What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Audio Evidence of Trump & Giuliani Corruption and Official Misconduct

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
yeah a guy that’s been involved in the doj since the early 90s
He spent a few years as an AUA in the 90s. He spent the last 20 years not being involved in the DoJ.

He was Barr’s lackey. Appointed specifically by him. The career prosecutors who you referred to left the case in protest of the obvious misapplication of justice.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
yeah a guy that’s been involved in the doj since the early 90s
He spent a few years as an AUA in the 90s. He spent the last 20 years not being involved in the DoJ.

He was Barr’s lackey. Appointed specifically by him. The career prosecutors who you referred to left the case in protest of the obvious misapplication of justice.
haha of course he was appointed by him...Barr was the boss

he’s wired with Barr since the 90s at the DOJ after that on Hill.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
yeah a guy that’s been involved in the doj since the early 90s
He spent a few years as an AUA in the 90s. He spent the last 20 years not being involved in the DoJ.

He was Barr’s lackey. Appointed specifically by him. The career prosecutors who you referred to left the case in protest of the obvious misapplication of justice.
haha of course he was appointed by him...Barr was the boss

he’s wired with Barr since the 90s at the DOJ after that on Hill.
Yep. Precisely. You tried to claim it was career prosecutors. It wasn’t. It was a political appointee; a lackey of Barr.

Because of course it was.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
yeah a guy that’s been involved in the doj since the early 90s
He spent a few years as an AUA in the 90s. He spent the last 20 years not being involved in the DoJ.

He was Barr’s lackey. Appointed specifically by him. The career prosecutors who you referred to left the case in protest of the obvious misapplication of justice.
haha of course he was appointed by him...Barr was the boss

he’s wired with Barr since the 90s at the DOJ after that on Hill.
Yep. Precisely. You tried to claim it was career prosecutors. It wasn’t. It was a political appointee; a lackey of Barr.

Because of course it was.
i just highlighted he was a career person in washington since the early 90s
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
i just highlighted he was a career person in washington since the early 90s
No, he had a brief stint with the DoJ and did a whole bunch of other stuff.

A career prosecutor he ain't. He's a Barr crony appointed to his position.

You were not being truthful.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
i just highlighted he was a career person in washington since the early 90s
No, he had a brief stint with the DoJ and did a whole bunch of other stuff.

A career prosecutor he ain't. He's a Barr crony appointed to his position.

You were not being truthful.
Not according to his wiki bio....he was with the DOJ as far back as the early 90s, worked on the Hill or a period during the Clinton years, and private practice as a DC insider, then back

Sounds like a career Washington guy

anyway...the facts, as applied to the law, even assuming Flynn lied, don't support prosecution because there was no crime. No material fact could have been lied about, since the Obama DOJ had already determined the call with Flynn was legit.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

yeah they had no business investigating the call, since the call had been invetigated and it was legit.

We know the motives, based on the Brady evidence was simply to disrupt the incoming admin.

He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS

I have
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,463
Reaction score
17,845
Points
2,210
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

yeah they had no business investigating the call, since the call had been invetigated and it was legit.

We know the motives, based on the Brady evidence was simply to disrupt the incoming admin.

He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS

I have
Well that's not true. There was an ongoing investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election. Monitoring that call was part of it.

And when questioned by the FBI about that call, Flynn lied to them. That's a crime for which Flynn was charged and then later pleaded guilty in front of a judge and then after that, reaffirmed his guilt in front of another judge.

And regardless of the DoJ's attempts to get the case dismissed, they failed to do so. At the time Flynn accepted his pardon, the judge on the case had still not dismissed it.

Flynn was not exonerated ... he was forgiven.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

yeah they had no business investigating the call, since the call had been invetigated and it was legit.

We know the motives, based on the Brady evidence was simply to disrupt the incoming admin.

He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS

I have
Well that's not true. There was an ongoing investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election. Monitoring that call was part of it.

And when questioned by the FBI about that call, Flynn lied to them. That's a crime for which Flynn was charged and then later pleaded guilty in front of a judge and then after that, reaffirmed his guilt in front of another judge.

And regardless of the DoJ's attempts to get the case dismissed, they failed to do so. At the time Flynn accepted his pardon, the judge on the case had still not dismissed it.

Flynn was not exonerated ... he was forgiven.
cool...and they did...and found the call to be legit

there was no baes to ask about the call...but since the call was legit nothing he even could have lied about was material to the russian investigation.

read what he was charged with..read the indictment. What they said he lied about couldn’t if been material since we know they concluded the call was legit

it was a witch-hunt lead by the obamagate gang.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,500
Reaction score
10,687
Points
465
He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS
The call was part of a larger counterintelligence investigation. Any lie about that call was material and did impact the investigation.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS
The call was part of a larger counterintelligence investigation. Any lie about that call was material and did impact the investigation.
hahaha no no...sorry not true at all....because the call was legit. There was literally nothing about that call that he could have lied about that was material.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,463
Reaction score
17,845
Points
2,210
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

yeah they had no business investigating the call, since the call had been invetigated and it was legit.

We know the motives, based on the Brady evidence was simply to disrupt the incoming admin.

He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS

I have
Well that's not true. There was an ongoing investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election. Monitoring that call was part of it.

And when questioned by the FBI about that call, Flynn lied to them. That's a crime for which Flynn was charged and then later pleaded guilty in front of a judge and then after that, reaffirmed his guilt in front of another judge.

And regardless of the DoJ's attempts to get the case dismissed, they failed to do so. At the time Flynn accepted his pardon, the judge on the case had still not dismissed it.

Flynn was not exonerated ... he was forgiven.
cool...and they did...and found the call to be legit

there was no baes to ask about the call...but since the call was legit nothing he even could have lied about was material to the russian investigation.

read what he was charged with..read the indictment. What they said he lied about couldn’t if been material since we know they concluded the call was legit

it was a witch-hunt lead by the obamagate gang.
It matters not that the call was legit. Flynn wasn't charged for having a conversation with a Russian ambassador. He was charged with lying to the FBI about what he said during that call. And that is a crime and he did plead guilty. That makes him a convicted felon. And that was his status when he accepted a pardon from the President. That's not being exonerated.

You've not posted anything to counter that.
 

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
896
Points
173
Giuliani is some very serious legal trouble here. When this is combined with all the other likely upcoming charges against Rudy, he'd better get himself the best lawyer he can find because he's sure going to need help staying out of prison.

And in case anyone misses the point, any criminal conspiracy to commit a crime which is planned and executed by a lawyer and his client effectively negates any protections of a lawyer/client privileged and confidential communication.

I certainly hope that Giuliani is fully prepared for when Trump disavows any knowledge of what his lawyer was doing because that's been Trump's MO for decades.

Is there video evidence of Trump smoking crack and jerking himself off as well?

Oh yea that was Hunter Biden, my bad
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
7,987
Reaction score
4,679
Points
903
"Xiden withheld money from the country until they canned the guy looking into his son’s corrupt company"

Really?

Poster Struth you still haven't found the clue?
At this point I, for one, question your sincerity in this discussion.
It appears to be either trolling for trolling sakes.....or........willful ignorance.

There have been several posts on this thread explaining the whys and whyfor's of this kerfuffle.
And yet you persist.

Joe Biden didn't have the authority as merely the Vice President to withhold such monies.
He did have the authority...directly given to him by his boss after consultation with the State Department and European governments.....to carry their message to the Ukrainian president.
Which, he did.

It is how international diplomacy works. Duh!
If one's regular corps of diplomats is unable to make progress on an issue our nation feels is against our interest, well, you then send in a bigger gun.....a Secretary of one department or another, maybe one of the Joint Chiefs, maybe a top general, an important business leader.....or you can send in a Vice President who is long experienced in America's foreign relations .

You do all of that as "official American policy".
Duh!
he’s on TV bragging about how he did it

not sure why or how someone from Europe would have authority to do that...
Bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who wouldn't prosecute, fired.

That was a fine accomplishment and not at all the crime you couldn't even properly identify.
Conservatives would love corrupt prosecutors because then they'd be able to prosecute their political opponents just like Putin does.

After all, when conservatives yelled "lock her (Hillary) up," it was more than rhetorical flourish. They really wanted it to happen.
Remember when the Obama DOJ went after GOP rising star Bob McDonnell? Only to have the SCOTUS overturn that conviction?

Remember when Xiden, Obama and the Obamagate gang colluded in the Oval Office to undermine the Trump admin, and go after Flynn? Only to finally have the Brady evidence released that exonerated him?

Yeah...I could go on....
You could try and fail. There was no exoneration of Flynn. Only corrupt politicians covering their asses.
Conservatives love to say they were exonerated even when they get off only due to a technicality.

You see, that's exactly what Oliver North said in 1990 when he got off on a technicality after being convicted the year before on 3 felony counts for his part in the Iran Contra scandal. I remember it specifically because someone stuck a microphone in his face and he used the word 'exonerated' to describe what happened when the appeals court vacated his conviction. Frankly, at the very least, I think he should have been convicted of a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the overturned verdict. At least that could be called justice.

The story is told below in an excerpt from Wikipedia

[North was indicted in March 1988 on 16 felony counts. His trial opened in February 1989, and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and ordering the destruction of documents through his secretary, Fawn Hall. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in southeast Washington, DC. However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.]
well the technically being, he didn’t violate the law
He did. He very much did. The DoJ’s pretextual argument was that he lied but the question didn’t need to be asked in the first place.

It was an absurd statement.
no the doj said even if he did lie, it wasn’t a violation because it wouldn’t of been a material fact since they already said the call was legit..there was no bases to even interview him.

Hence, they never said he lied, but even if he did it wasn’t a crime.

thus he was exonerated once we saw the brady evidence
The Trump crony at the DoJ who had nothing to do with the investigation made up an excuse for him.

Any high ranking official who is lying to their superiors about contact with foreign officials is subject to questioning. That should be obvious. The logic in the DoJ case was strained and ignored highly relevant details.
the DOJ is made up career officials

they merely reviewed the brady even de that they mueller team was hiding for so long
Some of the DoJ are career officials.

The one that made up excuses for Flynn was a Barr crony who was appointed, not a career prosecutor.

The career prosecutor resigned from the case and refused to sign on.
what excuses? did you read it? it simply applied the law.

we know from the brady material that the obama fbi said the call was legit.

if the call was legit nothing he would have lied about would have been material hence no crime
It was loaded with excuses and yes, I did read it. Nothing about the “Brady material” had anything to do with their shoddy reasoning. The entire brief was pretextual reaching because they wanted Flynn to get off easy. That’s why the judge called it out as nonsense and sought other opinions, which further excoriated the supposed document.

It didn’t simply apply the law. It twisted reality (and in one case falsified documents) to support itself.
be specific on the excuses what was shoddy about the reasoning!

what did it twisted?
They misapplied the definition of material. They pretended like his statements could only be material to his specific interaction with the specific investigation into himself.

But it was part of a larger counter intelligence investigation, not just an investigation into a phone call with Flynn.
how was it misapplied? what defination, and what was the materiality.

What did he say that not material? Why ask about the call at all if they already determined the call was legit? A counter intelligence probe isn't a criminal probe....so even then it couldn't of been a crime.
I literally already said, not sure why you want me to say it again. They argued that it couldn't be material because Flynn shouldn't have been under investigation, neglecting that plenty of others were under investigation too.

And, the statute about lying to the FBI doesn't specify criminal probes. It says that it merely has to be a part of the jurisdiction of the government. That would include counterintelligence.

Read 18 USC 1001 yourself. Nothing about a criminal matter.

yeah they had no business investigating the call, since the call had been invetigated and it was legit.

We know the motives, based on the Brady evidence was simply to disrupt the incoming admin.

He couldn't of lied about a material fact related to the call...because the call was legit. The call was no longer under investigation...hence why the charge about lying about it, was BS

I have
Well that's not true. There was an ongoing investigation into Russia meddling with the 2016 election. Monitoring that call was part of it.

And when questioned by the FBI about that call, Flynn lied to them. That's a crime for which Flynn was charged and then later pleaded guilty in front of a judge and then after that, reaffirmed his guilt in front of another judge.

And regardless of the DoJ's attempts to get the case dismissed, they failed to do so. At the time Flynn accepted his pardon, the judge on the case had still not dismissed it.

Flynn was not exonerated ... he was forgiven.
cool...and they did...and found the call to be legit

there was no baes to ask about the call...but since the call was legit nothing he even could have lied about was material to the russian investigation.

read what he was charged with..read the indictment. What they said he lied about couldn’t if been material since we know they concluded the call was legit

it was a witch-hunt lead by the obamagate gang.
It matters not that the call was legit. Flynn wasn't charged for having a conversation with a Russian ambassador. He was charged with lying to the FBI about what he said during that call. And that is a crime and he did plead guilty. That makes him a convicted felon. And that was his status when he accepted a pardon from the President. That's not being exonerated.

You've not posted anything to counter that.
sorry it’s not a crow when it’s not a material fact and when the call is legit, nothing he could have lied about was material to it

he plead and withdrew his plea

thousand is of innocent people have plead to something that they were not guilty of.

thankfully he with drew his plea for new attorneys that pushed for the brady evidence that cleared him...the mueller team was rang in, and the DOJ moved to dismiss the charge
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top