daz28

Again back to square one. He was dictating the Russian response. No one said he removed anything. You love circles don't you.

Yes, I'll admit there's a lot of projection. People go broke defending themselves all the time. If there was truly the injustice that some of you believe, then I hope it's uncovered. Let's not forget he's not the first guy to accept a plea, because he couldn't afford to defend himself properly. Unfortunately, that is the American way.

Well, it sounds like he was telling them he didn't say anything about doing anything, when he in fact did ask for things. Quit with the sanctions semantics. We're past that

The call and announcing of sanctions are both dated Dec 29, 2016. Obama's sanctions came 1 day sooner, and I'm guessing he knew about them before that. You might want to look up the word effect.

I was just pointing out that this is why we have appeals courts.

I was only referencing their findings on election interference.

I don't think he should have attempted to effect a policy that was just put in place. I understand why he did, but I think he should have waited.

Even if everything you say is true, and I know you believe it to be, I still feel he has to take responsibility for his own plea. If he had bad lawyers, bad judges, and bad evidence, he has to have faith in his own appeal. If I was in his shoes, I'd be upset, but in the end my plea is my plea Actually I got it from this, and it sounds much like what an expert would say in court: Henry added: “There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the — what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we’d seen associated with the Russian state.” https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/11/new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-dnc/ Sorry your reply has my name to it Reality Check. I screwed that up

Again, thanks for an honest, well thought out post. I never said the election was hacked, so that's your use of vague terminology. As for who did hack the server, they don't know it as fact, but all signs point to Russia. I also feel there's a difference between a country like Russia disseminating information about our election, and information obtained from Russian sources. Not a huge one, but def a difference. Even if that info isn't true, candidates lie about each other every hour on the hour.

I really don't buy that an agent's "demeanor" would effect whether I am guilty or not. If his lawyers did that, I'm sure he'll have a very wealthy future after he sues them. As for his son bringing the 4 year old into it, well isn't it just as likely he says they threatened him as it is he's trying to get his dad off the hook now.

Let's just get to the meat and potatoes. He willingly admitted that he did what he was accused of then changed it to, “I tried to ‘accept responsibility’ by admitting to offenses I understood the government I love and trusted said I committed,” . So he was taking their word for it??? Why didn't he just say he was coerced, because they threatened his family? Thank you for an honest answer, but interference doesn't necessarily have to mean that votes were changed. If they hack one party to expose things that sway voters, I'd consider that interference as well. That's just one example, too

Maybe he forgot what he told the FBI too? That's a real shame because you were so enlightening.

That's a truly fine rebuttal. I can see why people think you're a genius. Try this on for size Einstein. Other than DEEP STATE SUX, what is wrong with the FBI having info on someone, and trying to get them to lie about it? Cops do it ALL DAY LONG. The FBI doesn't record conversations, but they knew they had him dead to rights if he didn't admit it. Once he knew what they knew after his interview, he up and said, "you got me". He pleaded guilty. Not because of the deep state, or that they threatened his family. He pleaded guilty because he knew what he told them was not what matched the facts. I don't care if the agents didn't "think" he was lying.

What does "Don't do anything" mean? Would asking not to get into an escalation be considered something?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but this is a fair question, yes or no, do you believe that there was Russian interference in the election? Please don't take the easy way out, and say there's always interference in elections. So he tried to conceal it from Pence and everyone else, but not Mueller? C'mon now

These expulsions: “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said during a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS “Face the Nation.

I think Flynn lied, you don't. We'll have to agree to disagree. I gave you the quotes of the lie. As I said, I'm not gonna go round and round about the same thing over and over. Maybe they are swampy, but all they did was agree with what everyone else found: Tuesday’s report falls in line with a January 2017 assessment produced by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and others. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/21/senate-intelligence-committee-affirms-russian-inte/

Do you know more than the Senate intel committee? Is that what you're claiming?

I'm not going to run in circles with you

I didn't deny that. If I did would you kindly show me where?

Look I get that you're trying to tie the lie to the bigger picture, and again that's certainly debatable, too. All I'm saying is that trying to change the semantics of the lie doesn't change the lie

You couldn't have worded this as any more of an assumption than you just did, so kudos for that. I can just as easily reverse it, and say why are you so hell bent on letting Russian election interference slide. As I said, the reasoning why he did what he did is up for debate, but that's for another day. How you snuck China in there is a real head scratcher.

You can't spin direct quotes, but you can misinterpret them, which is what you did. He word for word asked to refrain from escalation. I don't care if you want to try to redefine words to suit your narrative.

I gave you a link to the whole transcript. Not leaning partisan, just following the facts. Partisan would be to ignore them. Or worse yet use semantics to alter them.

Try again: 'The President’s authority to exercise power begins immediately upon being sworn into office and continues until he is no longer the officeholder' https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34722.pdf