• 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!

The curious case of Michael Flynn: Timeline of twists and turns in ex-official's prosecution

notquiteright said:
Oh so wrong! First it wasn't anything like that, second the proper response is 'that is highly classified and you don't have the proper clearance to discuss this'

Lying is wrong, his mom failed him if she didn't teach him that long ago... :peace
Click to expand...

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. I specifically said (not saying it was). I KNOW it wasn't anything like that.
 
The curious case of Michael Flynn: Timeline of twists and turns in ex-official's prosecution
Click to expand...

What specific timeline "twists and turns" have you in mind? What's "curious" about the ones you have in mind?
 

Attachments

  • Flynn Timeline.jpg
    Flynn Timeline.jpg
    98.9 KB · Views: 33
holbritter said:
You didn't comprehend what I wrote. I specifically said (not saying it was). I KNOW it wasn't anything like that.
Click to expand...

You didn't comprehend what I wrote. I specifically said you CAN'T lie to the FBI, even if it is to cover a troop movement. Your response is 'you don't have clearance to discuss this' and I'll add this gem- 'Let me check with my higher before we discuss troop movements/ongoing military operations'... :roll:

You don't have to lie to the FBI, anyone thinks it's ok had a mommy who missed a very important lesson in life for that little child... :peace
 
bubbabgone said:
The defense claim was supported by the documents. That's the reality.

As for the sentence itself, there's no chance
(a) the Judge is going to sentence Flynn to more than what was agreed to in the plea and
(b) there's no chance the prosecution can say "We changed our minds we want 5 years" after the sentencing.
There's more of a chance that
(c) the Judge will sanction the prosecution for their deceit ... and maybe more.
Click to expand...

Boy, were you ever wrong! Your batting average there is .000
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

Due process of law is being followed, dude. You just hate the outcome. What does that say about your opinion of justice?
Click to expand...

It sounds as if your side has never seen trouble before. Where you have hated the outcome too.
 
Rexedgar said:
You’re goofing, amirite?

Conspiracy Theories, check the sub-forum out!

:doh
Click to expand...

The implied question "what does CT mean" was genuine. "Conspiracy Theory" didn't cross my mind; that term rarely even enters my mind, likely because I have zero regard for them and their advocates....the exception being LEO attorneys who are building a case to prosecute conspiracy crimes.

The implied "does it mean Connecticut" question was sarcastic.

Red:
Thank you.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The other I believe had to do with a "public statement" that had appeared in a published news story made by British Prime Minister Blair having to do with some Middle East matter that somehow later became retroactively classified for whatever reason. Obviously it later became clear that there was no there there in either of those cases.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t classified at all, but was on their classified system. That doesn’t make it classified, but it does mean you can’t email it directly outside the classified network it’s on.
 
holbritter said:
If they are asking about something highly classified, say planned military movements, (not saying it was) then yes, it's ok.
Click to expand...
Hmmm during my decades in the military, holding a security clearance, i was never once told I could lie about classified matters. I was specifically told not to lie, but to deflect or refuse to answer. And that’s just when talking outside a classified environment at all. Talking to law enforcement certainly wouldn’t make it more acceptable to lie.
 
pinqy said:
Hmmm during my decades in the military, holding a security clearance, i was never once told I could lie about classified matters. I was specifically told not to lie, but to deflect or refuse to answer. And that’s just when talking outside a classified environment at all. Talking to law enforcement certainly wouldn’t make it more acceptable to lie.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom