Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
If you haven't already watched this, you really should.
Jimmy Dore is a far, far lefty.
Hates Trump!!!
And totally dissects all the sleaze and lies of this FBI crap.
Looks Like the Trump Admin is Bringing Dark Secrets to The Light
- Thread starter Meister
- Start date
If you haven't already watched this, you really should.
Jimmy Dore is a far, far lefty.
Hates Trump!!!
And totally dissects all the sleaze and lies of this FBI crap.
charwin95
Gold Member
New intelligence chiefs are ALL hired by Trump. They can not talk that Iran is in violations? Why aren’t they using your evidence?Like I already said and posted. I rely ONLY with my own country’s intelligence which the best in the world. I will stick with that till I hear from themI was responding to Todds rebuttal. Asking me a question that is pure nonsense. Of course it’s in Iran.Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.No Todd. We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence. Not from Russia or Qanon, or Facebook or conspiracies or unknown media. The nuclear inspectors are mostly US scientists. Did you hear any from them or any countries that are involved that Iran violated the agreement?But a wee bit less than the guy who knows Iran stopped making nuclear bombs for a while. Which is most peopleMore than me? You are dreaming my dear.You are just a Trump supporter. What do you know?In nuclear discussion and physicists that is the same. You do not get to pick and choose to fit your agenda.Hard vs heavy. You misspoke.Your evidence that they never stopped building their nuclear weapons is WHERE?Letting dangerous prisoners out of prisons ? Check.
You're gonna follow Dear Leader straight the **** off a cliff.
Enjoy the ride man - Enjoy the ride!!
Allowing babies to be aborted at late stage pregnancy ? Check.
Being authoritarian when ever get power ? Check.
Creating dependency in society beyond imagination ? Check.
Destroying an economy for millions in regards to myths and feel good assumptions ? Check.
Ignoring #metoo when it is inconvenient or detrimental to party officials ? Check.
Allowing traitor's to go free or get taxpayer funded services for elective procedures without taxpayer consent ? Check.
Promoting open borders ? Check.
Supporting illegals over American's ? Check.
Forcing taxpayers to be involved in leftist government controlled policies, it's thinking, it's cultures, and/or it's procedures as is promoted or forced by a leftist controlled government ? Check.
Destroying the economy in certain sectors by rules and regulation in an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole ? Check.
Feeling sorry for heinous criminals, otherwise that they might squirm a little when being administered the lethal drug upon execution for their heinous crimes, therefore taking not into consideration what they did to the innocent for whom they abused and terrorized prior to their deaths ? Check.
Supporting sanctuary areas/cities, and not reporting illegals to ICE, and therefore endangering American's who might be abused by an individual living off the grid for reasons of their cheap labor sought after.
On and on it goes..... Now who is following who off the cliff ??
WE'RE the party of authoritarianism when YOU elected a rat bastard who greatly prefers murderous dictators to the leaders of countries that used to be our allies? Comical!
The rest of your screed has no basis in fact either - And for the record, I'm not a Democrat, but rather one who knows the dire necessity of removing an amoral, self-absorbed, empathy and science free short-fingered vulgarian.
He "prefers" them you say? Hmm, lets look at your hero's, shall we? obummer gave the terrorist regime of Iran the bomb. They would never have had the ability if it weren't for bush, clinton, and of course obummer and his helpful idiot, john kerry. They talked tough, oh yes they talked real tough, and gave Iran everything they wanted. That is a fact.
trump comes in and talks to Iran like they are assholes (because they are0 and cancels the worst deal in world history, and kills one of their terrorist generals. In Korea, the fat little fool has been developing his rockets and nukes for decades. Once again, clinto, bush, and obummer talked tough, but the fat little bastard got everything he wanted. Trump, on the other hand, talks sweet as silk to the fat little bastard, AND GIVES HIM NOTHING!
You, are an idiot.
Well.
Under Trump did Kim Jung Un gave up his toys and stop updating his toys? Or stop firing blanks missiles towards Japan? Answer is NO.
Under Trump. Did he able stop the Iranian from making nuclear weapons? Answer is NO.
So What did Trump accomplish? NOTHING. The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons. Thanks to Trump.
.
The sad part of these, the mullahs are now building their nuclear weapons.
The sad part of these, the mullahs never stopped building their nuclear weapons.
if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now. Don't you think?
Before you talk about any topics like this nuclear programs. You NEED to understand the process. Iran has already lots of nuclear grade plutonium to make a nuclear weapons. Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak. That was completed late last year. Thanks to Trump.
if they didn’t stopped that was five years ago when Obama the true leader of USA stepped in they could have the weapons by now.
They could.
Except the facilities that makes hard water facilities in located Arak.
Hard water? DURR
Yes my dear. You may want to check the relationship of a hard water in making nuclear weapons. It is a very important process and special facilities in making a nuclear bomb.
Heavy water looks like water, but is about 10 percent heavier. Plain water (H2O) has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In heavy water there is deuterium instead of hydrogen, and while regular hydrogen has one proton in its nucleus, the deutrium has both one proton and one neutron. Thus, it becomes heavier.
So prepare for 117 pages of the toddinator pointing it out.
No. Hard water is not the same as heavy water.
Physicists don't use the terms interchangeably.
More than you.....really low bar, I know.
Yes, I know more than the guy who thinks there are "hard water" reactors out there.
Yes, your faith in the trustworthiness of the mullahs is sweet......
WHERE and WHAT is your EVIDENCE that Iran violated the agreement? You have nothing except coming from this lousy, liar and inept president.
Dat doesn’t mean we love the mullahs.
.
We rely on our source from the people that are handling this nuclear program. We believe in our own intelligence.
That's good to know. What did those sources say about nuclear research activity on Iranian military bases?
If there are or any reliable proof that Iran violated the agreement. I will publish it myself.
Who do you believe Todd’s?
.
Our own intelligence CIA or American nuclear scientists inspectors. Provided NO such violations.
And which military sites did our inspectors, or any inspectors, look at?
Dude you are a waste of my time. You are asking a question that is pure nonsense.
Let me entertain you. They inspected the nuclear reactor in Tijuana, Mexico. That’s right in Mexico.
I don't know what you are smoking, but there is no nuke in TJ. Mexico has one nuclear power plant, and it's on the opposite coast.
I said previously that I relied on our US intelligence to provide us of any reports of any such Iran violations. Our intelligence agencies are the best in the world. Am I supposed to ignored that? Then believe all these nonsense conspiracies and accusations? We have not heard any violations. Did you hear anything?
.
However you ignore the fact that the iran deal specifically prevented inspectors from inspecting military sites, and any site that was being inspected had to have at least a 24 day warning, but iran could delay them for up to 54 days. How do you expect ANY actual inspection to be going on with those sorts of limitations?
"The final agreement announced on July 14, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), does contain significant enhancements to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) current ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear facilities. The deal, President Obama told the nation, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” Yet, one critical provision of the JCPOA puts unexpected limitations on inspectors’ access to certain facilities by requiring them to notify Iran first if they suspect a site might be being used for illicit nuclear activity and then undergoing a long process in order to gain entry to that site. This obstacle to inspections is worrying for several reasons:
- Iran could delay inspectors for as long as 54, not the commonly reported 24, days
- The burden of proof is on IAEA
- It chills intelligence sharing
- It discourages long shots
- It does not address a parallel enrichment program
- And it could allow for weaponization activities
Iran Deal Limits Inspectors’ Access to Suspicious Sites | Bipartisan Policy Center
The merits of the final deal's verification measures have to be judged on the basis of the authority it gives inspectors to access potential…bipartisanpolicy.org
Why is it that every time I ran into this topic they always posts that came from unknown media. If there are any truth of that. Why is Trump not using that to prove to the world that Iran is in violations? Just doesn’t make sense.
.
And I just showed you how our intelligence community has been neutered by the deal that obummer and kerry engineered. Beneficial only to the iranian regime, not the rest of the world.
.
.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
well i'm sure they had it coming.
That is both true and untrue.
The true parts: Yes, Russia has always tried this.
The untrue parts: ignoring the facts that until recently, they (and we) did not have social media, the internet, twitter, deep fakes, etc in which to spread these things. It's a whole new battle field now and we are poorly equip to deal with it.
Also untrue: that there was a coup, but keep on believing that if it makes you feel better at night. Maybe you'll wake up one day and realize that the president is indeed accountable.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snappedthere comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.And, you have to use contrived facts.LOLI'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.LOLOLStay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.LOLOLFlynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?
Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.
Here is some more reality for you:
"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."
"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."
Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.
are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!
Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!
He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.
He lied. Deal with it.
Oh? What other facts do you think there are?
So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.
people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.
so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.
so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".
out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.
1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.
comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.
but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.
would that others feel the same.
Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.
You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.
It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.
You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.
See ya.
I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.
First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.
We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.
Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.
Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.
There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.
And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).
Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.
13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23
but your question was -
was flynn treated differently.
was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?
that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.
WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?
so - were they?
yes | no
Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.
We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.
Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).
2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.
3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.
4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.
5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.
Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?
I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.
I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.
So will you answer my questions?
So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,519
- 125,522
- 3,645
Not on the scale seen in 2016. So, stupid post by you.
we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snappedthere comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.And, you have to use contrived facts.LOLI'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.LOLOLStay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.LOLOLFlynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?
Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.
Here is some more reality for you:
"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."
"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."
Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.
are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!
Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!
He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.
He lied. Deal with it.
Oh? What other facts do you think there are?
So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.
people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.
so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.
so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".
out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.
1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.
comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.
but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.
would that others feel the same.
Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.
You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.
It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.
You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.
See ya.
I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.
First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.
We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.
Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.
Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.
There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.
And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).
Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.
13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23
but your question was -
was flynn treated differently.
was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?
that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.
WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?
so - were they?
yes | no
Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.
We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.
Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).
2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.
3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.
4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.
5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.
Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?
I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.
I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.
So will you answer my questions?
So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?
You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something. Like when you change your story about something that is being investigated.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,519
- 125,522
- 3,645
A stupid comment. Investigations are for possible crimes. If a target did not commit a crime, the investigation shows this. the possible crime was criminal conspiracy with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 elections, for which Flynn had already been under investigation for months.
They don't seem to understand how these things work.
Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,967
- 1,415
YES! "Oddly enough" the lefties refuse to even take a look. I wonder why?
I've posted this video four or five times now. Haven't gotten a single big mouthed lying leftist
to work up the guts to watch.
When it comes right down to it, they are cowards.
Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 38,913
- 32,013
- 2,915
Funny, I remember having media even 'way back' in 2,000. The only thing different is the deep state plot (by certain members of the DNC and FBI) to unseat a duly elected President in 2016. I dunno, let's see, a fake dossier, used to trick a FISA court into getting a warrant, a 'Russia collusion' investigation that went on for 3 years with absolutely 0 outcome of wrong doing, evidence the FBI set up members of the Trump administration using abusive tactics......Sure looks like a coup. But then I am not blinded by hatred. Wait...almost forgot, fake impeachment by the DNC.
Last edited:
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,519
- 125,522
- 3,645
No, it's because nobody is interested in watching a video you never watched and don't understand, then both spoonfeeding its contents back to you AND having to address a bunch of falsehoods and bad logic.
How about, you whiners just make a few points , in your own words, that were informed by the video. See you in ... never.
the only thing different huh? A fictional Deep State behind a fictional coup....but then...you aren't exactly blinded by logic either.
The long and short chronological history of social media
Social media is part and parcel of modern daily life, but, as it turns out, it actually has quite a long history.
interestingengineering.com
we still can. agree to disagree that is. but it's hard for me to do that when you're runnign around screaming in a rage that i'm happy with every single thing trump has done and shit. you know better and we covered that back in "those days".Wolfs in sheep’s clothing... I blocked that guy a while back and saved the hassle of annoying pointless debates. He used to be pretty good but something snappedthere comes a time where it becomes literally pointless to try and engage in discussion with someone. for months i honestly felt coyote and i were finding some common ground but seeing a statement of 1:32 of out of context i realized quite simply her hate for something outweighs her desire for honesty.And, you have to use contrived facts.LOLI'm sure they aren't the contrived facts that you have to use.LOLOLStay tuned....the actual facts (not the contrived facts) are going to be exposed, and you're going to be butthurt.LOLOLFlynn wasn't a 'bad guy' they made him one based on the false Russia investigation. Who was the 'big fish?'Haha, ok lets go with that... how was he coerced to lie?Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?
Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.
Here is some more reality for you:
"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."
"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."
Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.
are you saying that cops using somebodies crime of lying to try and get the truth is somehow inappropriate?!
Flynns call wasn’t illegal... telling Flynn they know the details of the call and getting him to elaborate about it would have been useless. They simply asked Flynn about it and he chose to lie. Leveraging Flynn’s lie to get details that Flynn would not voluntarily expose is how crimes are found. It happens with law enforcement all the time... squeeze the little fish to try and get the big fish. You act like cops trying to catch bad guys is somehow a bad thing. That’s their job!!
He admitted he lied. Not only did he plead guilty, but he reaffirmed his guilt when he rejected the judge's offer to withdraw his guilty plea.
He lied. Deal with it.
Oh? What other facts do you think there are?
So you have nothing but wishes. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.
she's not the only one as this can be a human trait, not left or right. i've told people on the right their loose "interpretation" was guided by hate and no that didn't go well either.
people do not like their emotionally driven points challenged. it only heightens the emotion. i can get fed up like anyone and drop some all caps or some sailor driven words and i likely need to slow that down and simply stop paying attention to those who pay no attention to a search for the truth vs. emotional validation.
so when she sent off saying she realizes in my eyes trump can do no wrong she simply shifted gears. first, i never mentioned trump. my focus was flynn and the FBI. but since i do bulldog and stay on my point (ie, prove it was out of context with your data/links of what he meant to say) and that can push people over the edge because i've presented a "put up or shut up" scenario they know deep down they can't prove.
so deflect. tell me i love trump and that's driving me when honestly, i'm trump neutral and have gone off on him when he does stupid shit too. so what she said is flat out a lie and part of our past in depth discussions she's chosen to now ignore and shove me into the bad guy side pretty much like i probably did her after the "out of context".
out of context to me is a 10-15 second clip where you don't see the before and after and that is made up for you. aka - impeach trump.
1:32 of an interview where he's point blank asked what he did and why and he tells you is not out of context and that direction is simply deflect and move the goalposts.
comey was wrong in what he did. the FBI was wrong in what they did. but many on the left will not allow anything that can potentially show trump in a negative light simply doesn't exist in their world. they are fine with these things being done because of their emotional stake in the game.
but i know for a fact if trumps DOJ did this to someone they could cry unholy hell. the only difference is, i'd be crying unholy hell also. the action is wrong and i don't care who it is done to.
would that others feel the same.
Your honesty is non existent. You are just as partisan as those you attack.
You don't even have the integrity to actually comment on the legal points or counter them.
It's all emotional BS - TDS TDS TDS. No wonder I can't discuss things with Trump Cultists - they just revert TDS.
You will defend Trump, and anyone associated with him to the end - UNTIL Trump turns on them, then you will too.
See ya.
I know. We used to have some pretty good discussions and we used to be able to agree to disagree.
First off. I am not "running around screaming in a rage". But when you start throwing around the insults and the TDS bombs don't expect me to take it lying down. What it seems to have come is because I don't AGREE with you guys on your interpretation of events - you start screaming TDS TDS TDS. Once it devolves down to that there is no point in discussing anything.
We are both biased. You and I. That's just a fact. I have no problem owning my own bias. I also think it's a mistake to think that there must be a 50/50 equivalency at all times. Some things are simply not equivalent. I could give a lot of examples but they would derail the thread.
Well that's kind of what I found here. I think Slade gets as frustrated as you and I do.
Let's go back to the 1 minute 32 second video clip. Yes, I listened to it. Essentially what he said was - he decided to try something to see what Flynn would say that he wouldn't normally do (or get away with) in a more organized administration that insists on a protocol. And Flynn chose to lie to the agents.
There was nothing the FBI did that was against the law and Flynn CHOSE to lie - he could always have said "I don't recall", but he didn't do that. When you lie to the FBI - that's a potential crime. They didn't just pick Flynn out of the blue - he came to their attention because he lied to the VP, and what was said did not match what they knew and were investigating in a broader investigation.
And yes...context does matter. Here is the entire interview (over and hour, and no I did not listen to it all, but there is a transcript at the link).
Here is part of what led up to that snipped portion - and it's the "why" of why they decided to try to interview Flynn.
13:12
starting in December and he came to our
13:24
attention in the early part of January
13:26
when there were statements made by the
13:29
vice president in public about
13:32
interactions that Flynn as the National
13:34
Security Advisor designee had had with
13:36
the Russians and we knew those
13:40
representations were very different than
13:43
what the facts were and given that we
13:45
already had a case open to understand
13:47
whether any Americans were working with
13:49
the Russians as part of their effort to
13:51
undermine our democracy
13:53
trying to figure what was going on there
13:55
was very important to us what did you
13:58
think when you found out that the
13:59
National Security Advisor designee was
14:03
lying about conversations with the
14:05
Russian ambassador why is he lying I
14:09
still don't know the answer to that so
14:11
again I have a limited vantage point but
14:13
it was clear that he was lying that he
14:16
lied to two FBI agents on the 24th of
14:18
January in the Situation Room in a
14:20
conference room and it was clear that he
14:23
but your question was -
was flynn treated differently.
was he? was the trump administration treated the same way as comey would have others?
that was your question. not the justifications or reasons, not the hype, and not the bullshit.
WAS FLYNN/TRUMP TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY?
so - were they?
yes | no
Hold on a second. You don't get to dodge MY question by rephrasing into a new question.
We are talking about something that is a law enforcement tactic. A common one. This isn't about how administrations are treated at this level.
Look at the facts:
1. There was conclusive evidence from multiple credible sources that Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections (and, not just ours but those of our allies). Intelligence concluded that they wanted Trump to win. (and before you jump over the edge on this, that doesn't mean Trump was a willing participant).
2. The above is a very serious concern or at least should be, even if all they managed to do was sow distrust in the electoral process, that hits at the heart of our democracy.
3. Investigating that is 100% valid and that investigation also means looking into anyone on a political level at least who had interactions with Russian officials. That is where Flynn comes in.
4. Flynn was found to have lied to the VP. That's kind of a red flag and would certainly bring him to the attention of the FBI.
5. So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
6. He lied. And he wasn't forced to. And he didn't have to.
Given those (unemotional) facts - how was he treated unfairly when other potential criminals or informants are treated that same way?
I think what you are getting at about administrations is Comey's remark that he wouldn't have done this with preceding administrations but what you are missing is that the reason (as he stated) is they are much more organized (there would have been strict protocols) - that the were absent with Trump and that has in fact been a long standing issue with his administration.
I "overanalyzed" it? I try to look for actual facts.
So will you answer my questions?
So they talk to him to see if they can catch him in a lie (common law enforcement tactic).
Cool story. What crime did he commit that they were investigating? Logan Act violation?
You don't have to commit a crime to be investigated, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of something. Like when you change your story about something that is being investigated.
WHAT! Before any person can be investigated the investigators MUST present, to a judge, PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been committed!
Get thee to a Civics class!
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,519
- 125,522
- 3,645
I will repeat myself (though I am sure this will be duly ignored) - we did not have the social media of today 10 - 20 years ago. Oh I know some idiot claimed he remembered it twenty years ago, but the fact is - then it was in it's infancy both in terms of number of people on it around the world and in the sophistication of the technologies that can harvest data and pin point messaging as well as create increasingly clever "fakes". In the 70's the old USSR used to doctor photos to remove those who fell out of grace - now, we have "deep fakes" (look it up).
The tools we have available now, to masses of people and governments are simply unbelievable and we lag behind in developing the means to deal with it. If you seriously are so blind you don't see this I don't know what to think. I can dig up links and such but it's probably a waste of time.
Pretending like we had this level of ability "all the time" is kind of like pretending...well, we had computers and the internet - for like forever - and you're just "pretending" that things are different now and that there is so much sophisticated hacking going on stealing data, money, disrupting business etc.(presumably because you hate *insert political leader of your choice*)
It happened all the time!
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
Really don't give a shit til you answer your own question. I don't do rabbit holes of deflection.
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,786
- 144,435
- 3,645
Bullshit.That is pretty pathetic since the stated reason for firing Flynn was lying to the VP.Pence saying that he now thinks Flynn unintentionally misled him has got to be one of the most pathetic excuses I’ve heard in a while. It literally made me laugh out loud when I first heard it. Are you really taking that seriously?!Oh BS...You're on here every day spouting DNC talking point propaganda. Who do you think you are fooling with the 'holier than thou' bullshit?
Here is some 'simple reality' that just came to light. It's a quote from the FBI...."What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute," they obviously coerced him, did not read him his rights, pretended the interview was no big deal, and did not encourage him to have a lawyer.
Here is some more reality for you:
"Vice President Pence said Thursday he was "more inclined" to believe that former national security adviser Michael Flynn unintentionally misled him in early 2017 about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, an event that triggered Flynn's firing by the White House."
"Pence told reporters while traveling in Indiana that he was “deeply troubled” by new documents released in Flynn's criminal case, describing them as evidence of “investigative abuse.”
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it."
Maybe now you can stop beating your dead-horse of an argument.
a Jellyfish has a stronger spine than Pence
But then, this is the Administration of Alternative Facts: Lying brought to an entirely new level.
Why Flynn was fired is that Sally Yates went to WH with phony information on Flynn.. She WAS the "next in line" by succession for AG and was ACTING AG when she MISREPRESENTED Michael Flynn to the Prez and VP Pence as being "Compromised by Russia".. After Comey was fired, Yates did a big public show that SHE was now in charge in spite of the fact that Trump was still looking at candidates for AG. When it was found out that Yates HAD BEEN IN ON the plan to REMOVE Flynn as NSAdvisor, -- HER ASS got summarily fired... She then CONTINUED to lie about Flynn, EVEN UNDER OATH to Congress.. Did that TWICE AFTER she was fired.
She should be stripped of pension at the LEAST for participating in this whole coup attempt.
SHE was part of conspiracy to persecute the President and REMOVE Flynn at all costs.. Because Flynn was one of the nation's top Intel people and could protect the Prez from the assault his Admin was under..
Here's one clue -- the rest are out there...
Sally Yates, others were alarmed about FBI treatment of Mike Flynn
A little-noticed letter from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office divulges Obama DOJ concerns about FBI treatment of ex-Trump national security adviser. ~John Solomon “Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior Obama-era Justice Department officials told the Russia special...www.independentsentinel.com
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 51,521
- 20,890
- 2,290
The thread is about Flynn, and how the Trump administration is exposing the dark side of the characters who were out to get Flynn in hopes to hurt Trump. There fixed it for you.
That is exactly what you are doing.
I'm supposed to answer my own question? So...I spend a good bit of time on a post and that is what you come up with.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Radical Dem. Julie Johnson compares the 2 died by ICE to Islamic Republic executing scores- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 3
-
-
Air Canada hit a firetruck and the pilots died learn a lot more- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 3
