WideNine

Allen with the options and draws and NO Sweeps. Thank you Daboll

Yet that weak hold on the interior was called to nullify a TD.... head scratcher.

Wallace playing tighter.... needs to or his is going to be picked on every game.

I think that is only Everett's 2nd catch this year.... they are digging into their personnel packages. That just looked like a hold on our DL on that pass Goff turfed.... no call.

I thought he could develop into a good guard given time, especially when the Bills went out and hired Bobby Johnson. Not sure if developing interior linemen is Beane's philosophy. He seems more inclined to find passable free agents with a few miles of experience that are affordable to fill the depth chart. Was honestly very surprised by the Ford pick... first that he was so high on their board, and second by going after that pick early they were committing to his development. I am not knocking Ford, he was a man amongst boys in college, I only thought he would struggle with his lateral movement and pulls needed at an NFL level to be effective in pass pro and pulling. I always think that young players can improve their craft, just that the Bills are going to have to show more patience with him than they did Teller. I am glad for Teller and am pulling for Ford to make me eat my words:)

Thought the same thing with all the qualififying * after the Bills wins. I was thinking the Phins were a scrappy team that could hang with a lot of teams if Fitz played Iike he did against us and boom, they thrash the Jags. Goes to show that there is too much focus on the w/l column and not enough real sports effort to watch teams and have an informed evaluation. On to the Rams.

Context is important. My point was that the history of FARA infractions show that convictions are rarely enforceable even where warranted. Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court. If he did that, he would have had options to appeal if he lost in court. By agreeing to all the charges levied against him, Flynn created the current cluster and appellate consternation with Barr's reversal efforts. I am speaking purely of legal strategy, not vague things like right or wrongness of actions or politicians. Mueller clearly was applying leverage on Flynn (that Flynn conveniently provided by lying) to see if there were any connections he had that were germane to their investigation of Russian meddling. This is a common tactic from law enforcement. You go after the little fish with leverage to see if it leads to bigger fish and it has been used to great effect against organized crime and it can work when dismantling Russian influence campaigns as well. You are trying to connect the dots to see where they lead and determine if anyone has been compromised to a degree where they need to be exposed/removed from a role at a minimum, or sentenced in court. This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again. Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack so parroting Don's political witch hunt nonsense is more than a bit ridiculous when the both sides of the isle wanted to see that Mueller report. The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks, or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation. On the flip side the politicians in the GOP camp wanted the report so they could downplay the Russian meddling and influence on the election and clear their President and party of any perception of impropriety. Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down. It is just how everyone wants to interpret the impact of the findings post mortem. Back to Mueller: He did not feel there were any connections from Flynn that were germane to the Russian meddling investigation he was charged with pursuing and that Flynn cooperated with the probe. Mueller asked for leniency from the court for the charges levied against Flynn in the plea deal - those were my reasons for saying I think he should have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Not that Flynn didn't do the things he swore he did under oath, just that he cooperated and deserved leniency.

OK here is an actual excerpt from the call discussing the sanction actions of the US expelling a number of Russians from US Embassies and the very thing Flynn was not honest about with Mike Pence. Trump knew this, and fired him not because, in Trumps world of squishy rules, the call was inappropriate, but rather because he lied to Mike Pence about the call having happened. As you know, I don't like to just follow someone else's interpretation of a document - especially not left-leaning CNN or right-leaning Fox and politicians or political media hacks....need I go there? Transcript: Flynn: "Do not allow this (Obama) administration to box us in right now! Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly. Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff (Russian election meddling), where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me? Kislyak says he understands what Flynn is saying, but Flynn might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow. Flynn: I know! Believe me I do! I very much appreciate it! But I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East. Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question. Flynn says, yes. Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand. Flynn repeats asking to reciprocate moderately because if Moscow sends out 60 people, "you will shut down the embassy. " Flynn: Let's keep this at even-kill level; then when we come in, we will have a better conversation where we are going to go regarding our relationship. And also, basically, we have to take these enemies on that we have. So YES, he did discuss the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration: Lets use The Way-Back Machine back to when Trump decided to take action because of the calls and likely the same transcript: A defiant President Donald Trump on Thursday insisted that he asked Michael Flynn to resign because of Flynn’s statements to Vice President Mike Pence. The president also denied that he told his key national security advisor to discuss sanctions with a Russian official. “He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that’s just not acceptable,” Trump told reporters at the White House at his first solo news conference as chief executive. “I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence.” Trump added that he had no problem with Flynn making the calls because he was “doing his job.” Flynn resigned Monday as national security advisor following revelations that he made contradictory statements to Pence about whether he discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Pence went on record saying the sanctions were not discussed. However, when press secretary Sean Spicer later said that the White House was warned on Jan. 26 that Flynn may have misled Pence, it raised questions about why it took more than two weeks for him to resign. The sanctions were imposed by President Barack Obama after an intelligence report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directed Moscow’s efforts to sabotage the 2016 election. Trump defended his administration’s handling of the situation, instead blaming media outlets and the officials who leaked details of Flynn’s calls to them. Trump appeared to contradict himself by calling the leaked information “real” and the reporting “fake.” There is no doubt that Flynn lied to investigators and to Team Trump about his back-channel communications with the Russian ambassador. Those communications, when taken as a whole, were laying the groundwork to reverse the policies of the administration that was currently in charge of setting policy in Washington. It was the lying that got Flynn into hot water with both Trump and investigators. He did not need to cover his tracks, I don't think there is a law about discussing foreign policy like he did, but it is probably improper for someone to undermine current policy before a US leadership transition. My only guess is that he was still angry at the Obama administration, felt we could effectively partner with Russia on some things in the Middle East, and panicked then lied to Trump and Pence when they were made aware of the embarrassing effort to undermine the Obama administrations reparations against Russia for their literally proven election interference efforts. On a side note: As to Hillary's and the DNC's emails, never liked the Clintons and think the DNC shot themselves in the foot with their shenanigans and gave Russian hackers great material to hand over to Wikileaks prior to the election. If they had acted more appropriately there would have been nothing to release. Does not excuse the Russian efforts, but makes for a more complete conversation.

The post has flair for the dramatic. www.sigar.mil/pdf/spotlight/SIGAR_setting-the-record-straight-on-the-afghanistan-papers.pdf I happen to agree with most of the SIGAR assessments critical of the waste of efforts in Afghanistan. We suck at nation building..and although we excel at winning wars we have no idea how to extract ourselves afterwards. Do we bail and leave an ISIS-sized hole, do we stick around and try to turn a murderous, backwards, tribal country with war lords, rampant corruption, little to no education or infrastructure, no effective security force into little funtional democracies??? What a joke. Neither the Bush, Obama, or Trump administrations have figured out a clean way but our troop count over there has been gradually dropping. I don't recall any rosey assessments of progress being made in Afghanistan just a quagmire we were stuck policing. I already stated that what Flynn did was not prosecution worthy IMO, but I do not believe his work with Turkey was an Op, or that he should have taken money from Russia's RT propaganda outfit. Just poor maybe bitter choices that are not part of the hero mythos. I don't believe that Flynn had any real dirt on Russia's efforts to meddle in the Trump campaign, but understand why he would be interviewed. His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

1. Manafort was not charged with similar infractions rather the one-time Trump campaign chairmsn was found guilty of 5 counts of filing false tax returns, 2 counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. What manufactured evidence? Several individuals close to the Trump campaign have been found guilty in courts of law. If you are referring to not liking the FISA warrants used to gather the evidence then that's another conversation. Mueller actually asked for leniency for Flynn because he was cooperating. William Barr has a long history of burying DC sins...going back to Iran Contra. He's perfect for Trump's DOJ. Mueller also found evidence of 14 other crimes that were not part of the scope of his investigation into Russian meddling. One was an Obama associate and one had ties to Clinton, another turned out to be Michael Cohen. These were referred to the DOJ and FBI for follow-up. In the heavily redacted Mueller report he indicated that the only reason there was not direct evidence of obstruction by Trump (which is a crime) was that his aides refused to carry out his orders. What a dumpster fire of an administration.

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information... The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot? There has been a concerted effort to better enforce the FARA, but to date the language is not written in a way that lawyers cannot run circles around it. And the government has not had a lot of success prosecuting FARA breaches. I think the FARA has to be better written to allow it to be enforceable if the US is going to be able to limit illegitimate foreign lobbying efforts and money used to sway US foreign policy. Exerps from the Flynn "retroactively" registered FARA in question: "As you know, under FARA, a U.S. firm that represents a foreign corporate client, which is not a foreign government or political party, may register under the LDA rather than FARA, so long as the firm engages in (assumed corporate) lobbying activities for its client. Flynn Intel Group concluded that because its client was a foreign corporation and the services provided included lobbying activities, it could file under the LDA. The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed This is an uncertain standard, not based on the statutory language, and not defined in the Department's regulations. Nevertheless, because of the subject matter of Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo BV, which focused on Mr. Fethullah Gulen, whose extradition is sought by the Government of Turkey, the engagement could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey. To eliminate any potential doubt, the Flynn Intel Group therefore is electing to file a registration under FARA, in lieu of its prior LDA registration. Because this is a retroactive registration, compiled after the Flynn Intel Group...." Seriously, he is some kind of hero or victim when collecting money and working with that Ankara regime? Because he is able to wiggle out of the obvious FARA conflicts of interests by obfuscating the loose FARA/LDA regulation language? Folks don't read and admittedly tweets are easier reading than these documents and submissions. So I can go with not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn, but not that Flynn is not guilty of doing what he and his business partners were doing for Ankara and how they likely knowingly (this is the problem with FARA enforcement) hid that relationship by improperly filing it as an LDA which allowed Flynn to maintain the security clearence he had.

Sidney Powell I believe that is the lawyer representing Flynn right? That's his lawyer doing a good job as she should spreading a bit of doubt and conspiracy. Flynn is not a saint, he is just doing what ex-political appointees do, trying to capitalize on his contacts to make money and to gain positions of influence. He brokered this deal to shield himself from misrepresenting his prior dealings with Turkey and I read somewhere that the FBI may have been leaning on him and had some dirt on his son - seems a common pressure tactic. Regardless, he did plead guilty to lying about working as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russia's ambassador regarding sanctions that were currently imposed on Russia and lying on documents regarding that activity. There has been a lot of focus on the FBI's sloppy procedural efforts when looking into the Russian influence efforts targeting the Trump campaign, but I find that a bit disingenuous when it comes to whether someone was doing something wrong. If I was embezzling funds from a charity, I could scream about the investigation into my activities being carried out improperly, that does say anything about the merit of whether or not I was guilty of embezzling the money. Sure murderers and crooks can get off on procedural issues or technicalities, but that does not mean that they were not guilty. Just that the prosecution and/or investigation was too sloppy to make it stick. Procedural issues can certainly be used to push for an appeal and maybe even get off Scott free, but only if Flynn had decided to plead not guilty and fight the charges in court. Not if he took a plea deal and had the court enter a guilty plea. This is what has the Federal courts undees in a bunch. Back in December 2017, Flynn offered no objection to prosecutors’ description of the series of falsehoods he told the FBI. Indeed, he sounded unequivocal (link to transcript of court proceeding - it is a good read) that he had indeed violated the law. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Flynn, now that you've read the written statement of facts, you've heard the government's oral presentation, are there any corrections or errors that you need that you need to point out? THE DEFENDANT: Nothing that I heard, Your Honor, no. THE COURT: Or that you read? THE DEFENDANT: Or that I read. THE COURT: Is that factual summary true and correct? THE DEFENDANT: It is. The COURT: “Are you entering this plea of guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason?” U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras asked at the time. THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, Your Honor,” I encourage folks to read through the actual court report... attacking the justification seems to be a smart legal tactic of Barr and the DOJ - However, both sides of the isle seem to agree that Russia meddled a lot and that we needed to do something about it and privately they wanted to know who the Russians were trying to leverage and how - hence the need to investigate. Publicly, the GOP felt it would be damning to Trump to note how many people around him were one person removed from Russians and the politically had to downplay it. So we have kind of a bi-polar response to the meddling investigations and conclusions. The Flynn recast of "being fired" by Obama: Flynn’s own explanation of his “firing” has been that he was ousted by Obama himself and Obama political appointees because of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. In this narrative, he was a “lone voice” fighting against a negligent defense and intelligence establishment. In contrast, external sources present a different story, that Flynn was a loose cannon, unable to give and take direction effectively.

A big ol' nothing burger for all that digging and I have to think they dug hard, and all they have is retread material on Hunter and nothing on Joe, because I really don't think there is anything to find. Hunter was already chided by a Congressional oversight committee back in 2019 and was cautioned by Obama admin about providing the appearance of a "potential conflict of interest" so that was water well under the bridge. As in already reported on and dug into and did not have to fill up a dossier. Then a whole bunch of muck-raking of Hunter Biden's business dealings that even if there was proof of wrongdoing (none given) then it yet has little to do with Joe Biden as a presidential candidate and is a waste of Congressional dollars. I personally think that Hunter Biden is a weasel and feel the same way about Trump's sons and daughters. But at least I don't think I ever saw Hunter acting as some kind of private State Dept for the White House like you see with Kushner and it is not like he has not made a lot of money off of his WH connections. I would not be surprised if there was dirt on all of these children of political figures that know how to leverage either the idea or real DC connections to secure lucrative consulting gigs. Although the Republican report cites George Kent as one of the State Department officials who found Hunter Biden’s role awkward, Kent testified during the House impeachment hearings that Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Asked if there was any factual basis to support allegations against Biden, Kent replied: “None whatsoever.” He also testified that he didn’t witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny and said it’s “a fair assessment” that Biden was fighting corruption in Ukraine and Trump wasn’t. Well on to what started this ball rolling: Guiliani's and Parnas's work in Ukraine to dig dirt on Bidens: Well, we all know how this Jerry Springer-like debacle of a partnership has unfolded with Rudy clumsily trying to get Kompromat on Joe Biden thru his son: Lev Parnas interview: “So in the interest of telling the truth, did Rudy Giuliani know for a fact that Andrii [Derkach] was a Russian agent and working on behalf of the Russian government in his dealings with him in getting information about Joe Biden?” Capehart asked. “I mean, it’s impossible for him not to (I happen to think it is possible that Rudy was this dumb in pursuit of his interests and goals in Ukraine) ,” Parnas replied. “I mean, I — before we came on I Googled just for curiosity, a simple child can Google, and the first thing that comes up is actually a Washington Post article, the murder story involving they call him the Ukrainian Putin and this is news media and you’re talking about from personal experience.” “You remember, I’ve spent the last time with Rudy and Rudy mentioned that he delivered that report in March,” he continued. “Remember, I was part of helping him with that report at the time and helping the president get all that information and all that propaganda against Vice President Joe Biden, so I’m very well aware and he knows that I know that I’m not lying and he knows that I know the truth. And that’s why I think he’s a little bit nervous right now because of what he got himself into.” “Let’s take a step back for a second,” Parnas continued. “He lied to you that he said he hasn’t spoken to President Trump about the meeting. As you recall there was plenty of reporting that Trump himself came out on to the lawn and said that Rudy called him from the plane before the plane landed to tell him he had great news.” “So if that information like Rudy’s been talking about for the past two or three years saying that it’s a bombshell, where is it? What’s going on?” he continued. “It’s a fairy tale, it’s propaganda and like I said from day one, it was all meant for a new cycle to put doubt in Joe Biden because President Trump was always scared of Joe Biden.” Interview below: On to John Solomon and Rudy: We know Solomon is about as right-biased as possible as he has almost been a paid fixture on Hannity's propaganda machine. He has had held many posts for prominent news outlets, but a reputation for shoddy journalism, too much conservative slant, and failing to vet sources from his peers has plagued his career and has forced him out of many roles. There is so much irony in Solomon and Guliani working together to beat this drum when Solomon was a constant Guliani critic when Rudy wanted to run for president, but politics make for strange bed-fellows: One person who worked with Solomon at the Post said they liked Solomon, but found him hard to work with and said that his proposed stories often didn’t pan out. “You just had to say, ‘John, what the *****? You don’t have this thing.’ And he would say ‘OK, alright, I’ll do something else.’” Twelve years later and in the swirl of Trump’s impeachment, Giuliani and Solomon seem to have become almost co-dependent as both men seek to investigate Hunter Biden’s stint on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption allegations in Kyiv. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing, and other reporters have been unable to substantiate the allegations. As Giuliani himself claimed to Glenn Beck in November, he and Solomon had joined forces to turn the Ukraine narrative into a nationwide event. “I said to John, I think you should take the lead and we should put this all in the newspapers because if I go to the Justice Department now, they’re going to say Trump is forcing the Justice Department to do it. Let’s put the darn thing out, and let’s see if any of these crooked media people will follow up on a proven case of bribery.” Solomon’s own lawyers are Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova, who also represent Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who has been fighting his extradition to the United States. In a different interview, Giuliani boasted that he sling-shot Solomon’s Ukraine reporting into the public eye. “I said, ‘John, let’s make this as prominent as possible,’” Giuliani recently told The New Yorker. “‘I’ll go on TV. You go on TV. You do columns.’” He then included Solomon’s columns on Ukraine in a dossier to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who handed them over to the department’s inspector general. Solomon himself contributed to the joint effort by sharing unpublished drafts of his columns with Toensing, diGenova, and Ukrainian-American businessman and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, according to the New York Times. Several witnesses, in sworn congressional testimony during the House’s impeachment inquiry, said that critical reporting on former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch — including Solomon’s — was inaccurate and amounted to an effort to smear a well-regarded, veteran diplomat. The irony of how Solomon and Giuliani’s relationship has changed appears to elude both men.

Certainly possible or probable it is because we are tuned in more to our QB. I just don't recall a qb that seemed to generate the churn of Allen on syndicated sports media shows and publications that has persisted so long. And it is not like he tries to court controversy like Mayfield...he is just working on his craft. Still, it could just be my hightened perception regarding the stale draft analysis narratives and PFF takes that seem to resist revision.

The QB lens is different for Allen than for other QBs and will be till it isn't. He came out of a small program as a raw project. He is polarizing because so many fans of the game have an opinion about him. He's trash and will never get better, he needs to correct this or that, he just needs time, he is what he is and is spinning his wheels, etc. I have never personally seen this level of forensic scrutiny for any QB in the NFL before. I am guilty of the same thing. Allen was very efficient with the ball last year after the NE game. The long ball was the only consistent area off and those made up about 2-3 passes a game. He devoted himself to playing a much more controlled and turnover-free game, leaning on our defense. I think he was still holding the ball too long trying to be sure he was seeing the right thing and making the right throw. This led to the more inaccurate fastballs to his receivers that were off-platform and lacked anticipation. He would also uncork those long balls long and on a rope settling for just backing defenses up. He was so risk-adverse on throws he made them difficult catches for our receivers and safely-impossible catches for defenders. Its all part of his growth mindset. Now he is more confident reading the coverages and can better identify safety help over top. He is letting it rip all over the field with touch and anticipation getting properly set and trusting his eyes and decisions that his receiver is going to have the best odds of hauling it in. He will still have up and down games, but it is clear that he is learning and applying what he has learned.

Peyton say'n Cheaters gotta Cheat..... Somewhere in the Northeast where mics stay on, footballs are squishy, and their cameras may be focused on your sideline.

Sure folks may take it to heart, but most stuff here is tongue and cheek. I am sure most doctors would understand how much visibility and scrutiny their work could have if their patients are in the public eye.

OK... that is a real confidence-builder. Ribs, lungs, close enough:)

On the bright side he does have the number of one of our divisional rivals. Imagine if he only showed up huge when we played a team like the Falcons - right?? Silver lining...glass half full...etc.

Yeah folks need to be real...the Jests are a joke right now and the Phins are a good team but still rebuilding and our defense struggled against them. Most of the rosier outlooks for our Bills this year were largely based on a strong defense keeping an inconsistent offense in games. Our offense has been good, but I understand the cautious perception of these lists if folks think our defense is going to struggle stopping teams. Honestly, it would feel like the universe was setting us up for a fall if the Bills had more hype and were rated a lot higher in these power rankings.

I was looking forward to seeing if Sweeney had progressed this year...then the foot.

I thought Zeke and DeShawn had good runs too. The defender Zeke ran over looked like a dude at the end of a bungee jump.

Our defense did crap the bed against the Fins. No sugar-coating getting over 300 yards hung on you by Fitz and their offense and also blowing the lead. I have noticed that when our defense has taken heat for a poor performance they usually bounce back with a strong game so we will see if they come out looking for some redemption.