DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

I gave you a link to the whole transcript. 

 

 

 

Not leaning partisan, just following the facts.  Partisan would be to ignore them. 

 

You gave the link (which I already linked by the way) only after you claimed that your statement was absolute truth -- when it wasn't. 

 

It was spin and weak spin at that. 

 

******************

 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You gave the link (which I already linked by the way) only after you claimed that your statement was absolute truth -- when it wasn't. 

 

It was spin and weak spin at that. 

 

******************

 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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.

 

Now you're just being purposefully stupid. 

 

He asked to refrain from escalating EXPULSIONS not sanctions. And he asked not to escalate expulsions to preserve the Moscow Embassy's functionality so that the US and Russia could continue to work together to fight ISIS in the ME which was an Obama policy at that moment. 

 

You're wrong. You're trying to spin and redefine the truth because your cognitive dissonance is hurting your brain. You've been lied to for so long on this matter that you're now refusing to see the truth when it's right in front of you. 

 

Do better. 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

Why is it so important to you that we have an escalating conflict with Russia? I can see why a Chinese loyalist would like to see that, but not from an American. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Why is it so important to you that we have an escalating conflict with Russia? I can see why a Chinese loyalist would like to see that, but not from an American. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster.

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.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

As I said, the reasoning why he did what he did is up for debate, but that's for another day.  

 

That statement alone shows your complete ignorance of what this has always been about. 

 

It was an attempted coup. Led by the CIA and the outgoing administration, designed to overthrow a legally elected president because they disagreed with whom the American people voted for. They worked to SUBVERT our republic and democracy, not support it. 

 

And to do so, they made up a story about Russians doing what they themselves actually did. 

 

They lied to you for three + years. That is undeniable at this point. 

 

Yet you're still denying it. 

 

Ask yourself why. 

[Reality Check]

Just now, daz28 said:

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.  

Remind me again, which Russians interfered in our elections? Any names? Last I checked, dozens of countries run propaganda programs in the US to influence policy, and they spend billions doing it. You aren't a big picture guy at all.

 

Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS.

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

...

Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS.

 

And that operation (to oust Flynn) started in 2014 -- two years before any "Russian interference", let alone any Trump candidacy. 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That statement alone shows your complete ignorance of what this has always been about. 

 

It was an attempted coup. Led by the CIA and the outgoing administration, designed to overthrow a legally elected president because they disagreed with whom the American people voted for. They worked to SUBVERT our republic and democracy, not support it. 

 

And to do so, they made up a story about Russians doing what they themselves actually did. 

 

They lied to you for three + years. That is undeniable at this point. 

 

Yet you're still denying it. 

 

Ask yourself why. 

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

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

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

 

What lie are you talking about? 

Just now, daz28 said:

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

 

53 minutes ago, daz28 said:

“I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth".    That is literally what “refrain from escalating” means. 

 

Keep the echo chamber going though.

 

"Keep the echo chamber going then" 

[daz28]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What lie are you talking about? 

I'm not going to run in circles with you

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

I'm not going to run in circles with you

 

You're not. You're being purposefully dishonest now. I have no idea what lie you're referencing. 

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And that operation (to oust Flynn) started in 2014 -- two years before any "Russian interference", let alone any Trump candidacy. 

Exactly. That is when the surveillance started, especially since Obama was trying to get tight with the Iranians at that time.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

 

This is a nonsense post. Hence me asking you to clarify it. 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Remind me again, which Russians interfered in our elections? Any names? Last I checked, dozens of countries run propaganda programs in the US to influence policy, and they spend billions doing it. You aren't a big picture guy at all.

 

Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS.

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

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Reality Check said:

Exactly. That is when the surveillance started, especially since Obama was trying to get tight with the Iranians at that time.

 

And he was doing so by spying on Congress, the media, and other American citizens and politicians at the time. All run through the FBI-CID and DOJ-NSD, and largely done by private contractors (Cough-FusionGPS-Cough) illegally accessing 702 data without proper oversight and warrants. 

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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

 

The swampiest committee on the Hill -- and not even they found any evidence of collusion/conspiracy or anything to back up the initial accusations which started this whole shebang. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're not. You're being purposefully dishonest now. I have no idea what lie you're referencing. 

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.  

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The swampiest committee on the Hill -- and not even they found any evidence of collusion/conspiracy or anything to back up the initial accusations which started this whole shebang. 

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/

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

I think Flynn lied, you don't.  

 

The transcripts show he didn't lie. Compare them to the Mueller report and charging documents. 

 

Not even the FBI thought Flynn lied when they finished their interview, per the FBI's notes. 

 

Your first post today used a disingenuously clipped portion of the transcript to try to prove Flynn lied. It, in fact, proved the opposite when you look at the context and charging documents. 

 

Someone is dug in on a position, facts be damned, and it's not me. 

 

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I gave you the quotes of the lie. 

 

And I showed that it wasn't a lie at all. In fact, the clip you posted had nothing to do with the supposed lie he told (which was about sanctions, not expulsions -- and that line was about EXPULSIONS not sanctions). 

 

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

As I said, I'm not gonna go round and round about the same thing over and over.  

 

Good news. You don't have to. I already showed what you posted doesn't make the case you think it does. 

 

You're wrong. 

 

All the way. 

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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

I know how greedy and corrupt they are as they all get a cut on weapons shipments to all these war zones that Bush and Obama created. It's a huge profit center to run all these operations while having the media lie to people like you. What do I know about it? They all made the mistake of using military grade encryption on their Blackberries at the time provided by Imran Awan who was a counter intelligence operative. All of their secrets deals are not so secret. Awan is back in Pakistan and continues to be an ISI operative and does counter-intel work with our people.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

 

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/

 

The ICA was BS. It's already been debunked in large portions (the hack, who the Russians favored, and the Dossier).  

 

The ICA was a Brennan op. 

 

It's why he'll be going to jail or "disappeared" in the near future. 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The transcripts show he didn't lie. Compare them to the Mueller report and charging documents. 

 

Not even the FBI thought Flynn lied when they finished their interview, per the FBI's notes. 

 

Your first post today used a disingenuously clipped portion of the transcript to try to prove Flynn lied. It, in fact, proved the opposite when you look at the context and charging documents. 

 

Someone is dug in on a position, facts be damned, and it's not me. 

 

 

And I showed that it wasn't a lie at all. In fact, the clip you posted had nothing to do with the supposed lie he told (which was about sanctions, not expulsions -- and that line was about EXPULSIONS not sanctions). 

 

 

Good news. You don't have to. I already showed what you posted doesn't make the case you think it does. 

 

You're wrong. 

 

All the way. 

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

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.

 

You're citing Pence's statements to CBS rather than Mueller's own charging documents. Why? Flynn lying to Pence was not why Flynn was charged. 

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

I know how greedy and corrupt they are as they all get a cut on weapons shipments to all these war zones that Bush and Obama created. It's a huge profit center to run all these operations while having the media lie to people like you. What do I know about it? They all made the mistake of using military grade encryption on their Blackberries at the time provided by Imran Awan who was a counter intelligence operative. All of their secrets deals are not so secret. Awan is back in Pakistan and continues to be an ISI operative and does counter-intel work with our people.

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. 

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're citing Pence's statements to CBS rather than Mueller's own charging documents. Why? Flynn lying to Pence was not why Flynn was charged. 

So he tried to conceal it from Pence and everyone else, but not Mueller?  C'mon now

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So he tried to conceal it from Pence and everyone else, but not Mueller?  C'mon now

 

I'm actually trying to be real with you right now, to help you see through the spin you're laboring under by asking you this question. Flynn was not charged by the Mueller team for lying to Pence. He was charged for lying to the FBI in the January 24th interview. 

 

So why would you chose to cite a quote from Pence, to the MSM, rather than cite the actual Mueller report and or charging documents? One is relevant to the discussion, the other is not. At least if you're interested in being real and not partisan. 

 

Here's the transcript (full context) from what you cited: 

 

Here's the scope memo of the Mueller report (the document which started the probe and led to Flynn being charged): 

 

 

Several times during the 1/24 interview, per the FBI's own notes, Flynn (who was not aware that this was an interview at the time) told the agents that he knew they had the transcripts of the call and thus knew what he said better than he probably did. This makes sense because he was the head spy for the Army, Flynn knew the FBI and many others had recorded those calls (which he made on an open line).

 

So here -- in the charging documents -- Flynn says "I don't remember (THE SPECIFICS about talking expulsions). It wasn't 'Don't do anything.'"

 

That's not a lie. The FBI even said so after the fact. That they didn't think he was being evasive or dishonest. 

 

Then, three months later, the Mueller probe is launched and this key context is kept out (because the transcripts weren't shared). 

 

There was no lie. Not about expulsions, and certainly NOT about sanctions (which weren't even discussed by Flynn in any of these calls per the transcript). Yet, in 2017, the story that fueled the Trump/Russia narrative was that Flynn had cut a deal about sanctions with the Russians, then LIED about it to the FBI and Pence. 

 

It was never true. The initial premise was false. 

 

See it now?

Edited May 30, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[daz28]

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

[realtruelove]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

You are an idiot.

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

You are an idiot.

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.

Edited May 30, 2020 by daz28

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

 

If you read the full context of the transcript it's clear what "Don't do anything means". He said on the call that he knew the Russians had to respond to the expulsions and he made it clear he was not asking them NOT to respond. What he asked for was for the Russians not to escalate their response, which would force the US to respond (the "tit for tat" he mentions). That's not illegal. That's not subverting US policy. That's diplomacy 101. 

 

In the 1/24 interview, when Flynn said "It wasn't 'Don't do anything'" -- that's what he's referring to. He's admitting to the FBI that he talked about expulsions, but he forgets exactly what he said to them, he just knows it wasn't "don't do anything". Which, we see in the transcript, is what he said to the Russian ambassador. 

 

You have to remember, Flynn at that time in the interview, was unaware that he was being "interviewed". He was being forthright and honest with them, telling the Agents that they had the transcripts so they knew what he said. There was no motive to lie. And no lie was told. 

 

It's also REALLY important to remember that on 1/24/17 when he was interviewed, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any counterintelligence suspicions and criminal suspicions. They had nothing on him... and they tried to trap him into lying during this meeting, but they couldn't even accomplish that. 

 

So they lied about it. 

 

First to the public (through the press). Then through two+ years of rumor and innuendo throughout the Mueller investigation. 

 

That's the actual lie at the heart of all of this. And it wasn't General Flynn who told it. It was Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, and John Brennan. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[realtruelove]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

That's a truly fine rebuttal.  I can see why people think you're a genius.  

I'm a genius because this will be the last time I read one of your stupid posts.  You are now blocked.

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

If you read the full context of the transcript it's clear what "Don't do anything means". He said on the call that he knew the Russians had to respond to the expulsions and he made it clear he was not asking them NOT to respond. What he asked for was for the Russians not to escalate their response, which would force the US to respond (the "tit for tat" he mentions). That's not illegal. That's not subverting US policy. That's diplomacy 101. 

 

In the 1/24 interview, when Flynn said "It wasn't 'Don't do anything'" -- that's what he's referring to. He's admitting to the FBI that he talked about expulsions, but he forgets exactly what he said to them, he just knows it wasn't "don't do anything". Which, we see in the transcript, is what he said to the Russian ambassador. 

 

You have to remember, Flynn at that time in the interview, was unaware that he was being "interviewed". He was being forthright and honest with them, telling the Agents that they had the transcripts so they knew what he said. There was no motive to lie. And no lie was told. 

 

It's also REALLY important to remember that on 1/24/17 when he was interviewed, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any counterintelligence suspicions and criminal suspicions. They had nothing on him... and they tried to trap him into lying during this meeting, but they couldn't even accomplish that. 

 

So they lied about it. 

 

First to the public (through the press). Then through two+ years of rumor and innuendo throughout the Mueller investigation. 

 

That's the actual lie at the heart of all of this. And it wasn't General Flynn who told it. It was Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, and John Brennan. 

Maybe he forgot what he told the FBI too?

6 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

I'm a genius because this will be the last time I read one of your stupid posts.  You are now blocked.

That's a real shame because you were so enlightening.  

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Maybe he forgot what he told the FBI too?

 

What does that even mean? 

[Reality Check]

39 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

No. I don't believe that the Russian's interfered in our election. Not one vote was changed on election day as a result of either Russian fraud or hacking. Simple. That is what we pay the NSA for. Zero evidence was ever presented that any votes were changed by Russian hacking or election fraud. Period. End of story. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What does that even mean? 

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? 

 

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

No. I don't believe that the Russian's interfered in our election. Not one vote was changed on election day as a result of either Russian fraud or hacking. Simple. That is what we pay the NSA for. Zero evidence was ever presented that any votes were changed by Russian hacking or election fraud. Period. End of story. 

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

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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? 

 

 

So after all this -- you want to bring it back to a point that has nothing to do with our original topic? 

 

To answer that, you have to put yourself in Flynn's shoes AND understand his own attorneys were working behind his back with the dirty FBI during the plea. Here was a 33 year veteran, a three star general who knew he did nothing wrong -- yet had watched his life savings be drained, his house be sold, and the media call him a traitor all while trusting in the system to protect him per the law. Now the FBI was saying, if you don't say you're guilty we're going to destroy your son (who just had his first child a month prior). 

 

If you're in Flynn's shoes in that moment, with no money, half the country convinced you committed treason -- what do you do? Do you throw your son to the wolves and say, "fend for yourself, Mike!" Knowing that would destroy not only Mike Jr, but his kid's future? 

 

What would you do? 

 

And after you answer that -- ask yourself how that scenario doesn't outrage you? Especially now that you know, for certain, Flynn committed no crime. He never lied. He certainly never conspired with the Russians to work against his own country. 

 

That's the ACTUAL "meat and potatoes" of this story, Daz. Where do you stand on it?  

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Reality Check]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

Now you move the goal posts. The election was not hacked period. An influence campaign is par for the course to anyone that pays attention to those pesky things like details. If you want to buy into vague terminology to describe something you don't understand, I say good luck to you. Considering the "Trump Dossier" was produced in Russia and used for political reasons against Trump, that mysteriously doesn't count as Russian Interference. Russians interfere against Trump, you don't see it. Russians interfere against Hillary, now it's a problem. By the way. A company I am quite familiar with, Crowdstrike, recently testified that they don't know who hacked Hillary's emails. That's right. The FBI weren't allowed to look at the servers, but Crowdstrike had that privilege. Crowdstrike said that they have no evidence of who actually did it. That company is run by Demitri Alperovich. The same guy who partnered up with John McAfee back in the day to make the viruses that McAfee was selling anti-virus software for. You have no sense of the fish bowl you have been living in. The same people that show up with the solutions are often the same people who created the problem...and we all get to pay for it...at top dollar. 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So after all this -- you want to bring it back to a point that has nothing to do with our original topic? 

 

To answer that, you have to put yourself in Flynn's shoes AND understand his own attorneys were working behind his back with the dirty FBI during the plea. Here was a 33 year veteran, a three star general who knew he did nothing wrong -- yet had watched his life savings be drained, his house be sold, and the media call him a traitor all while trusting in the system to protect him per the law. Now the FBI was saying, if you don't say you're guilty we're going to destroy your son (who just had his first child a month prior). 

 

If you're in Flynn's shoes in that moment, with no money, half the country convinced you committed treason -- what do you do? Do you throw your son to the wolves and say, "fend for yourself, Mike!" Knowing that would destroy not only Mike Jr, but his kid's future? 

 

What would you do? 

 

And after you answer that -- ask yourself how that scenario doesn't outrage you? Especially now that you know, for certain, Flynn committed no crime. He never lied. He certainly never conspired with the Russians to work against his own country. 

 

That's the ACTUAL "meat and potatoes" of this story, Daz. Where do you stand on it?  

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.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

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.  

 

... That's what you took away from what I wrote? 

 

Enough with you, *****stick.