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

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

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. 

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.  

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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.  

Fine. You have your vague MSM talking points and won't apply any logic. Your response is all over the map. "All signs point to Russia". You can't name one particular anything having to do with this situation. Some Russians you can't even name ran some ads. Wow. "Ignore" time for you. Good luck my friend.

[daz28]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

 

Enough with you, *****stick. 

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

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Fine. You have your vague MSM talking points and won't apply any logic. Your response is all over the map. "All signs point to Russia". You can't name one particular anything having to do with this situation. Some Russians you can't even name ran some ads. Wow. "Ignore" time for you. Good luck my friend.

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

Edited May 30, 2020 by daz28

[Buffalo_Gal]

We can only hope...
 

 

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, daz28 said:

Ok he avoided a nuclear conflict.  Got it.  What tweet(s) did you develop that deflection from?  I know a lot of you have your heels dug in too deep to even attempt to pull them out now, but I'm not going to ignore the facts no matter what semantics or unrealistic rationales are used.  

 

For what it's worth, I agree that his reasoning is surely debatable, but that's a different topic altogether.  

 

There's a link to the entire transcript here:  

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/29/declassified-flynn-transcripts-contradict-key-mueller-claims-against-flynn/

so... you're suggesting that there should have been no transition of power? that there should have been no preliminary discussions between in incoming administration and the second largest nuclear power on the planet?

 

alrighty then...

[daz28]

Just now, Foxx said:

so... you're suggesting that there should have been no transition of power? that there should have been no preliminary discussions between in incoming administration and the second largest nuclear power on the planet?

 

alrighty then...

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.

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

FBI's top lawyer, Dana Boente, ousted amid Fox News criticism for role in Flynn investigation
 

Boente was asked to resign on Friday and two sources familiar with the decision to dismiss him said it came from high levels of the Justice Department rather than directly from FBI Director Christopher Wray.
 

</snip>

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

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

i mean... you are aware that there is still another portion of the Senate Intel report on Russian Collusion due out, right? as such, the final conclusion has not yet been rendered.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

 

He did not "attempt to effect a policy that was just put in place."

 

You're wrong. 

 

And now digging in because you're dishonest. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

i mean... you are aware that there is still another portion of the Senate Intel report on Russian Collusion due out, right? as such, the final conclusion has not yet been rendered.

I was only referencing their findings on election interference. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, daz28 said:

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

This is not a reasonable position for one to hold if they have any desire to live in a free nation, under a just government.

 

It is the antithesis of justice for a government to seek the guilt of an individual they know to be innocent, and to command a guilty plea by putting that individual under the full weight of the unlimited resources and finances of the Federal government.

 

Just verdicts are not obtained by forcing individuals into poverty through the costs of defending themselves against a government whose goal is exactly that, and then threatening their families. A government which does such things is evil.

Edited May 31, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[daz28]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is not a reasonable position for one to hold if they have any desire to live an a free nation under a just government.

 

It is the antithesis of justice for a government to seek the guilt of an individual they know to be innocent, and to command a guilt plea by putting that individual under the full weight of the unlimited resources and finances of the Federal government.

 

Just verdicts are not obtained by forcing individuals into poverty through the costs of defending themselves against a government whose goal is exactly that, and then threatening their families. A government which does such things is evil.

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

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

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.

wow! talk about your classic projection. 

what a total load of horseshit...

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He did not "attempt to effect a policy that was just put in place."

 

You're wrong. 

 

And now digging in because you're dishonest. 

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.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

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

serious question... r u off your meds today? seriously because that is not what you are trying to imply it is. in context it was, " It wasn't, "Don't do anything...""

Edited May 30, 2020 by Foxx

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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.

 

Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions just placed on the Russians. 

 

Otherwise, shut the ***** up and go back to sleep. 

[daz28]

Just now, Foxx said:

serious question... r u off your meds today? seriously because that is not what you are trying to imply it is. 

Well, it sounds like he was telling them he didn't say anything about doing anything, when he in fact did ask for things.  

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions just placed on the Russians. 

 

Otherwise, shut the ***** up and go back to sleep. 

Quit with the sanctions semantics.  We're past that

[TakeYouToTasker]

On 5/30/2020 at 6:57 PM, daz28 said:

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

No, that’s not why we have appeals courts.

 

That argument begins by accepting that it is reasonable for the government engage in the type of malfeasance I described, leaving the defendant with no assets (IE no ability to continue to mount a defense), and the lives of their family destroyed, but then to have the expectation that the same system which just destroyed multiple generations of their family intentionally to then exonerate him.

 

This is not a reasonable position, and doesn’t even begin to speak to the lives destroyed.  An appeals court overturning a ruling doesn’t restore the assets spent, or the lives of the family destroyed.

 

None of this is justice.

 

You can’t have a legitimate government, chartered to protect the rights of its citizens, and at the same time accept these sort of actions and for the system to correct itself.

Edited June 1, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Foxx said:

wow! talk about your classic projection. 

what a total load of horseshit...

Yes, I'll admit there's a lot of projection.

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, that’s not why we have appeals courts.

 

That argument begins by accepting that it is reasonable for the government engage in the type of malfeasance I described, leaving the defended with no assets (IE no ability to continue to mount a defense), and the lives of their family destroyed, but then to have the expectation that the same system which just destroyed multiple generations of their family intentionally to then exonerate him.

 

This is not a reasonable position, and doesn’t even begin to speak to the lives destroyed.  An appeals court overturning a ruling doesn’t restore the assets spent, or the lives of the family destroyed.

 

None of this is justice.

 

You can’t have a legitimate government, chartered to protect the rights of its citizens, and at the same time accept these sort of actions and for the system to correct itself.

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.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Quit with the sanctions semantics.  We're past that

 

8 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

 

Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions OR expulsions just placed on the Russians. 

 

Do it or shut the ***** up. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Dumbass -- show me in the transcript where Flynn talked about removing the sanctions OR expulsions just placed on the Russians. 

 

Do it or shut the ***** up. 

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

[Foxx]

24 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

you referring of course to the sanctions that were put on Russia at the 11th hour, the 29th of December to be exact. or put another way... twenty days before the end of the Obamanation. 

 

let me ask you a question and i hope to get an honest answer.... do you think perhaps it might have been, not only prudent but respectful to let the next administration deal with any such sanctions seeing how they were going to be the ones in power?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

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

 

14 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

 

Dumbass - Show me where Flynn tried to effect Russian SANCTIONS in the transcript since you claim he did that. 

 

Go. Or shut the ***** up. 

[daz28]

Just now, Foxx said:

you referring of course to the sanctions that were put on Russia at the 11th hour, the 29th of December to be exact. or put another way... twenty days before the end of the Obamanation. 

 

let me ask you a question and i hope to get an honest answer.... do you think perhaps it might have been, not only prudent but respectful to let the next administration deal with any such sanctions seeing how they were going to be the ones in power?

Yes, I agree with that.  It looks like Obama was making a token gesture to handling the situation on the way out the door, after he did nothing for so long.

[Foxx]

17 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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

the case is not eligible for appeal at this point. the case has not yet been disposed.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Yes, I agree with that.  It looks like Obama was making a token gesture to handling the situation on the way out the door, after he did nothing for so long.

 

Wrong again. 

 

He was setting a trap, not doing a token gesture. 

 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Wrong again. 

 

He was setting a trap, not doing a token gesture. 

 

Then why wouldn't he have done it MUCH sooner to leave a much bigger mess?  I hate when you assume things that make no logical sense. 

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Well, it sounds like he was telling them he didn't say anything about doing anything, when he in fact did ask for things.  ...

 

no. reading comprehension is your friend. DR posted it for you, read it again.

 

Flynn was telling the FBI what he didn't say.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Then why wouldn't he have done it MUCH sooner to leave a much bigger mess?  I hate when you assume things that make no logical sense. 

 

Your logic is wrong because you're too stupid to know the order in which things happened. 

 

But let's see you prove it. If the goal was to trap Flynn into asking the Russian Ambassador to not react to sanctions, when would you -- the super genius -- implement those sanctions? MUCH sooner, before the election when Flynn was not on the transition team and thus not talking to the Russians? Or do you wait until you know Flynn will be talking with the ambassador? 

 

You're wrong. Again. All the way. 

 

Now keep dodging the rest of the facts that have beaten you over the head today, claim victory, and ***** off. 

[Foxx]

15 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Yes, I'll admit there's a lot of projection.

 

15 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

so because that is how things are done, that makes it okay? because that sure sounds like what you're saying....

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Yes, I agree with that.  It looks like Obama was making a token gesture to handling the situation on the way out the door, after he did nothing for so long.

or... you know... he was trying to box the Trump administration in. and to go out even further on that limb... maybe he was setting a stage with props for a certain play they were enacting. hmmm.......  

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

 

so because that is how things are done, that makes it okay? because that sure sounds like what you're saying....

Not at all, but look at it this way.  Flynn has many powerful friends, and could get support from the public.  When this is over, he will also likely get a large book deal, too.  Those are advantages MANY people don't have, so it's really not all woe is he.

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

or... you know... he was trying to box the Trump administration in. and to go out even further on that limb... maybe he was setting a stage with props for a certain play they were enacting. hmmm.......  

Possibly.  Unlike DR I won't just assume those are facts

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Possibly.  Unlike DR I won't just assume those are facts

 

Instead you'll continue to ignore the actual facts in favor of your disingenuous and deeply stupid spin. 

[daz28]

12 minutes ago, Foxx said:

no. reading comprehension is your friend. DR posted it for you, read it again.

 

Flynn was telling the FBI what he didn't say.

Now I'm going to ask you for honesty.  Read how specifically they asked him about that conversation.  I mean they literally were reading his words back to him, and he said, I really don't remember.  It's basically the equivalent of your GF reading back a text you sent another chick.  You can feel it all the way up your spine as she reads each word.  Then you say, "what text".  In your heart do you believe he really didn't remember it??

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Instead you'll continue to ignore the actual facts in favor of your disingenuous and deeply stupid spin. 

Now, now. You've only been following this for three years, interviewing people close to the investigation, reading the source documents, writing about it daily. WTH would you know!?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... you have the patience of Job.

 

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Not at all, but look at it this way.  Flynn has many powerful friends, and could get support from the public.  When this is over, he will also likely get a large book deal, too.  Those are advantages MANY people don't have, so it's really not all woe is he.

again, like DR has been saying to you and many of us have been saying to you for some time (here and other topics)... you are looking at everything from the wrong angle. you are coming at these things from the lens of the main stream propagandist media. trust me, you would be better served turning that ***** thing off, for the news anyway.

 

again, what it sounds like your saying is that what was done to Flynn is okay because he will get rich off of it. let me tell you, all the money in the world is not going to replace years of your life, you simply do not get those back. out of curiosity, what is the price of those years worth? can you monetize it? no, you can't. all you can do is to compensate someone for what happened to them. 

 

16 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Possibly.  Unlike DR I won't just assume those are facts

well, for someone who is blinded by the light of the propagandists, i have to give you a prop for at least being, however reluctant, somewhat open to the possibility. i would suggest again that you turn off the spin doctors and do some digging of your own to form your own thoughts. do away with the spoon feeding and narrative forming trough you have been so obviously drinking from.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Foxx

[TakeYouToTasker]

24 minutes ago, daz28 said:

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.

It has been uncovered, and has been described to you in full.

 

And yes, he’s far from the first person to accept a plea deal knowing they committed no crime.

 

However this is absolutely not the American way.  That you believe it is, And that you seem to think it somehow validated what was done to General Flynn, is incredibly problematic.

 

It should leave you, or any other reasonable person, outraged that the government has standardized this as a way of doing business.

 

It is unacceptable at every level, and is incompatible with a free society.

 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

again, like Dr has been saying to you and many of us have been saying to you for some time (here and other topics)... you are looking at everything from the wrong angle. you are coming at these things from the lens of the main stream propagandist media. trust me, you would be better served turning that ***** thing off, for the news anyway.

 

again, what it sounds like your saying is that what was done to Flynn is okay because he will get rich off of it. let me tell you, all the money in the world is not going to replace years of your life, you simply do not get those back. out of curiosity, what is the price of those years worth? can you monetize it? no, you can't. all you can do is to compensate someone for what happened to them. 

 

well, for someone who is blinded by the light of the propagandists, i have to give you a prop for at least being, however reluctant, somewhat open to the possibility. i would suggest again that you turn off the spin doctors and do some digging of your own to form your own thoughts. do away with the spoon feeding and narrative forming trough you have been so obviously drinking from.

You're making it sound like I'm advocating it.  I'm absolutely not.  Just pointing out he's not the first guy to get railroaded, and that he's in a better situation to handle it than most.  Don't blame me that the system sucks.

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It has been uncovered, and has been described to you in full.

 

And yes, he’s far from the first person to accept a plea deal knowing they committed no crime.

 

However this is absolutely not the American way.  That you believe it is, And that you seem to think it somehow validated what was done to General Flynn, is incredibly problematic.

 

It should leave you, or any other reasonable person, outraged that the government has standardized this as a way of doing business.

 

It is unacceptable at every level, and is incompatible with a free society.

 

I don't make the rules, and actually the way it is in America IS the American way.  I don't agree with it

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Now I'm going to ask you for honesty.  Read how specifically they asked him about that conversation.  I mean they literally were reading his words back to him, and he said, I really don't remember.  It's basically the equivalent of your GF reading back a text you sent another chick.  You can feel it all the way up your spine as she reads each word.  Then you say, "what text".  In your heart do you believe he really didn't remember it??

sure, i'll give you my honest assessment of that.

 

the thing(s) you have to consider is that Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor. as such, he was having many, many, many other conversations with ambassadors of many other nations at that time. additionally, he was supposedly on vacation when this particular discussion was taking place, so his mind might not have been completely on the business nature of things.

 

with that said, to answer you directly, yes i believe he may not have remembered. he had a lot on his plate at that time.

 

now, how does any of that matter? he answered that he didn't remember, he also knew they knew what he had said. so how was his answer lying in any way, shape or form?

 

 

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You're making it sound like I'm advocating it.  I'm absolutely not.  Just pointing out he's not the first guy to get railroaded, and that he's in a better situation to handle it than most.  Don't blame me that the system sucks.

i'm making it sound like your advocating it?

 

that's a good one.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Foxx