US vs Flynn

[iceberg]

great. why? and if this is all he was out to do, how do we go from removing her e-mail address to destroying the drive it sat on?

Not sure what you mean. These are different issues with pretty clear explanations for each

what happened in the end was FAR MORE than simply removing her e-mail address.

so - first things first - why would we need to remove her e-mail address if we're simply turning this over to a senate committee?

What was “far more”?

At that time, they were turning email over to the State Dept, it was a response to an official request from state. They wanted to obscure the email address presumably to hide the fact that she was using her own account which at the time I don’t believe was publicly known. I think it predates the N.Y. Times story that broke the issue. Anyway, the address was not obscured. The thing you’re upset about didn’t even happen.

it's not hard to copy the mailbox to a portable device and go "here".
for hillary this took MONTHS and in this time, combetta was asking all this "how do i destroy XYZ" in reddit. and the only reason they were asking for the mails is BECAUSE they found out about her server. so your "reason" here isn't lining up with when things happened.

they found out.
they asked for mail
obama passed law saying "no more"
hillary turns in 300 printed pages
combetta out in the wild asking how to destroy evidence / alter and strip headers of "very important people"

AND - why is she hiding if she's not going anything wrong?

and i care because they asked. GIVE ME YOUR DATA - "hold on i have to remove / delete stuff" simply isn't a good thing to happen back to back.

period.

Well, State Dept found out about the server. Not the public. Not the committee at that time. Clinton was asked for her work related emails in October. They provided 50k plus to State less than 2 months later. Turning in paper copies is routine in the archaic system at the State Dept. Although I have little problem saying that Clinton isn’t terribly found of transparency and were not going to do the Republican committee investigating her for the 8th time any additional assistance beyond the bare minimum of what was requested.

Saying Combetta was asking how to destroy evidence is a mischaracterization.

You need to be more specific when you say “they” because I can’t tell who you’re referring to.

who whole premise is - she didn't feel she was doing anything wrong by having her own server. now if doing nothing wrong, why is she hiding this address? and would stripping out the e-mail address be legal in altering potential evidence?

i can't address "routine" as the digital age has presented its own challenges through time that we're still learning the rules of engagement for.

so my premise and belief is that anyone she was dealing with should already have known of her private email address. now that it's getting "wider" in its use and depth, from your own data it took almost 2 months to turn over the data. paper copies were not requested and in my mind it was simply a stall tactic. i'm not sure how we define "Routine" in this instance but i'll table that for now.

so - in any event we do seem to agree that she sought to alter evidence before turning it over. now - why did she want to do that? i won't speculate your answer, that isn't fair to you. but i do feel it's a valid question at this point still.

I’ve answered your question. I’ve also described your statement as “altering evidence” as being a misrepresentation. I speculate that Combetta sought to expunge references to her actual email address from the email trove as a means obscure the use of her private server.

You answered the first part.

But my question is, if she thought this was OK, as she has stated, why hide it?

And removing her name is in fact altering the evidence. I've never known a potential defendent to be able to determine what was needed to investigate them properly before.

I still don't.

She may have felt that use of the server was permissible, legally speaking. Doesn’t mean she wants the details of the server made public. She wanted to run for president and didn’t want the adverse public perception.

It wasn’t “evidence“. She wasn’t subpoenaed. This was a response to a formal request from the state department. She wasn’t a defendant.

so it was important enough to
1. request all the work related info of of it
but
2. not important enough to ensure she didn't get to pick and choose what that was

important enough that
1. everyone knew about it
but
2. she didn't want anyone to know about it

it was only personal data she's removing but
1. yoga and wedding plans is all her personal stuff is
but
2. she wants her e-mail stripped off of it so she's not associated with it

so at this point i feel i've pointed out (3) contradictions in this "nothing to see here" stance you are taking. so i'll ask now -

if trump did this do you still show the same level of "rage", or lack thereof?

I don't think you're accurately characterizing what I've said, and you're "contradictions" aren't exactly contradictions. Your statements are a bit vague, so I'll do my best.

1. It was important for the State Dept to have the records of her emails. They asked her to submit her records as they would anyone else, as they did with the other former secretaries of state, including Powell. You may find it nefarious that she was able to determine what records she felt were work related (in this case her lawyer did it but you get the jist) but that's exactly how it works.

2. "Everyone" didn't know about it. Some people did, some people didn't. It goes without saying the fact that her server was used exclusively for email was not public knowledge until later.

3. I don't really even understand this point. Someone wanted her email stripped out so that it wasn't super obvious that it was all done on her private server. I don't know what that has to do with her private emails.

Since you drug Trump into this, let's compare.

Let's hypothesize that Clinton and the State Dept refused to comply with any subpoena of records to the Congressional committees investigating. Let's say Clinton refused to testify and Obama forbade anyone from testifying to these committees? That would be consistent with what Trump has done. I can only imagine how you would have felt about that.

Less than hypothetical, let's say that Trump has a habit of destroying memos and papers that are part of presidential records. Yeah, he's done that. Let's say people in the Trump administration use unofficial communication methods to converse with public officials. Not the end of the world, sure. But guess what? Those people choose what to submit as official records. No one is launching FBI investigations into that, are they?

whether i agree or not, i do think this has been one of the more balanced discussions on a usually hot topic.

it is my opinion that when asked for work mail, the measures we've discussed are shaded to hiding something. but yes, when i say that it sounds like someone talking about trump also. fair is fair and i do believe you've tried to keep it that way while i've drifted a bit.

the final trump comparison - as far as i know, no one has asked for records and he deleted or destroyed them. its hard to say his habit of destroying this is any different than anyone before him and i'd likely not care UNLESS he was told "bring this in" and he went and selected what THIS was vs. turning it all over in the interest of transparancy.

i don't think we're ever going to agree on this but this is one of the better counters i've had. appreciated.

 

[lennypartiv]

One thing that's been great about the Flynn case...it's brought out tons of info about the coup attempt against president Trump.

I never thought the Deep State would turn against America. Good guys win in the end, Trump was exonerated, Flynn and others will be pardoned.

 

[Thunk]

One thing that's been great about the Flynn case...it's brought out tons of info about the coup attempt against president Trump.

I never thought the Deep State would turn against America. Good guys win in the end, Trump was exonerated, Flynn and others will be pardoned.

You don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

There is a good chance (I can't prove it) that they released this virus because IMPEACHMENT had failed!

The timing was perfect!

 

[iceberg]

One thing that's been great about the Flynn case...it's brought out tons of info about the coup attempt against president Trump.

I never thought the Deep State would turn against America. Good guys win in the end, Trump was exonerated, Flynn and others will be pardoned.

You don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

There is a good chance (I can't prove it) that they released this virus because IMPEACHMENT had failed!

The timing was perfect!

So the dems killed people on a global basis because... Trump?

 

[westwall]

One thing that's been great about the Flynn case...it's brought out tons of info about the coup attempt against president Trump.

I never thought the Deep State would turn against America. Good guys win in the end, Trump was exonerated, Flynn and others will be pardoned.

You don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

There is a good chance (I can't prove it) that they released this virus because IMPEACHMENT had failed!

The timing was perfect!

No, that is beyond them, but they certainly have been Johnny on the spot to make the mitigation efforts worse than the disease, and their minions in the media have been propagandizing the shit out of it.

 

[colfax_m]

the final trump comparison - as far as i know, no one has asked for records and he deleted or destroyed them. its hard to say his habit of destroying this is any different than anyone before him and i'd likely not care UNLESS he was told "bring this in" and he went and selected what THIS was vs. turning it all over in the interest of transparancy.

No one has to ask for Trump's records. He's required to keep them by statute, called the presidential records act passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

And even if someone did ask Trump for his records, based on his prior history, he would tell them to screw off. Imagine if Obama and Clinton had refused to cooperate with the Benghazi committee or any other investigation into the attack on the consulate. Heads would have exploded.

 

[easyt65]

Thank you, DOJ, for providing more evidence that Barry and his criminal administration made 'WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE' a criminal trademark of their il;legal investigations and FISA Court Abuses:

"The Justice Department said Friday it has provided former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s lawyers with several documents unearthed in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, indicating the agency may believe exculpatory evidence was not handed over before Flynn pleaded guilty."

DOJ gives Flynn’s attorneys documents uncovered in review

The Justice Department said Friday it has provided former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s lawyers with several documents unearthed in a review ordered by Attorney General William Barr, in…

thehill.com

FLYNN should not be the one going to jail.

 

[iceberg]

the final trump comparison - as far as i know, no one has asked for records and he deleted or destroyed them. its hard to say his habit of destroying this is any different than anyone before him and i'd likely not care UNLESS he was told "bring this in" and he went and selected what THIS was vs. turning it all over in the interest of transparancy.

No one has to ask for Trump's records. He's required to keep them by statute, called the presidential records act passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

And even if someone did ask Trump for his records, based on his prior history, he would tell them to screw off. Imagine if Obama and Clinton had refused to cooperate with the Benghazi committee or any other investigation into the attack on the consulate. Heads would have exploded.

well hillary was required to ensure her gov e-mail address was CC'd as well.

understand i'm not saying it's right and i'm not actually trying to sell you either viewpoint. but if we let one side get away with things the other will too in a "hold my beer" fashion. that's not left or right, it's human nature.

as for YOU COMPLY NO YOU COMPLY - again, when we make a mockery of the underlying system (and we have on all sides) no one will respect it. no one respects, it they do what they want to do. until we start enforcing laws evenly and w/o excuses of I HATE HIM and the emotional baggage crap we have today, this is the best we can hope for.

 

[Thunk]

So the dems killed people on a global basis because... Trump?

Do you find that so hard to believe?

Just listen to them! They tell you in their own words! They call for physical attacks on Trump supporters...and those attacks happen on a regular basis!

Elected officials say if they catch the virus they are going to go to a Trump rally and infect as many as possible...kamala harris calling for THE HUNTING DOWN of Trump supporters.

They don't hide who they really are...just listen to them.

 

[iceberg]

So the dems killed people on a global basis because... Trump?

Do you find that so hard to believe?

Just listen to them! They tell you in their own words! They call for physical attacks on Trump supporters...and those attacks happen on a regular basis!

Elected officials say if they catch the virus they are going to go to a Trump rally and infect as many as possible...kamala harris calling for THE HUNTING DOWN of Trump supporters.

They don't hide who they really are...just listen to them.

I find it fucking ignorant the Italians shut down because.. Trump.

 

[iceberg]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

he admits he got away with going around protocol. he just sent people over and went around the system and Flynn didn't even know why they were coming over - so it was it anything even "official" at this point? not even say "you need to have a lawyer present"?

just keep in mind that once we allow this, it now becomes fair game for all.

 

[Cellblock2429]

US V Flynn | PDF | Prosecutor | Social Institutions

Supp Motion to Dismiss

www.scribd.com

Evidence out now Flynn was pressured.

Popcorn time.

/----/ BREAKING: Justice Dept drops charges against Gen Flynn - CNBC

 

[iceberg]

US V Flynn | PDF | Prosecutor | Social Institutions

Supp Motion to Dismiss

www.scribd.com

Evidence out now Flynn was pressured.

Popcorn time.

/----/ BREAKING: Justice Dept drops charges against Gen Flynn - CNBC

well won't that fuck up someones day.

 

[iceberg]

U.S. dropping criminal case against ex-Trump adviser Flynn: AP

The U.S. Justice Department is dropping the criminal case against Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, The Associated Press reported on Thursday, citing a court filing.

www.reuters.com

but but but ... HE LIED GOD DAMN IT HE LIED!!!

 

[easyt65]

but but but ... HE LIED GOD DAMN IT HE LIED!!!

That's the story....not according to the Field Agents who were there when Flynn was interrogated....

 

[basquebromance]

this was an investigation in search of a crime, my friends. that should terrify americans

 

[iceberg]

but but but ... HE LIED GOD DAMN IT HE LIED!!!

That's the story....not according to the Field Agents who were there when Flynn was interrogated....

hey - i'm just saying what our favorite extreme leftist people are going to say.

you know it's coming. i'm just greasing the wheels.

 

[Levant]

Hopefully iceberg can now start a thread titled Flynn vs. US as Flynn sues the FBI and DOJ and Obama.

 

[iceberg]

Hopefully iceberg can now start a thread titled Flynn vs. US as Flynn sues the FBI and DOJ and Obama.

hey - if it happens, it happens. >g<

 

[jc456]

U.S. dropping criminal case against ex-Trump adviser Flynn: AP

The U.S. Justice Department is dropping the criminal case against Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, The Associated Press reported on Thursday, citing a court filing.

www.reuters.com

but but but ... HE LIED GOD DAMN IT HE LIED!!!

all the money that dude lost, including property and his honor. wow, can you say suit?