action.
Just having a conversation is just that, having a conversation. Once they decide to do dirty, that's where they went wrong.
Did Flynn lie? Did he mis-speak? I don't know first hand. However, the documentation presented is suspect, the procedures not followed are a grossly outside the norm and the practice of perjury trap by law enforcement is the equivalent of planting evidence on a crime scene. It shouldn't happen.

My personal anecdotes are just that, but I will tell you, I did them ethically and to the best of my abilities within the regulations. I have no regrets about the outcomes from them nor was anyone able to refute THE PROCEDURES followed on their appeals.

As for your personal shot at me, that's fine... I really care more about my bait's opinion of me... The vast majority of your post amount to un-uh anyways.

"While gathering information, an individual implicates themselves. They now become suspect. Once that happens, they must be mirandized and informed they are now under investigation as well."

Ok, I already suspected you were full of shit about being involved in investigations based on your ignorance of Miranda after your last post. Now I'm fully convinced.

You flat out don't know what the hell you're talking about. The law requires an individual be given their Miranda rights when they are in custody. An individual is not in custody simply because during questioning, they implicate themselves and become suspect. They are in custody when they're arrested or otherwise detained and not free to leave. That was never the case with Flynn.

Here ... read & learn ...

Miranda Rights

Read about the Miranda rights, such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as well as the limits on when they apply.

www.justia.com

Custodial Interrogation

Law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings before engaging in a custodial interrogation of a suspect, which means that they are not free to leave.

www.justia.com

​

Police do not have a duty to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect until they take the person into custody for a formal interrogation or place him or her under arrest.​

And for free, here's a clue for ya ... had the FBI agents questioning Flynn been required to Mirandize him but didn't, Flynn would not have pled guilty. He wouldn't have had to. He would have been able to get all the evidence obtained from his interrogation with the FBI that day thrown out.

Someone who actually worked investigations, as you claim, would already know all of this. So ... ? How big was the fish you caught?

Ummmm... From your link;


Most often, the warnings are associated with police questioning after an arrest, but this is not the only situation in which your Miranda rights may be triggered.

Custody can be any situation in which an individual does not have freedom of action. They do not need to be formally arrested, placed in handcuffs, or otherwise physically restrained. Interrogation can go beyond direct questions to comments made by a police officer if the officer should know that the suspect might provide incriminating information in response.

You're dismissed.

 

[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?

There was? What, prey tell. The ILLEGALLY obtained steele dossier? Get real.

There was nothing illegal about how the dossier was obtained. Also, it wasn't the only evidence backing up the investigation. So ya, I believe Horowitz, unlike either of us he would have seen all the information.

But back to the question - you said that the Dems were plotting to overthrow Trump before his inauguration - what is that based on?