• 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!

Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders: Exactly What Flynn Did

That's all speculations about the Russians. They could just have easily wondered whether Pence was lying.
So, too, could have the FBI.
In the end, there was no material reason to interview Flynn.
Which is why the case was dropped.

The case wasn't dropped. He was prosecuted and pled guilty.

Are we even talking about the same Flynn here? Because you sure as hell seem to be talking about someone/something else than what actually happened.
 
Duh... it wasn't exactly public knowledge that the FBI had the transcripts, was it?
All calls between the Russian government and US government personnel are recorded. The whole thing was handled wrong. Plus charges were dropped, yet a judge decided to name himself a second tier prosecutor.
Notice the DP mouthpieces don’t chirp in on it much.
I hope the Republicans don’t pit as much effort into Hunter as they did on Flynn, unless Sullivan was just a venal jackass.
 
All calls between the Russian government and US government prrsonnel are recorded. The whole thing was handled wrong. Plus charges were dropped, yet a judge decided to name himself a second tier prosecutor.
Notice the DP mouthpieces don’t chirp in on it much.

Flynn wasn't a member of the US government at the time. Try again.

Secondly, the charges were dropped for political reasons of extremely dubious legal merit. Given that that the case was in it's sentencing phase, it was entirely within the judiciary's prerogative to dispose of it as it deemed appropriate.
 
The case wasn't dropped. He was prosecuted and pled guilty.

Are we even talking about the same Flynn here? Because you sure as hell seem to be talking about someone/something else than what actually happened.

The case was dropped when more evidence showed the government could not sustain its prosecution.
 
Flynn wasn't a member of the US government at the time. Try again.

Secondly, the charges were dropped for political reasons of extremely dubious legal merit. Given that that the case was in it's sentencing phase, it was entirely within the judiciary's prerogative to dispose of it as it deemed appropriate.

When we learn that the FBI agents did not think he lied, that the FBI director did not think he was a Russian agent or had committed a crime, and when the actual transcripts say nothing about any sort of "deal" then we have reasonable doubt right there that anything said to the FBI was "material" to anything.

Given there was no evidence that he was a Russian agent, or had committed a crime, perhaps the investigation against him was political.
 
The case was dropped when more evidence showed the government could not sustain its prosecution.

It had already obtained a conviction... and there was no exculpatory evidence presented that nullified Flynn's guilt. The case was dropped because President Trump wanted it dropped, pure and simple.
 
When we learn that the FBI agents did not think he lied, that the FBI director did not think he was a Russian agent or had committed a crime, and when the actual transcripts say nothing about any sort of "deal" then we have reasonable doubt right there that anything said to the FBI was "material" to anything.

Given there was no evidence that he was a Russian agent, or had committed a crime, perhaps the investigation against him was political.

Let me remind you again of the text of the Logan Act (18 USC §253):

§953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Are you seriously proposing that Flynn's contacts with Kislyak didn't influence Russian foreign policy? Hell, they had the main conversation on Dec. 29, and then on Dec. 30, Putin issues this statement:

... As it proceeds from international practice, Russia has reasons to respond in kind. Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.

The very next freaking day the President of Russia comes out and says he'd done dealing with Obama and he's going to focus on dealing with the Trump Administration. And then the day after that - Dec. 31 - Kislyak tells Flynn that his message was received in Moscow.

And you still maintain there was no undercutting of the Obama Administration's policies??!? Jesus... what kind of reality are you living in, Athan? Open your eyes and think for yourself for once.
 
Let me remind you again of the text of the Logan Act (18 USC §253):



Are you seriously proposing that Flynn's contacts with Kislyak didn't influence Russian foreign policy? Hell, they had the main conversation on Dec. 29, and then on Dec. 30, Putin issues this statement:



The very next freaking day the President of Russia comes out and says he'd done dealing with Obama and he's going to focus on dealing with the Trump Administration. And then the day after that - Dec. 31 - Kislyak tells Flynn that his message was received in Moscow.

And you still maintain there was no undercutting of the Obama Administration's policies??!? Jesus... what kind of reality are you living in, Athan? Open your eyes and think for yourself for once.

I prefer not to take the word of Mr. Putin at face value.
Why do you?
 
I prefer not to take the word of Mr. Putin at face value.
Why do you?

I tend to take him at his word when he publicly announces a change in Russian Government policy. Can you name someone else in the Russian Government with a more authoritative voice on the subject?
 
The case was dropped when more evidence showed the government could not sustain its prosecution.
Haha sustain the prosecution for a guy who already plead guilty and was cooperating with the govt.
 
On the eve of trial, prosecutors opted against putting Flynn on the stand even though he had been expected to be the star witness. Flynn acknowledged in a separate case that he made false statements about work he performed that benefited Turkey; he had hoped at one point that his cooperation with prosecutors in Kian’s case would help him receive a lighter sentence in his own case. Flynn’s sentencing is still pending.

Prosecutors alleged Kian and Flynn were acting at Turkey’s behest when they undertook a project to discredit an exiled cleric wanted by Turkey’s government.

Trenga also ordered that Kian should be granted a new trial in the event that an appeals court reverses his decision to grant acquittals.

 
I tend to take him at his word when he publicly announces a change in Russian Government policy. Can you name someone else in the Russian Government with a more authoritative voice on the subject?

I am sure Putin has his own motives. Screwing with the country is one of them.
 
Haha sustain the prosecution for a guy who already plead guilty and was cooperating with the govt.

More evidence was released that showed they would be unable to sustain a conviction.
I don't know what to tell ya. Its not as if its unprecedented for a prosecutor to drop charges.
 
More evidence was released that showed they would be unable to sustain a conviction.
I don't know what to tell ya. Its not as if its unprecedented for a prosecutor to drop charges.
That was nonsense dug up and taken out of context by Barr’s guys. When does the prosecutors go digging and digging for a guy who plead guilty and cooperated? Try to find anything close to this that has ever happened within the DOJ.
It was so blatantly done with the disregard for the law it is embarrassing.
 
That was nonsense dug up and taken out of context by Barr’s guys. When does the prosecutors go digging and digging for a guy who plead guilty and cooperated? Try to find anything close to this that has ever happened within the DOJ.
It was so blatantly done with the disregard for the law it is embarrassing.

You mean when do prosecutors seek to ensure the people they are charging and trying are not guilty?
They do it all the time. Its actually an ethical standard; they can't just throw mud on the wall and see what sticks.
 
You mean when do prosecutors seek to ensure the people they are charging and trying are not guilty?
They do it all the time. Its actually an ethical standard; they can't just throw mud on the wall and see what sticks.
And you want to pretend that happened here? Let’s pretend you are right, the oroginal prosecution team will be indicted then correct?
 
And you want to pretend that happened here? Let’s pretend you are right, the oroginal prosecution team will be indicted then correct?

Indicted for what?
 
It is obvious to you they illegally prosecuted a innocent man.

I didn't say that. I said prosecutors have an ethical obligation to ensure they have sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
The prosecutors supervisor had reason to believe that his subordinates did not. He directed a review and discovered additional information that would make it difficult to sustain a prosecution. Thus, ethically, the charges were dropped.
 
I didn't say that. I said prosecutors have an ethical obligation to ensure they have sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
The prosecutors supervisor had reason to believe that his subordinates did not. He directed a review and discovered additional information that would make it difficult to sustain a prosecution. Thus, ethically, the charges were dropped.
That is not what happened with Flynn.
 
As evidenced by the Flynn-Kislyak conversations.... and the coordination with Roger Stone on Wikileaks releases.

Stone didn't coordinate with Russia. He didn't even have connections with Wikileaks-- thats why he went to Credico.
 
Stone didn't coordinate with Russia. He didn't even have connections with Wikileaks-- thats why he went to Credico.

Stone was talking to both Assange - via Credico - and the Russians - via Guccifer 2.0. That's how he was able to coordinate the timing and content of the releases.
 
Back
Top Bottom