- Jan 15, 2009
- 65,677
- 40,932
- Thread starter
- #1,741
Well, you're going to be all butthurt, and you should be.Lying to FBI agents is not a made up crimeThe FBI does not try to create crimes typically but they did in Flynn's case.See my former post with a link:thats not what he was told you’re making that up.Flynn was told he did not need lawyer. That was a fucking lie.Very well said. You winyet 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.yet comeys saying he did shit he'd not do to anyone else isn't.The agenda of catching bad guys? How dare they!!!Into custody... I have no doubt he was.... Then.Let's see your evidence Flynn was not read his Miranda rights when he was taken into custody....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....If there was a good reason to investigate you'd not have the fbi falsifying reports to FISA and using fictional dossiers.I'm stopping at your first sentence as this is what you have done the entire thread.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.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 only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
"Comey went on to say that although he took exception to the congressman’s characterization of McCabe’s statement as discouraging, he believed that it was written accurately. He said he had meant that it would be quicker to just speak privately with the agents."
“So I would read it as encouraging him to meet with the agents without White House Counsel present,” Comey said."
Yes, comey told him he could have WH counsel but, the interview was sold as a friendly conversation a Flynn was subsequently told he did not need a lawyer that the interview would be quicker.
And that is what law enforcement typically does. Flynn should know that. If you have a problem with it - you will need to retry a shitload of cases.
DOJ drops case against Michael Flynn, in wake of internal memo release
The Justice Department on Thursday moved to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in a stunning development that comes after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of...
www.foxnews.com
Let's pretend the previous administration was not invested
