• 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!

Jonathan Turley Rips Apart Obama’s ‘Leaked’ Statement About the DOJ and Flynn

DarkWizard12 said:
you can't judge that. I didn't make an argument yet. You have no idea if your answer will be relevant to my argument or not. I want to know if you think his lies were entirely material to the investigation. I know nothing about it this investigation, maybe it is....but surely, if you're so read on it, you should know to whether or not his lies had anything to do with what they were investigating for.

So, I ask you again, and for the last time, where his lies material at all to the fbi investigation?
Click to expand...

It's the same bull**** line of 'reasoning' the Barr is using to try and justify dropping the charges, almost the same language. They were material, but that fact is irrelevant.

Here, educate yourself. The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case - Lawfare
 
Ouroboros said:
Quite right. When I heard Obama's "rule of law" statement, I wondered if he believed that current law validates entrapment.
Click to expand...

Judge I was entrapped into soliciting prostitution.

Judge I was entrapped into selling a kilo of cocaine.

Judge I was entrapped into hiring a hitman.

It’s a lot of BS. Flynn lied to investigators.

Are you denying that what he told investigators was false?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rawley said:
THe who wrote that is an idiot
Click to expand...

Not an idiot, but a hard core Partisan Obama operative. His academic credentials are top notch. (Clerked for Potter Stewart, USSC-Harvard and Yale Law)

Robert Litt formerly served as the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Obama administration.
 
TurtleDude said:
Not an idiot, but a hard core Partisan Obama operative. His academic credentials are top notch. (Clerked for Potter Stewart, USSC-Harvard and Yale Law)

Robert Litt formerly served as the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Nah, he's an idiot THis was his reasoning regardng materiality "Or, to put it differently, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent."

They had give Flynn an investigative enema for months as to whether he was a RUssian agent. THey didn't find bumpkis, which is whey they closing the case.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's the same bull**** line of 'reasoning' the Barr is using to try and justify dropping the charges, almost the same language. They were material, but that fact is irrelevant.

Here, educate yourself. The Justice Department’s Faulty Arguments in the Flynn Case - Lawfare
Click to expand...
wow, you're so defensive, and your article is riddled with faults it seems.

So you believe his "lies" were material to their investigation.....then do tell, what investigation was that, exactly?
 
TurtleDude said:
That would be a "BIVENS" suit for deprivation of constitutional rights by those acting under the color of federal authority. This sort of suit was the creation of the supreme court in the famous Bivens
case. I used to see 2-4 of these a year.

Here is a fairly good summary of the state of Bivens litigation and the supremes narrowing of the litigation

Civil Rights Litigation: The Supreme Court Further Restricts Bivens Actions
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. That is what I was thinking of. We can't have rogue CIA, DOJ, FBI people just ruining people's lives without consequence. I'm thinking 15 million. His new attorney....not the one who works with a law firm filled with DNC sycophants, will be standing by after Barr is done.

He is a very deliberate man. He gets his ducks in a row. No nonsense. He is past retirement age. He doesn't give a spit what the ACLU or DNC thinks of him. I believe someone is singing like a parrot.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
wow, you're so defensive, and your article is riddled with faults it seems.

So you believe his "lies" were material to their investigation.....then do tell, what investigation was that, exactly?
Click to expand...

They weren't 'lies', they were lies, and lies and he admitted to in court, in front of a judge, when pleading guilty to them.

And by asking that question, you clearly didn't read the article. Sorry, not at all interested in your bull****.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
wow, you're so defensive, and your article is riddled with faults it seems.

So you believe his "lies" were material to their investigation.....then do tell, what investigation was that, exactly?
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Rawley said:
Nah, he's an idiot THis was his reasoning regardng materiality "Or, to put it differently, the FBI can’t investigate whether someone is a Russian agent unless it already has evidence that the person is a Russian agent."

They had give Flynn an investigative enema for months as to whether he was a RUssian agent. THey didn't find bumpkis, which is whey they closing the case.
Click to expand...

it's so stupid. Like the reverse argument is that the fbi CAN investigate whether someone is a russian agent, without any evidence at all. If that's true, then the fbi can investigate anyone for any reason, and that's just false. There's a reason why you have to give consent and waive your rights when they do a background investigation because they can't investigate you unless they have a reason to(That is to say, a full investigation, which was this case. Anyone is allowed to do a simple assessment of a person without probable cause because records are available publicly anyway).
 
Tanngrisnir said:
They weren't 'lies', they were lies, and lies and he admitted to in court, in front of a judge, when pleading guilty to them.

And by asking that question, you clearly didn't read the article. Sorry, not at all interested in your bull****.
Click to expand...

lol they weren't lies, and then they were lies. Take your pick.

I think you're just mad because i'm less concerned with the lies, and more concerned with why you think he should have been investigated to begin with. I notice this causes quite a conundrum for liberals after decades of protesting the power of the federal police agencies.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
lol they weren't lies, and then they were lies. Take your pick.

I think you're just mad because i'm less concerned with the lies, and more concerned with why you think he should have been investigated to begin with. I notice this causes quite a conundrum for liberals after decades of protesting the power of the federal police agencies.
Click to expand...

Nah, not mad in the least. I have a distaste loony conspiracy theories and people who don't know what they're talking about.

They were always lies. I'm more concerned because you're apparently blissfully unaware that there was a counterintelligence investigation on him underway.

Eh, ignorance is bliss in twumland.
 
Johnathan Turely is a plutocrat sellout; the only thing he can rip is a fart, his opinion stinks just like them.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Johnathan Turely is a plutocrat sellout; the only thing he can rip is a fart, his opinion stinks just like them.
Click to expand...

Oh tell us why-and use legal reasoning to explain why you make this claim. What bothers you most-that he voted for Hillary clinton but calls em like he sees em?
 
TurtleDude said:
Oh tell us why-and use legal reasoning to explain why you make this claim. What bothers you most-that he voted for Hillary clinton but calls em like he sees em?
Click to expand...

What reason has Turley created to explain Flynn lying to Pence?
 
US&THEM said:
What reason has Turley created to explain Flynn lying to Pence?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the question I asked another poster?
 
TurtleDude said:
what does that have to do with the question I asked another poster?
Click to expand...

Turley and the others believe Flynn was bamboozled, yet none explain why he lied to Pence.
 
US&THEM said:
Turley and the others believe Flynn was bamboozled, yet none explain why he lied to Pence.
Click to expand...

Don't care. that's not a crime. That's between him and his bosses
 
TurtleDude said:
Don't care. that's not a crime. That's between him and his bosses
Click to expand...

So Flynn lying is not a problem? The National Security Advisor position doesn’t need to,have honesty and integrity.
 
Just watch an interview with Nunes, and yes he knows as he was a ranking member.

Where’s the Flynn 302, Congressman?” Bartiromo asked Nunes.

“Well, the 302 is still missing, Maria, so here’s what we know,” Nunes said explaining Congress was briefed by people at the highest levels on the original 302 report confirming Flynn did not lie.

“The FBI agents essentially said ‘look, there’s nothing to see here. Flynn wasn’t lying’ — and that’s what we were told on the record so we knew this at the beginning of 2017,” he added.

"We know the report was doctored because we have the messages from the lovebirds [Peter Strzok and Lisa Page], but here’s the problem, the original report that was used to brief the United States Congress — that report is missing — it’s gone, poof! We can’t find it!”
 
US&THEM said:
So Flynn lying is not a problem? The National Security Advisor position doesn’t need to,have honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem only for those who 'don't care.'
 
US&THEM said:
So Flynn lying is not a problem? The National Security Advisor position doesn’t need to,have honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...

you are changing the goal posts. I never said it is not a problem-what I said it is not a crime and it is between Flynn and his bosses. Hating Trump doesn't create a criminal action against one of his subordinates, not matter how virulent one's hate is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom