• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in first criminal case arising from review, sources say

swing_voter said:
The lawyer changed the document to say that the Page guy WAS NOT a CIA informant when Page was a CIA informant.

That seems like a small thing.
Click to expand...

When that "small thing" is then used as part of the justification for a secret warrant on a US citizen it becomes a much bigger thing. It's kind of like cutting the lines on your buddy's parachute while he's still on the ground and hasn't jumped yet. It's a "small thing" until he pulls the rip cord.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Do you think he acted on his own when he falsified the document?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to assume conspiracy or lack thereof, especially not when the people inviting me to do so do not apply the same general approach to Team Trump.

I might consider it if they applied their own rules in such a fashion, concluding that Trump did what he was accused of and there was a vast cover-up going all the way to Trump as evidence by something like 9 people of his people going down as a result of the investigation. Instead, I get told that actually, all those guilty pleas and convictions after trial by people on Team Trump are just more proof of this conspiracy against Trump I'm supposed to assume. It's absurd.


There is nothing new here beyond the expected guilty plea. People have and will pay for any impropriety. And just about everyone is on record here saying, ad nauseum, that anyone who did anything criminal should go to jail.

But none of it means Trump didn't actually do what he was accused of, which is the intent behind OP's like this. There's no other rational motive for inviting people to assume that there was some sort of conspiracy to frame him. He invited and knowingly accepted interference from Russian to aid him in his election. The only element missing was explicit agreement. 14 instances of obstruction of justice were laid out, Mueller was prohibited from indicting Trump, and Mueller explained why he felt this would make it unfair for him to positively accuse him of crime. And this....does not change that.


It's a sideshow. A person did something wrong, got caught, and is going down for it. That's the way it's supposed to work. I just wish it worked in both directions.
 
Last edited:
Jack Fabulous said:
No opinion about Clinesmith acting on his own, then?
Click to expand...

Do you think he didn't? If not, why do you think that? Be sure to provide evidence for whatever answer you give.

Remember: this is your stupid thread.
 
Lutherf said:
When that "small thing" is then used as part of the justification for a secret warrant on a US citizen it becomes a much bigger thing. It's kind of like cutting the lines on your buddy's parachute while he's still on the ground and hasn't jumped yet. It's a "small thing" until he pulls the rip cord.
Click to expand...

You guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about FISA warrants if you had been crusading against the court for the other 33,000+ warrants they've issued over the years.

You guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about coerced guilty pleas if you were up in arms about all the poor black males who plead guilty to drug possession despite knowing they are innocent because proving innocence would mean sitting in jail for a year, losing home/job/posessions/everything, only to be acquitted and released homeless/desperate.

You guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about "process crimes" if you were up in arms about an accused illegal alien sex trafficker being 'tricked' into lying to the authorities.

(Reminds me of people who had no problem with Bush's NSA/DHS abuses raging at Obama for his own abuses).



On so many things, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you behaved like you were motivated by a concern about principle rather than a concern about the letter next to the name of the accused. But you're not. The first and last time you're worried about FISA warrants is Carter Page. The first and last time you're worried about perjury as a "process crime" is Flynn. Etc and etc again.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm not going to assume conspiracy or lack thereof, especially not when the people inviting me to do so do not apply the same general approach to Team Trump.

I might consider it if they applied their own rules in such a fashion, concluding that there was a vast cover-up going all the way to Trump as evidence by something like 9 people of his people going down as a result of this. Instead, I get told that actually, all those guilty pleas and convictions after trial by people on Team Trump are just more proof of this conspiracy against Trump I'm supposed to assume. It's absurd.


There is nothing new here beyond the expected guilty plea. People have and will pay for any impropriety. And just about everyone is on record here saying, ad nauseum, that anyone who did anything criminal should go to jail.

But none of it means Trump didn't actually do what he was accused of, which is the intent behind OP's like this. There's no other rational motive for inviting people to assume that there was some sort of conspiracy to frame him. He invited and knowingly accepted interference from Russian to aid him in his election. The only element missing was explicit agreement. 14 instances of obstruction of justice were laid out, Mueller was prohibited from indicting Trump, and Mueller explained why he felt this would make it unfair for him to positively accuse him of crime. And this....does not change that.


It's a sideshow. A person did something wrong, got caught, and is going down for it. That's the way it's supposed to work. I just wish it worked in both directions.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he acted alone.
 
Lutherf said:
What do you think the odds are that he just pulled this idea out of thin air as some kind of lark?
Click to expand...

Less than 50/50 for pulling it out of thin air and zero for the "lark" or some big department-wide conspiracy theory. Horowitz already disposed of that notion last year. Since he's pleading guilty, we'll get the answer pretty soon in his plea statement. You do remember that Horowitz's final conclusion was that the reasons for seeking FISA warrants were, on the whole, valid despite this particular act, right?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
He won't. He's already plead guilty so there is no leverage to persuade him anymore.
Click to expand...

The sentence for the crime might. I do not support immunity for testimony and plea bargaining. However I do believe in reducing a sentence to individuals that show remorse and are willing to help authorities to bring others to justice.
 
Just the start, there will be many swinging gently in the breeze .. all roads lead to Obama, the most corrupt President of Kenya/ Muslim Brotherhood
 
Jack Fabulous said:
A year ago people like you were still bellowing at the top of their lungs that the Steel Dossier was largely verified and only a "peripheral" piece of evidence used to obtain the warrant.
Click to expand...

No,, people like me were bellowing that the Steele “dossier” was largely accurate. But the Steele “dossier” was not used to launch the investigation into Trump’s activities with the Russians.

But it is sad to watch Trumpsters try and dismiss a real national security threat (a deadly combination of incompetence and self dealing), and instead beat their chests in mock self righteousness claiming that none of it happened, and even asking the obvious question is a crime).

You can go right on believing that.

The rest of teh world knows better.
 
digitusmedius said:
Please elaborate, then.
Click to expand...

Sure. Clinesmith intentionally misrepresented information which was then used in a FISA warrant application. When I say "misrepresented" that means he actually turned a fact 180°. Clinesmith's manipulation was also expressly material in that it was included as part of a legal claim.

Flynn's situation was completely different in that he was fully justified in having the conversation the FBI asked him about, manipulated into an "interview" with what appears to be the express intent to get him to lie, glosses over a part of the conversation NOT directly related to the stated purpose of the interview and his statements in no way changed ANYTHING that the FBI had been investigating thus making even a direct lie (not what Flynn did) immaterial.
 
digitusmedius said:
Less than 50/50 for pulling it out of thin air and zero for the "lark" or some big department-wide conspiracy theory. Horowitz already disposed of that notion last year. Since he's pleading guilty, we'll get the answer pretty soon in his plea statement. You do remember that Horowitz's final conclusion was that the reasons for seeking FISA warrants were, on the whole, valid despite this particular act, right?
Click to expand...

Horowitz determined that the predication was extremely thin but only had to meet an extremely low threshold for a "counterintelligence" investigation. We also know that in an effort to reach that really low threshold the FBI relied, at least in part, on a LIE.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
As I suspected.
Click to expand...

What's funny is I'll bet you don't think of yourself as a conspiracy theorist. But you repeat vague assertions and ask open ended questions in order to keep your belief afloat...just like a conspiracy theorist.
 
Mr Person said:
You guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about FISA warrants if you had been crusading against the court for the other 33,000+ warrants they've issued over the years.
Click to expand...

The IG just recently issued a report indicating that FISA warrants, in general, are basically sound.

The IG issued a report earlier this year saying that the warrant alleging that Mr. Trump had conspired with Russia was NOT sound.

Y
ou guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about coerced guilty pleas if you were up in arms about all the poor black males who plead guilty to drug possession despite knowing they are innocent because proving innocence would mean sitting in jail for a year, losing home/job/posessions/everything, only to be acquitted and released homeless/desperate.
Click to expand...

You guys don't get it.
The outrage is that Mr. Trump was alleged to be involved in a conspiracy with Russia-- essentially that he was acting as a Russian agent.
And we now know this was false ("fake news" as it were), but that there was NO reason to think he ever was.

That is what Flynn and Page are all about.

You guys would be taken a lot more seriously with concerns about "process crimes" if you were up in arms about an accused illegal alien sex trafficker being 'tricked' into lying to the authorities.
Click to expand...

Analogy only works if we learn there was never a reason to think the guy was a sex trafficker, that the government just went full steam ahead.
Click to expand...
 
TomFitz said:
.

I still haven’t figured out the importance that Carter Page has to the whole Trump/Russia operation, and why they are so obsessed with protecting him.
.
Click to expand...

There was no Trump/Russia operation.
 
Cardinal said:
What's funny is I'll bet you don't think of yourself as a conspiracy theorist. But you repeat vague assertions and ask open ended questions in order to keep your belief afloat...just like a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

You won't answer a simple question but you'll skirt right up to the edge of the rules with the personal attacks?

This thread has obviously hurt your feelings.
 
Lutherf said:
Sure. Clinesmith intentionally misrepresented information which was then used in a FISA warrant application. When I say "misrepresented" that means he actually turned a fact 180°. Clinesmith's manipulation was also expressly material in that it was included as part of a legal claim.

Flynn's situation was completely different in that he was fully justified in having the conversation the FBI asked him about, manipulated into an "interview" with what appears to be the express intent to get him to lie, glosses over a part of the conversation NOT directly related to the stated purpose of the interview and his statements in no way changed ANYTHING that the FBI had been investigating thus making even a direct lie (not what Flynn did) immaterial.
Click to expand...

Actually, a civilian with no post or authority has no business. telling the top Russian spymaster in the US not to worry about the US government because the Russians would get a better deal from his guy.

And, considering that this guy was fired from the job of DNI, he’s stupid enough to have done it on a phone line that he should have know was being monitored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom