• 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!

Hillary Clinton APPROVED sharing debunked 'covert' communications between Trump and Kremlin-backed bank with press - even though she wasn't 'totally c

LouC said:
Trump considered it material enough to fire him.

So there is that.
Click to expand...

Trump Pardons Michael Flynn, Ending Case His Justice Dept. Sought to Shut Down

The president’s former national security adviser twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Pardons Michael Flynn, Ending Case His Justice Dept. Sought to Shut Down (Published 2020)

The president’s former national security adviser twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

First Trump fires Flynn for his lies then pardons him despite his lies.

Ah but I have been informed this is all immaterial!

;)(y)
 
LouC said:
First Trump fires Flynn for his lies then pardons him despite his lies.

Ah but I have been informed this is all immaterial!

;)(y)
Click to expand...
I get your sarcasm, and we agree on Flynn’s character. My point is simply that Flynn’s lie may have been less material, if at all, because the agents he lied to literally had the truth in their hand as he said it. There was no risk of them proceeding based on his lie. Whereas with Sussman that risk did exist and in fact Baker said he may not have even met with him if he had known the truth.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
I get your sarcasm, and we agree on Flynn’s character. My point is simply that Flynn’s lie may have been less material, if at all, because the agents he lied to literally had the truth in their hand as he said it. There was no risk of them proceeding based on his lie. Whereas with Sussman that risk did exist and in fact Baker said he may not have even met with him if he had known the truth.
Click to expand...
That does not reduce or eliminate whether Flynn's lies were material.
 
LouC said:
That does not reduce or eliminate whether Flynn's lies were material.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are correct. Apparently precedent exists to allow the material aspect to apply even in a theoretical manner. I stand corrected.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
“Law enforcement officials”
“F.B.I. and intelligence officials”
“one official”
“the officials”
“A senior intelligence official”
“a second senior official”
Click to expand...

He is confusing news media reports and discussions in places like this with the DOJ giving regular updates as to the progress of the investigation.
 
Last edited:
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
“Law enforcement officials”
“F.B.I. and intelligence officials”
“one official”
“the officials”
“A senior intelligence official”
“a second senior official”
Click to expand...
What were their names?
 
Another POS moronic right wing projection thread. You can't distract from the fact Trump and his criminals ran around the White House for 4 years and its all coming out
 
Cardinal said:
What were their names?
Click to expand...
I firmly stand by my position that you were 100% wrong to say the Trump investigation was not known until after the election. Public reporting shows you are wrong. The size of the hole you’ve dug is impressive but I think you’ve derailed the thread enough. Moving on.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
I firmly stand by my position that you were 100% wrong to say the Trump investigation was not known until after the election. Public reporting shows you are wrong. The size of the hole you’ve dug is impressive but I think you’ve derailed the thread enough. Moving on.
Click to expand...
Read the thread from the beginning. You’re not prepared for this discussion.
 
Cardinal said:
Read the thread from the beginning. You’re not prepared for this discussion.
Click to expand...
Yea yea we all know your qualifier about official public disclosures. But that’s not the question I asked you and you know it. You were wrong.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
Yea yea we all know your qualifier about official public disclosures. But that’s not the question I asked you and you know it. You were wrong.
Click to expand...
If you know my qualifier, then why pretend that you didn't know it?
 
LouC said:
None of that is at all pertinent to Sussman's trial. The only thing that is pertinent is did Sussman knowingly and intentionally lie to the FBI?
The evidence of that is thin.
It may prove thick enough for a conviction, but what Durham has to prove that is thin.
Good thing I am not a Hillary sycophant.
That I can see the thinness of Durham's evidence against Sussman doesn't require such Hillary sycophancy.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you can say it's thin. Sussman billed her for all his work with the tech company. Billed her for his prep for the meeting with Baker. Billed her for the meeting. Baker's notes from the meeting explicitly say that Sussman told him he wasn't representing any client. Baker testified that Sussman told him he wasn't representing any client. Baker testified that he would have never taken the meeting if he had known SUssman was representing CLinton.
 
Cardinal said:
If you know my qualifier, then why pretend that you didn't know it?
Click to expand...
Well let’s see if you can answer this one again. I’ll add more information to assist.

In the summer of 2016 the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign over alleged connections to Russia to influence the election. Was this investigation known to the public prior to Election Day 2016?
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
Well let’s see if you can answer this one again. I’ll add more information to assist.

In the summer of 2016 the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign over alleged connections to Russia to influence the election. Was this investigation known to the public prior to Election Day 2016?
Click to expand...
They weren't aware of the investigation per any official statements by the DOJ.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
Hahaha ok Cardinal. We’re done here.
Click to expand...
So you keep saying, and you keep coming back because you think you have an "aha gotcha" question that can make me forget the arguments I've made in this thread since the beginning.
 
RAMOSS said:
Did she? How are those being dishonest characterisation? It appears that Durham is clutching at straws.
Click to expand...
LOL the evasion and dishonesty is so apparent. If you want to take over for Cardinal, answer the question at least.
 
Cardinal said:
Who did the nytimes talk to?
Click to expand...
Oh, lets play. Were they wrong? Do you think their source was Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, or the FBI? Because it could be any of the three.

Do you think a political campaign should be trying to manipulate the FBI with fake information?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Oh, lets play. Were they wrong? Do you think their source was Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, or the FBI? Because it could be any of the three.

Do you think a political campaign should be trying to manipulate the FBI with fake information?
Click to expand...
It would be entertaining to try to figure out the sources.
 
Rawley said:
Not sure how you can say it's thin. Sussman billed her for all his work with the tech company. Billed her for his prep for the meeting with Baker. Billed her for the meeting. Baker's notes from the meeting explicitly say that Sussman told him he wasn't representing any client. Baker testified that Sussman told him he wasn't representing any client. Baker testified that he would have never taken the meeting if he had known SUssman was representing CLinton.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom