- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
- Messages
- 3,601
- Reaction score
- 749
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Geez all that spying on Page and how many crimes was he charged for?
Geez all that spying on Page and how many crimes was he charged for?
He was asking Putin what Obama meant when he was caught on a hot mic passing a message to Vlad.My friend, that was nothing but bad optics. If you know what was actually discussed on that tarmac, perhaps you can tell all of us what trump has been discussing with Putin in all his secret meetings and phone calls?
AGAIN Durham investigated the IG criminal referral and after Durham's investigation of Clinesmith he decided there was enough evidence of criminal wrong doing to indict Clinesmith. It was Durham's decision to indict the IG has no authority to indict. You lost the bet.The author is mistaken, because unless Durham is a time traveler, the fact that an FBI lawyer altered emails rose out of the Horowitz investigation last year in 2019:
An FBI lawyer altered emails and changed his story when talking to the inspector general
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
And you can see that for yourself on page 250 of the Horowitz report itself.
I've explained to you that I decided against finalizing the bet during the negotiations because I decided you were being unreasonable. If you disagree then you can bring this downstairs where people can come to a decision where I'll abide by a majority consensus. If you decide not to go that route then I'll consider this finished and done, and I will no longer respond to accusations of welshing. In any case, the second point, which is true, is made moot by the first point.
AGAIN Durham investigated the IG criminal referral and after Durham's investigation of Clinesmith he decided there was enough evidence of criminal wrong doing to indict Clinesmith. It was Durham's decision to indict the IG has no authority to indict.
You lost and now you are welshing on the bet YOU made.Arising out of the investigation of the Durham investigation. Durham merely prosecuted some dude that a completely different dude in a completely different investigation publicly revealed a year earlier.
That wording aside...by your definition, Durham could have arrested literally anybody in the country as the result of any other investigation and you would have "won the bet." Durham could have arrested your mom for unpaid parking tickets and you would have "won the bet."
Ha ha. No.
You lost and now you are welshing on the bet YOU made.
What do you suppose his motivation was? BTW, here is a page from Hope Hicks's June, 2019 testimony.
To distill it, she says Carter Page could not be separated from the Trump campaign because he was never a part of it.
View attachment 67291508
Flynn testified "under oath" that he was satisfied with his legal representation. They probably can't say whether they were particularly satisfied with him since he filed a false FARA statement through them
Hey the argument is simple . You made the bet . Durham investigated and indicted Clinesmith. You lost the bet and now you are welshing on the bet you made. I not surprised you are a welsher . A real man would honor his bet.I see you've run out of arguments, and that's fine.
As I have said, you have recourse downstairs in the court of public opinion, if you choose to use it. If not, that's not my problem.
This post is compartmentalized stupidity. How could he be satisfied with his representation when he filed for new counsel? Yes, they did file it and that was the point, they were unwilling to recognize mistakes in the filing that led to the charges which led to a less than full defense of Flynn.
Counter intelligence investigations aren't centered around charging people with crimes. They're centered around the gathering of, or the understanding of information.
This post is compartmentalized stupidity. How could he be satisfied with his representation when he filed for new counsel? Yes, they did file it and that was the point, they were unwilling to recognize mistakes in the filing that led to the charges which led to a less than full defense of Flynn.
Originally Posted by Atomic Kid
Your answers thus far would seem to belie that claim. Flynn is going get his due process just as soon as the case remanded back to Sullivan's court so that he make his rulings. Flynn's lawyer was the trying leap frog that process and she hasn't presented anything Mueller, the DOJ, or Sullivan didn't have all along, or haven't seen already. That's why his Brady motion was denied despite his lawyer's best efforts to misrepresent or distort selective portions of it.
USA Shea's footnote in an exhibit he submitted in support of a Barr sanctioned, DOJ filing of a motion to dismiss Flynn's guilty plea(s) with prejudice,
a motion to dismiss that has dazzled the cult of Trump.:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.198.0_6.pdf
USA Shea's minimizing footnote 6, versus (contradicted by?) this, in Exhibit 3:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.198.3_1.pdf
And,This post is compartmentalized stupidity. How could he be satisfied with his representation when he filed for new counsel? Yes, they did file it and that was the point, they were unwilling to recognize mistakes in the filing that led to the charges which led to a less than full defense of Flynn.
Bull****, it is against the law to spy on a citizen unless there is ample evidence that person in particular is involved in espionage for foreign countries. Your post is typical nonsensical garbage espoused by Obama criminals
As the DOJ pointed out, the evidence doesn't support the charges (The statements from the witnesses that no lie occurred, the statement that Comey saw nothing wrong with the conversation, the FBI clearing Flynn of being a Russian agent, the transcripts in which sanctions were not discussed).
It all matters as it shows there was no reason to be interviewing Flynn and as such his statements were not material and thus the law was not broken.
USA Shea's footnote in an exhibit he submitted in support of a Barr sanctioned, DOJ filing of a motion to dismiss Flynn's guilty plea(s) with prejudice, a motion to dismiss that has dazzled the cult of Trump.:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.198.0_6.pdf
USA Shea's minimizing footnote 6, versus (contradicted by?) this, in Exhibit 3:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...92.198.3_1.pdf
And,
Man! The underinformed are unusually surly tonight, if that's even possible....
Man! The underinformed are unusually surly tonight, if that's even possible....
Nope I am 100% correct when it comes to FISA, your nonsensical post is typical leftist propaganda
DOJ's Accounting of Its FISA Errors Cannot Be Compared to the Carter Page Report | emptywheel
DOJ’s Accounting of Its FISA Errors Cannot Be Compared to the Carter Page Report
August 7, 2020 - by emptywheel
Meanwhile your own once again has a certain magnificence in it's abject stupidity. He testified under oath that he was satisfied, and any lawyer will tell you that their defense hinges on you being open and candid with them. They can't defend you properly if you aren't willing to be truthful with them. If you lie to them you not only harm your own credibility, you harm theirs as well.
I've been reading Dr. Marcy Wheeler's, AKA "empotywheel" succinct analysis since she live blogged the Scooter Libby criminal trial nearly 15 years ago. In the current era, she spotlighted the mendacity of Daily Caller's Chuck Ross, a Tucker Carlson, "hire". Perhaps you've been ready disinfo of Chuck Ross, or the Trump to Hannity to Sara Carter and John Solomon, "feed"?
I've been reading Dr. Marcy Wheeler's, AKA "empotywheel" succinct analysis since she live blogged the Scooter Libby criminal trial nearly 15 years ago. In the current era, she spotlighted the mendacity of Daily Caller's Chuck Ross, a Tucker Carlson, "hire". Perhaps you've been ready disinfo of Chuck Ross, or the Trump to Hannity to Sara Carter and John Solomon, "feed"?
I didn’t read any of that, and I don’t care. The surveillance on Carter Page was illegal and unwarranted, there was no evidence that he was a foreign spy
What do you suppose his motivation was? BTW, here is a page from Hope Hicks's June, 2019 testimony.
To distill it, she says Carter Page could not be separated from the Trump campaign because he was never a part of it.
...
..I'm sharing the following because I sense some reasonableness in your posts. I believe I have reasonable, (informed) political perspective.
I don't know you, and have no idea what you consider "centrist". My dad served ....
Continued...
https://archive.vn/20191216213837/h...9ae816-f4dd-11e9-a285-882a8e386a96_story.html
Michael Flynn’s sentencing set for Jan. 28 after judge rejects his attacks on FBI, Justice Department
.....
Do you think he acted on his own when he falsified the document?
I just presented the 14 months old, sworn testimony of Trump campaign luminary, Hope Hicks. No one I am aware of is closer or more trusted by Trump than "Hopey". She testified that Carter Page was not separated from the 2016 campaign, because he was never part of it....
In this post, and in the post that follows it, I've presented who I am, and the influences that have shaped my values and my approach to becoming and trying to stay informed. I describe my stepsons and my best friend during my school years. Politically, we do not agree on much more than we agree about.
I am a reasonable person, as a reasonable person probably readily understands, after reading my two posts describing my background.
If you want to have an actual discussion in which you share links and descriptions of the sources of information most heavily influencing your opinions and conclusions, I am eager to consider them.
I have no agenda, other than learning what is closest to verifiable facts. Obama lost me in fall, 2008, when he voted with republicans to renew some provision of Bush era repressive surveillance I can't fully recall now. I labeled him a tyrant, after the droning of Al-Awaki and soon after, his son, as I described in one of the two posts I described above.
If you make the mistake of being taken in by Trump-Barr-Sidney Powell, it will be to your detriment, not mine. Read Judge Emmet Sullivan's 92 page response, last December, to Barr assisted, Sidney Powell's "pleadings".
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...9adec234490b7ff0b7b/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
Or, do you suspect Judge Sullivan is, "in on out", the "frame",LOL.:
Original version, Washington Post article dated 12/16/2019 ruling by Judge Sullivan I've linked to, ABOVE...
Read the "talk" page, Talk:United States v. Flynn - Wikipedia
revealing how this wikipedia article came to contain what is currently displayed in it!
United States v. Flynn - Wikipedia
If you recall the counsel wasn't open and candid with him, were they? Nor was the judge Contreras who had to recuse himself because he was friends with Strzok. Gee, looks like nobody was open and candid, were they?
To underscore that: Why Covington's Constrained as Michael Flynn Flays His Former Defense Team | National Law Journal
Exculpatory information not revealed to Flynn, by his counsel, was stated as one of the reasons for the change. When counsel hides possible information that could lead to a robust defense rather than a plea, that's a bad look for any firm.
If you recall the counsel wasn't open and candid with him, were they? Nor was the judge Contreras who had to recuse himself because he was friends with Strzok. Gee, looks like nobody was open and candid, were they?
To underscore that: Why Covington's Constrained as Michael Flynn Flays His Former Defense Team | National Law Journal
Exculpatory information not revealed to Flynn, by his counsel, was stated as one of the reasons for the change. When counsel hides possible information that could lead to a robust defense rather than a plea, that's a bad look for any firm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?